Jump to content

Mohammad

Members
  • Posts

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mohammad

  1. On 6/22/2021 at 6:21 PM, Prefontaine said:

    These processes typically happen outside of game mechanics. With Total wars being something that gives benefits (project requirement, project slot) and may give more later on, getting an "easy" way to rack up wars is not something advisable. Negotiating these things is part of the fun of the game in terms of player interaction. 

    Easy fix to this is to not include Surrendered Wars in the total wars count.

     

    WHere does this ever happen?? I think every major aa has "dont ever peace alone" or "contact your whatever-glorious-officer befroe you offer/accept peace". Also how can i negotiate the enemy loosing 10% of infa and loot if they are bloackaded???

  2. 1 hour ago, MYC said:

    I am sorry to say this but the names are really terrible. Also, these polls should be done when the global war begins; everyone refers to the war as Guns & Roses now so there is no point of doing this poll

    Preach

  3. On 6/12/2021 at 2:46 PM, Aglet Green said:

    I see nothing wrong with this.  Each time you 'surrender,' you lose 3 MAPS and 10 resistance points and the attacker gets an automatic Immense Triumph with a random assortment of loot (equal to 125% of what they'd have gotten in an attack on you).  It would then be treated like an offer of Truce, and it would be up to the attacker to agree to the Truce or to keep attacking.

    No i think the og suggestion is that you can offer a surrender, and if the opponent accepts, you then loose the war automaticly, isntead of waiting for him to beige u with 1-ship navals, and 0-munition soldiers. 

    • Upvote 2
  4. On 4/28/2021 at 11:16 PM, Dr Rush said:

    Hot take: RNG in a PvP strategy game is dumb. The amount of salt over bad rolls in battles is legitimately valid, wars should be decided by player strategy not a code function of suspect reliability. Scaling that up to global effects such as random zombie apocalypses is not a recipe for success. If you give events enough of an effect to matter they can and will skew stuff such as global wars. And thats not adding decision making, its taking away player agency in their own fates. If events are not strong enough to have real effects they are reduced flavor text, and there is much better use of dev time at that point.

     

    That being said I do agree the game needs more actual decision making. But that decision making needs to be in core gameplay, not rng flavor text. Adding in stuff like alternate city build paths, additional war options, other things that the players drive and cause.

    From there going back the OP. Approval rating was supposed to have effects originally, but in practice the formula driving it is unstable to say the least and prone to massive runaways in both directions. And further it would have skewed the meta towards undesirable actions like war dodging or dogpiling. There has been talk of trying again but its low priority compared to stuff like making beige be not dumb. When the times comes though it'll likely be a new value as supposed to messing with the old one.

    Which leads us into the 'RP' features. To a certain extent in a political sim, player agency includes being able to adopt and support a persona and identify. The RP stuff is an extension of that need and need to remain divorced from direct mechanical effects. This is why stuff like war policy and domestic policy are in their own things neutral to the RP aspect. If you tack on bonuses etc to rp aspects, they cease being useable for RP at all. And that would be a removal of player agency. That is not say decision tree bonuses are bad, but they should be their own selections.

    Def agree, i don't want RNG determining anything more than it already does.

    Maybe the way to solve this is to have the events be systemic, or for example, based on some factor the player, such as city count, pollution/crime/disease levels, starvation, or maybe war status (using a nuclear weapon, declaring/loosing an offensive war, winning a defensive war)

     

    Player Action: Winning a defensive war

    Event: Victory Parade in Moscow Celebrating Victory of Motherland!!!

    Text: blah blah blah

    Effect: Approval Rating increases X%, Military upkeep decreases X%, ect.....

     

    Player Action: Lets Pollution increase to XXX

    Event: Environmentalists Protest, Workers Strike in Factories!

    Text: blah blah blah

    Cost: Approval Rating decreases X%, Manufacturing output decreases X%, ect.....

