Technically, this tactic could have been used by someone even before the change just by waiting until 3:30am every night so enemies wouldn't see the new objects. The invisibility change just levels the playing field so anyone could use the tactic.

However, I do see your point. The ability to hop down a coast (or even across land) is a bit lame, and it makes the game less strategic.

When I discovered the ability to move far across land by building land bases and construction trucks over and over, I changed the game so that new trucks cannot build bases. Perhaps what I should also do is set the game so that new bases cannot build trucks (unless the base is also on your capital). This would prevent the new leapfrog exploit created by the invisibility change.

I'd certainly be willing to revert the invisibility change if I felt it was hurting gameplay. However, I'd much prefer to try to fix it instead so the game can remain fair to all players regardless of when they log in. If anyone has suggestions on improvements, I'm open to new ideas.

New bases can't build CTs for one turn would be the right fix for this I guess.

This "problem" also exists for sea ports. Since new trucks can still make sea ports you can "leap-frog" without making a base via transports on your own area. I've been able to move a transport about 75 squares a turn using this. Not sure I would call it an exploit tho.

I'm just gonna put in my 2c. The invisibility thing sucks. I would rather someone take advantage of time then not be able to see them. It just seems a weird solution to the problem. Just the thought of invisible unit makes me uncomfortable as i (on cerato) have enough trouble finding the visible enemy units much less the ones that are invisible.

The thing with time it does favor those who can wait to an extent but not offensive vs defensive. The in visibility is very obviously tilting the game in the offensive favor.

Actually on the note of the time thing I have fought people who have used that to their advantage and it isn't really that big of a deal.

how about you let me have stealth tanks. no one else.

- The new object invisibility functionality may soon be reversed, depending on user feedback.

- Due to the likeliness of being placed near a large country, Einio has been switched to a user-selectable spawn.

- User-selectable spawn maps now require the user to select a starting location within 100 sectors of a single existing country instead of two existing countries.

Perhaps you could implement a rule that makes all units invisible unless another player has a unit within 20 (or whatever number of) tiles and/or is within range of a radar station. Or create surface radars.

On a related note...I see your reasoning for implementing the new unit invisibility feature because some players are able to take advantage of logging in right before the cycle ends...but this doesn't really bother me. I liked the new feature because it is similar to a fog of war that you will find in many strategy games, I personally don't like knowing (or my enemy knowing) where all the units are at all times.

I think there has to be a better solution to the log on time issue, but I don't know what it is. I also don't think we should over estimate the size of the problem. I have not seen a lot of people complaining about it, and when I have been on the disadvantaged side of a late move, I simply shrugged it off and said no big deal, he got me there. Whatever the advantage was to making your moves later in the day, that advantage was merely tactical and was not a game changer. It might help you for a day, but would not change the tide. This is a bigger change.

Maybe visibility within a certain range of units or of occupied territory (perhaps including allied units and territory) is a good basis to go on. It can operate like the radar currently operates. Everything beyond that range would be invisible. Right now I can scan the whole globe like a god, pick out a transport or base, and nail it with missles, without any apparent intelligence. (Just ask my fellow players!) It would certainly change game play, but I am not sure it would get around the who moves first problem, which might just be inherent in any turn based game and irreconcilable. It would also dramatically limit the effectiveness of air power from where it is now. Maybe to maintain that you would have to create a spy or spotter unit that does not occupy territory and is only visible within a small number of squares...

We are getting into the deep woods here...

To be honest, I always thought the "Wait 'til 3:30AM" strategy was a little over-hyped anyway. Sure it gave your newly created units an advantage, but at the same time setting moves earlier in the day allowed you to get that "First strike" in.

I think I really like the idea of having all units invisible unless they're within a certain range of your or an allies units or bases. Perhaps the sight range could be varied by having a Air base, sea base, or radar station on a sector. You could leave bases invisible the turn they're created(unless they're withing your sight radius, then visible the next cycle(since bases are immobile and would eventually be found by intelligence. This way far away units would be invisible but you would still have some intelligence of the enemies movements based on sector color. If you wanted to get creative you could even make units that didn't move the last cycle visible.

Say ground units have a sight radius of 2x their maximum attack distance(or maybe some constant)
Land bases and sea bases have a sight radius of 40-50
Airbase or Sea base+radar have a sight range of 60-75

I guess this would make Global Triumph a lot like a battle simulator, I don't know if that's considered good or bad. This could create an importance for infrastructure/checkpoints or even patrols.

I do think that some kind of distance invisibility should go into effect though. I mean, look at Google earth, ever try to find a boat at sea? Or your car if it's not in your drive-way?

