روزنامه از Greece
انتشار شده در France - تجزیه و تحلیل جنگ - 07 Jan 2017 07:00 - 40
The following artcile is actually a copy/paste of the proposal already made at official erev forum. You may find it here.
The introduction of naval battles will be nothing more than erev's AS. The system that killed strategy at the other game.
So in case you are determined to implement this to erev, i have some suggestions that will bring kind of strategy to the game.
A) Traning grounds vs Intelligence centers (this is what will be for naval battles, right?)
One, may daily train ONLY at one factor. Either land, or naval. Not at both. And the advanced training, if exists, should give extra to where you chose to do your daily training. Lets say you went to Boot Camp, the Advanced Training will be on land. If you trained at Intelligence Center, the Advanced Training goes to naval. Therefor Advanced Training should be locked until you train once and pick your daily training.
B) Set limits to how many regions far, a naval strike can land to. My suggestion is max, cross an ocean, even better, not even that. That would give incredible value to small islands like azores, canary, hawai ect. That means you have to regionalize oceans too in order to count region moves. That suggestion may requires, borders between regions as is now, through oceans and sea, to be eliminated.
C) In order to launch a naval attack, you have to have a harbor. Implement harbors as facility. Combined to B, if we think that a base range would be like 5 regions, for every harbor built, range expands by 1. With range roof to be 9 or 10, dunno, that is on you to decide, depending on how you set and design map.
(EDIT): Additionally, harbors can work like trade route connectors, to capital. A harbor overseas along with a harbor at the other side connects the trade route.
I know all above requires some work to be done, but that could actually add strategy to an idea that will kill strategy the way AirStrike did.
Regards
The introduction of naval battles will be nothing more than erev's AS. The system that killed strategy at the other game.
So in case you are determined to implement this to erev, i have some suggestions that will bring kind of strategy to the game.
A) Traning grounds vs Intelligence centers (this is what will be for naval battles, right?)
One, may daily train ONLY at one factor. Either land, or naval. Not at both. And the advanced training, if exists, should give extra to where you chose to do your daily training. Lets say you went to Boot Camp, the Advanced Training will be on land. If you trained at Intelligence Center, the Advanced Training goes to naval. Therefor Advanced Training should be locked until you train once and pick your daily training.
B) Set limits to how many regions far, a naval strike can land to. My suggestion is max, cross an ocean, even better, not even that. That would give incredible value to small islands like azores, canary, hawai ect. That means you have to regionalize oceans too in order to count region moves. That suggestion may requires, borders between regions as is now, through oceans and sea, to be eliminated.
C) In order to launch a naval attack, you have to have a harbor. Implement harbors as facility. Combined to B, if we think that a base range would be like 5 regions, for every harbor built, range expands by 1. With range roof to be 9 or 10, dunno, that is on you to decide, depending on how you set and design map.
(EDIT): Additionally, harbors can work like trade route connectors, to capital. A harbor overseas along with a harbor at the other side connects the trade route.
I know all above requires some work to be done, but that could actually add strategy to an idea that will kill strategy the way AirStrike did.
Regards
تایید
PeakyATEHTATOPOTHeIiosTyraelthomhBelegurfaganerosXooKaip3NightwatcherHUNGropiusCaptain HarlockPANZER stronKPANZER stronKPanzer AceBlackfuryajdinhoBardThatBushAncestralEl ProfesorRothbartGrumosa3APA3ASzilveszterCrepنظر ها (40)
sound like reasonable suggestions for me. I like splitting up the skill training because it provides some diversity in what path a player can choose.
Attack range or estimated time can be realistic for naval battles . For example If Turkey declare war Croatia , must be wait 24-30 hour for attacking. If it declare war Argentina, must be wait 35-50 hour for attacking.
i am a marine corp frogmen yontaifib
o7
o7
Set range limit pls, thats very very important
not bad suggestions.
Pretty reasonable, cool.
A) is a must imo
I agree especially with B. Moreover, the naval attacks have to be extremely expensive. o/
A is the most lame proposal i ever heard ... it only favours the old players with high str...
sutanu obviously you did not get it. It does exactly the opposite. Gives the chance to new players to become elite in naval battlefield instead of having to compete with old tanks that will raise both. Focusing in one battlefield only, makes elite soldiers/marines and makes countries having to actually schedule, work and cooperate their citizens. Common tg for everyone, will keep me as a land battlefield veteran and elite, the same time that i will advance the same, if not more, as i will pay money to upgrade faster, to a new player in naval battles. A gift ungiven for new players that could play a significant role in game and a chance for babybooms at the time of the update. Personally, I prefer to raise both, makes click click click much easier for me, and not many things to care about. But I care for game more than account interests.
I agree with B and C but A i think it will bad because u can make multi and raise naval TC and u can easy dominate in naval battle. We know who have more multi :-)
I think the same about the A, i think they should let us train in both camps, like, people who start playign since the start should also have the posibility to play this new module whiout sending to trash what they were doing for a year
Good suggestions imo
Voted
Ragn0 bro, still then, in that case a noob will be noob, and only possible to advance naval battlefield, as he will not be able to compete land, the veterans like you and me. So, we will dominate land, and they will have great competition at naval. That is not fair :/
A)... is good, B) is quite good, ships travelling is not equal to teleportation of ships, unless you have Tesla with you, but this is futuristic concept, 3) Maybe just opposite, not having harbours will slow down the fleet and even stop it on the long distance relations. But the map is the key for the implementation, naval regions will be crucial, mistakes should be avoided.
NO bad ideas... DONT LIKE IT.
B and C are good ideas, but with A I dont agree. I am sure that most of us want to be strong in both fields and help country in both fields when it needs.
No for A or we will see new generation of navy multies. B and C are good ideas, it will add some strategy to the game + the game will be more realistic
vote
Voted. Admins should consider this. But they wont.
voted
voted o7
Vote o7
Support for B and C, and no for A. I agree with Ragn0. People who start earlier than the others shold have advantage.
Admins hasn t comment? He he... Do you see the real intention with this update? Acceleration of the game, not the opportunity for advanced strategic approach :-(
I was aware of that Levi, nevertheless I had to try o/
All young players agree with A! Congratulations to the article.
This IS a nice idea.
Dont agree. Why should admin listen to this bs. i think they are smarter than this. Long live the admins xD
nice ideas
No, no, no. You should give some another suggestions how to make more money from this update. Really. XD
@Piroman, you have right to post your opinion, but this is going to far. Mostly, I am an opponent of ktab, in the game, but in this case, when he is trying to improve the game itself, I am supporting him. But you don t want just to oppose him, you are trying to insult him. This is not a troll article, so players should avoid such an actions. If you don t like the idea, explain as why. Admins doesn t need such a support of you, it makes them looking even worse in front of players.