Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Prefontaine

  1. Reminding people to be civil in your disagreements. Flame me all you want, I'm used to it. Be nice to one another though.
  2. You're in the almost exclusively whale alliance sphere, yes?
  3. The modifier only goes one way, so it's almost like it's at 25% already, the attacker gets the buff/debuff not the defending party. Lets say we use the C20 v C15 example, the 20 attacking the 15. Currently the attacker would kill 12.5% less units in battle. Unit wise: C20 300,000 soldiers 25,000 tanks vs C15 225,000 soldiers 18,750 tanks Simulating 20 times: Simulations: 20 Average Attacking Soldiers Lost: 425954 21297.69 Defending Soldiers Killed: 551095 27554.76 Attacking Tanks Lost: 28097 1404.85 Defending Tanks Destroyed: 37607 1880.35 The new total would be 24,109 soldiers killed, a difference of 3,444. And 1645 tanks, a difference of 235 tanks. Reducing that by half isn't very impactful. The game wanted the city score change, look in the thread I linked when quoting you before. See above link comment.
  4. Yes, it does both of those things. That is the point of the change. It does not strengthen or weaken them beyond the benefit of having more cities. The only thing being reduced is the rate of kills/deaths being inflicted. If someone does up declare, the higher city nation gets no reduction against the nation attacking them, the attacker only gets the buff. If the nation down declares it only receives the reduction, the smaller nation does not get the buff. Victory rolls, unit sizes, all of these things stay intact.
  5. Limiting declare ranges with a hard bottom declare range was discussed in the past:
  6. You need to be more specific than "the winning side", what makes the winning side the winning side is very much important to the core of this change. If the winning side is simply winning because they have more high tiered nations this will impact how easy it is for them to be the winning side. Your "scrape back some ground" reference doesn't really exist in wars as it stands, it becomes a turtle nuke/missile war which this change doesn't really impact. If you're only argument is effectively a scenario that doesn't really happen, you may want to reconsider your view point. This change doesn't take place until above C10. Additionally the modifier is calculated before each attack.
  7. They do get a defensive modifier if they're declared on. Attacker getting a % reduction in damage is the same as the defender getting a % reduction in units lost.
  8. They will still get their overwhelming number of units advantage, still get the same chance for victory rolls in the IT -> UT range, they just kill a percentage less of the units they would kill.
  9. A simplification, but yes. The justification is in the OP. Massive down declares have been a long standing problem.
  10. 50% is not nullifying. It also does not impact the roll success rates.
  11. The third and final area of the war system up for rework is the declare ranges, huge down declares have long been an issue. A hard limit on down declares would solve the issue but is widely disliked, thus a modifier will be present for up and down swings in war. This modifier will impact infra damage dealt and unit damage dealt but units (not missiles/nukes). When attacking a nation that has more cities than you, you receive a positive modifier of 50% of the difference in cities from your nation. When attacking a nation that has less cities than you, you receive a negative modifier of 50% of the different in cities from your nation. These modifiers only take place above City 10 Some examples: A C15 attacks a C20, being a 33% difference in cities, the C15 receives a 16.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. A C20 attacks a C15, being a 25% difference in cities, the C20 receives a -12.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. As you can see the percentage calculated is based off of the attacking nations city count. This modifier will be calculated before each attack, thus if someone buys more cities mid war, the modifier will change. More examples: A C20 declares on a C19, 5% difference in cities, -2.5% modifier A C40 declares on a C30, 25% difference, -12.5% modifier A C35 declares on a C50, 43% difference, 21.5% modifier These changes will tie in to a score rework for military units more aligned with the results from this thread.
  12. Because you could spy on them to fill their defensive slots to prevent enemies from spying them in a meaningful way.
  13. Locking thread. Positive feedback does not compute.
  14. Redundant thread for the current poll. Locking. You can still vote if you want though.
  15. I am curious to the reasons people are voting yes or no as well, feel free to provide opinions.
  16. Feedback collected, updated change suggestions will be posted in the coming week.
  17. If you could only have one unit maxed going into a fight, and the rest simply on rebuy levels which would you choose? If you could have a second, which would you add?
  18. Simple question, should the number of spies a player has be viewable like other unit types? This used to be the case, but was changed to add increased secrecy to spies. Due to data collection and bots though, most of this information is accessible to those players with access to that data collection.
  19. And the person I was referring to voted for ships in all categories except the last one. They believe ships are the strongest, second strongest and third strongest all at the same time.
  20. The names are viewable. You can see someone vote ships for top 3 and then tanks for the weakest. This sort of thing let’s us know who’s feedback to ignore in the future 😅
  21. Please vote on which of the 4 basic units are the strongest to the weakest. Some of the score formulas are being looked at and the weight of unit types is being tweaked. Thank you.
  22. @Adrienne want to add it to the list for QoL?
  23. @SleepingNinja while it's a good idea, there is a major problem which Zig was getting at, and the larger side already has the advantage of being the larger side. You've effectively just doubled that advantage. You've also made it so a single player just starts their own one man AA and holds full reserve units, declares a raid on a small nation and then sudden has full mil and insurmountable strength without outside help. Some ideas to help address the above issues: 3 tiers of alliance, small, medium and large. Lets say small alliances are 10-25 members. Medium alliances are 26-75 members. Larger are 76+. You would likely need an activity counter on this which risks board alliances from being misrepresented. Each tier has it's own pool of alliance based units that it can deploy. Small alliances can have 500k soldiers, 50k tanks, etc... things like that at their reinforcement disposal. While it's not perfect it helps from one group really running away with things. It also stops the 1 man alliance issue I mentioned. Upkeep for these units would have to get paid from the alliance bank as well. If that was said somewhere I missed it. Again this would be extremely powerful for whales. If they could regularly get a refresh on the unit that is trying to be ground down, then whales can only be countered by more whales. DM me on discord if you want to talk more about it.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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