95% of the fights are DualGap.
95% of the tactics on this map: the front is not important, the fleet is not important, the air is so-so + the work of a sniper, the most important thing is to build a big cannon. Whoever built it first usually won. that's all. Repeat 100 times the same thing.

Let's see what the game is about and what it looks like.

For example StarCraft. Great game for one player. Beautiful units. Beautiful mops. All perfectly. Let's go to multiplayer. What do you see? The one who clicks the fastest wins, others have nothing to do there. You can search AlphaStar. ))) Someone likes it, yes. But most casual players will just walk away. Better to fry the steak and pour yourself some good port.

And what is there?

The game is supposed to be about battles of large armies, etc. Beautiful battles of hundreds of units. Lots of tanks.

Let's go to the multi player. What will the new player see there.

The most popular map is DualGap. And etc
What needs to be done there?

Front - 40 minutes just build a bunker and dump resources on the big cannon. You can make a teleport. Better to fry the steak.

Air - look on the Internet how to make a bomber in 9 minutes, build a smd, build fighters, throw off resources on a big cannon. You can make a teleport. Better to fry the steak.

Fleet. The same as the previous two.

Economy. Look at the internet. Build a large cannon in 30 minutes.
Repeat 3 times a day.

Total. The most important thing is to build a cannon. Victory depends on this. Do the same every time, like an automaton. For 30 minutes we sadly build the cannon, the rest of the time we defend it and wait for it to destroy everything. You can also teleport or send bombers. It's all.

Seton Map.

Front. It's not at all clear why. Just build a bunker and help the fleet. Dump the mass of aircraft.

Fleet. Drive away the enemy fleet from resources, transfer a lot of aviation.

Air. Build fighters. And a big cannon, a paragon, a lot of smd, a lot of satellites.

Eventually. The most important thing is to build a large cannon or paragon. It's all. This is the goal.

Peanut type maps.

We butt with units for 20 minutes. You can kill anyone with karsars. Then we build a bunker. And everything is the same. We are trying to kill the commanders with bombers, we are building artillery, teleporter.

Let's summarize.

The essence of the game is waiting for 30 minutes of artillery construction, protection from snipers. That's all.
Everything else, i.e. The tanks are just for show. There is no sense in making them. Only at the very beginning to get more resources from the map.

Bothers you after a couple of months. Therefore, online 1 400. How people can play this 3 times a night, I do not understand.

40 minutes to do something to make sure that the opponents built the Moor 2 minutes earlier. )))))) This is bad fun.
Let's do the construction of the Mavor in 10 minutes. That would not wait 40.))) Anyway, it makes no sense to do anything other than this.

If there are instructions on how to win, like building a cannon in 30 minutes. Or for 9 bomber. And this gives a huge chance of winning. This is a bad game.

In my opinion, it is better to drink Portuguese port and fry a steak.

From the positive. The 2x2 mode has appeared. This is much better. But again it all ends with a big cannon, teleports, and nuclear missiles and bombers.

Maybe something needs to be changed?

Can it do exactly the battles of armies?

I am sure that by downloading the game in a year, I will see everything the same. Building a large cannon in 30 minutes. Boring.

I think this post is useless and nothing will change. ))))

you need to add speed to amphibious tanks. to be able to fight the fleet.

This is a very handy feature.
But there is a question. Why is an assisting order used when appointing a team of engineers?
As shown in the picture.
The disadvantage of this is that after the work has been done, the assist is not removed. All engineers remain attached to one. This is not very convenient.

The game, on the other hand, allows you to build buildings by a group of engineers without an assist order.
Maybe there is an opportunity to change this. Or add an option to the settings.

@ftxcommando that's what you think.
you own the game, then you have the right to do as you like. I have no complaints. you can do as you want.

it's stupid to insist.

However, I am not ready to donate money for support either. and if funds are needed tomorrow to extend the life of the project, then there will be no money.
you have a small audience because of this approach. like a sacred game. which cannot be changed at all. although it's just a game.

one problem is if your ally has lost the air, then nothing can be done. Ground AA units are too weak against avassa or beetle. and there is a lot of this in the game.

Hi.

A handy feature has been added recently. Select and add the nearest free engineer to the group. This is an awesome feature.

But there is a significant drawback.
The function adds an engineer of any level to the group. It is very uncomfortable.
I propose to change the work of the panel of engineers.

If you click on an engineer of the first level, then the nearest engineers of the first level are added to the group.
If T2, then T3.
etc.

I think it won't be very difficult.
This will be an awesome feature. Will greatly simplify construction management.

@sylph_ no . single player it is company.

@ftxcommando you are not interested in any proposals other than your own.
It’s not clear then why these discussions are needed at all. other players have already written to you about this.

I'm sure that if I go into the game in five years, nothing will change.
I think you'll like it.
but others get bored.

There are 7 billion people living on earth, and how many do you have? this is a rhetorical question.

I think the discussion can end. bye

if you don’t want to change anything, then why these questions like proposals, discussions of balance, why are players leaving us?

let everything remain as it is. as you personally want. it's your right.

@ftxcommando are you alone in the game?

@sylph_ The problem with what you wrote is the transfer of balance from single player to multiplayer. If you do this, then you will get exactly what you wrote.

for example, a T2 fighter cannot shoot down a T3 bomber. If you didn't have time to build a fighter, then you lost.
or your ally has lost the air, you cannot do anything against Avasa or the king.
or your enemy beat the Moor in 30 minutes, you in 35. Most likely you will lose. and you can’t do anything else either. wasted time.

@ftxcommando that's why your audience isn't growing. That's your business. good bye.

@conny_action because there are more of them.
and it is this approach that gives most people pleasure.

@blackyps I suggested making two sets. for different players. In my proposal, labor costs are minimal. I understand it.

And so the game will remain a game of nerds. it's a pity.
although nothing prevents you from doing an experiment.
except for the desire and fear that now no one will play with nerds if there is an alternative)))

@thomashiatt not necessary. I understand that labor costs are important. so my suggestions are to minimize them.

@blackyps the game hasn't changed in any way.