Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Here is the problem with the unlimited tech effects on Military. All that tech from the CN equivelent of Bukino Faso, Rwanda, and Mongolia really wouldn't improve your military all that much. Nations don't create tech through their own innovation as the Admin intended, they buy it from the cheapest source (the most technologically backwards). If advanced nations were required to buy tech at the default prices from themselves, I could see tech having more of an influence on military effectiveness since an advanced nation becoming more advanced should have improved performance. However since everyone buys more slingshot and spear technology, it doesn't have much relevance to advanced missiles and tanks. Tech may only be traded because it is aloud to be traded. There is a real simple solution for that. I know we are not to get all RL in here but you brought up examples of Mongolia and other places where the US had tech.. but did not have permission to use it, thus were overrun by massive numbers. I will stand by my "sticks and stones will break my bones.. but my M1A3 will roll the F over you" argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnNL Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) How about +5 happiness for every 1000 tech we own Edited November 2, 2007 by ShawnNL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Here is the problem with the unlimited tech effects on Military. All that tech from the CN equivelent of Bukino Faso, Rwanda, and Mongolia really wouldn't improve your military all that much. Nations don't create tech through their own innovation as the Admin intended, they buy it from the cheapest source (the most technologically backwards). If advanced nations were required to buy tech at the default prices from themselves, I could see tech having more of an influence on military effectiveness since an advanced nation becoming more advanced should have improved performance. However since everyone buys more slingshot and spear technology, it doesn't have much relevance to advanced missiles and tanks. In that case let's go for a full reset, while making tech deals more restricted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embereus Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 OOC: You guys are going to end up closing this epic 24-page-in-one-day-5-hours thread. Please stay on topic. IC: My nation is still going to make the same money (well a little less due to the environment), and you can still buy the same amount of infra. Like Diskord tried to say many times, 50 tech is still better than 10 infra strength wise. We need to keep this game running longer, so the strength values have to be relatively small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 In that case let's go for a full reset, while making tech deals more restricted Take it a step further. I know this will make a lot of people unhappy, but tech should not be traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Take it a step further. I know this will make a lot of people unhappy, but tech should not be traded. Nah, this was discussed in the suggestions forum. Restricting it is fine. Make it so you can only buy tech from people within a certain range of your tech level. They still buy it a bit cheaper than you do, so they can sell to you and both sides profit. But nowhere near as much as the 0 tech person selling 50 tech to the 5000 tech person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 OOC: You guys are going to end up closing this epic 24-page-in-one-day-5-hours thread. Please stay on topic. IC: My nation is still going to make the same money (well a little less due to the environment), and you can still buy the same amount of infra. Like Diskord tried to say many times, 50 tech is still better than 10 infra strength wise. We need to keep this game running longer, so the strength values have to be relatively small. As I see it... it is on topic. As I have stated tech should make a large impact on war. This effect has been diminished by the admin update that is the topic of this epic thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Nah, this was discussed in the suggestions forum. Restricting it is fine.Make it so you can only buy tech from people within a certain range of your tech level. They still buy it a bit cheaper than you do, so they can sell to you and both sides profit. But nowhere near as much as the 0 tech person selling 50 tech to the 5000 tech person. I like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Asa military man..I totally agree in ranked tanks and infantry...maybe even bring a navy aspect to the game...carriers requiring level of tech destroyers, aegis class and so on and so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Asa military man..I totally agree in ranked tanks and infantry...maybe even bring a navy aspect to the game...carriers requiring level of tech destroyers, aegis class and so on and so 10 years Army :jihad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diskord Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 I like this Might I suggest you read the "Suggestions" forum... you will find a thread started by none other than.... myself, advocating the end of tech trading all together that goes over this very topic, and generated some good ideas on how to solve the issue on reset. My personal favorite is the % based system where if you have 100%+ of the tech you are trading a nation to... you get the full 50. If you receive tech from someone that has 75% the tech you do you get 45 tech. If you receive tech from someone that has 50% the tech you do you get 40 tech. If you receive tech from someone that has 25% the tech you do you get 30 tech. If you receive tech from someone that has 10% or lower the tech you do, you get 15 tech. In each case the "offering nation" still "loses" 50 tech in their foreign aid, you just don't receive it all. But there is a whole topic over in the suggestion box for discussing just this very thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) Worst update ever. Huge disadvantage to the smaller alliances, this has only benefited the bigger alliances. The initial change needed to be the 300 cap, this just screwed it up even more so. I still love the admin, I just do not like this update. Edited November 2, 2007 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diskord Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Worst update ever.Huge disadvantage to the smaller alliances, this has only benefited the bigger alliances. How so? I could say: "Best change ever, only helps MK"... but that doesn't make it any more true... facts and reasons please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Worst update ever.Huge disadvantage to the smaller alliances, this has only benefited the bigger alliances. Actually a big alliance that used its member base to have a good tech program and get cheap tech for most of their members would end up a lot worse off from this update than a small alliance who didn't do tech deals and had very high relative infra. The problem here is