N3rull

Ehm... what? From what I've seen, it doesn't look anything like it. I could bet my salary that it is in fact all units targetting all units they can see. I've seen three ships enter combat with one and all sink in the exactly same moment. I've seen tanks and infantry and artilleries all go poof in split second facing just one artillery unit of the enemy. The targetting system you are talking about seems to only apply to cities. Only units in cities seem to die "one at a time". If the targetting REALLY works like you're saying, then you REALLY have to normalize the RNG responsible for results. That's because units are capable of killing other units (including those with more than one HP) in extremely small time periods and it happens almost all of the time.

group units by dropping one on another. They will form a group. When dropping units onto an already formed group, make sure you drop them on the group tag, not a unit in a group - otherwise you'll end up with a messy heap of groups of groups of groups... Also, there is no way (that I know of) to make a cruiser protect a transport, other than sending it ahead of the transport to clear the way.

I wonder why the forums seem to be dead recently. Brit, are you still receiving feedback? I must admit that my participation is mostly halted because I'm just sick of the demo map ;-p. I wonder if it iz just my own weakness or a general syndrome. If the forum silence is caused by a contageous allergy to the demomap spreading among the fellow players, maybe it would pay off to give us another map?

Well, I am aware that was the intention. But it's just my feeling that you might have gone a little bit too far ;p. Anyway, I'm just sittin' here, posting ideas. Use what you want, discard all else, ban me if you're tired of my spam - it's your domain after all. Good luck! PS. Any updates comin'? ;p

A suggestion regarding the 1900-2030 ruleset technologies (nothing too important). It is my honest belief that the technology tree is too... homogeneous. Let's say you aim for tanks... you get class 4 tanks. Yay. Suddely you realize that with a handful of 10 research-point clicks you can have class 4 anything else, because everything else uses the same technologies. I know it makes sense from the realism point of view - when a country has ultra-advanced aircraft, they typically don't sport WWI markV tanks at the same time. It does take away from the 'strategy game' concept though. I think that I wouldn't really feel any difference if the technology tree was simply a single line of fifty ever more expensive technologies, every second or third unlocking some units. That's how it looks now... if you've sweated 865 research points to get straight to that final class battleship, you realize that you're also 70 research points away from the Class 4 aircraft career or Class 6 infantry. You are, in fact, less than 200 research points from having ANY other unit in the game. You realize that you have class 4 battleships, while the other guy has class 3 everything, including battleships. I believe it would make the game more challenging (and interesting) if the furthest parts of different unit branches were slightly more.. well, different. So that after a player reaches some sensible technology level (like, 2/3 of the tech tree), he has to make a conscious choice of specializing in a handful of unit types, leaving others slightly behind. My suggestion is to do one of the following: 1. increase the research cost of late game unit techs substantially, e.g.: - class 1 battleship - 10 research points - class 2 bb - 40 rp - class 3 bb - 80 rp - class 4 bb - 120 rp 2. add more branch-specific techs. e.g.: - Aircraft Avionics level 1 & 2, somewhere after class 3 tac bomber level, required for aircraft beyond that level. - Land tactics level 1 & 2, somewhere after class 3 infantry level, applicable to all land units beyond that level. - and so on. Phew. A wall of text there, but the changes aren't really so important. I don't even know if they're really necessary. But hey - if we already have an extensive research tree, why not really make it extensive intead of having the very same techs in all unit lines, just slowing your progress but not allowing any real decision making? And after all, it is the suggestions thread, so here goes ;p.

They are shown - every time the city build screen shows up, whether you called it yourself or it popped up automatically, the city is automatically selected. The city as well as all units inside it are therefore displayed in the unit selection bar - below resource counters. If the window showed beside the city (I presume you want it some non-epsilon distance away so you can see what's around the city) then on the vast majority of monitors (like, below 30 inches) the window would be partially off screen. It would have to be dragged to the middle, anyway (which means nothing would change, you have to drag it around either way). Maybe try disabling the pop up (properties window) and manually bringing up the windows as the City Needs Orders reminder shows. It did give me an idea, though. Brit, would it be possible to add minimizing windows to the game? For example: + add an option in properties that all "need build order" pop-ups start minimized and we'll have solved the issue. I must admit that it is sometimes annoying to see that my armada of 3 transports with nine Class 6 tanks on board is about to crash into an enemy battleship, but I can't order them to get away because the next game turn begins with 10 BUILD SOMETHING HERE windows jumping at ya. On the other hand, without those pop ups, it would be a nauseous task, keeping all cities working.

