spnewbs

I had posted this under Adriennes post for quality of life improvements, but due to the original posts age, I fear it was lost there. I have also edited it adding a few paragraphs. I propose an enhancement: Have two city build pages to be able to toggle between war build and peace time build (manufacturing/commerce/mining etc) Like city and project construction this could only be used once every 5 or 10 days. Any changes between the cool down times would have to be made manually. Players would need to manually descale troops to allow for peace build transition if they are removing military buildings (barracks, hangars etc) likewise retraining troops when transitioning to war build. Troops still must be trained according to daily military resets This would not allow for rebuilding of any lost structures from war actions (missiles etc) until they were manually replaced along with the necessary infra if needed Infrastructure rebuilding to allow for full prior war, peace/war time buildings could simply be instituted by utilizing the current vip mass infra option there would need to be some calculating for the resources and $ to cover the difference of cost for the various buildings (i see this ad being the most complicated aspect - but i am sure someone has an idea for it) This enhancement could be free or vip service. It is not so bad changing 10 or fewer cities every outbreak of war and downscaling after. However, after city 15, 20, 25, and i have to imagine 30+!!! It gets pretty annoying.

Seeking a simple enhancement: Have two city build pages to be able to toggle between war build and peace time build. Like city and project construction this could only be used once every 5 or 10 days. Any changes between the cool down times would have to be made manually. Players would need to manually descale troops to allow for peace build transition. This would not allow for rebuilding of any lost structures from war actions until they were manually replaced along with the necessary infra if needed Infrastructure rebuilding to allow for full prior war, peace/war time buildings could simply be instituted by utilizing the current vip mass infra option. This enhancement could be free or vip service. It is not so bad changing 10 or fewer cities every outbreak of war and downscaling. However, after city 15, 20, 30!!! It gets pretty annoying.

providing missiles with a guidence system could be a neat buff. so that you could target a specific building. ie your opponent has air superiority, or naval, or ground so you could target one of those specific buildings. or you could target manufacturing, financial, or civil buildings instead of having missiles randomly strike a building.

I think nukes inherently cannot only target military. By nature, they are to be deployed for mass devastation. How they are balanced in this game however, needs this quality discussion. I think missiles would be better geared towards this idea for targeting a specific troop type with a smaller percent of infrastructure destroyed. This is an interesting idea for radiation depleting the military functionality of a city for the duration of radiation fallout. *Thumbs up.

I fight just fine, there is no getting around game defects in this scenario. I understand fully how to win efficiently, if you want my war records, and cost/lost ratio’s, simply look me up and eat your ignorant words. Besides, that’s not the point of the message. The point is soldiers vs tanks are imbalanced. tanks take far more damage than soldiers. which makes little sense, since bullets, rpg rounds, and small missiles bounce off of modern tank armor. Additionally, tanks provide cover and transport for ground troops, which should provide an additional defensive bonus to players that utilize tanks. In conventional warfare, if it’s not a sabot or javelin round ($$$) then it’s probably not bringing a first world tank down. several months ago, tanks were rebalanced against aircraft. after the rebalance, tanks are now viable vs aircraft. Soldiers, now need a rebalance, and tanks need to have a higher value than 4 soldiers. (most tanks have crews of 3-4, not to mention the fact that they are in a TANK). As for this, “I do love that people on the winning side of a curbstomp war complain that the losing side has any way of fighting back and doing damage.” QUACK utterly I cannot emphasize, “utterly” enough here), lost the war against SWAMP within the first week, then for some abysmal reason QUACK decided to continue fighting a deficit war for another 3 weeks. This despite SWAMP’s generous peace offers weeks in advance. It’s no longer curb stomping, when it’s stomping stupidity. #duckhunt Apologies to quack grunts who put in hard work on your blocks behalf. I commend the effort and dedication.

... so the attacker and defender begin the war with equal armies. The attacker or defender, they are interchangeable in this scenario; in any case, the player who puts forth extreme effort; times every login at turn changes for MAPs, chooses the appropriate attacks, and double buys to gain the advantage. During all this, the attacker/defender also took heavy damage in order to gain air, land, and naval superiority. So the dominant player has already “paid” for their superiority. Now, you are advocating that the losing side can continue to inflict 100% more cost to damage ratio, than the superior force? I get it, I’ve been dog piled many times, “before” the cost of tanks and their viability went up. But, come on, that’s some weak sauce to say that an inferior defense can inflict more damage than a superior force. In this example, a smaller nation is forced into conflict against a larger city nation, after some well coordinated team work, (and also maintaining team work on additional defensive and offensive war slots) player B is left to soldiers only, smaller player A now has 375k soldiers and 20,000 tanks, vs Player B opposing force of 450k soldiers and 0 tanks (Player B began with 28,000 tanks, and 2100 aircraft which were destroyed). Now player B continues to train soldiers but no tanks. All the while, for smaller player A to compete against a much larger nation, tanks are required to gain and keep ground superiority. Meanwhile, smaller player loses 900-1,000 tanks per defense or attack from larger player B who has no tanks... Also, keep in mind, in reality, for man vs. tank, an rpg round literally bounces off of modern tank armor, and equipping enough javelins to combat this many tanks would require a much more expensive soldier per unit than current (which is also the main point to this issue). considering also that we are playing in a nation state conventional style war game, we are not dealing with ied’s or sharpened bamboo stake traps that would potentially give a losing army the advantage. (ie. refer to comment on guerilla warfare war tactic for added balance change ideas) With that said, I do not advocate for one sidedness in wars. An active player losing a war should have a chance to dig their way out; but part of that digging should have begun at wars start. If getting dog piled, and not receiving support, then they should probably consider joining a better team.

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...