Leaderboard

If you are going to nullify the advantage of having more cities, why not just remove the city mechanic all together?

The third and final area of the war system up for rework is the declare ranges, huge down declares have long been an issue. A hard limit on down declares would solve the issue but is widely disliked, thus a modifier will be present for up and down swings in war. This modifier will impact infra damage dealt and unit damage dealt but units (not missiles/nukes). When attacking a nation that has more cities than you, you receive a positive modifier of 50% of the difference in cities from your nation. When attacking a nation that has less cities than you, you receive a negative modifier of 50% of the different in cities from your nation. These modifiers only take place above City 10 Some examples: A C15 attacks a C20, being a 33% difference in cities, the C15 receives a 16.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. A C20 attacks a C15, being a 25% difference in cities, the C20 receives a -12.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. As you can see the percentage calculated is based off of the attacking nations city count. This modifier will be calculated before each attack, thus if someone buys more cities mid war, the modifier will change. More examples: A C20 declares on a C19, 5% difference in cities, -2.5% modifier A C40 declares on a C30, 25% difference, -12.5% modifier A C35 declares on a C50, 43% difference, 21.5% modifier These changes will tie in to a score rework for military units more aligned with the results from this thread.

C28 that got hit by a C40 with mil last war checking in..... yes, it's fine. The losers should be able to leverage down declares to do some conventional damage if they've lost enough infra that they actually reach that far down. And it's the responsibility of the winners to bail out the nation being hit. Don't see why this is a concern, it's just part of fighting a war in this game. As for the suggestion, giving some light bonuses to nations being downdec'd isn't terrible, but giving bonuses to updeclares is genuinely awful. Presumably that'll just make dogpiles worse?

I think adjusting score properly would have the desired outcome here, rather than a debuff or buff based on city count. I don't want to change the core war mechanics to better favor smaller nations, I just want a balanced system where there are fair war ranges and beige actually gives reprieve. Growth, economics, tiering, and effort should be rewarded not "balanced out" imo.

[citation needed] Are we just nerfing for the sake of nerfing, then? This seems like an entirely arbitrary change with little justification.

This essentially penalises players who optimise their city growth whilst rewarding these who are less efficient in growing their nations. I'd rather you limit people to attacking targets with the exact same amount of cities instead of implementing this idea (which is also a terrible idea I might add).

I'm missing a lot of infra, but am close to 100% military. Right now, at C36 and with a score of 6,438.07, I can hit a C22 with a score of 5,044.50, who is also close to 100% military. I'm 60% stronger, because that's how many cities I have in relation to him (and thus, how much more military I can bring to the table), but I only have 20% more score. There's a disconnect mechanically between military power and how score is calculated. Maybe we should look at changing how score is calculated. The basic formula right now of downdeclaring 25% below seems fair to me, especially because whales can be attacked by 75% up. I do not think that it's fair that I can hit a C22 while I'm full military at C36. I think score formulas need to be altered in some fashion.

So you’re saying because Guardian put forth an effort to grow a group of nations in a year and a half to high c20 and c30 they should get shafted for that? Yeah. I’m in a whale alliance sphere. But the alliance put an actual effort in to grow and train their nations. Not mindlessly recruit a bunch of people who don’t know what they’re doing, then whine because they loose the numbers game. There needs to be some restructuring on declares. But punishing the larger nations is only going to anger the player base and hurt the game.

Not sure why people are down voting; the upper tier advantage is still there, it’s just lessened slightly. This should present “more challenges” to those who might’ve solely relied on just down declaring during wars

Reminding people to be civil in your disagreements. Flame me all you want, I'm used to it. Be nice to one another though.

I'll give you an upvote, we appreciate your work Pre. even if these changes are debatable

Who are these magical c40s that can hit c20s with full military? I know I generally find myself mostly out of a fight after a round or two, and can only hit people in the mid 30s that actually rebuild military.

If the main thing we're trying to prevent is massive downdeclares, then just put in a safety guard for that only. Make it so beyond score range, you can only downdeclare on a nation with X% less than your current city count. Done. But this modification of kills is crazy. Let's say a C30 is in wars with a bunch of people and down to 500 planes, then gets declared on by a c25 who has way more planes AND gets a 15% modifier on top of that advantage. Why? How ridiculously punitive.

