Global Triumph

I think people will need to focus on expanding in one or two fronts at a time.  Advance, secure, advance again.


have a huge advantage because their attacks will be processed first.

That certainly is a factor, but I think it's something that can be worked around.  It forces you to have a more cohesive front when battling someone who logs in first.


(The processing would still happen at 4 a.m., but the order in which things would be processed would be different each day. One day, for example, it might start with a move made at 7:24 am and loop back around, and the next day it might start at 10:17 p.m. and loop back around.)

The only reason that exact process couldn't work is that a person's attacks typically must be processed in order.  You have to move units a certain way in order to prevent them from blocking each other.

What I could do, though, is group the attacks by country and then randomize the order in which the countries process.  So, all of a persons attacks will process in the order in which they're set, but you have no idea if they'll be before or after other countries.

That idea actually sounds pretty good to me.  What do you guys think?

That would probably work.  It would make sure the east coast didn't have an advantage over the west coast, no offense to either side.  What also needs to be considered is if we get someone foreign on here, from a foreign country is what I'm saying.  Then they would have an even bigger advantage because their unit's movements would be processed during the day for them, no offense to foreigners either.
I'm liking the idea for the country's randomized order.  Just hope that one country doesn't get lucky a lot and is in the first ten movements all the time.
BMW over and out.

BenJamin

I like the idea of a randomized system too.  I sometimes don't get to my stuff til about 1 a.m.

Here here, I like the idea of randomization.  I personally usually get mine done first thing in the morning (5 am Eastern ish) but I think that not only would it add a bit of fairness, it would add a bit of surprise.

If/when treaties are broken, attacks are not allowed on each others' land for 21 days.  How do you guys feel about that length of time?  I could see an argument for that being too long, so I could maybe see dropping it to 14.

I went with 21 based no the fact that a player could be gone on vacation for two weeks.  It would still give them a week to prepare.  (If you go on vacation for three or more weeks, really, your life is too good to deserve a perk in GT anyway.)

I like this idea.  Timing sounds fair.

I would think a couple of days would be long enough.

Weeks is too long in my opinion.

It has to be a significant period of time in order for the treaties to have any meaning.  If you could sign a treaty knowing that you can attack the other person with a couple days at any time, it's almost a meaningless action.

If signing that treaty commits you to not being able to attack for weeks (giving them time to prepare for your attack), then it becomes a significant action.

I think 14 days might be doable though.  I'll give it a bit more thought.

I've had my brother and two of his friends joined. Word of mouth has done you 3 new souls

Thank you for spreading the word!!

Word of mouth is the absolute ideal method of advertising.  Unfortunately, it's also one I have no way of controlling. haha

Nice game here!!

I was introduced to it by friends..

Is there any way to zoom out from your area of control, as I find the present way of trying to overview your territory/neighbours, etc slightly cumbersome...

There's a globe in the top-right corner of the screen that sends you to the overview map.  Is that basically what you were looking for?

Not quite, because when you click an area to look at it, you cannot zoom out far enough when you leave it, except by a lot of trial and error clicking to move map to right or left

Maybe it's me, but I still can't understand what's being described here. haha  Can someone help me out?

i brought him here, and i have no idea.

i think the general complaint is that there is no middle-zoom. there's a huge world view, and a superclose view of only so much terrain. yes, you can change the viewing window size, but that doesn't change the ability to zoom in and out. i had the same problem, but hadn't gotten around to voicing my complaint yet.

take googlemaps, for instance. there are about nine levels of zoom that you can utilize. this game has two: way far away, and too close.


so, not that i demand it, but would it be possible to code in different levels of zoom?

It could potentially made the game somewhat slow, since it's running in a browser.  It would basically be a whole ton of elements on the screen at once.  It's something I'll likely experiment with in the future, though.

On a personal note, I've played the game probably more than anyone and I've never found the zoom levels to be a problem.  Maybe it's just because I've been used to them being that way since the start.

