URAS

Could someone break down the nuke silo ranges by level?

*facepalm* The truce was accepted, hence the timer started. Several days ago after some trades, the timer glitched out.

The truce was accepted and timer started.

I still have an active truce with a player and cannot attack or trade with him, but the timer has been on 0 for days. Is there a fix? My username is [URAS] Dad

The problem is that a core mechanic, war, results in isolation if a truce is not agreed upon. I'm proposing, at its simplest, a time constraint on isolation. Most of us have at most 1 other player near us (I'm lucky in NYC). If he need only surrender to disappear after a battle, the game becomes an artistic Google Maps overlay.

Maybe the simplest fix, as proposed by bourgie, is simply to make the invisibility period time-limited...

I see your dilemma. Catering to less competitive fans intent on exploration in an environment that allows combat makes for a very delicate balance. It makes me wonder if the game's identity and essence are still works in progress, yet to be fully determined. Perhaps these exploratory players can be offered a "Zen Mode" without combat or trades? The idea seems at odds with a game allowing nuclear silos and armies, but surely there is a better solution than "Tap this Button and Never Fight or See This Enemy Again?" Because that mechanic can be abused by the players at war.

This is interesting, but it won't protect low level players while still allowing them to engage in wars. I agree that a "no surrender" penalty like this on the big bully bases (like mine, I suppose) is an excellent idea.

True, the weaker players also have this at their disposal, but what is the result? All players invisible to each other. The game, sparsely populated as is, becomes even less interesting and lonely after an inconclusive and unsatisfying "war." Still, yours is a welcomed perspective as I inadequately considered the weaker players in the above discussion.

That is precisely what it will address. By being "underground," you can expand without interference. But you are right in that a less robust, "quicker fix" is possible simply by making "invisibility" both time-limited and universal (i.e. not restricted to the one player being warred with).

I agree with your suggested change: protected ("underground") players should not be able to see active unprotected players. Considering players < level 10, the inability to enter PvP combat below level 10 made the early game terribly dull as is. To keep new players engaged, they need to be able to exit the "underground" and fight when they so desire. I agree price to enter or reenter the underground should scale with level.

The ability to "disappear" off the map for one other player/enemy by surrendering and never proposing a truce is a somewhat frustrating mechanic. It seems at times counter to the very idea of an augmented-reality-domination-war-strategy game. Domination and strategy mean nothing when an enemy can remain a threat to your allies by making himself invisible to you, at no cost, with no time limit. As an alternative to this mechanic, I would like to propose a time-limited, resource-intensive, binary option for a player to be in-game (and able to attack or be attacked) or out-of-game. For simplicity, let's call being out-of-game "Going Underground," to describe when a player is unable to attack or be attacked, but still able to grow flags/bases. Going underground should have a cost: limiting resource production throughout and costing resources upfront, else it provides too much of an advantage. The cost and resource penalty should also scale with base level, to provide some measure of protection to new players and to prevent exploitation by established players. When "underground," a player can gather his forces and resources unseen but cannot interract with any other players. He should still be able to see all players "above ground." Meanwhile, "above ground" players cannot see the underground players' forces until some number of days before he returns to the battlefield. Longer periods underground should result in longer periods of visibility prior to being able to interact with the active "above ground" players. The price of going underground should be significant unless following a defeat and surrender, with price dependent on resources and troops lost (i.e. more losses = cheaper transition to underground). This change would: -disincentivize resource-free surrendering for strategic advantage. -prevent players from permanently removing themselves from the battlefield for only select players/enemies. -still protect new, developing players from established "bully" bases by providing a safe-haven in which to grow. -allow teams of small players to effectively counter established "bully" players by preventing strategic surrendering. Ultimately, this change would likely keep all players more engaged and satisfied. Currently, the game has a tendency to unravel after a war, becoming far less interesting when an enemy disappears by surrending at no cost to his strategic or financial position. And the game then becomes frustrating when your invisible enemy destroys your allies as you are forced to watch, unable to assist. Then the game loses all integrity when the enemy offers you a truce and you are actually tempted to accept, just to see him again, just for the chance of revenge. But of course when you attack, if he is in any way disadvantaged, he need only surrender, and repeat. I feel like this may be the game's greatest hurdle and limitation at the moment, and I look forward to Mr. D's solution. Hopefully this discussion can help guide the change. What do you think?