Another thing I thought of with this whole issue is, has the idea of having a small test map or a few small test maps ever come up? Maybe just a geometrical(no detail), uniform map that these new game play elements could be quickly tested on before going server wide? This would even allow for different combination to be tried out at the same time. Maybe have one map testing new unit invisibility while having another trying out immobile new units(just an example). That way people could play test these concepts and give informed feedback rather than reading an idea and making a decision based on how they imagine it to work?

This does not make sense... turn order is random (IMHO the real problem).

I am personally on the receiving end of the new invisible units. It is an impossibility to stop the attacker. I targeted every visible unit and base with more then enough missiles and jets to destroy them. Wake up this morning and my strikes were a success. Except that he went first and built a whole lot more units and bases. So now I have spent a ton of money and have gotten nothing in return. So unless I get lucky and randomly go first (which I have not for 5 days) he wins.

The invisible units and the random execution make this tactic a one-way game changer. In other games that use fog of war it is not all inclusive. You have a visible range. And that range usually exceeds the attack ability of the unit you are facing.

I question for Johnny. Do the new invisible units still fire on over flying air units? If they do, then that in and of itself makes them an unfair advantage.

This does not make any sense. Everyone is complaining about not liking the invisibility option, but at the same time saying they did not mind people moving after they did.

Since it is exactly the same situation when people move after others in the non-invisibility, I don't see how you can not mind the problems with people moving after you do. Besides if invisibility is so bad how long is it before some programmer creates a program that will submit your turns at the last minute and give the person with the program the advantage that everyone is saying they don't like but taking it away from everyone else.

The real problem is (IMHO) random turn order. Johnny does not show us who went first -- but it is my guess that most of the problems are because the turn first problem (50% chance that any given op will go before you) -- if we knew the turn order I bet we would see how big a problem this is -- every time I've gotten hosed on the invisibility issue it is because I go 2nd. I've gone second about 3 turns in a row against one op. in a game and now have basically knocked out of the running in that game. The turn order is the real problem here. You can't make a good strategy if 50% of them time it will be the wrong one. In close in combat there is a better strategy for going first and a better one for going second. No matter the one you pick there is a 50% chance you get hosed. Every turn. For a strategy game that is way to much luck.

Invisibility issue aside, I would like to see an attack order list included in the future.

Which would be the same issue if he created those units after you went to sleep anyway. I've fought a war where I stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to create new units, only to have those new units destroyed because my opponent stayed up later. With the new system, it may be tough for you to stop your opponent, but it is equally difficult for your opponent to stop you (especially if you end up on the wrong side of the battle order).

- To prevent "hopping," new land bases can no longer create construction trucks until a Daily Cycle has passed (except on a sector that is also a capital).

that i support. i sent you an e-mail for a picture resize and im waiting since last night.

Are you going to do the same with new sea bases?

As a person using a perfectly logical and technically legal version of hopping I will tell you this doesn't stop my method. I only admit this as my method is fair as they aren't new units that hop so they remain visible and are created at 3:55am.

Johnny (Imho) I thinkg your reaching to solve a problem the exists in every major MMO game out there. People will find loop holes. If you make units invisible, if you make a set time for daily cycle, if you make it so you can "hop". People will find a way to make it work for them, "legal" or not.

So basically the question/ the point i am trying to make. At this point you have a damn good game but trying to please everybody all the time you will loose "your" game. So make it the way you want it and we will have to live with it and adapt to it but no matter what you do there will still be one way or another to take advantage of the rules.

Thanks For the Great Game Johnny.

What about the middle ground? Something like this:

Make it so invisibility is everywhere, at all times. The only times an enemy unit becomes visible are as followed:
1) Any of your unit (or allied unit?) is near proximity to an enemy unit (maybe 2x, 3x the distance of their movement distance)
2) A fourth land unit. It cannot attack but has decent armor. It either has a massive land radar with few movement points or a small-decent sized radar with jeep-movement distance. Its sole purpose is to reveal enemy units in a good distance and would help jets/missiles attack. (Something similar can also be done for a sea unit)
3) A fourth air unit. It is an one-time use and is very similar to Starcraft's Terran's Comsat Ability where the "fog of war" is removed briefly in a specific area. (In this case, one full Daily Cycle) Think of it as a non-damaging missile that reveals every unit within its radius. Maybe 5-10 cells radius, depending on cost and range it can travel.

