Jump to content

Them

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    182

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Them

    Make Nukes Great Again

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    Nukes are a joke, no one is going to store up the MAPs to use just one nuke when the enemy is pounding you with ground, sea, and air strikes. // Nukes are a loser's weapon. What else would you spend your MAPs on when your conventional forces are of kill? 
    Also, in the instance that your nuke gets blocked by the VDS, you could always take solace in the fact that the guy you're at war with spent over 75 million on a a useless piece of junk with a ROI that's worse than that of baseball.

     

    Basically, nukes are supposed to be bad. If you want to deal more damage, try to win your wars.

    • Upvote 2

    Is NPO Proof Communism Doesn't Work?

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    Yup. Low infra cities and nukes are an admission of defeat, not ways to minimize losses in case of one :vv: 

     

    Wasted potential? sure. Their theory isn't wrong. It's just that they want to be more safe that what people believe to be reasonable.

    Times have changed, but their paranoia hasn't :/

    Nuclear Weapons and Missiles should damage aircraft

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted · Edited by Them

    aside from not really making sense, it really does nothing to help nations getting rolled to recover unless the number of aircraft destroyed is substantial...

     

    Nukes and missiles are a loser's weapons. They're not there to help you recover; they're there to allow you to deal some damage on your way down. If you want to recover from getting rolled, you should build up a conventional military. While that may be difficult due to the unit buying caps, that's an entirely different discussion...

     

    Aircraft are​ overpowered, but it doesn't really matter in this game. Everyone recognizes that aircraft are overpowered and adapts their playstyle to it accordingly. Sure, if you forego building any aircraft, you'll be getting rolled, but the game forces you to diversify your military by setting different caps for different units anyways, so certain playstyles aren't "ruined" by aircraft being OP... One thing that war being so aircraft-centric does do is provide a clear indicator of the winner/loser early on in a conflict. That's probably a bad thing for â€‹interactive gameplay​, but it certainly makes the war aspect of the game easier to understand. OP aircraft makes blitzes devastating, updeclares possible, etc.

     

    Even if aircraft being OP is a problem, making nukes and missiles able to destroy them addresses the problem too late. By the time you're only logging in daily to lob a nuke at the nations levelling your cities and stealing your dosh, OP aircraft have done their job in getting you to that point.

    Changing Ground Control & Air Superiority

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    mhmm

    IMO, it would actually be a nerf to ground forces because it would take 14 immense triumphs to reduce an opponent's planes to under 67%, or what ground superiority used to do with only one immense triumph.

     

    It would allow players who didn't care about infra damage or money lost from looting to build nothing but planes and roll over players with a more varied military because the effect of ground control will now be gradual, instead of instant.

     

    If this is the strategy that this change encourages, then the "nerf" to air control wouldn't have much impact because tanks are still vulnerable to airstrikes (airstrikes are more efficient at destroying tanks than ground battles now) and would get bombed away before the attacker did a double buy and got back ground control...

     

    Basically, it would kill the only counter for the "ground zero" thing that t$ was doing a while back.

    Revisiting Nation Score.

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted · Edited by Them

    I think the idea behind this is nations that are beaten down are pushed down lower in score and if they have enough infra destroyed, they can't be re hit by the same large people.

    I have to agree that this is a valid point, but it'll only make a difference if you have a large sum of infra lost and by that point, the war's probably decided... 

     

    I disagree with this assessment. Although creative strategy is a portion of it (which isn't eliminated just nerfed to more reasonable amounts) in my proposal, another circumstance is the fact it literally protects inactive/incompetent people who don't militarize. Since in order to hit those people, you need to decom your own army and increase your own risk just to hit them because they are too incompetent to build up. 

    Updeclares are a thing... If they're really incompetent or inactive, they probably won't be able to organize a double buy either.

     

    I think opposite arguments can be made for both points of view, the issue is the spread is too wide. In the current system, a 20 city nation can hit a 10 city nation rather comfortably if that 10 city nation is maxed. That is too wide. This issue might not have been as big in the old system when navy was optional, but with it becoming an important part of the new meta, the values need to be adjusted.

