N3rull

Only that everything eats food regardless of whether it moves or not (unlike oil) and having no food has DIRE consequences (your cities irreversibly get massacred), unlike having zero of anything else. It is easy to get a lot of food early, but as you have more cities and many more units, food truly becomes a menace. I have ~10 cities in my current game, each has ~2-3 units of infantry for defense (i learned it the hard way), plus 5 spy planes, 3 transports, about 10 tanks and 5 battleships. And I am losing 25 food per turn with nothing I can do to stop it, except trading other resources for it every few turns. It really is a PITA. The bottom line is, though, that Food escapes your pool fastest with whatever you do (if you plan on winning, that is) and having zero of it is the worst thing you can do to yourself, worse than losing a city actually.

Well, we have a ruleset supposedly spanning 130 years Anyway, population should not grow indefinately, but at least should be able to recover slowly. I think.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1159002&postcount=8 No, there is none.

Another tiny request from me - some kind of warning when resources are reaching zero. Particularly Food. I dunno, flashing red number or a warning box popping up at the start/end of turn that would say "Your people are gonna die if you don't get some food, noob". It is really irritating to play 200 rounds, get caught up in some tactical maneuvers, forget about the food counter and have your cities murdered because of it. You don't necessarily look right at the counter now that we have a hotkey for submitting orders, and food shortage warning disappears among hundreds of other warnings on the list to the left. Particularly when there's combat going on. I don't mind having my research, upgrades or construction stopped. But having population irreversibly slaughtered en masse because you forgot about it...

Well, first of all, every unit that has a radar also has a sight range of its own. If radar doesn't work, the unit will still normally see the incoming "stealth bomber". That effectively "decreases its possibilities". We could go ever further. A brutal way to do this would be to create new tags - Stealthy, VeryStealthy,. ... and give radar-equipped units various sight ranges against RadarVisible , Stealthy, VeryStealthy. It will all be pretty simple when I can get my hands on the ruleset editor, mwahahahaa ;p As for diplomacy - it's not the diplomacy that's screwed. It is the AI's attitude to diplomacy. Brit might spend some time to work on that, I think. If he finds time.

There is. Bomber class4 (the B2-like one) doesn't have "Radar Visible" tag, which means radars don't see it. Simple. Even if it wasn't so easy, it would be simple to do with the ruleset. Just make a tag "invisiblebastard" and give all units a zero sight range against "invisiblebastard". Just like nothing in the game could see submarines until last patch. As for diplomacy, I don't know. It seems ok to me, except that AI won't cooperate at all (I never managed to get an alliance or treaty with them, except "peace") and I haven't found a way to bring their relations percentage up. The only things you can do with the AI is trade resources for prices a bit better than the standard market, kill them or show them mercy and kill them later. But the whole system is fine IMO.

It doesn't really matter. Any way will do.

Subs had to grow very expensive. It is easy to throw a ten-ton device on a surface ship; not so into a tight tube that has to be silent, fast, durable. But this $2billion sonufabrick can sink a whole fleet before they know what hit'em. Maybe this is how it should be? A series of cheap diesel powered subs worth diddly as they are; then a separate line of super-expensive nuclear powered submarines. Eh, whatever. Either way, this is not priority one update. Just don't you try to BS me that submarines are useless without the ability to fire ballistic missiles, cause that's as far from truth as frozen mammoths are from hawaii. ------- As for B2 - it is not completely invisible, but you won't find a difference between a bird or a small cloud of insects and a B2. Most specifically, a computer analysing incoming radar data won't pick a B2 out of thousands small disruptions caused by nature. This is not really important as well, but I think it will make me sit down and write my own ruleset the moment I get the full game ;p.

There is none.

double post, my bad.