you're confusing "Small Alliances" with "My Alliance", as Gramlins is one of the biggest tech whores in the world (though you're awesome for it!). It's worth noting that several of your members (I believe they're even leaders) have been among the largest proponents for this change. Unless you want to call your leaders stupid, sit back and consider just -maybe- this change isn't so bad for you as you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Worst update ever. I will continually repeat it, and do not use my own members against me, they are well aware of my position, and respect my opinion, something you do not see in CN too often. There are also "Leaders" of mine against it, consider it a rebuttal to your post. Uncap the 300 limit and everything will be settled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Actually a big alliance that used its member base to have a good tech program and get cheap tech for most of their members would end up a lot worse off from this update than a small alliance who didn't do tech deals and had very high relative infra.The problem here is you're confusing "Small Alliances" with "My Alliance", as Gramlins is one of the biggest tech whores in the world (though you're awesome for it!). It's worth noting that several of your members (I believe they're even leaders) have been among the largest proponents for this change. Unless you want to call your leaders stupid, sit back and consider just -maybe- this change isn't so bad for you as you think. I would not call this change stupid. I would call the way it was done stupid though. I would also say it harmed my nation. If the effect of tech on war is diminished I want other ways to further develop my tanks and soldiers. Otherwise it will get boring really quick, and lack a very realistic dynamic of combat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diskord Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 I would not call this change stupid. I would call the way it was done stupid though. I would also say it harmed my nation. If the effect of tech on war is diminished I want other ways to further develop my tanks and soldiers. Otherwise it will get boring really quick, and lack a very realistic dynamic of combat. Wait wait wait. This update ADDED features to combat (the ability to destroy tech) and didn't change ANY other aspect of combat. So your argument is the most fail argument to date, this IMPROVED combat... and you say it's bad because combat isn't good enough. But 12 hours ago combat had less features, so how is this bad?!?! You people boggle me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Wait wait wait.This update ADDED features to combat (the ability to destroy tech) and didn't change ANY other aspect of combat. So your argument is the most fail argument to date, this IMPROVED combat... and you say it's bad because combat isn't good enough. But 12 hours ago combat had less features, so how is this bad?!?! You people boggle me. scratches head... hu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diskord Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 scratches head... hu? The effect of tech on war WAS NOT diminished... it stayed exactly the same. In the update admin added the ability for CM's and nukes to destroy tech now... so basically the combat system was IMPROVED... and yet you say "unless combat is improved this will get boring real quick"... this fix DID improve combat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viridia Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Tech can be destroyed now. Also, longest topic evar. Also, Hello. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 I can see Diskord's point, hence why I never argued it, however, the 300 cap still is moronic. Having over 300 tech is merely a "HP" factor now, it should have usage up to at minimum 1k, this is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 poor diskord he thinks on a level far superior to us mere mortals... hmmm wonders why he cant get enough aqua seats to retain a seat...maybe it is because you try to squash anyone who doesnt think like you...ohh well...keep the fight going I am starting to enjoy it... I also would like more options for the military aspects 1. A Navy 2. Various tanks and soldiers ( in line with aircraft) 3. No CAP on tech 4. And more posts on this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnNL Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 The effect of tech on war WAS NOT diminished... it stayed exactly the same. In the update admin added the ability for CM's and nukes to destroy tech now... so basically the combat system was IMPROVED... and yet you say "unless combat is improved this will get boring real quick"... this fix DID improve combat. W.O.W, what an improvement!! This means the tech heavy nations are double screwed, not only there tech is worthless but it also can be destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Y Wonka Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 The effect of tech on war WAS NOT diminished... it stayed exactly the same. In the update admin added the ability for CM's and nukes to destroy tech now... so basically the combat system was IMPROVED... and yet you say "unless combat is improved this will get boring real quick"... this fix DID improve combat. Perhaps I was not clear and for that I apologize. First of all please drop the condescension. "you people boggle me" does nothing for the logic of an argument. I understand that technology does still effect NS and influence combat but its effect is reduced. I went from 10.5K NS to 8.3K NS as a result of this because I was invested in tech. What I am suggesting is a way that military strength can be enhanced other than an inflated tech effect. Ranked tanks and soldiers would achieve a realistic effect while at the same time reducing the need/ temptation for tech raiding if that is something the admin wants to reduce. My second suggestion, as others have made, is to limit the way tech can be traded to reduce the exploitation of the current method. Finally, and most importantly, I don't like the way this was done. Warning and a gradual reduction would have hurt my nation less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 poor diskord he thinks on a level far superior to us mere mortals...hmmm wonders why he cant get enough aqua seats to retain a seat...maybe it is because you try to squash anyone who doesnt think like you...ohh well...keep the fight going I am starting to enjoy it... Old grudges much? Please keep such things out of this topic. I also would like more options for the military aspects1. A Navy 2. Various tanks and soldiers ( in line with aircraft) 3. No CAP on tech 4. And more posts on this thread 1. What new what a navy add? People always talk about it, I've yet to hear exactly what a navy would do in this game. 2. So that like all the aircraft the various troop types become irrelevant as everyone just buys max of the highest level ones? 3. I assume you mean tech effectiveness. I agree with this. 4. Always glad to contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.