    Even so, a 10 city nation that is maxed can still beat a 20 city nation with little military... Why does navy affect this? It'll just be one more area for the 20 city nation to lose in. If you're talking about downdeclare range, there's no need to change the score formula.

     

    All the strategies you mentioned will still work, just not as well, and that isn't a bad thing, its makes the game less unfair.

    I'll take the line "how is it unfair if anyone can do it"

    I think the problem is that the war module is too plane-centric. That's the root of all the "unfair" things that people try to solve.

     

    Nerfing the ship score is just a weaksauce temperorary fix, at that point you might as well reconsider and readjust the entire system.

    I agree. Ships'll still suck even if only for the resource drain. Still, it's a better fix than increasing the score. 

     

    Also your compromise, "10 for soldiers, 55 for tanks, 70 for air, 10 for navy" actually does more to harm the inventive strategies t$ employed than mine does.

    I think I addressed it. The point is that trying to change the score formula to make things more "fair" without fixing the underlying problems creates more problems than just leaving it alone.

    Also, yeah it does. The strategy which t$ used took advantage of flaws in the current system (unit scores don't accurately represent their impact on the outcome of a war). I think that's fine, but if you want to change it so that they do (like you suggested with the part about tanks in the original post) you'll inevitably kill these strategies. I just think that if you do want to fix this problem, there are more efficient methods than what you proposed.

     

    I guess the part about innovation wasn't a good argument.

    Revisiting Nation Score.

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted · Edited by Them

    While I believe that some aspects of the score system (tanks give too much score for what they do IMO) are arbitrary in nature, I generally agree with the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mindset.

     

    First of all, the only reason that there is so much discussion regarding score is that it is tied to the war module through declaration ranges. If the problem is that score (which is used to measure both non-military and military aspects of a nation) affects a nation's performance in only the military related aspects of the game, it may make more sense to have a separate military score solely affected by a nation's ability to recruit and support troops, (only city count and standing military numbers) while keeping the overall nations score as a metric for progress.

     

    But that's not the point of this post...

     

    The proposal which increases the score gained from military potential (cities) and generally reduces the score gained from actual military power would further nerf the submarine-nation strategy and punish players (t$ and their no ground forces) which do not max-out their military units by lowering their downdeclare capabilities. As it stands, the prevailing strategy in war still seems to be "to build as much ground and air as possible" so punishing players for inventing creative ways to utilize an otherwise monotonous system seems counter-intuitive. Not to compliment to Sheepy's game design and balancing, but tanks are described in the recruiting tab to be "ground battle enhancers" while "soldiers are the basic instruments of war." Ignoring the fact that planes are the basic instruments of war, tanks seem to be designed in a way so that they come with enough downfalls (expensive, large score gain, vulnerable to airstrikes) to make them not an immediate go-to when deciding what army to go to war with. (Even with all the downsides, having max tanks is still necessary to remain competitive because ground forces affect air combat and air combat dictates the outcome of the war.) 

     

    I still think navy is stupid because ships increase your score, but don't affect your aircraft numbers, making you more likely to get hit by nations with more planes and lose...

    If anything, ship score should be decreased, not increased.

     

    For projects, the thing I said about infra also applies, although some military projects should have score attached...

     

    Basically, If you want a more accurate representation of score by importance, keep cities at 50, no score for infra or projects (other than the Prop. Bureau and maybe CIA) 

    Of the 145 score per city currently assigned to military units, 10 for soldiers, 55 for tanks, 70 for air, 10 for navy... 

     

    ^ edit to make clear that this is probably completely unnecessary (and would likely break more things than it would fix [it was meant to emphasize why assigning the same value to navy as to air is not a good idea]) anyways since score only really matters for the initial blitz/counter and if you get blitzed without max units, you're probably in trouble as long as the people hitting you don't start off with fortify or naval attacks or something)

     

    Oh yeah, did you hear that the new fortify feature is busted?

×
×
  • 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