Jump to content

Syl

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Syl

    Feedback from war: Missiles/Nukes

    in Game Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Syl

    On 12/24/2020 at 4:38 AM, spnewbs said:

    politics and war 

     

    I apologize this is copied and pasted from several weeks ago during the last global  i had noticed a number of imbalances that could be considered for discussion  nukes and missiles were one of the concerns  tyia for reading and providing thoughts and spitballing off any ideas that may interest you  

     

    You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of ——- led by ——-. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 12,501 soldiers and 947 tanks, while ——-'s defenders lost 25,475 soldiers and 0 tanks. You used 333.40 tons of munitions and 265.00 tons of gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 41.25 infrastructure in the city of 020. You stole $0.00 in the attack and destroyed 0 improvements. Because you had Ground Control, your forces were able to raid the enemy airfields and your Tanks destroyed 198 enemy Aircraft. 

     

    • as you can see here, the cost of munitions and gasoline utilized by the attacker exceeds the amount of damaged aircraft (aluminum and cash) required for an enemy to rebuild the aircraft. 
    • equally of note is the enemy does not have any tanks to counter the attackers overwhelming ground forces. Yet the attacker loses 947 tanks. The loss in tanks and the resources required to rebuild them also exceeds that required by the enemy to rebuild their aircraft. 
    • in this one attack we see an attacking army suffering double the damage as the defender despite winning with an “immense triumph.”
    • in addition the defending player has 32 cities with 700 or less infrastructure. The infrastructure damage does not offset the damages inflicted in an equal way either as the infra damage is minimal.  as this is more of a strategic tactic, it does not bother me however, in tandem with the other two issues here, the two imbalance issues cause superior armies to end up losing overall resources compared to inferior defenders. 
    • accounting for aircraft destroyed because of already establishing ground control, the aluminum costs still don’t quite cover the cost of steel for the lost tanks. additionally, if the player had no aircraft, as with many wars, there would be even heavier total negative cost incurred to the superior attacker. 
    • these examples are even more severe when an enemy has only soldiers and ZERO tanks. 
    • while i agree that defenses should have a chance to defend themselves, there comes a point where these minimalist soldier only, low infrastructure builds provide losing enemies too much power. 
    • when these low infra, high city players also have the ability to create missiles and nukes on the fly and can lob them without opposing players having any means of direct defense (spies) to take out missiles/nukes because they are protected by a 24 hour window, the issue  becomes even more severe. 
    • it cannot be fair to protect a players newly created nukes and missiles for 24 hours when a player they are at war with cannot defend themselves at all from the projectile. 
    • it would be my recommendation that missiles and nukes are not protected during an active war. there are already some safeguards for these newly created missiles in place such as a maximum of 3 spy ops against a player each day. in most cases in large scale alliance wars, spy ops are completed against players within a few hours. additionally, there are personal spy defenses to account for which also provide a chance of successfully protecting the projectile. also take into account strategy and timing for MAPS as a player can create a missile and launch it with immunity immediately. to make things fair it should be that if an enemy can immediately launch a missile then it can immediately be targeted by spies. 
    • another balance issue might also be reducing maps of a nuke from 12-10 but also nerfing its damage and the number of resistance it destroys, increasing the duration of radiation as a population and economic reducer to neighboring cities could be the damage offset (this is a tough balance change to consider since a nuke is after all a “nuke” the very name should scare people. 
    • my next suggestion for missiles and spies would simply be for missiles to have a protected window, but also a short window in which they could not fire the projectile.  in anycase, 24 hours of protection is too long for a newly created missile when in the middle of an active war. outside of war, it is perfectly logical. 
    • on to spy issues. spies are expensive and take a long time to regain. this is fine, however, spy ops and their potential damage should also have similar returns. for example, 14 spies shouldn’t be killed on a failed attempt when simply assassinating soldiers (overly cheap units) 
    • some balance changes to consider:
    • create a project that uses much more aluminum
    • require training soldiers to use a modest 0.01  munitions each along with their $ cost. Obviously, a well trained soldier needs to have fired live ammo at targets before being put in the field right? this negates players from using pure soldiers to defend against players who invested more money into tanks, gas and munitions when attacking. this cost would place a 100,000 soldier army at a cost of 1,000  munitions. therefore, protecting those soldiers with more tanks during the above described war scenario is ever more important. 
    • tanks with a value of only 4 soldiers is also slightly irrational. One would think if an rpg or tank to tank missile bounces off of a modern day abrams then what damage do a couple thousand rifle rounds from soldiers do? 
    • a thought for balancing players in losing battles is to also add a new warfare to battle strategy called “Guerrilla Warfare” this would allow soldiers to do more damage to tanks by using atypical warfare. however, casualties from guerilla warfare would be higher for the user... defensively and offensively they counter ground troops and tanks. unlike tactician however they do not evenly spread damage to all troops types ie air and naval. this would require 4 maps as it takes more time to build traps and bury ied’s than conventional warfare operations. 
    • allow for recording of the number of missiles:nukes shot down from projects 
    • allow for recording how many missiles/nukes/spies destroyed with spy ops. all other troops record this info for public knowledge ie.  tanks destroyed/lost... 

     

    ...So the losing defender should always lose more than the overwhelming attacker? That's going to make things a lot more one-sided.

    If you can't tell, the point is for the dominant attacker/aggressor pay for their aggression. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.

  I accept