Also, if new land bases can't create construction trucks, then it should apply to every unit. Bases of all types cannot create units on the first day they were built. (Though transferring air units between an existing air base to a new air base should remain allowed)

i wasn't using it all the time, but i was using it occasionally. it was cheating, kinda, but i can live with the new revision.

+1. That said, adding a pseudo-FOW like this would drastically change gameplay, in a direction that may not be wanted...

that's why this is the beta and he's not charging people for it. give it a little while to get used to. if it's not working out, he can roll it back. i'm sure the complaints aren't falling on deaf ears, since johnny has been real good about implementing changes that improve the game in the past. this is one of the things that might be changed further or stripped out all together.

as far as my personal experience with it, i have none. i haven't been fighting anyone in land battles recently, so i can't give criticism to this. it seems like a sound decision, and it's something that people have been asking for for some time. i can see where there could be problems.

but like i said before. the game is in beta and you aren't paying a single dime yet.

Can you please send me a note and explain the sea base hopping? I'm not sure I see an exploit with them.

I still have to make additional adjustments to the invisibility. They should definitely be visible by radar stations, and perhaps also if they're within N number of one of your sectors.

Definitely not be wanted. I've always wanted the game to have the feel of being a general directing a battle on a huge map, not a "mission"-oriented action game. I think FOW is too much of the latter.

Exactly. Thanks for making the case!

if you build a construction truck, currently, it can immediately build other land structures (sea base, air base, defenses).

i'll out myself and say that i've done this in the past, so here's the rundown:

1. contruck builds a sea base
2. seabase builds a transport
3. move contruck one square into the transport
4. move the transport ten squares, situating it next to land that jeeps have already taken
5. move the contruck ojnto your land and build a sea base
6. sell the transport
7. build a fresh transport
8. move the contruck into the new transport and move it another ten squares
9. repeat this process until your contruck is out of moves


if you disallow contrucks from building any structures on their first turn, people will just wait that extra turn and still perform these actions.

the only real way to fix this would probably be to kill a sea base's ability to make a transport the same turn that it is built.


or people that are up against this behaviour could spend a couple grand on some missiles and stop whining.

Wow, that's a seriously expensive exploit. Besides... if you have enough land area to exploit like that... do you really need to suddenly fill it with sea bases?

I sent him a note as he asked... my guess is Johnny did not want this posted here.

You can do this twice (CT have 4 moves), with the attack of the transport this gives you an effective movement of around 42.

Take a look at the Cerato (and Borogov?) maps, this is cheap with the amount of land you have on Cerato.

Also, before the update of not building CTs on the same turn you built a base you could do it twice with a CT from last turn giving you an effect movement in the 80s... Good times.

Johnny.

The easiest and simplest method i have for hoping takes advantage of your units can move off transports in the same cycle.

Steps
move existing transport and CT to shore
Set a 5-7 square path that circles back to the transport.

Cycle

Build base and seaport

move transport
attack transport back to coast
attack CT

Cycle repeat.

Now this although considered hopping seems a perfectly logical and legal use of units.

For example see my current coastal expansion on Cerato.

That's definitely legitimate! That's just good strategy.

I think I would consider the shore hopping noted above as a flaw, though. I may end up having to block new sea bases from building transports, but I want to see if I can come up with a better fix before I do that.

Wait a minute, can't this be pushed infinitely?

Let see if my breakdown makes any sense. Ahem...

1) Make a con truck where there's a land base and sea base.
2) Make a transport, load con truck on transport.
3) Move transport X amount of sectors to another claimed land.
4) Get con truck off the transport.
5) build a sea base, sell transport, buy a new transport.
6) load up con truck, sell sea base, move transport another X amount of sectors.
7) get con truck off the transport.
THIS IS THE BIG THING!
8) build a land base and sea base. SELL BOTH TRANSPORT AND CON TRUCK. Buy another con truck/transport.
9) Repeat Step 1-8

Ta-da, now you have a transport/truck with an infinite amount of movement as long you already have the land claimed wherever you go.

I can't imagine why this "infinite" cycle cannot be done right now, unless a very simple solution is done which is preventing new bases from making ANY units on first day. This would destroy any variety of "hopping."

This kind of ability is very exploiting. and borders on cheating, IMHO.

Edit: Actually, on second thought, I don't care if people do this. All this senseless money wasting is simply rectified by establishing a land base/sea base at your borders, where trying to go any further would be impossible (since you haven't claimed land to do the infinite cycle)

Edit 2: what dman56 just said above is something I do too. I don't consider that "hopping" at all. maybe "skipping"? :P

That's one place your plan falls apart is (before recent updates) yes you cold have built a new CT but the CT would have to wait a cycle to actually build a new base.

