Kemal Ergenekon
-
Posts
1326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Kemal Ergenekon
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Oh, jingle sands, jingle sandsJingle all the wayOh, what fun it is to rollIn a steamroller on nubs, hey!Jingle sands, jingle sandsJingle all the wayOh, what fun it is to rekDem tasty infras, hey!
-
10
-
But you're not factoring in what all 3 attackers can cost you in infrastructure damage, and if you're using fortify to prevent yourself from being beiged, they're going to be taking little to no damage from you.
False, I have already discussed this upthread. I can conduct conventional warfare up until my armies are completely gone, then start pressing fortify only when I reach 15 points. So I can both fight, and protect my loot. I lose nothing by doing so.
No difference in infrastructure damage either, since in an alliance war, you always lose the expensive portion of your infrastructure regardless of whether you are winning or losing.
-
1
-
-
To give a tangible example to (1), if you beiged my nation right now, you would loot $31,001,218 worth of resources and $9,609,577 as cash. Losing loot worth 40.6m in a single battle is not insignificant. If three attackers cannot loot, that means the attacking alliance loses 121 millions whereas I save 121 millions. The net damage to your side vs mine would be 242 millions in a single round.
-
If you had thought about things, you would understand that:
1) Your constant ground attacks would still be taking loot. it would stop bank looting, but banks are already virtually immortal if you're good. There's a decent chance that 5 days of constant ground attacks would net you very similar results than 10 ground attacks and beige bonus depending on their stash. Could actually get you more if they have less money.
2) Helps making countering and coordination more important, I don't see this as a drawback, more of a new dynamic of war. I find it to be a good thing that they can bunker in and take a beating for a little while then try to rally and come back when help arrives.
1) Let's abstract away from the bank looting -- as you say, it was usually avoidable even in the old system. Focus on the loot from the nation itself. Recall that you loot "10% of each of their resources" if you beige. I don't know about you, but everyone in our alliance has huge stockpiles of stuff. Many competent players do. 10% of that is definitely not insignificant at all, measured in tens of millions in worth at least. If fortify was not as powerful, you could loot that by blockading the enemy, and then proceeding to beige them. I do not think this is insignificant. It is true that you can loot more money with ground attacks, but usually the money runs out fast and you start getting $0 with each attack, or the latest batch of turn's income.
2) Yes it makes countering and coordination more important. It is a new dynamic, yes, and one that favors defenders more than attackers IMO. Because the attackers are usually the ones to overextend, and this makes overextension a larger problem.
-
What sample size did you use?
The way it was designed back then, the page gave you a new estimate of the probability every time you reloaded the page. So you could have a sample size as large as you wanted. For practical purposes, 20-30 reloads and tallying the results made the confidence interval as small as +1/-1.
-
1
-
-
I'm curious as to why people are so up in arms about the fortify making it impossible to beige. Yes, you could toss a whole spheres wealthy into one nation to avoid losing it, but you can already hide banks exceedingly easily and do this same thing. Also should someone just turtle to avoid beige they don't get to attack while you pound them. It's basically the current system minus them being able to hit you back.
There is almost no time extending wars for extra days to avoid beige will be beneficial. The rare case would be at the tippy top of the whale spectrum where you'd get 10% infra in 28 cities. Then it is better to just sit there and take it as you couldn't do 28 air strikes in the war anyway. Don't know if it would be worth it in a 3v1. But I find it weird for this to be such a hang up that people are complaining about.
If you had actually read the posts, you would understand that:
1) It makes raiding impossible, unless the opponent willingly caves in and lets you take the loot.
2) You cannot close offensive battles that you are winning like in the past. Remember sitting at 4-5 ground victories and being able to close the war if you get countered by strong people? That's not possible now.
-
Beat me to it on essentially every point.
Mensa already executes spy ops at near peak efficiency. I was the person who came up with the method to infer with complete precision how many spies the opponent had using law of large numbers, and Mensa killed more spies and nukes than anyone in the major wars. So you are completely mistaken my friend. The best techniques would suffer in their efficiency if the gather intel ops did eat from the 3 spy ops per day, which would just make spies weaker.
-
OK, this sounds much much better.