Yes, obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t have said anything. The idea that a nation should be subjected to such a disadvantage due only to its larger size is asinine.

Shortly after Age of Darkness sent weapons of mass destruction,to the enemy territory,pain plunder and fear approached the villagers,the high class mercenaries showed no mercy upon the town of Maurya The Empire fought in the Dark,with utterly no chance of survival, a great famine struck the land,due to their village under several blockades,they were finally at their knees, hungry weak and alone But it wasn't over yet, they had one trick up their sleeves,OMAIN came to their rescue with RandyHam knocking at Sasuke's door,he asked "Peace shall be sent to the tiny village of Maurya" With just winning the Maurya practice war,Sasuke respecting his old pal Randy he declares Age of Darkness declares withdrawals of any raids and a 60day NAP has been signed with both Villages. Age of Darkness the Village hidden within the leafs is once again in peace. Done,a raid well done 👉👈

You manipulating it to sound like the c40 has to sell infra. Literally last war I was a c37 that started with 2800 infra. I naturally lost infra down to below 600 easily and declared war on a c21 that wasn't even militarized and won that war. " sacrifice billions of dollars in infra and income to be able to reach? " You are making it sound like the c40 is decomming infra on purpose instead of just losing it naturally through fighting the war. Maybe that's the case if you have infra to sell if it is a dogpile and at that point if you sell infra to hit c20s you are just stupid. Not much of a sacrifice when its literally you doing what you are suppose to be doing in a war. Not that I agree with this shit bandaid change, but your reasoning for not having it felt too bs for me.

For some reason when I read the first line I thought you meant cannibalism.

I don't ever remember hitting a city 25 or smaller nation at all during last war (as a city 30 at the time). even with my infra partially destroyed, it was impossible for me to even hit targets around my city range because their infra was destroyed and/or their military was much smaller. Only time I got to down declare during the war was after Celestial's counter blitz which had practically zero'ed my military. For most of the war, I was doing 5-10 city updeclares since those were the only nations I could fight. Just thought I give a little insight to this.

Hun, you should REALLY read the OP again before you spout more nonsense. Its 50% of the percentage difference in cities which the OP makes VERY clear. Gven in your example, that's still a single digit number, but it's almost 3x greater, at 6.75%. But that still doesn't matter because if you bothered reading what anyone else is saying - particularly those about the losing sides prospects - you'd see the people blitzing (likely winners) are not the ones getting !@#$ed over here. I down declared and doubled on some c14s last war. Fun fact, my c32 double with PB is just a tiny hair over their max. 1050 vs 1056 sorta deal. As a sphere we used attacks like these to help the low tier press up into higher updecs where we had less alive nations, as the downed whales could temporarily have the planes to do the job. Of course the moment I did my ground and air double, I was bow in range of city 28s and the like, some of which still had over 2000 infra to go with their max military. I had about 800, by the way. So now, with your change, not only is that whole strategy useless as I would get a -22% on kills against the target, but the people I'm still forever in range of now get an extra bonus of... Oh hey it's our friend 6.75% again! That was an accident but a fun one in my quick calculator math. Edit: wrote this while on page two still I see this realization came about already, oops >.<

Coming in late to maybe try and save you future heart-ache: The test server is basically a playground for new mechanics. People have multis, people are regularly given resources/credits/cities/etc to test mechanics. It regularly gets reset and wiped. It's not a place to try and found/run an alliance and especially not a place to do politics.

I understand wanting to make being a lower tiered alliance more viable. But this is not the way to do it. This punishes alliances and nations who have spent tens of billions optimizing their tiering, and allows alliances that lack the skill and structure to optimize their tiering to compete way more effectively than they should come wartime. Instead of something like this that penalizes nations who have put billions into growth, why not increase the point where city timers come into effect? It would make it easier for alliances to get their members into a competitive tier and wouldn't penalize the people who have already done that.

Litterily nothing is broken with the war range so why try to fix it? This change does nothing but penalize the losing side in a war and also harms pirates. Both of these things we shouldn't do...