     

    These aren't really decisions, as much as they are in-game results to player actions. Maybe there can be choices, like "Give Promises for Population Reduction. Pay $X, build XX" or "Send in the Army to put down the riots. Effects: XXX"

     

    But we need to address the fact, that rn, you can literally drive ur people to brink of extinction, without any negative repercussion from the populace, other than their reduced output cause they are eating dirt. Also as people said before, Approval Rating needs to be something real. 

     

    I like the HOI4 Conscription and Econ levels, they would add some dynamics to the game, but prob for only 1-3 months, before the CS majors run their codes and figure out the formulas, and optimize everything. 

     

    Overall i do agree PnW isnt a nation-simulator as much as it is a Alliance simulator, your are just commanding an army regiment during globals, and merely feeding in numbers for econ bots. 

  5. 3 hours ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:

    I think the issue can be solved by instead having the system calculate the total of all of your current sell offers (or buy offers when making a buy trade, but not cross calculating them), and if the new offer when making a new trade would put you below 0 of the rss (or cash for buy offers), then you cant make it. 

    and to cover errors from depositing into the bank or being looted, maybe run a check on turn changes, as long as that wouldn't add a noticeable amount to turn change scripts, and any excess in the offer either be removed, or the entire offer cancelled altogether.


    the system you are proposing is overly complicated, and making a fee when people may have to remove their offer and repost when people are undercutting only hurts traders not people that would be abusing it to hide funds, since 1% would be less than the 14% of a looting by a raid war in pirate policy, anyone not in a blockade on the final turn before beige could just drop everything in the market and pull it out for a 1% fee

    yeah, i understand your issue with some trades not working, but i think this ^^^^ is a better solution. 

     

    Another solution is that when you loose a war, your assets in the market are also susceptible to being looted.

  6. Color Trade Blocs right now have no relation to TRADE, there are 2 solutions:

    1) Change the name to Color Blocs

    2) Actually add a mechanism to make trade blocs, and make Market Sharing a relevant button.

     

    I think there's enough innovation in the community for the genius's in you to post your ideas below. 

  7. 20 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

    This is a horrible idea, but it's super beneficial to me, so I say lets do it! 

    Side note, some of us do counters the old fashion way, we pay attention, track nations, and watch war declaration screens, seems to be working pretty well for Grumpy this war.  Maybe a little less bots and a little more hard work could benefit some alliances out there.  As the old are apt to say, "Back in my day..."

    What about other 3 proposals? Ideas? Feedback?

  8. Change Blitzkrieg. Honestly rn it is probably the worst war policy you can be at. After 24 hours of switching its all loss 0 gain. Here is my proposal:

    Quote

    Blitzkrieg

    Do X% more damage in the first 24 hours of any war, con: attackers start with 7 MAP

    OR

    Quote

     

    Blitzkrieg (Anti-Fortress)

    Start with 7 MAP when declaring war, con: opponents also start with 7 MAp

     

    Reduce Defensive war slots to only 2. In globals rn, all that matters is that you are 3 v 1, even if you loose at the start you have 3x the rebuilding capabilities, so by day 3 you have already turned the tide of the war irreversibly. This is even worse when you have an advantage over an enemy nation, and then his aa hits you with 3 other enemies, and ur going 4 v 1. Reducing the slots to 2 makes it a far more even playing field, so wars are less of 3 v 1 dogpiles, and closer to 2 v 2 multi-war engagements. Would make war based on your skill, and not how effective your aa discord counter bot is.

     

    Let Airstrikes hit Resources. irl hitting enemy fuel tanks/storage units can be decisive in war. Feel free to add ideas, but maybe Target Enemy Fuel (Gasoline Stockpiles) and Target Enemy Ammunition Depots (Munition Stockpiles) should be new options.

     

    Make Naval Battles more like Airstrikes. As a lot of people already commented, naval is kinda useless rn, unless your enemy has low muni/gas stockpiles. My idea is that Naval Battles work just like Airstrikes, you can target enemy Ships, Units (except Planes), Infa, Money or Resources (see above). Just like Airstrikes, all NB go through enemy ships.

    • Downvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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