-
Also you still didn't update the erroneous sentence on your OP:
- When winning a war and sending an opponent to beige, if they are already beige you will not reset them back to 3 days, you will instead add 3 days to their beige time. This is a buff to players who are losing multiple wars.
You must correct this to 2 days since that's what you decided on.
-
1) You don't have to remove enemy spies first. You can take risks and attempt to spy away nukes when they have more spies, albeit at lower success rate.
2) That's not true at all, you could just take a gander at the "Nukes Launched" stat on their nation page and see if it's changed when you come back. The only reason you'd want to go through Timelines one by one is if you're a goober.
3) I'm saying that you can easily create a meta in which there is no forewarning. Just gather intel regularly without declaring wars, and it'll be normalized and people won't expect war when they get spied on. Easy meta-game solution.
4) I'll consider eliminating gather intel from the defensive limit.
1) You have never done this before, have you? I ran spy ops for the whole alliance for a long time, and the most cost and time effective way to get rid of nukes is to lower the enemy's spy count to 0-3, and then do sabotage nuke actions.
2) You said you are going to hide the nuke and missile information. When you did the same for spies, you didn't just hide the number of spies, but also the number of spies killed and casualties. I am assuming you will do the same with nukes and missiles launched and eaten based on your old design choices. If you have changed your mind regarding the design choice and not made this explicit, it makes you a goober.
3) That's not feasible or realistic.
4) If you only did this, most of my criticism would be resolved.
-
If your resistance goes to 25 or less, all it would take is one nuke and you'd be beiged.
You would be able to fortify three times for a gain of 30 points before the opponent has enough MAP to launch a nuke. I am assuming the player is not an idiot and does the necessary accounting and choosing actions accordingly.
-
1
-
-
I guess the issue I'm seeing here is that war in the current system is far too heavily geared towards the aggressor. One mechanic that gives a defender a terrible option, but an option nevertheless, could be a good thing. This might not be it and this might not be the right way to do that, but some amount of balance is desirable in this area.
And to pretend that's somehow linked to which alliance I am in is silly. We're just as capable of mounting an offensive as anyone is and of course a game that overpowers offense would be a good thing for us. Giving defenders a small way to obstruct our offense stands just as much chance of harming us as anyone else.
The option given to the defender is not terrible. On the contrary, it is awesome: It means no one can loot any of your stuff. There is a need for balance, and I did give Alex many suggestions that could provide defenders with better options. He liked the ideas at the time, but implemented this strange system that really doesn't give any additional chance to fight back for the defenders.
I mentioned your alliance because that informs me on how well you understand the game mechanics. You don't.
-
They incur the cost of having their infra destroyed and being open to being attacked in successive rounds until they have no infrastructure left. This is already the meta in wars right now. Is your issue that war in the current system on the live server isn't damaging enough?
You are unable to read I guess.
1) You fight as you always do, having no penalties. You can freely attack, lob missiles or nukes, whatever.
2) At the very end, when your resistance is 15, you can prevent getting beiged at will.
The cost of infrastructure that you mention is laughable, and I should not be surprised since you are from NPO. In an alliance war, you enter the war with the expectation that most of the valuable part of your infra will be destroyed, if not all. The cost of losing a few more infra between 800-1000 infra is much much lower than losing a large fraction of your warchest to your enemy.
You also do not understand deeper tactical concerns. Sometimes you want to close some of your existing offensive wars when you get countered. Suppose that I am in an alliance war, winning 5 battles spectacularly. They pose no threat to me. Then suddenly 3 people counter me. Now I know that my armies will be gone in a day or two, so I want to close the 5 offensive wars. In the old system, I could: I would keep them at 5 ground ITs and do the last one immediately, closing the battles. Now this is impossible: The countered person will have to deal with the three attackers as well as the rebuys of the 5 attacked.
-
1
-
-
I feel like at this point you're just advocating for a game in which a group of raiders can essentially destroy the rest of the server piecemeal without any real counter. Which is understandable and it'd be funny for a couple months, but it'd be dead afterwards.