One thing you could try (though it's not "supported" in any way) would be to set your map zoom settings to be large (on the settings page) and then using Ctrl and + or Ctrl and - in Firefox 3/3.5 to make the sectors smaller or larger.  (You can use Ctrl and 0 to return to normal size.)

i don't have the quickest computer, and my browser wasn't handling the 99x99 resolution on the zoom in.

I think what he is looking for is sort of a mini-map that would stay i the upper left or right hand of the screen, showing you sort of where you were looking in the world.  It would be helpful overall, but isn't a big huge deal.  I sometimes lose track after I've gone down a hundred or so squares moving jeeps.

Map size feature appears to be bugged: If I set it to maximum size possible the area it covers on superworld map looks fine, but when you go to close up, it is only half that
I think it might be due to the default square size, as they don`t get any smaller if you set map to larger dimensions

It sets the number of sectors to load, but you still need to drag the map in order to see all of them.

It just lets you have more working room when you click without having to zoom back out or refresh the map over.

I see.  I'll keep that one in mind, see if I can do it in a way that would be functional.

What about putting a longer "hold" on the guy who breaks the treaty than the guy who has the treaty broken? Knowing that the person you're basically stabbing in the back would have a day or two head start on you would make people think twice about breaking treaties.

I love this idea.

I like this idea...

if the treaty breaker had to wait 21 days instead, all it would do is allow the person they broke the treaty with to attack the treaty breaker and the treaty breaker wouldn't be able to hit them back.

and it's unrealistic.

Is there any way to change your country's colour?  It's not an issue specific for me, but I seem to be on a two-week collision course with a nation of the same colour.  Or perhaps the world maps could have black lines indicating borders?

Wasn't suggesting a three week head start for the breakee ... more like a couple of days. And it might be unrealistic, but it's meant to curb unrealistic behavior (dropping an alliance and immediately going to war with your former ally).

that's actually very realistic behaviour. nations used to do that all the time. treatises were made, one nation grew friendly while the other grew it's military and then blitzed the friendly guys.

nations that have done it:
russia
germany
prussian empire
france
spain
england
italy
portugal
japan
N.vietnam
laos
cambodia
iraq

etc, etc, etc...

just because it isn't something that happens everyday now, doesn't mean that it wasn't a big part of politics as little as 30 years ago.

I can also see Johnny having a huge advantage in the game.  As we on our island-continent that I am calling Mongolia prepare to defend our group of nations and tribes from an onslaught from Johnny, I'd like to know how many of each unit type it takes to kill another type of unit.  It really would be nice to know how much attack power a single strength tank unit has, information on infantry versus turrets, and how much damage each unit type does to aircraft as they pass overhead.

Its not a huge deal however, and certainly not enough to take away from any of the fun of the game.

Honestly, with all the factors in the attack algorithm and the random factor, it would be a pain to know how many of each thing it takes to kill a certain number of another thing.  I have a good sense of things like that now just from playing and knowing what has worked and what hasn't.

Do you guys think it would add to or take away from the game to have the exact values?  If everyone seems to thing it would improve the game, I don't think I'd be against posting the values.  I personally think it would take away (too much about people trying to calculate all the time), but maybe I'm wrong.

Not automatically, but it's probably something I can do manually without too much trouble if someone requested.

Very much so add to the game.

In warhammer 40k, the phenomenon of gamers using statistics and averages and math to determine unit choices and their strategies is called mathhammer.  Its only a small subsect of the community, and the adherents to mathhammer of often teased or derided for their heretical beliefs.

here in global triumph, you have a set number of units, which simplifies things a bit.  there are then other variables, I assume, added in, such as unit strengths, etc.  Honestly, if you did release the math behind the game, there's not enough math there for people to abuse the calculations.  If anything, it would be beneficial, especially if people noticed an oddity in the numbers you overlooked while programming them in.  I can't honestly see how it wouldn't work in everyone's favor equally.

I played World of Warcraft for four years  in a raiding guild.  Send me the numbers.

'we are going to dps very very slowly... ok... now more dots!  more dots!  -50 dkp!!!!'

I love that guy.  We had a similar raid master.

"What the f*ck are you assholes doing!!!!  I said no DPS!"

