Global Triumph

Materials Mining Level.  You'll be able to specify a low, medium, or high mining level.  Materials in owned sectors grow at 2% per cycle.  If you choose low, you'll only mine 1% of the materials, so the value in the sector will grow (for future availability).  If you choose medium, you'll mine at the same rate that materials grow, so the value in the sector will remain the same.  If you select high, you'll mine 3%, reducing the level in the sector (as well as future availability) for the sake of a little extra money immediately.  You'll be able to change your mining level at any time.

Unit Merge.  You'll be able to move a unit onto an existing unit of the same type, merging them into one unit with the combined strength of the two.  Remaining moves in the turn will be the lower of the values of the two units that were merged.  If both units can still move five sectors, for example, but it takes three moves to get one unit to the other (leaving it with two), the new unit can then only move two more sectors in that turn.

I would suggest an aircraft carrier be allowed, maybe by moving jets to a transport, in the same way jets will be able to move between bases, if that would be simple enough

I Think that this game should have some type of  research like of incress armor or diffirent weapons for  troops. We would need to build research centers for this and invest money into it too.

I would love for a blind map that you can only see what you have explored.  With that I would love there to be a random spawn so that no one would know where they are or who there are around.

I also would love this not be become too complicated.  I know that there are plenty of players that have a lot of time to play, but there are a lot of us who would also like to keep it simple so that we won't have to lose our families for a game.

Theres something to be said about only being able to see what you have explored.... but i would say that the only things you cant see should be the units, not the land form or its owner ship

I prefer the map is as now, being able to see things.  I like that aspect of this game.

Agreeing here.

I think a blind map is too mission-oriented (e.g. C&C), rather than "world war"-oriented.

As for spawn points, the criteria will change after the reset.  You'll have to be within a certain radius (most likely tighter than the current one) of two countries, rather than one.  So, countries will spread in more of a honeycomb pattern than a straight line outward.

Hey Johnny, how about putting up another Youtube video of the growth of the countries, I want to see myself explode!!!

I could have swore that I posted this idea before but...

I would love to see Hills and Impassable mountains.  They only have to be sectors or groups of sectors that have increased attack/defend quotients.  The mountain ranges would be great for strategic defense.

Here's something else...  I would like to be able to group troops, tanks etc, into formations that I can send to attack as a whole.  This way, i don't have to click on every individual to set them each day.  I would form a line and they would have the same effect as merging troops (restricted to the "slowest" etc)  This wouldn't allow them to gang up on something but attacks would work as currently set.  The entire group would come to a halt if they run into something, their formation is broken for loss, etc.

Strategically, I would like to line up tanks in a row, with say 4 gaps between and then fill in with infantry and have them advance at the infantry speed without having to micromanage the group.  Basically I want the 1st cav to support the 101st.  (still want the 82nd airborne)

I am looking more at WWII than WWI.  There will be front lines but wouldn't it spice things up to be able to drop in some beefy infantry behind the lines to reek havoc.  (I just realized that by grabbing land behind lines, you would be building your empire without really having any way of receiving these assets. Shipping, trucking etc.  and no I don't want to have to deal with that crap anyway.)  This would make people defend their bases because I could drop in, grab one, and now you have to fight on another front.

I am not there yet, but I believe that strategy might get bogged down with the micromanaging.  Sooner or later we will get to having too many troops to deal with each one and will just leave them there and wait and see instead of placing them where we would really like them to be.

I'm beginning to agree with you here.  Either the game as a whole needs ta be toned down a couple of islands or then make it so that there are many different mini games going on where the player create their own map/game.  I know the idea of the player creating their own game was thrown out there but I just thought I'd renstate it.

BenJamin

There will be front lines but wouldn't it spice things up to be able to drop in some beefy infantry behind the lines to reek havoc.

that would be cool because i am tried of senting ships across the map to get one person. Maybe like a millitary transport plane but they would cost a little but more than jets. to advoid people just over useing them to much

One word.  Paratroopers.  Win.

Well, that's two words.  But you could have an infantry unit move to an airbase, upgrade to paratroops, and drop into nearby territory, bypassing enemy lines.  Simply treat the aircraft carrying the as a missile which may take damage from flying over defensive turrets/units.

I think varied terrain would have to come in a version 2.0, just due to the current structure.  I already have some ideas on how things can be structured differently that would really add more dimensions, but it's definitely a full upgrade sort of thing.

Plus, with a more complex game, we're also talking more CPU/memory requirements.  I had a small version of GT coded and running years ago, but the CSS and JS didn't have the ability to make the UI quite as smooth/intuitive as it is now.  A little down the road, I can do even more knowing that people will have the PCs to support it.

I've always liked the idea of keeping the game entirely native browser-based, without just falling back on Flash or Java or some other plug-in.  So, I think I'll always aim to stick with that route.

Sure, I can look into coding unit groups.

Personally, the ctrl+click clone attack works really well for me, so I haven't had that same frustration.  But, I can certainly understand it.

how about a go to next unused unit button?

I know that this is trivial, what about naming the "continents/oceans/etc."  I think it would be nice for individuals to be able to name topographic features on THEIR property.  I am not sure if you can assign coordinates on the info of the sectors.  I think that would help people decide where their treaties would be at.  Say north of the 250,000 parallel  or the Hill at 37000,54000.

Rivers too please? 

Please?

Navigable rivers...

I know that there have been multiple requests for stacking commands or auto attack etc.  What I would like to see, is cruise control for ships.  There can be a long way to travel with no interaction with others or land itself.  I personally am traveling to another continent to start my "new world" so that I can have a HUGE cash flow base.  On a side note, can I please, please, please move my capital?

Duh, Just realized that you already have coordinates.  So, the peninsula north of 272 is mine...