This has sparked a heavy discussion in our alliance discord. And I will say the response is 100% negative so far. This serves to only penalize alliances that put forth an effort to build their member base to effective nations rather than hoarding a bunch of rag tag small ones. This game has a pay to win system. The credits. You want to play and get there faster, fine. Pay the credits and grow your nation. But it’s not fair to the the people who have put actual effort into building their nation and cities to have their feet cut out because some lower tiered nations want to fast track to power.

It would be a better system than imposing a penalty upon subsequent city purchases. All this does is strengthen up-declares and weaken down declare counters against up-declaring nations.

You need to be more specific than "the winning side", what makes the winning side the winning side is very much important to the core of this change. If the winning side is simply winning because they have more high tiered nations this will impact how easy it is for them to be the winning side. Your "scrape back some ground" reference doesn't really exist in wars as it stands, it becomes a turtle nuke/missile war which this change doesn't really impact. If you're only argument is effectively a scenario that doesn't really happen, you may want to reconsider your view point. This change doesn't take place until above C10. Additionally the modifier is calculated before each attack.

I'm generally in favor of this kind of change. Some things to note: If a coalition is losing, they will typically have less infra (from it being damaged) and units (from being killed). Thus, with current score ranges, the losing side will generally be fighting nations with less cities than them; increasing the advantage for the winning side. Downdeclares are problematic if both nations have military. This affects the war regardless of that. It also affects updeclares. (e.g. a full mill c20 ganking a zeroed c30) In the c1-10 range, buying cities isn't a too uncommon strategy. There would be issues if the modifier is determined upon declaration and the nation buys cities. (incorrect, didn't read) edit: More thoughts Score could be more based on military strength (including possible rebuys) not cities, infra, or projects that are militarily irrelevant 50% seems a bit large, maybe reduce to 25%? It would make more sense to base the modifier on score, not cities, so as not to disadvantage the losing side.

So the winning side still wipes the losers relatively easily, and but now losing downdeclares, which are a reliable method for the losing side to scrape back some ground, get nerfed by nature of getting their troops swarmed even more. Basically the only circumstance under which something like this happens is when a losing coalition is trying to gain *any* ground on the winning one. It’s not like you have constant 20 city down-declares from the winning side looking to further impose. That sort of reach is nearly impossible after a week or two of fighting.

We floated the idea and there was backlash against hard caps. We therefore explored softer caps. I find it insane that a partially milled c20ish nation can be hit by a fully milled c40 rn. More so than what you are suggesting.

To me it seems a bit excessive. Giving a defensive modifier to the the smaller nation would make more sense to me

Is the intent of the change to nerf the losing side of a war even more than they already get nerfed by being cycled, or is that just a side effect? Conversely if you're on the winning side of a war, at some point you can't do anything but updeclare because no targets your size are in range anymore. Does that really warrant some sort of reward, particularly when updeclaring on a zeroed target?

Hello. I am Mike from Ukraine and Indonesia. I hope to discuss war in Ukraine and Indonesia, and many other topics.

443, next one's a nice round number

HoF was the knot keeping Clock together.

Oil

I am Elros Tar-Minyatur, the High King of the Reunited Kingdoms of the Númenoreans. I am a new player to Politics and War. I have however been playing Cyber Nations since May 2015. So I am not new to these kinds of games.

Mike, You might have come to the wrong place.... This is a forums for a game called politics and war, not necessarily a discussion platform for actual politics.

Beige changes have been discussed ad nauseam but we're ready for the public discussion phase. If all things go well, we will run a test server tournament with some in game cosmetic rewards to hopefully increase participation. The goal of these beiges is to create a window for defeated nations to rebuild, even during large scale wars. This will provide alliances with the option of coordinating a counter blitz and try to turn the tide of a war. This will allow for the possibility of wars to not be decided in the first round, or first hours, or a war. Changes: Every player defeated in a defensive war results in 2.5 days (30 turns) of beige. Every player defeated in an offensive war results in 0.5 days (6 turns) of beige. All wars that end from expiration result in beige for the defending party. Beige accruals are capped at 5 days (60 turns). Beige accruals do not begin reducing down until all defensive wars end. Clarifications: Points 1 and 2 mean that if I declare a war on Alex, and I, as the attacking party lose the war, I gain 0.5 days of beige. If I attack Alex and he loses, he gains 2.5 days of beige.

You're in the almost exclusively whale alliance sphere, yes?

50% is not nullifying. It also does not impact the roll success rates.