Subs ceased to be a threat not because they suddenly began to suck, but because of some various means employed by the Allies and the fact that Germany had a lot more serious stuff to worry about than developing new revolutionary submarine engines. In WW2, they were a threat all the time. Yes, they were moslty diesel/electric and had to surface often, which made them quite easy to surprise and destroy. Also, early torpedoes were blind and it took some serious skill to make a torpedo hit a ship. But torpedoes are an ever increasing threat. Yes, it is a blessing that there was no serious submarine warfare going on after WW2, but that doesn't mean torps are still the same blind and slow metal pipes filled with oil and explosives, leaving an obvious straight trail on the surface of water as they are underway to their target. Mark48 can break any ship in two while never getting close to the surface. As surface ships and air force get new toys to counter subs, the latter get new toys and improvements to stay undetected. That there was no war to show how deadly they are is no reason to think they're just scouts. Letting a submarine undetected near any not specifically anti-submarine ship should be a grave mistake in this game. Right now, the only chance for a sub to score a kill is to either sail right into a stationary transport or have the enemy transport sail right over the sub. MAYBE if submarines had an ability to detect other ships at greater distances (say double their sight range; something like the radar against aircraft), they would have a chance of intercepting the enemies before they sail right past them. Right now subs are useless, cause when they see an enemy ship at their view range it has likely passed them already, because high class ships can cover twice the view range of subs. And if missiles are fixed, they'll be just extremely slow missile launchers that take years to return to base for a new set of missiles. PS. Brit - is it not an overlooking that UAV Bombers are Radar-Visible, while the class 4 bomber (B2) is not radar-visible?

The first subs may have been slow and useless in combat, but ever since WW2 they were a serious threat. If you don't believe it, ask the thousands of freighters sank on the atlantic. According to wikipedia, the u-boat naval tactic was: This specifically means that submarines could catch up with convoys. Which they can not in EoS. Unless you use spy planes or satellites to scout the seas for enemy ships and place your subs right on their path, a submarine can't kill diddly. That's just wrong.

An infantry unit may sneak up to a city, make some improvised trenches and then open fire at the city from them. The moment they move forward, entrenchment bonus rightfully disappears. I don't see a problem, really. The other two I must admit need to be fixed. Any sort of one-shot weapon is useless in this game, it seems. I would also like to add: 1. Save failed error + everlasting progress bar. Easily reproduced by starting a new game and saving it in a new slot. I seem to be getting this error all the time when I try to make ~8th save game. If need be, I can supply screenshots. 2. Load crash Try reloading the same game about a dozen times or loading a game and then an autosave made during a different game. I am getting a crash every ~15th load attempt or so.

That's generally untrue. Only class 1 carrier is brutally slow with 60 speed. Class 2 carrier has ninety already. Specifically, C4 carrier has 110 speed while C4 transport has 100. I, on the other hand, think subs need more love. They should be the stalkers of the sea, the bane of any ship foolish enough to wander without escort. But this is a dream at best. They are the weakest ship in the fleet and the slowest, too. EVERYTHING outruns them at sea, including transports and carriers (C2 carrier outruns C5 sub roflcopter!). Destroyers do them up the dark hole, Cruisers and Battleships defeat them swiftly (I lost four C4 subs to a class 2 battleship just yesterday) and when the enemy is in an unfavourable position - they can escape. And now Destroyers and Cruisers can see them without a fuss. The subs are not the hunters, they are the PREY of the sea. They should at least be able to catch up with Transports and Carriers, maybe Battleships. When everything can run away from them, they don't really have a point other than being a mobile missile platform.

A hint, for those who didn't notice - there is a square in the upper right corner of the window where you're typing the message. When it's red, the AI will reject. When it goes green, it'll likely accept.

Now we're back on topic. I don't go all out with my infantry, because a) I may lose them all, in which case I'm totally screwed. No resources for me and no defense. I usually send one infantry to cap resources and throw the other one on the transport. That way, my transport is out taking sea resources and whenever it hits a shore, it will drop an infantry unit to take over the island, drop an airfield for scouting etc. It is now down to personal preference. I believe taking the city 7 turns later with almost certain success, and being able to cap the whole island and nearby islands as well, outweight the risk associated with sending the infantries at the city. I have also tried the "c2 tank rush" (kinda RTS-ish, isn't it). Trading four more turns for the ability to take the city without civilian losses. And tanks seem more reliable in combat than artillery.