I've noticed that when my army attacks a large flag, it seems to automatically stop attacking after a certain period of time. Is this period of time 1 hour? Or was this a glitch?

I've learned that if a flag is being attacked and is traded while being attacked, the attack continues even if the player to whom the flag is traded is allied with the attacker. I wonder if the same is true if the receiving player is in a truce or post-war (and pre-truce) with the attacker. Not sure if intentional or bugs. FYI, Mr. D.

To clarify, I'm wondering if an attacker need only be in range of the peripheral structure (e.g. the guard tower) to attack it or if he needs to be in range of the flag. Similarly, if he is in range of the flag, is he also in range of all structures attached to that lvl 100 land (i.e. can he attack a sandbag beyond his guard tower's radius if the lvl 100 flag the sandbag is attached to is within its radius)?

Some questions about combat mechanics with lvl 100+ structures: 1) When a lvl 100+ flag with multiple structures scattered over it is attacked, does an attacking guard tower need to have the specific structure within range or the flag itself? 2) If sandbags and guard towers are scattered over that lvl 100+ flag area, can the attacker select which he attacks first, or must the defensive sandbags be destroyed before the guardtowers? 3) If a lvl 100+ flag has many sandbags, why don't their defensive bonuses stack (i.e. only the most upgraded sandbag determines the troop defensive bonus)?

Excellent points. I hadn't considered the challenge of starting new bases. Balancing that aspect with battles among large armies will be challenging for Mr. D. Perhaps a compromise/solution would be to raise the initial army limit for lvl 1 new bases (maybe 500), while still adding a transfer timer for armies moving hundreds or thousands of miles?

After a war ends by timer or surrender, neither party can see or interact with the other. Does this only end if a truce is agreed upon by both parties? Or does this effect eventually end after a period of time?

Actually, it is more likely he was mobilizing new soldiers while he was being attacked. I am not sure if mid-attack transfers are even possible. That being said, should a 100 personnel mobilization be instantaneous?

URAS recently coordinated a 5 vs 1 assault on a major player in NYC. He survived because he was able to instantly teleport (transfer) his 6500-size army from a Canadian base to his NYC base WHILE being attacked. His large army effectively became a huge, self-repairing wall. Without this capability his 1000 man NYC army would have survived 8-9 rounds of attacks (90 minutes). I would like to propose a timer for army transfers, with increasing time for increasing distances.

This happens whenever I exit My Profile on Android version.

Some questions regarding war mechanics: -Is it possible to attack with only a fraction of your army while leaving the rest to defend? -Are players with bases less than lvl 10 able to attack another player to enter pvp early? -Can an army be divided up to attack multiple locations simultaneously? -Are there timers limiting how quickly troops can be transferred from base to base (i.e. if I eliminate all 300 of an enemy's local troops, can they rapidly transfer another 300 troops from a base hundreds of miles away in minutes?). If there aren't, shouldn't there be? -What are the lvl 1 ranges of missile launchers and nuclear silos in kms? Their descriptions list a cryptic multiple (e.g. "x65").

8Another set of ideas: 1) allied troop paradrops. Self-explanatory. The greater the distance from allied base, the greater the cost. 2) Terror influence: bribe local forces of terror to attack your enemies. 3) Spy satellites. Observe all bases in a designated 50 km radius anywhere in the world, at a cost. Because the world feels too small with our limited fog of war now.

Mines would be fun! Freeze an enemy's GPS for an hour?

Are there any new alliance features coming down the pipe? Currently alliances feel "stuck on," or "in-name only." I'm new to the game and, as will soon become apparent in a court martial post, I shared my game email with some friends in an attempt to really feel like I was in an alliance. I have since changed my password to protect the game's integrity, but I would love to see more alliance features such as: 1) sharing troops to protect allies 2) sharing resources with alliance members regardless of their proximity/location but at a much reduced percentage (maybe 5% of what is gathered?) 3) integrated hierarchy system (i.e. promoting Tom to General, demoting Tim for inactivity) 4) resource collection bonuses if your territory is adjacent to/touching an ally's. 5) coordinated attacks (i.e. an agreement with an ally to attack a single target with your combined troops) Would love to hear other ideas, and I doubt this is the first time you all are hearing some of these.