Lol, just lol. I just showed you that someone who does not want to be beiged cannot be beiged, and they do not incur *any* cost whatsoever, since they can start fortifying in the last 15 points and fight properly up until then. At this point, I believe that you are simply arguing with the hope that someone who reads this casually thinks that you have a substantial argument, and that the discussion is not already over. But it is.
-
His point is that allowing yourself to be repeatedly attacked would through and through keep you at ZI and ZM making it worthwhile for the attackers despite the lack of the ability to "win" the war.
No.
-
Inactives are still possible to raid. I'm not particularly sold on fortify as a mechanic, but in concert with raising the loot from beiges as high as he has and some of the unintended effects of making navy attacks lower resistance as quickly as they can in a game where the meta is to not have a navy, some counterbalance is probably needed. An issue I do see is that it's going to become effective for alliances to stash their resources they don't intend to use immediately with someone with low value infra and just have them spam fortify all the way through the war. Honestly though, that wasn't much different than the strategy of converting a large part of the alliance war chest to raw resources and having them be unlootable when stashed in a nation.
With the tiny difference between naval IT and fortify of 0.1666667, there is no need to use another nation that presses fortify. We can duke it out with a proper war. As long as my resistance is not below 15when I accept that I have lost, you cannot loot anything, because I will start pressing fortify from then on, and there is no way that you can loot my stuff after that, because 15/0.1666667 = 90.
-
You're right, and that's fine. In that scenario it would be just like the current situation - you get to beat on someone for the full 5 days of war, except in this case they're not even attacking you back. I think most people would be pleased with that outcome, making only using Fortify a terrible strategy in war.
Not really. I would definitely take being infrabombed for 5 days over getting looted. I will use fortify in all cases that I can foresee, wars or raids. But if that's what you want to happen, so be it. We can work with that. But you are making raids impossible.
-
1. It's not a waste if you're using it to gather valuable intelligence.
2. That's a risk you'd take if you're not willing to be patient and gather intel first.
3. You'd only need to gather intel on nations that have the Nuclear Research Facility or Missile Launch Pad. As for forewarning, gather intel is an easy op with a high success rate - they may be alerted that someone is gathering intel on them, but they wouldn't know who. Furthermore, if having all your nuclear nations getting spied meant a war was coming, that would give you an easy way to stir the pot by spying a bunch of nuclear nations in an alliance and then not actually declare war. Maybe they'll pre-empt someone else. Sounds like fun to me.
4. Which encourages you to work together and coordinate with other alliances. What's bad about that?
1) This nerfs the already slow anti-nuke spying operations. To destroy nukes, you first have to get rid of the opponent's spy thicket that takes several days. By nerfing it further, you are making nukes remain untouched for a longer period of time.
2) If we spend 1 spy op per day on gathering intel, that slows down the time to destroy nukes by 33%. The only way to avoid this is to record the nukes at the first gather intel operation, then tally all the nukes launched in individual wars one by one. This is a !@#$ing spreadsheet nightmare and a chore.
3) Is this an actual counter-argument? It gives forewarning, and you do not contest that.
4) Let me tell you what's bad about that: We already have no way of verifying "spy slot filling." This will just make the situation worse, because whenever our opponents use gather intel ops to fill their daily spy op caps, we won't be able to even detect this or make accusations because "oh, probably one of your members used gather intel."
-
It's extended out based on how many defeats they get. So assuming you aren't only beiging them 1v1 for some reason and they're eating 3 defeats, that ends up coming out to being time to rearm.
Now, what I was actually referring to is a scenario wherein a nation goes full turtle and forts up. They can't launch any attacks and in most cases they'll have their mil wiped because if they had a full mil, forgoing being able to do attacks for forting would be silly. So, their wars go the full five days, they don't get beiged, they get beat on for the full five days, and then since they never enter beige they can be staggered and attacked without having even so much as those two days to rearm. How exactly was fortifying beneficial? They didn't really save themselves that much damage unless they're absurdly large and 10% dmg is larger than being attacked for 3 extra days and they're open to continuous attack without ever being able to enter beige and getting any chance to gear back up.
So yes, it makes it more difficult for the attacker to force a victory, but it does so at substantial, likely crippling disadvantage to the defender.
