> *Originally posted by **[gamexstudio](/forums/1013247/topics/1689189?page=1#13038491)**:* > Unfortunately we have to take in mind that a lot of new players might not need/want all this extra data as it might confuse them. But we do want to add this as a setting (along with many other settings) - we're in the middle of a settigns rework, which when done will enable us to add a ton of new additional settings like this easily. cool ! =))

Can we see what the boss type is (land, sea, air) in the little icon before going to battle against him. Maybe a smaller icon right down next to it.

I'm trying to save up gold, but each time I deploy troops I accidentally press the option that spends 500 gold. It's seriously annoying. I just wish that maybe the army contractors wouldn't take the bribe so easily haha. Or maybe put the button somewhere else, like next to the legend button so that I would click it on accident less.

@thomas or simply if there was a confirmation pop-up that could be put ! (and be disabled for those who regularly use the bribe option :-) I have a SUGGESTION for the clan wars/alliance wars --> The Council should be able to vote for 1 (or 2?) strategists --> what is his role ? well, propose a strategy ! How can others see it ? Put his chat-color different from the rest for it to be visible and/or his positioning of his troops be visible to all other players (like a ''transparent'' tank, a ''transparent'' missile... you see what I mean..) Ofc, each week there should be a vote, in case the strategist is no more active/can't be active. For the alliance, I highly adivse creating'' the council before it begins. How ? I don't know, up to you to figure it out =D Also, the alliance teams, may be nearly equal in power, but not in activity...Something must be done in the future please :-/

I'll also add that the actualy system for CVC or AVA isn't that much complex.. I mean, it's very ''closed'' in terms of ''strategy'', and is sometimes more about luck, coordination and activity but...even these are limited, because of the terrain and the way it works. Idk how you could make it more interesting/deeper, while taking into account ways to help people coordinate better... Could be an idea to put the total army of each players of each alliance into 2 huge groups that will attack each-other ? kinda like PVP ? Yes, it's simpler and has its limits, but also is easier to play :-) Good luck and ty for reading this !

I recently reached rank 36 in the warzone. I saw that for rank 37 I need 4T damage which is 10 times more of the last rank. Also the reward for reaching this rank is only 25k base dpc and the ones after that is not that much more. Im still need 3T to reach this rank but I recieve atleast 50k dpc everyday or everyother day at most and currently sit at almost 28M. The 25k dpc will not be noticible for me. The only thing that is usable, which is the same for every rank, is the increase in voting power and Clicking Force in the HQ. I think the difference in damgae is fine, especciall at such a high rank but the dpc boost should be scaled to that level. Even BettleJ who is at rank 40 will get only 75k for ranking up and and he has over 282B and hes the highest level that I know of that plays the game. I feel that the scaling for the rewards for ranking needs to be adjusted to the damage needed to reach it.

Sorry for the bit late reply, definitely keep any suggestions coming :) @okanbey1 That sounds like a reasonable idea. Or maybe we could color the circle inside it (blue/white/green) to shwo the same thing @ThomasC408 Do you not get a confirmation popup for the bribe option? You can't use it in just one click by mistake (unless you can and we have another illusive bug on our hands!) @TheEisenmann, hope you come to the discord event today at 15:00 GMT, as Cvc/CHQ will be one of the main topics we'll be discussing :) https://discordapp.com/invite/xxw3BAj @bloodhorn Yeah the ranks/levels/achievements in WZ are so out of date, have awful scaling and growth cure. But at the same time there's also no good way to balance them properly at all stages in their current form.Especially the last few ranks are more "poorly balance placeholders" to ensure there is still something going on. They ideally need a mechanical rework, to be more interesting and valuable and relatively rewarding, as any fixed rewards with them are almost impossible to balance, due to different playstyles/growth curves. End of this week we'll have a discord event focused on this lategame topic - well firstly, an overall "late game" direction for the game and resolving "too big numbers tech problem", as that will kind of be the basis for any further changes and rebalancing of smaller components, such as ranks/levels. If you have additional suggestions/thoughts on that matter, keep an eye for an announcement for exact date when we'll be hosting this later this week.

