Posts by Steam Engine

Why not create 1 big huge server for all players to enjoy, instead of 50 billion servers???

There are billion og ways for GameForge to earn money, instead of by players who jump from server to another

If this keep going, Ikariam in year 2090 will have around 1.000 servers

Old server still exist and new ones keep on comming.

I really never understood this type of Logic and never will. Whats the purpose of creating new servers and the old ones still are there.

level 50 is the max level

Agree, the resources are little and should increase allot!

Another argument is that people do not see this game as a war game, so while they want to live peacefully it's better to attack IA instead of other real players and start endless wars that causes headaches in the long run!

In my opinion, the solo aspect of this game, should be better!

So not only resources should increase, but also the max level of the barbarian village should too!

Yes agree. It was just because ballista got more armor and health thats why. But makes sense. When they are protected, then no matter. Mortars should do the job and are better.

Nice

Thanks allot for the clarification.

Hi all.

I have a question, because i am a bit confused.

Which ship in the "Long-Range Fighter Machine" - type, is the best to build and have in your fleet kingdom? Is it Ballista, Catapult or Mortars?

I am planning to have only 1 type only and build lots of that type. Forexample either have: 1.000 Ballista, 1.000 Catapult or 1.000 Mortar, due to the upkeep.

The stats confuses me, thats why. Some are higher in ballista, some are higher in Catapult and some are higher in Mortar, but lower in the rest.

In my openion (However i dont speek for the general population), I think, that the reasons why wars are not atractive at the moment is because.

1) Takes too long every round

2) Defenders got too many advanteges (And no i am not talking about walls, but the fact that they can go into Vmode and win wars is not cool. The spirit of the game and wars is killed by this methoed)!

3) Not enough unit types.

4) Small battlefields

5) Effect of doctors is small.

When i look around, most people dont focus much in wars, and they dont like even attacking. So why do we have it then? Its like the pirate fortress. Its there but useless.

If i get occupied / blocked my port, i just have to wait until enemy pull his army back, then i can uprise, hop into Vmode or delete my colony.

If i get raided, i spread out my resourses and keep my warehouses high. Or hop into V-mode / delete my town.

To me its seems like, its very useless to go to wars. Why even bother suggestion new units and bigger battlefields when the game does not even favor wars?

Yes i get its not a war game. But lately there has been lots of non-war related updates to improve this game. Which is fine, no debate here!

But i think its time for the developers to focus on wars now.

Quote from Stratonomos D

If I'm being honest, I don't like any of the ideas here...

If I had to comment on the new Unit suggestion "Propagandist", I'd say that most of the times I'm fighting, I'm wishing for the enemy units NOT to run out of morale and flee...

Other than that, at some point eveyone would have 50-100-150 "Propagandists" and the only difference in the game would be for battles to just be more expensive.

It would probably make cooks useless too.

Display More

cooks are useless if you only have 40, then no point of building lots of them.

real fights cooks and doctors die too. They are not immortal. And in real life they also run out of supplies.

How did the idea evolve from bigger (according to the attackers side), to unlimitted??

Thats a no as well here.

also i remember this version. Which was the first version of Ikariam. After which (Shortly after), they introduced the battle system we know today!

Ok i misunderstood your suggestion about bigger battlefieldsize.

And it way better compared to mine. The one i made 3 months ago (Link in this comment section). So i like it.

The battlefield should be according to the guy / side with the biggest army. Much thanks!

I actually made a suggestion about a bigger battlefield: Suggestion: Increase the battle field size - Discussions and Feedback - Ikariam (gameforge.com)

3 months ago.

And i agree, we should have a much bigger battlefield than our current situation, but if this has to be done there should be some balances too.

Number 1: And the most obvious is more / higher levels to the walls. Cause otherwise a bigger field = the defender would loose in fewer rounds

Number 2: More upgrades to units for attack, health, defence and accuracy, ammo capacity, less troops space on field (So more units can be placed).

Quote from Tendo

Quote from Steam Engine

why would they have hit points and damage if they cannot be killed? The damage is 20, but they lift moral by 1%, how does that make sense:

Because it did matter in the past and was never removed.

Quote from Steam Engine

It will make it better by adding another way of victory, without having to loose much units and / or have long battles.

But why would there be no long battle?

Why would your opponent have none of these, but you do?

Why wouldn't both sides lose the same amount without anything relevant happening in that regard and where would be the tactical aspect?