Which as i typed that i realized the new "fix" now means its 2 cycles between and new base and another base.

Build base, cycle, build /move CT, cycle then build new base.

point there is don't accidentally sell you CT as it will cost you days.

I didn't realize a con truck cannot make bases on its first day. I'll check that on Sandbox.

Also, one of the reasons why I'm pushing for all units to be unable to be produced instead of just con trucks (and maybe transports) is because when you realistically think about it, a big, fat, powerful tank as complicated as its machinery is can be created instantly, as opposed to a construction truck which in no way is any more complicated to make than a tank... building materials are simple enough to load up on some armored truck and send it off.

Maybe infantry could be created instantly, while all other units cannot until next day? I don't know, I just don't like the idea of con trucks alone being unable to be created on first-day just because they are central to this hopping business.

Edit: (Yeah i know, I love editing.) I checked it out on Sandbox. you're correct after all, new trucks can't make bases. I take back everything I said relating to the infinite cycle. Thanks for correcting me!

It is legitimate, I've used it myself.

The problem is created with new unit invisibility.

Build Construction truck, build a transport.

load construction truck on to transport.

Set move and attack for transport so it finishes it's attack adjacent to the coast.

Set landing attack for construction truck.

Remember these units are currently invisible.

(end cycle)
(next cycle)

Build Land Base and Sea Base with Construction truck from day before.

Sell Construction Truck and Transport that got it there.

Build new Transport and Construction truck and load Construction truck onto Transport.

Set move and attack for Transport to end adjacent to coastline.

Set landing attack for Construction truck.

Remember these units are invisible.

(end cycle)
(repeat previous cycle indefinitely)

As you can see you could move a construction truck around an enemy's entire coast without it ever being visible, not even if you wait to get on at 3:30AM.

Well there would be something visible -- when you land, even if you sell the base you make there would still be a now neutral square.

This wouldn't work now because a new base can't build a new truck.

I have a new issue with invisible units. They shoot at over-passing air attacks. So I plan an airstrike to take out a base. I send more than enough missiles to destroy it. I even go first. But the base I intend to attack has built two lines of invisible units. These weaken each missile enough that the base is not destroyed. Then his moves are executed. It is impossible to defeat an attacker under these circumstances. If you cannot destroy his bases, you cannot stop his advance.

The main reason I am opposed to this change is that it comes in the middle of developed maps. The defensive strategy that I was using could not have taken this type of offense into consideration. In a fresh map (like Einio) I can alter my strategy to counter this new rule.

As it is now, I do not even feel like trying on Cerato. I am out sized 5 - 1. Since air strikes can no longer halt any expansion, it becomes a ground war. And that is a pure resource war. Which I will lose.

Yes I know, this was just recounting the hopping issue before that update was added.

Well yeah, you can see the land they took, but the base they built and all of the units that were built and are now most likely invading your are invisible for another round.

As Johnny said, this is now no longer possible since you cannot build construction trucks the same day as the base is built.

Ye is does leave something visible, but against good players, landing on your coast is over half the battle. Using this method they could have landed on your coast everyday at 20 sector increments in complete safety.

Yet another unforeseen and unintended consequence, and this one really bothers me. The only fix would be that new units can't fire over passing units, which wouldn't even make sense.

I think the invisibility update has skewed the game too far away from strategy. I'm going to roll the update back.

Any future major upgrades (including attempts to eliminate time advantages) are going to be done on a separate, limited-access development map.

- The invisibility update has been reversed. New units are visible immediately.

thank god for beta testing. it was a good idea in theory, but i'm glad that it was discovered how skewed this update made things. sorry about your loss, hanibel. want me to nuke someone for you?

edit: after locating you on the map, it appears that you are a) too far away for me to nuke someone for you and b) probably going to request that i nuke one of my allies.

good luck.

I took over a capital and I was able to make a base but the base was not able to make a CT. From the update I figured this was a bug -- but maybe it is by design?

new bases can't make a contruck.

He's asking specifically about capital-controlled bases. Johnny said only bases on capitals can create trucks right away. From the sound of it, only your own capital is affected by this exception, not any capitals you might have taken control of.

Hey Johnny this my have been mentioned but...

I have a feature request that you can cancel air attacks by clicking on the missile/plane square/unit that appears on the map instead of having to cancel it at the airbase.


Thanks,

Dman

yeah, i think it's just your own capitol.

- Fulgur has been relaunched with a new spawn method (without distance requirements). Please rejoin to reserve your space.