> *Originally posted by **[gamexstudio](/forums/1013247/topics/1689189?page=1#12856229)**:* > It's a two-way street - I'm really surprised to hear that more developers don't try to keep in touch more, as from a dev's point of view having such engaged and helpful community is the best thing you can wish for when it comes to not just fixing things, but also improving the game :) > > Yeah I can see why you'd want that, but I'd also argue that in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter too much - other than perhaps i.e. "gaining more units from deploys", and the way incrementals work there's not much you can really "mess up" - unless if there were timed challenges/achievements (we want to revamp those sometime as well). Well that, or just going through the game from scratch for a fun/faster experience can always be nice. > > We'll reprioritize some things in the following days and update that list. Very possibly a reset wouldn't be a big deal to make, but would need to confirm - also if we'd want to add some refund of gold used to it etc. That's not true for most incrementals in fact. Many incrementals have the option to spend your reset currency on a separate set of upgrades that are reset on every prestige, and those games also have the algorithm set up in a way that makes it so that if you spend way too much prestige currency, you will permanently be stuck. There are [**MANY**](https://www.kongregate.com/forum_search?utf8=✓&q=overspend&forum_id=4724) posts about this on the adventure capitalist forum, but it is also present in the vast majority of other similar games, such as [spark](https://spark.fandom.com/wiki/Altar_of_Knowledge) and [Clicker Business Tycoon](https://clicker-business-tycoon.fandom.com/wiki/Workers). War Clicks does NOT need a hard reset option because there is no way to screw up your game so bad to the point where you would be better off starting over, but I just have to tell you that you post is massively flawed. I am not saying this to offend you, as I told you that your game doesn't have this problem, but still.

https://www.kongregate.com/forums/1013247-war-clicks/topics/1857210-suggestion-to-improve-2x-3x-dpc

Could you change the display of progress bar in carrier goals? So that in addition to the green progress bar, ther will be also numerical version displayed there, e.g. in the xxxx / xxxx format, under or over the progress bar. This green line doesn't say too much and it is not really known how many times you still need to e.g. destroy units or perform deploys.

Krzysztof added to our backlog list, I can see that being useful. Good chance we can get to it in our next update batch.

New player. So i'm not sure how people stop automation. But most of the time i want automation to finish cycle and stop. So i wont overproduce. To do that i turn off cycling units in settings. How about adding actual function for that. For example "repeat" button at space cost from ON/OFF button? edit: also "cycle unit" option is very confusing for many players. I don't keep in ming that first click at start of new cycle. So it is counter intuitive. Probly would be better to leave time option "produce units without trainers" and add suggested button that would always click on first unit until gets trainer for it.

Agreed cycling is confusing, that text you suggested would probably work better. I'm not 100% sure what your suggestion is - basically you'd like a "cycle all" button, you can trigger manually - just like there is buy/upgrade all?

not cycle all button. So 3 thinkgs how they are in my head: 1. When i use automation it is assumed that it will keep going after deploy. That's why i think **aside from cycling units option** First Assault vehicles (that are needed to hire first trainer) has to be made. 2. Each time i leave and come back to PC i need game to start new deploy when i leave; and finish current deploy **and stop** when i have returned. So i suggest a button on automation panel for that 3. As new players don't keep in head the need for building units that don't have trainers it is confusing to call it "cycle units". So i suggest renaming "cycle units" in automation options to straight "Build units before trainers are hired".

Taxes! :D country can vote for setting a tax. Say, 0 / 5 / 15 on all gold income

Haha interesting. Though taxing would have to be optional, otherwise most people would backlash at it quickly. Maybe something like this would be doable: Country leaders can vote on a 50/100/200 daily gold tax, that is deducted from the user's gold balance each day at server time - provided they agree to pay it and have it in their balance. If tax is deducted the user gets a 24h boost of some kind (to their CF, BC production, DPC mx or something like that). The higher the tax setting the higher this boost MX. However, to not just default "lets set it to max, as whoever can pay it will definitely want to choose that), it should be based affected by how much % of active CHQ players pay it. I.e. say a 50 tax would give a x2 boost, and 200 tax would give a x4 boost. a) 80% of active CHQ users choose to pay the 50 tax, gives the users 80% of that boost, so giving 1.8x boost for 24 hours b) only 10% of active CHQ users choose to pay the 200 tax, giving the users 10% of that boost, so giving only 1.4x boost for 24 hours. So it would be a balancing act, where a higher tax is useful, IF most users agree to chosoe to pay it. Otherwise a lower tax setting might be better suited. It's far from a terrible idea, and it could be implemented fairly easily, be interesting, and also be a low gold cost boost comapred to single-user purchased boost- Any other thoughts on this?

research for infinite fuel or auto regenerate fuel.