It doesn't "make it more difficult" to force a victory. It makes it impossible. The best points per MAP spent offensive action is naval immense triumphs at 3.5 per MAP. Since the defender can recover 3.33 per MAP using fortify, this means that for each MAP, the attacker can at most gain 0.166667 point advantage over the defender. You have 12 MAPs per day. 12 * 5 = 60. Add on top the initial MAPs and you get 66. 66 * 0.166667 = 11. 11 <<<<< 100. So, no, fortify makes it impossible to beige an enemy who does not want to be beiged. So it completely kills raids and whatever else Sheepy is trying to achieve here.
-
1
-
-
Let's debate the merits of the change, regardless of whether I play the game.
You don't need to know whether someone has nuclear weapons or not, and how many. You can still tell which nations are nuclear capable, and you can still do espionage operations to find out whether they have nukes/missiles.
If you really want to coordinate and keep track of people, you can count the number of days between espionage operations to gather intel, and then you'd know what the maximum number of nukes someone could have is. You could watch certain nations, have other alliances watch other nations, and create intel-sharing deals to coordinate your efforts.
If you're at war with someone, knowing whether they have nuclear weapons or not isn't a green light that you're going to be able to stop them from nuking you.
Quite frankly, I don't see why knowing an opponent's nuclear stockpile is such vital knowledge. If there's something I'm overlooking here, please enlighten me.
1) You need to waste a spy op to learn the number of nukes the enemy has. You may need to do this once or more. This eats up 1 spy operation on your side, and 1 spy op cap out of the 3 per day limit of the opposing side.
2) You may end up trying to sabotage a nuke which isn't there, wasting 1 spy operation on your side.
3) If you want to assess the nuclear capabilities of another nation or alliance, you need to use gather information ops on all the members. This gives them forewarning of an attack.
4) If multiple alliances are fighting against the same people, all of them might end up doing gather intel ops, making it practically impossible to take out spies or nukes.
What would be a good fix? If you are hellbent on making this change, you can at least make gather intel ops not count for the 3 spy ops per day on a nation. That way, it's just a minor headache.
-
2
-
-
It's actually 2 days.
A quotation of your post shows that it was 3 days initially:
- Wars now have a system called 'resistance'. Each sides starts the war with 100 resistance, and resistance is reduced through every attack. When your opponent's resistance reaches 0, you take 25% of their money, 10% of each of their resources, and automatically destroys 10% of the infrastructure in each of their cities. They are sent to Beige, but for only 3 days. This is to add a more visual component to wars, and encourage people to want to win wars.
Also you still have the following on the *current* OP:
- When winning a war and sending an opponent to beige, if they are already beige you will not reset them back to 3 days, you will instead add 3 days to their beige time. This is a buff to players who are losing multiple wars.
Anyway, you didn't answer the concern regarding Fortify. Someone who fortifies can nullify any and all progress of the attacker.
-
But the cost of doing so is then to eat a full five days of damage *and* being staggered an additional five days without being able to restock in beige. I don't discount there might be some value to achieving quick beiges when just trying to grief an opponent in a single round, but it's not exactly a strategy that can't be worked around.
False, the defeated eat the damage anyway. Also the beige duration is now down to 3 days, not 5. Try again when you get the facts straight.
-
Isn't the current meta not to beige opponents anyway? If the definition of "winning" is to achieve a beige, and fortify is a mechanic that forestalls beige in the same way only running airs or navy or CM's used to be, is that materially different?
Are you dense?
The whole point of the new system is that when you win, you loot a shitload of resources and destroy 10% infra. With the fortify action restoring 10 points for 3 MAP, no one can *ever* beige the opponent and loot, effectively making looting impossible.
-
I won't read 6 pages of discussion, but correct me if I am wrong:
Ground Attack Immense Triumph Points per MAP 10/3 = 3.3333
Airstrike Immense Triumph Points per MAP 12/4 = 3
Naval Strike Immense Triumph Points per MAP 14/4 = 3.5
but
Fortify: Regain 10 for 3 MAP: Points per MAP 10/3 = 3.3333
Does this mean that we will NEVER win wars against an opponent that always fortifies?
-
2
-
Za Warudo Christmas in Seven Kingdoms
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Here's the CB
The secondary CB is ur face