now ain't that just lul

- I confirm - A group of two tanks indicated that it would take them 45 turns to reach a point they reached in one turn anyway. Warning though, I think I once saw a group that REALLY made 'steps' so small that this flawed calculation seemed true. I believe it was tank+arty, though I can't really remember. - Haven't used city view yet - Confirmed. BBs can stop for a second to wipe the shores, that's not a pain. However, if you bring your Destroyer close to an enemy harbor and there is a ship inside, your destroyer will ignore move orders and camp in gun range of the city unless you specifically order him not to attack the ship inside (via appropriate "Field Order") - edit; Cofirmed. Just select another slot and you won't be able to select and conduct research. - I can't confirm this one. I grouped ships at sea. Only that it's hard to tell if they REALLY are in the same spot.

Was that so hard to figure out? Does it really take four years of studying Maths to understand that losing two out of two units makes it quite obvious that one of them is dead? Stop derailing the thread please. As for your ideas, I do not believe that in some magical way the tech level makes it harder to conquer cities or that the amount of peeps in the city makes the Militia unit stronger. For some reason that militia is tough as nails. Maybe it can entrench without it being shown with a proper icon.

You again, complaining that I didn't crack the game code so that you can find my "report" more "useful". 1. How on Earth can I post facts when I haven't wrote this game and 2. Why the HELL would I care if "you find my report more useful"? You do realize that your theory is very unlikely? On the borderline of "nonsense" actually?

I checked it out and the results seem to be persistant. Sometimes two infantries take the city in an instant, but 80% of the time I lose one and 60% of the time I lose both. It doesn't seem to help if I attack from the road or if I move off it and attack from an entrenched position in the mountains (a position in combat range with the city, of course; should be +100% defense, right?). I dunno, it seems to be a much better bargain to take the city with guaranteed no losses but with a ~50% chance of dropping the city's population by 1%. Definately better than quite possibly losing all my starting troops while they're at it.

I've had a bad time sending infantries against militia in cities. I tried doing that a dozen times and I have never won the fight without a loss. I have seen groups of one Infantry class 3 + 2 paratrooper units class 1 all die against a Militia in a city a number of times. I need that damn infantry alive to cap resources on nearby islands ;s.

You still need a place to manufacture such stuff -> a building in a city. Say, a "Medical Research Center" or an "Agroculture Support Agency". Brit, it's still a game. You don't have to make it 101% accurate. Right now all we need is some way to decrease the amount of Food we lose, cause we lose it in horrifying amounts as soon as our armies begin to look respectable. If someone wants the game to reflect the real world in every detail, then you're giving him the ruleset editor to meddle in it as much as he wants. You don't have to worry about everything

I have no idea why so many of you are complaining about the transport system. You can literally take one transport with one unit of infantry and queue up orders to take over the whole map! Please take some time to study queuing orders and using the infamous yellow circle. That said, I agree to some points: - tabbing between idle units might be nice (Idle unit view as I suggested some time ago would REALLY help!) - collapsable "units that need upgrade" list would be nice. I would also like to mention the "one-day sentry" that someone suggested in another thread. It would be helpful if we could just tell a unit "sorry I have no orders for you JUST NOW, please wait". That way we could just scroll down the unit reminders list and give orders or just drop a unit from the list for one turn without worrying that we would forget about the unit on the next turn.

As of yet, with only one map available, we all know how the game begins. Usually an island with some resources and a neutral city. My question is - when and how do you typically attempt to take the neutral city? Do you send your two infantry units straight at'em? Do you go tanks? I usually start with an artillery unit and when it finishes building I have Artillery class 2 research ready, so the arty gets immediately upgraded. This allows me to take the city safely and quickly around turn 8-9. Then I usually try to have the transport ship somewhere nearby to pick up the arty and hit another island. The downside of this tactic is that it may kill the population. Not that dropping a 10-pop city to a 9.90 pop one is a MAJOR hit for my economy. It is, however, a little irritating ;p. What's your preferable weapon of early conquest?