As I mentioned, I like the general idea of demoralizing the Opponent, but neither do I think that this is what Battles need currently, nor do I believe that this Unit would improve Battles in general (apart from the fact that it would proly result in way too much work, compared to way too little gain).

Display More

This is why i suggest assasins, because without them then yes you are right. This only one unit does not help winning wars, if the apponent also has 50 extra cooks and thats it. If the developers only add this unit, then it would not make the game better. I totally agree with you.

But with assasins killing the cooks, then these unit would have an effect. Providing the enemy has none to fight them back. Things that kills the assasins are assasins and light infantry. However spearmen are weaker than swordsmen and swordsmen are weaker than assasins to kill them back.

Or

Cooks with ammo fuction.

or

Both. (cooks with ammo and assasin idea)

Even if the apponent does not have the propagandist, you can still make a different by your assasins, when they kill enemy cooks. The enemy would not generate morale, but you do when you have cooks, and the battle ends when one side gets to 0 moral.

All this is a matter of some math and equations. Which should be left to the developers to think it through, balance it and make it better if needs to be!

But the way i see it, it can be done.

But i dont understand your question.

It will make it better by adding another way of victory, without having to loose much units and / or have long battles.

Morale loss, is the one that determins the battle result.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And yes i can agree also, that these these assasins cannot attack the cooks, until enemy assasins are killed. If there are no enemy assasins left, then swordsmen should be the next target or light infantry If no light infantry are left then the cooks. (So they can be flanked)

Otherwise... why would they have hit points and damage if they cannot be killed? The damage is 20, but they lift moral by 1%, how does that make sense:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Or cooks can have ammo function. When they run out of ammo, the food runs out and no more moral lifting!

The more cooks, the more ammo pilled together just like regular units.

Quote from Tendo

The most important question imo. always is "how would this Update improve/change the game".

Especially when it comes down to the Battlesystem, small changes can have huge effects (also negatively).

I like the general idea of demoralizing the Opponent, but the Unit... I don't know...

Fights could/would still last for hours/days, only difference is that there is 1 more unit-type on the field for each side fighting against each other and trading of 50/50.

Or People just add 50 more cooks (if they dont kill cooks), end of the story.

Or battles end earlier but the Units survive, but usually if you want to fight, killing the opponent units is one of the main goals, so who does that help?

Why make such a change to Battles in the first place?

If you don't like super long battles, there are plenty of other options.

The lack of Rewards imo is the bigger problem, PvP-Map, more PvE-Elements (maybe even for whole alliances), fighting is not attractive currently anyway, think that needs to be targeted before making any changes to the actual fighting.

Display More

But in our current situation one can simply build 60 cooks or 50 and end of story!

They dont die, they dont run out of food and the player does not loose moral!

Same thing. Also it will make the game better by adding extra tactics to win the battles!

Also reducing the battletimer should be an option too here. If this was a real fight, it does not take 15 minute and the troops were not to fit in small battlefield like this game. The apponent fights at full force and nothing gets out into reserve. The townhall does not determine the size of battlefield if it was a real fight. But the land surrunding the city does.

Lastly. In real battles there are also traps for the defender and large towers shooting at the enemy.

And the battle timer is not 15 minute. Not instant either.

Quote from -Eden-

The battle structure would make no sense. In a real battle - the cooks will be far away and they will be guarded, for that matter they cannot be flanked because there are the sword bearers who are the flanks. What do you suggest, assassins?

this is not real and a game.

if it was real Steam Giants, multi ricket ships and gyrocopter should not exist in this game, since it is a classical age game!

also, if food and healing from doctors can reach to the front line, then the doctors and cooks should be killed too!

Only way to do this is by adding another unit called assasins.

These should go and kill themselves (Not suicide), but killing another assasins in the enemy army. If no assasins are found, then they should attack cooks and doctors.

Or just cooks. Or perhaps immobilize them (Not kill them)!

Meaning = Putting to sleep, so less cooks can have an effect each round. Next battle, the cooks are active again.

Just like facebook i would send a heart reaction to this thread. Very much cool :)))

This will seriously make battles interresting And The cooks would have greater functions. Now everyone builds 40 cooks and stops at that.

But with your unit idea, i would need lots and lots and lots of cooks to overcome this new unit effect.

Or just build more of that unit to avoid enemies effect.

Winning wars by insults and demoralize is another way of victory. Also Psycological attacks hurts better than physical attacks

Much thanks, i like this!