You can scroll the map by holding middle mouse button and moving the mouse. You can turn off or rebind the zoom in/zoom out keys in the game properties menu. Or is it something else that you mean?

I suppose he wanted the same kind of info I wanted when I made my thread. Maybe he didn't know the right question to ask, but just longs for news. I'd be happy to know some as well. Maybe some screens of how it looks. Maybe an imaginary example of a twisted unit that uses the possiblities of the ruleset editor to its limits. Something We're very curious about this tool, because it expands a game that gives a set of options into a virtually unlimited space of possibilities. A few questions I can think of: - will You consider making editable flags - so that one could make a transport airplane that can drop paratroopers or transport havier load between cities only? - will You consider giving units various container types - so that one can make a submarine that can be loaded with one unit of commandos and two cruise missiles, but which would not allow the player to stuff two extra commando units into the missile launchers at the same time. Stuff like that

Brit said that this update was mainly focused on extending the beta beyond 1st November. Don't rush'em

What - you want to make SAM vehicles ABSOLUTELY useless?

I promise I'll not spam so much and will use the in-game bug reporting tool from now on, but right now I don't have the game installed on this PC and I just have to remind of this issue before I forget (again) ;D. BUG: "View game" won't allow you to change the player you're watching. Whoever you've been playing, you will only be able to spectate your own game - you can't view the game with the God's eye or from any other player's perspective. It's been mentioned before on the forums but it seems to have been forgotten, so I'm giving it a bump.

I must admin that the new versions seem more stable. Haven't encountered any "Cannot save game" errors or CTDs. Unless it's just my luck - Well done

It is - on the top of it. Slightly annoying, yes. If you zoom out and then zoom in onto that city, there will be enough "gray space" on the screen to contain most of the tooltip.

I haven't checked that online yet, but I think that 1. Declaring War on player X should give that player at least some warning or maybe even an automatic "unsubmit orders". I can see with my imagination that delaying the decision of submitting your turn until everybody else have submitted theirs, then quickly clicking "Declare War" issuing a few backstabbing attacks and submitting your turn might be an irritating abuse online. A few other suggestions regarding missiles: 2 (mechanics bug). Cruise missiles (not Drone missiles!) behave like aircraft - they refuse to fly beyond the range where they can safely return from and - they return to base and land safely. Perfect scouts ;D 3 (ruleset change suggestion). Increase Cruise missile interception range and reduce sight range. Cruise missiles fly past enemy units even though they see them... and they see a little too much for guided missiles. It doesn't make much sense - when I'm sending a cruise missile on a trip, not against any specific target but generally around the enemy territory, with "Attack All enemy units" field order, then I really want it to attack any unit it passes by. - reduce their sight range from 60 to ~30-35 - make them intercept any enemy they see within that distance. 4. In general you might want to tweak automatic engagement distances. Sometimes units walk/sail/fly by enemies without engaging them, just because the distance was a little larger than point-blank. Just a few minutes ago my Destroyer missed an enemy transport by a centimeter (about one half of it's sight range). Before the turn ended and I could turn the Destroyer around, the enemy transport was already out of its sight range, well on its way to my shores with three happy tanks aboard. I suggest something like this:

I think I know what you mean. The "Dropoff GroundUnits Anywhere" [tick] means that one would also be able to drop tanks and the all other stuff behind enemy lines just like paratroopers, right? Well, I am personally interested in how one could solve this (you remember my "1001 annoying Ruleset editor questions thread", right?), so please tell me how that might be fixed. Could you for example give paratroopers (or any unit a person might want to be dropable from a plane) a new tag, say "Airborne" and then create a new "Dropoff Airborne Anywhere" ? Could that be done with the ruleset editor? I'm sorry for being so... stubborn in my questioning, but I believe it is the Ruleset Editor that will make this game a winner. Please make sure that you give this tool all the power it can contain. It will pay off, I'm sure!

