StarGateWars Forums

DUDEY wrote:

AncientAnubis wrote:I wish I knew how rubbish the game was for 75 mill+.

Oh yes, its terrible.

Send me UU's so i will save u from that terrible pain when u are over 75mill army size

Aufbiks wrote:

DUDEY wrote:

AncientAnubis wrote:I wish I knew how rubbish the game was for 75 mill+.

Oh yes, its terrible.

Send me UU's so i will save u from that terrible pain when u are over 75mill army size

Really, you just killed that joke!

well owk ,

I do think the CAP can be moved , but their still needs to be an negative affect between big attacking small more loses for the big than the small would be a simple solution.

man if i were bigger then 75mil

oh man, i would mass more then 100 poeple, minimun requirments

1.5 mil defenders

i would probably lose 20mil uu

but i wouldnt mind

50mil uu is a lot

dont care what anyone says

the real chosen one wrote:man if i were bigger then 75mil

oh man, i would mass more then 100 poeple, minimun requirments

1.5 mil defenders

i would probably lose 20mil uu

but i wouldnt mind

50mil uu is a lot

dont care what anyone says

so you'd make more than 100 enemies hounding for a piece of your hide. genius!

when ppl say cap they mean choke point like the 50million cant recieve any more UUs and the 75million limit for raiding type cap

or are we talking about the roof limit where there is no way to get any higher than a certain point

Neptune wrote:

the real chosen one wrote:man if i were bigger then 75mil

oh man, i would mass more then 100 poeple, minimun requirments

1.5 mil defenders

i would probably lose 20mil uu

but i wouldnt mind

50mil uu is a lot

dont care what anyone says

so you'd make more than 100 enemies hounding for a piece of your hide. genius!

hopefully they wont hold a grudge

but if i were that big, i wouldnt mind a massing

u do people call it massing?

Im lost as to why the limit excists at that number. Depending on the length of the war/fight, and the number of people, an army size of 30 mil is plenty enough, maybe even less would do. Lets face it, anyone could become number 1 above STI (except maybe for the naq cost for a MS that is number 1), with probably less than 15 mil UU. 5 mil for spies, 5 mil each for attack and defence supers. So really, all the other 130 million men STI has are just miners, earning him 500 bil income or more a day.

In reality, if the cap is supposed to be giving smaller players a chance to catch up, the caps should be at around 30 mil, or less, and should be far more brutal than they are now. The plague is a joke to STI, who looses 10% of his UP to it, which really is nothing. This game in some ways is exponential growth, in other ways inverse exponential (it gets harder to grow later), and in some ways linear. So a cap that tries to curb exponential growth, simply will not work if its not a purely exponential game..

The idea that the game becomes rubbish when your over 75 is probably simply because of your size. After about 30-50 mil army size, there is no-one you cannot mass, even if your being sat on. After 30-50 mil, there really is no difference between 60 mil and 900 mil (the rough size of DD).

thelen wrote:Im lost as to why the limit excists at that number. Depending on the length of the war/fight, and the number of people, an army size of 30 mil is plenty enough, maybe even less would do. Lets face it, anyone could become number 1 above STI (except maybe for the naq cost for a MS that is number 1), with probably less than 15 mil UU. 5 mil for spies, 5 mil each for attack and defence supers. So really, all the other 130 million men STI has are just miners, earning him 500 bil income or more a day.

In reality, if the cap is supposed to be giving smaller players a chance to catch up, the caps should be at around 30 mil, or less, and should be far more brutal than they are now. The plague is a joke to STI, who looses 10% of his UP to it, which really is nothing. This game in some ways is exponential growth, in other ways inverse exponential (it gets harder to grow later), and in some ways linear. So a cap that tries to curb exponential growth, simply will not work if its not a purely exponential game..

The idea that the game becomes rubbish when your over 75 is probably simply because of your size. After about 30-50 mil army size, there is no-one you cannot mass, even if your being sat on. After 30-50 mil, there really is no difference between 60 mil and 900 mil (the rough size of DD).