I've just been thinking. What happens when all of the continents are full up? When space for new nations no longer exists?

hit the reset button.

Suggestion regarding air attacks ...

If I understand things correctly (no sure thing by any means), here's how things work now:
1. Player A's air attacks launch
2. Payer A's air attacks hit
3. Player B's air attacks launch
4. Player B's air attacks hit
(assuming Player A goes first in that day's random order)

This seems pretty unrealistic to me. Instead, I think it should be:
1. Player A's air attacks launch
2. Player B's air attacks launch
3. Player A's air attacks hit
4. Player B's air attacks hit

No idea how much work this would create, or if it's even possible, but the way it's set up now gives a gigantic advantage to whoever gets lucky in the random shuffle.

Yes, youre territory is that of a McDonalds fiend. fat and getting larger

Capita gained per land should be modified depending on how much land you get. The more land one owns, the less capita per land they get. This helps money snowballing a having large countries steam roll through the game, and it helps smaller countries catch up in the wars.

EXAMPLE:

lands owned  | Capita per Land

00-30                | 100
30-60                |  95
61-95                |  90
96-135              |  85
136-185          |  80
185-250          | 75

And each increment should be larger then the last. Also, i dont know how money is gained per capita, so this was just an example... demonstration i guess

Realistically speaking, an enemy could take out an air base before a launch can take place.  Making all air attacks be launched at the same moment and all attacks be carried out regardless of whether or not the air base still exists seems less realistic to me.

The advantage only comes into play if the person takes out an air base that was launching an attack.  So, it seems to me that this is more about strategy.  If a player launches attacks from the same air base, then it's likely going to become a target.  If there are several air bases, the other player has no idea where the next attack will come from and would be either be forced to attack them all (if s/he has the resources) or pick the most likely base.

Personally, I think all those variables (not knowing where an attack is coming from, who is going to launch first, etc.) is a good part of the dynamic of the game.

This is definitely an interesting suggestion.  There have been a number of ideas thrown out in the Cash Flow thread, and I think this and another in there stand out as good ones to me right now.

1: Make the resource mine level (currently 0.0015) less as a country grows to be very large.  The reason I like this idea is that, realistically speaking, it's going to be more difficult to collect resources efficiently from a huge piece of land.  The percentage couldn't be too small, though, because a large country also has much more land to protect.  It's an advantage fighting one on one, but it's difficult to maintain a fight on multiple fronts.  I also don't want it to be too much of a punishment to expand, because that's an important part of the game.

2: Subtract a "maintenance" fee each cycle for each unit the country owns.  (This would, of course, also require me adding the ability to sell units.)  This is also completely realistic.

What do you guys think?  Both are actually fairly easy to implement, so perhaps we can work to improve the balance and realism.

I like this idea.  I also want the option to completely disband units on the fly if that's possible, or sell them at a base.  Jeeps are good for one thing - grabbing land.  They're not good for anything else, so after I'm done with them, I want to get rid of them if we're going to have a per unit maintenance fee, which I like very much. 

I'd also like to be able to see each unit on the main map, so that they would show up like little bright dots like the ships do.  I have units that have been missing for weeks, I'm sure...

I like the idea of selling units.  Supply fees for troops would be good.  The further from the capital, the more the cost.  Also as for land, mining resources could "less efficient" the further from your capital as well.  To offset this, maybe subcapitals can be built at some high cost.

fixed.



also- making random mines with more resources than normal would be easier than coding in all this stuff. just saying.

I was in no way stating punishment. But i see where youre going. And perhaps  the capita could decrease are tiny increments such as:

Current: 0.0015 to:

0.00149; 0.00148; 0.00147 and so fourth unless thats too small

could be 0.00145; 0.0014 and so forth

Some of the initial resources are a bit too low already, on some continents (mine is not exactly very high)

SO I disagree on lowering it even more

Larger land area means more resources needed, NOT less

But I do agree on some limits; a maintenance fee is only feasible, it the land covered has sufficient income, but reducing income on larger land area is a bit unfair, as it discourages expansion (unless for military reasons only)