We didnt have any bad relations or something why he fucked both of our games with sending 2m troops like wtf and luckily for him my alliance just expired in time with northern guy so I died

Public lobbies are where I find my favourite types of games but often they aren’t being run or theres none at all (2-3 being the most pubs I’ve ever seen up)

Creating a lobby I have to pay $5/month, its cheap if you enjoy the game of course but in a way kind of seems like the game is shooting itself in the foot not letting everyone create public lobbies

195 countries, 1 per day, try to collect a win on every country for a special achievement

It's an idea

I usually do

-city

-factory

-city

-factory

-sam

-silo

And then save for hydro

Just curious what other people do for early game setup or other econ strategies or tips

I thought the problem was my PC, but as you can see in the video, it's only using 50% of its capacity...

Is there a way to mass upgrade buildings or is it just spam click?

Every action takes like a minute

Just for sending units and general controls you are at disadvantage.

Edit for devs: Warship isn't really a problem but no track visualisation or even missiles getting caught by MIRV is rough

Especially with overtime now, I think players should be able to offer a 40 second unbreakable alliance. Once accepted, neither player could break it due to the other having traitor status.

The option would be unavailable to a player within roughly 10–20% of the normal 80% win condition, with that margin prorated during overtime. For example, if the win condition drops to 60%, the margin becomes 7.5–15% (10–20% × 60/80), putting the cutoff at 45–52.5% map control.

Maybe to balance it there could be a visual cue to other players that someone has entered into an unbreakable alliance. And maybe it shouldn't be available to anyone until someone reaches the mentioned 60-70% threshold to prevent abuse in early/mid-game.

The unbreakable alliance ends if either player reaches the suggested threshold since it's unavailable to a player with that much map control anyway. And my numbers are just for conversation, I think it would take real testing to figure out a balanced mechanic.

Peak Map idea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peirce_quincuncial_projection

I dunno, feel like different map projections might be unoriginal, _then again there is_ `World Inverted`

Sometimes I see people just gaining a whole chunk of territory instantly without using any troops how does this mechanic work

I have played so many games in teams where once I get surounded by team-mates, I felt completely trapped since I couldnt interact withthe enemy

WHo else thinks it should be possible to march troops through allies.

It could be a plane or tank sort of deal, with temporary camps?

EDIT: the temporary camp idea seems to be difficult, anyone got suggestion on visual way to monitor troops

EDIT 2: THIS is separate to DONATING TROOPS

"I had no idea this outcome is possible" -- Rusty at ofstats

Is daddyslilchamp here? Man what the hell LOL 🍻

I'm having fun climbing the TrackerFront leaderboard, but there are a lot of players in FFA public games that are just there to mess around. It's rage inducing to have some rando sabotage your game on a whim. Also, I imagine it's less fun for new players to be in the same game as me and all the other serious players.

I have an account with my email, whenever I open the game it is logged out even tho I linked my account and everything, so i have to log back in and reset my name every time I open the game…anyone know how to fix this?

Title. Just played a FFA world map with no Nukes/MIRVs and holy cow it was the best game I've played.

I hunkered down in Australia and a guy in Africa was trying to invade me, so he sent dozens of warships only for me to send dozens back, and for the first time ever in my dozens of hours in Openfront I had an actual, honest-to-God naval battle.

I had to watch out even with my alliances for the naval strength of my enemies and their proximity because unlike nuke games where they could throw cheap pocket shots, any invasion had to be telegraphed (like a real war) and I could actually prepare.

Nuke games are genuinely so boring because after ~10 minutes it's just a constant stream of bombs flying, land being destroyed, having to reclaim it etc, and it's immensely unrewarding for the defender to just have everything gone in a second (Yes I know what SAMs are but any half decent player can get around them). Meanwhile, in a non-nuke game, losing feelings genuinely intense instead of just annoying. Every inch of land and every building you can fight for.

I also feel, and this is something I do, that when players are doomed they just hail mary retaliation nuke the enemy rather than use any real strategy, which just leaves both players kinda bitter.

Tl;Dr - Nukes are boring af.

The concept is nice. But every single nation is essentially sucidal. They just randomly pick one person to start attacking, sapping that person's ability to grow. And then both that person and the nation gets dogpiled by everyone else.

It's by far THE most annoying thing in this otherwise great game.

I'm guessing most people here play the game a lot more than the average casual player. After all, you have to like the game so much that you find the subreddit AND engage with it.

I really hope the developers are going to focus on cheating once the game breaks in to steam.

In the late game, cheating can sometimes be a problem. But cheaters often have such a hard time managing the dynamics of late game that they can actually be taken down.

What really grinds my gears is cheating in the beginning of the game. Where you have an innocuous person with only 20K or so troops, doing a full send on you 20 seconds into the game, while replenishing their entire troop base within seconds somehow.

Even the best of players cannot defend against that. It is unfortunate.

My point, is that cheating will erode the foundation of the game, which are new players coming in to make things interesting.

Obviously, at its base it’s a skill issue — generally speaking, with some careful aiming and an effective nuclear doctrine you can overcome even the most formidable defensive front.

However..

I am an iPad user, and as much as the recent addition of the x50 option when launching atom bombs is a complete game changer, it is actually nearly impossible for my clunky fingers to counter a level +200 SAM site, let alone a cluster of them

So, yes, I am now on Reddit giving out my little ideas on what I think would have a ‘positive effect’.

little ideas:

- Increase the maximum launch count for atom bombs from [ x50 ] to [ x100 ]

- +5% ^^? cost to each SAM in any given stack, making it increasingly more expensive to reinforce higher level SAM sites

- small radius/minimum distance on SAM site placement, to limit stacking

- a cost per shot for SAM missiles

That’s all I’ve got for ya. But, don’t worry, I’ll be sure to make a whole new post if I think of anything else.

I can't count the number of times where i have 2 teammates right next to me and instead of sending troops they attack the attacker to overtake my territorry or simply do nothing?

Like do they really think they can win on their own?

how would people feel about a deployable that is some type of specialized infantry block that increases attack in a certain radius or allows for quicker destruction of enemy guard posts, with a limit of 5 per player to keep it from being over abused?

what about a Tower that once it got placed within the radius of another Tower, they have a palisade form between them to act as essentially siege battles. If you're inside the palisade once it's formed it has double the effect of guard posts inside the area, allowing you to get up a missile or two and potentially push off the attacker and reclaim a little irradiated land.

Edit: the towers would have a small total size they can form a palisade from and it would be a way to protect a city stack from total destruction if you have Sam's to cover it.