None is 900m army size

Ancient God Anubis wrote:

thelen wrote:Im lost as to why the limit excists at that number. Depending on the length of the war/fight, and the number of people, an army size of 30 mil is plenty enough, maybe even less would do. Lets face it, anyone could become number 1 above STI (except maybe for the naq cost for a MS that is number 1), with probably less than 15 mil UU. 5 mil for spies, 5 mil each for attack and defence supers. So really, all the other 130 million men STI has are just miners, earning him 500 bil income or more a day.

In reality, if the cap is supposed to be giving smaller players a chance to catch up, the caps should be at around 30 mil, or less, and should be far more brutal than they are now. The plague is a joke to STI, who looses 10% of his UP to it, which really is nothing. This game in some ways is exponential growth, in other ways inverse exponential (it gets harder to grow later), and in some ways linear. So a cap that tries to curb exponential growth, simply will not work if its not a purely exponential game..

The idea that the game becomes rubbish when your over 75 is probably simply because of your size. After about 30-50 mil army size, there is no-one you cannot mass, even if your being sat on. After 30-50 mil, there really is no difference between 60 mil and 900 mil (the rough size of DD).

None is 900m army size

Dude....he meant the whole DD

I think you will find that there is a big difference between 30 and 50m+ armies.

why not change the cap a bit ?
for example once you reach 75mil uu you can not buy any more mercs, that way ppl have to invest their UU's more then mercs to go massing smaller ppl so their invest is much higher to do so

Hells__Angel wrote:I think you will find that there is a big difference between 30 and 50m+ armies.

Oh sure, there is a difference between those, i was saying there wasn't a difference between 60 and 900 I would say in a 1v1 fight, there is no difference between 30 and 50, however.... Even 10 and 50 mil, it will come down to who doesn't want to keep fighting.

10 mil is plenty large enough to take on probably anyone in the game. I mean, a 10m army can mass STI, if he had enough turns and naq for repairs and a kickass MS. The point was, anything past around 30m is simply added income without having to work for it (ie attacking/raiding), there is really no added 'military' capability.

thelen wrote:

Hells__Angel wrote:I think you will find that there is a big difference between 30 and 50m+ armies.

Oh sure, there is a difference between those, i was saying there wasn't a difference between 60 and 900 I would say in a 1v1 fight, there is no difference between 30 and 50, however.... Even 10 and 50 mil, it will come down to who doesn't want to keep fighting.

10 mil is plenty large enough to take on probably anyone in the game. I mean, a 10m army can mass STI, if he had enough turns and naq for repairs and a kickass MS. The point was, anything past around 30m is simply added income without having to work for it (ie attacking/raiding), there is really no added 'military' capability.

I would still argue that there is a MASSIVE difference between 60m and 900m.

thelen wrote:

Hells__Angel wrote:
10 mil is plenty large enough to take on probably anyone in the game. I mean, a 10m army can mass STI, if he had enough turns and naq for repairs and a kickass MS. The point was, anything past around 30m is simply added income without having to work for it (ie attacking/raiding), there is really no added 'military' capability.

This is a valid point, and a good one. I have 14 mill in my military plus 6 mill more mercs and yes I could mass STI with those men.

But the difference in army sizes comes in during long term warfare. The larger army size can rebuild quicker and will spend less resources doing so. The smaller army size will farm more which will cost AT and repair naq plus unit losses.

During a full on war the smaller will actually have an advantage at first as he can farm the larger for more income. But in the long run he will fall first as the larger will eventually be able to build a def the smaller can no longer break. It would take a conciderable amount of time for the full sinerio to play out and a battle between a 30 and a 50 mill army size could go either way if the smaller hits first and can do a complete massing with the death of all defenders and spies as it is possible to have had 10+ mill in those areas.

Now a 30 mill versus a 100 mill will end much more quickly as the resources avalible to a 100 mill army are so much higher and the sale of say 10 mill UU could completely rebuild the military of the 100 mill man stronger then it was before.

JMO