I don't know how you would accomplish this, but it would be really nice to be able to click on an enemy unit/sector and be able to call in an air strike from the closest base with the appropriate units.  I like having the air force for ground support, but it can be difficult sometimes to find those troops again when you zoom out to get to your air base.

I was originally going to program it that way, but it's often important to choose the correct airbase to launch an attack since the flight path plays an important role.

Air attacks need some revisions.  I'll have to play around once I have time to get back to coding again.

It would be cool if we could plan our own flight route to avoid land based defenses - sorta like is done in real world applications.

Keep up the great work, Johnny!

One thing that would make airstrikes easier to deal with would be to have your airbases show on the large map.  It would be also nice to be able to see which base had what resources at a glance.

And the ability to cancel attacks would be nice.  Or maybe I'm missing something.

You can cancel land based attacks by setting an attack to the square your unit occupies. Air based attacks cannot be canceled as far as I know - it would be something nice to add though.

Another to do item.

I've been thinking about air attacks.  I'll have to think through the details a bit more, but I'm thinking maybe attacks should be set by clicking on an enemy sector or unit and then selecting an "air attack" option, which will then open a window showing the target and highlighted air bases that can reach it (with lines drawn from the base to the target, so you can eyeball its flight path).  You would then click an air base and select the type of attack.

What do you guys think?

EXACTLY, except YOU can't use the function against me...  LOL

I like that idea, but it might be easier on you if we could just draw its flight path much like we do for land units, except that the planned flight path would have to survive a screen refresh as we scroll from one screen to the next.  I would personally rather be able to determine my aircraft's path in a more custom manner.

I think that the speed of ships needs to be increased.

I would like to see troops move similar to construction trucks.  Be able to move at the same speed as attack and then be able to attack.

this would allow us to relocate troops or distribute them as needed.  Also, it would allow reinforcements to be moved up to the front lines as needed.

What he said.

Post 18 in the "Feedback" thread should address this.

As for the ship speed, they're already set to move quite a bit further than the land units.  I'm thinking having them move any faster would make traveling across such vast distances too quick.  I know it's frustrating (I'm moving around out there, too), but I don't think having to wait should be the only reason it's increased further.  Does that make sense?

We want it now!  :)

I know that it will be difficult, but I think that when you start varying the terrain, the logical move will be to have variable troop speeds based on terrain.  Up hill is slower, swamps are slower, down hill is faster, etc.  It might also allow for an "attack distance bonus" when on home ground.  This would help with the movement of troops.  I don't envy you for the coding on this.  Especially when compensating for attack/defense in relation to terrain, like attacking up hill or defending against a mountain (sun su says that if you put your troops in a situation where there is no excape, the will fight harder to survive).

I know, this is getting WAY too into the nit picking.

I think that it would be really nice to have the option to show your troops on the overview map like the ships show.  This could be turned off in the preferences of a body doesn't want to use up the bandwidth.  I spend quite a bit of time chasing stray troops and moving them into some form of strategic position.

I would really like bases to also show on the overview map with air bases that have resources show different than the others.

I would like aircraft carriers with say a 30 planes (refillable at an airbase)

I would like a missile frigate with like 20 missiles (refillable at an airbase)

Maybe a supply ship, for "building" planes and missiles so you don't have to send your ships half way around the world then back to reload...

A PT boat, quick and lightly armored, that can attack other ships.

If you haven't noticed, I am being forced into the navy business...

With the present range of aircraft and missiles, the above idea is taking things too far, too soon.

Finding enemy ships at sea is not very easy as it is, but this would make anyone with the above units a bit too invincible.
(unless Johnnys previous idea of a Hurricane strikes... )

Don't forget submarines.  WTB those...loaded with either 8 missiles or 2 nukes.  And change the name from bombs to nukes.

Johnny, I know that something like this has been requested before, but could there be a way to set "security" levels within the alliance, thereby controlling who has access to which thread?

I ask this because my fledgling alliance would be better suited to do what I would like it to if I had this kind of control.  I am looking to create a kind of UN and for it to work I need structure like the G3 and the G7, etc.

If this wouldn't be possible, then I have the option of creating multiple alliances to serve the same function.

(just spewing here)

Yes pls

The question of radar was brought up in the opinion poll.  I was wondering about instead of a base, make it a radar ship (a fishing troller) that you can deploy where ever you wanted to get the "best" coverage for you?

I'd also like to see a nation's border extended  with coastal waters by two squares.  Everything else is international waters, but a nations should be entitled to not have other countries cruise its coastline.

sea-based invasions would never happen then. how would you propose to enable a transport to land if they can't come within two squares of any coast?

I have been thinking of the upkeep fee and using average property taxes as a base, I think that 0.5% of a unit/base/turret's resale value would be about fair.  This means that a level 9 infantry unit that sells for $540 would cost $2.7 per day to maintain.  If a distance factor were to be put in place, then within say 25 sectors of a capital under your control, you wouldn't have a cost, then 26-50 would be 25% 50-75 would be 50% etc...

This would effectively give you a bonus for taking others capitals.

That's actually really high in comparison to costs and materials gained.  For example, that rate would currently cost you specifically $206,500 per turn.  And that's without a war-fighting force.  It would be millions each day if you were trying to fight another large country.  If I'm going to do maintenance fees, they can't be so high that they prevent wars in a war game. haha

Calculating distances from any capital would be fairly intensive, and I think unrealistic.  Just because a capital existed somewhere at some point doesn't mean it has any sort of infrastructure to help process materials.  I think, as a whole, basing the fee percentage on the size of the country makes the most sense.  A larger country has to gather and transfer materials over greater space, thereby affecting the cost ratio.

I would like to see an option where you could blow up your own bridges.  Not sell them, but destroy them.

In a real war, it is a common tactic to delay your enemies during a retreat.