Taishaku Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 I always ran under the assumption that you could sell your growth land. It seems that I'm wrong? I always ran under the assumption that you could lose your growth land in ground and nuclear attacks. It seems that I'm wrong? If so, how do you get rid of your growth land? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestro Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 You reroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adzzz Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 you need to type in -20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) [quote name='adzzz' timestamp='1296073858' post='2603170'] you need to type in -20 [/quote] Yeah um, I obviously tried that. "You have received an error trying to view a page. Here is the detailed error code: You have no land to sell." Edited January 26, 2011 by Taishaku Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adzzz Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 is this you http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=198773 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='adzzz' timestamp='1296074188' post='2603187'] is this you http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=198773 [/quote] I just discovered that Furs triples the entire growth amount and not just the growth rate. Thanks anywhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 You can only sell purchased land. Not natural growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venizelos Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 so you can never get rid of natural growth, more or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Venizelos' timestamp='1296625891' post='2615724'] so you can never get rid of natural growth, more or less. [/quote] Why would you ever want to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Viluin' timestamp='1296786849' post='2618542'] Why would you ever want to? [/quote] I suppose once it gets over 1,000, you have no excuse but to use navy? That's the only feasible reason you could *want* to get rid of land growth. That being said, by the time you get to 1,000 growth, you probably should have a navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1296803896' post='2619058'] I suppose once it gets over 1,000, you have no excuse but to use navy? That's the only feasible reason you could *want* to get rid of land growth. That being said, by the time you get to 1,000 growth, you probably should have a navy. [/quote] I think you need 1000 purchased land to be the victim of naval attacks. At least it should be like that, otherwise it's pretty stupid. Edited February 4, 2011 by Viluin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Nathan Brittles Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Viluin' timestamp='1296827381' post='2619210'] I think you need 1000 purchased land to be the victim of naval attacks. At least it should be like that, otherwise it's pretty stupid. [/quote] It's based on total land not just purchased land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mompson Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Yeah, so you could not have enough of a wc for a navy, but still be decimated by one if you're over 1k land. Navies are crazy expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 [quote name='Captain Nathan Brittles' timestamp='1296861090' post='2619601'] It's based on total land not just purchased land. [/quote] That's pretty ridiculous, imagine having Furs as your native resource and forever being subject to naval attacks, battle support and blockades! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 [quote name='Viluin' timestamp='1296868669' post='2619688'] That's pretty ridiculous, imagine having Furs as your native resource and forever being subject to naval attacks, battle support and blockades! [/quote] I agree, but it's still how it is. Which is why someone would [i]want[/i] to get rid of purchased land, ability to do so aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 [quote name='Viluin' timestamp='1296868669' post='2619688'] That's pretty ridiculous, imagine having Furs as your native resource and forever being subject to naval attacks, battle support and blockades! [/quote] Hey, that's me! Dear Admin/Mods, I'm not certain whether or not this has really been discussed before, as I don't really visit these forums that often. I prefer to remain on my native boards, but I'd like to submit that having Furs as a native resource and being a relatively old nation is a [b]severe[/b] disadvantage to have. Prior to your installation of navies there were many arguments about what was the worst resource, and furs was already at the forefront in that regard. However, at least having furs as your native resource didn't have a negative effect on your nation. I didn't choose whether to have furs or not and unlike today, when I joined the game 4+ years ago, rerolling for good resources was not a common occurrence. I've lived through the the whole "furs is one of, if not the worst resources in the game" for a few years now with no real complaints. It's a game and it is what it is. However, it does seem a little unfair. So here's some stats from my nation currently: [quote]2,327.057 mile diameter. 5.784 in purchases, 1.865 in modifiers, 2,319.408 in growth [/quote] [quote] Infrastructure: 605.18[/quote] How am I, or anyone with furs in a similar situation, supposed to be able to defend myself from navies? I have a large enough warchest where I could dip in and purchase enough infrastructure to buy navies, but I think it is a silly thing when there is a built in advantage for nations who are lucky enough to [b]not[/b] have furs as a native resource. It is common practice for many nations during warfare to sell their land underneath 1,000 miles in order to avoid having to maintain and defend their navies. Now, this wasn't a problem for me when I had enough infrastructure to buy navies, but since I've been hit with 25+ straight nuclear weapons my infrastructure has been depleted and I can't even buy ships anymore. Now, before anyone claims that I am complaining simply because this is affecting me negatively (I will get over it as soon as I'm done typing this post, trust me), think about the nations with furs who are much younger/less-developed than myself. A nation who has had little chance to build a warchest, is suddenly jumped by two or three nations with full or partial navies who pick apart his fledgling navy. He is now sitting under the infrastructure limit for navies, and thus unable to purchase more ships to fight back, but is being pounded into the floor by Naval Supported attacks from his enemies. In addition they have just blockaded him and even if he's managed to avoid anarchy to this point, his collections will be affected through no fault of his own. Just because of some rather silly game mechanics. Furs is already a questionable resource at best in this game. Adding to the fact that it places your nation at a distinct disadvantage relative to every other nation on CN, I think one of three things could be changed to make this an even playing field. A: Just remove the inability to sell your land growth. Make furs effects on land apply to your modifier only so it is not lost and the problem is solved. Nations who want to may keep their epic amounts of land, and those who don't can sell their nation to role play/fight/exist in whatever way they wish. B: Just make it like someone else mentioned in this thread earlier. Set the limit to 1000 miles of purchased land for navies. Everything stays the same and you create an even playing field for all involved. C: Remove or severely lower the infrastructure/tech requirements on navies. They make sense from a role-playing standpoint, but from a balance standpoint it is just rather silly. If I'm going to be stuck with 2,000+ miles of land (which is absurd from a role-playing standpoint), then at least let me and those like me defend myself. Anyways, I don't know if anything will come of this, but I thought I'd post here and see what happened, or if anyone cared. GE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffey Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 if you have over 1k natural growth, you should build that into your war priority for navies, no question about it. 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.