Well, resources and cities are on the same slider. If you want resources out, you're out of cities as well.

Some very cool changes in there. Can't wait to check some out :] edit. alright, first impressions: Random Map Generator - still not enough land ;(. I rolled a few random continent maps with maxed land bar. Results are that typically only every tenth city is not bombardable from a battleship. Even on the most land-based map you can pretty much win the game (by ruining most of his cities) if you only control the sea. Please, increase that a little bit, okay? Please? Pretty please? Other than that - mostly superlatives! Very nice work and a huge lot of fixes. It made my day to see the one turn sentry hotkeyed to 'G' ;D. Great job, can't wait to preorder ;p

As I said, I don't mind if a single weaker unit *sometimes* wins against three better. War is about small things that you can't control as much as it is general leadership and tactics. Such unlikely things should happen, but their occurence should be unlikely as well. My experience as of yet makes my hands shake when sending overwhelming forces against what should be a vastly underpowered enemy defense, because I know I may just as well win without loss as I may lose a half of my force or all of them.

I would like to point out that strange things happen too often in EOS. 3 tanks getting wiped by one tank one class lower. A tank and two infantries perish while taking a city that one infantry has 80% chance of conquering. 3 Tactical bombers class 3 are shot down in one turn by a ... transport class 2 (my personal favorite). Such things should be rare, yet they happen over and over again, every second fight I have (and I do know concepts of defense bonuses and the like). There is no such thing as 'reliable' in this game. Please, Brit, consider some normalization of how the fights are handled. Or maybe increasing hit points of everything by 100% would help with making the effects more stable. I don't mind some unexpected defeat (or victory) once in a while, but the current status quo makes even overwhelming assaults a risky operation.

With the units on the idle list now being sorted by the amount of rounds they've been idle, the one-round sentry is no longer needed so badly. It still wouldn't hurt, though, if tapping the G* key (for example) would take a unit off the list for one turn only. * - G as in Get out of my sight and report tomorrow!

Unfortunately, I can confirm all of these reports. 1. Battleships seem to be very inconsistant in attacking land units. - true. I have had it a few times. Most persistantly, BBs won't attack some neutral cities. Rio de Janeiro on the current DemoMap seems to be immune to battleships, for as long as I can recall I have never managed to kill militia in Rio if it happened to be neutral and I happened to have my BB sail by. 2. Artillery won't take attack orders over impassable terrain - true. Even if you order to attack a city well in range, but not directly reachable, artillery will not shoot unless you somehow remove the fog of war from the target, by sailing a ship by or doing a recon run. 3. AI cheats on fog of war - this is true and unfortunately has to be true. AI will never be clever enough to scout, make a capable army AND stay a challenge for the player all at once. Witchcraft seems to be the AI's only hope.

As Brit said, this thread I made when you still had to right-click the circle to tell the troops to unload there. I was about to edit the post to make it more ... civil... on Brit's request, but I waited to see what he would change in the latest build in terms of transporting stuff. After I read the changelog I could no longer edit the thread. edit. In fact, I think this thread is no longer needed, with the new process of controlling transports being so intuitive. I think it could be scrapped... if someone complains in the future, I will make a new, more official-sounding one.

I'd think it could be exactly the same as with city names

Destroy structures in cities you captured - yea, nice idea. Simple and strategically sound. Slower repair - not necessary imo, ships take long enough to sail between theaters; if they had to park for a dozen turns each time they win a fight, they'd be kinda useless. Map labels - very good idea. Brit, you might even consider making modifiable 'locations' as placable objects. We can make cities, give them names and add population. Why not be able to place a fortification, give it a name and add a defensive bonus?

I already reported this a few times myself and Brit has fixed it in the patch, two weeks ago IIRC.