Caladin
-
Posts
62 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Caladin
-
-
In addition to that, what happens if a coup is taking place?
Say, if I coup Sith, and if Sith retains control of the IG AA and I gain control of the forums; who would breach that rule by posting an annoucement?(Personally, I believe neither should, though it seems under that rule one would be)
-
First, wow; I am constantly impressed by what you are trying to do with this game.
Second, despite that, I would like to suggest a few change
Before you read anything please take a look at the at the attached jpg file; it's a map with the nodes named for easy reference (since I forgot to include a key, dashed lines are continent dividers, arrows are connections while red dots are nodes while blue dots are hubs, even in South America where I, for some reason, named them differently :/
(Also, f*** photobucket and its insistence on reducing my file sizes to 60kb)
Anyway, back onto topic
First, capturing nodes. Your current plan, I believe, encourages stat padding rather than war, so as to allow alliances to throw more score onto their nodes. In addition to that it means that a small, well coordinated alliance cannot take control of nodes because they cannot throw enough points at it, even if the alliance they face has 90% of its membership only checking in every ten days.
Instead, I would propose that they can be captured through war, and indeed make the entire war system based around these nodes and hubs. This can, I believe, be done through implementing a system of 'war goals'; an alliance can, at any time, declare an IG war on another alliance, and then it can add a war goal to capture a connected node; for instance, if alliance X controlled the Canadian Node and alliance Y controlled the Greenlandic Node alliance X could declare war on alliance Y and then add the war goal of capturing the Greenlandic Node.
Wars would last until the engaged alliances agree to end them, while war goals would last for either seven days or until the 'war score' is equal to or greater than one; if the war lasts seven days then it ends in status quo ante bellum, while if the 'war score' passes 1 then the attacking alliance gains control of the node and the the defending alliance has their nations redeployed to the continental hub (I'll go over what that could mean later). Once a node has been captured it new war goals cannot be declared on it for 100 hours (so as to allow defending nations to be deployed - once again, more on that later).
War score is calculated by the following equation:
(# of defending cities occupied)/(# of defending cities not occupied))
(If (# of defending cities) = 0 then the attacking alliance automatically wins.(More on what occupied means later)
An alliance would defend the node it owns and attack from them by deploying nations to the node; to encourage forward planning deployment wouldn't be instantaneous and instead would take three days; in addition to that once a redeployment is started it cannot be changed until the nation has arrived at its destination (you better watch out who you put in charge of your nation movement; a turncoat could suddenly order all your nations redeployed and leave you without defenceless)
Nations can only be deployed to nodes that their alliance controls and that are on the same continent that they are on (though they can attack over continental boundaries). Nations cannot, however, be redeployed from nodes that are currently war goals (so as to prevent heavily occupied nations being withdrawn to pull the war score down)
Hubs act slightly differently; Hubs can be contested by any alliance that controls 10% or more of the total score within the hub. Contesting a hub means that that alliance can declare war goals on nodes neighboring the hub; score is simply taken from the nation score that we have now. If you contest a hub you are able to attack from it to the neighboring nodes; if you do not contest a hub you cannot.
Now, onto what this means for wars on the national scale.
First, there would be no size restrictions; any nation can attack any nation, assuming their alliances are at war, though they may only use ground troops if they are in neighboring nodes or hubs (other attacks, such as air attacks, could be launched from anywhere to anywhere). This will of course need some balancing, but I don't believe that it will need much due to the occupation system; I would suggest a slight modification to the barracks would do it; using the following formula to determine the maximum number of barracks a nation can own.
30 + (# of cities) * 5
With a maximum of 10 barracks in each city; and change their effects from
toBarracks allow you to train infantry. Barracks cost $3,000 to build.
Barracks allow you to train 1% of your population as soldiers per day, up to 1,000 new soldiers a day. Each soldier costs $1.25 per day in peacetime, or $3.50 per day in wartime. You can have 1 barracks per city.
Barracks allow you to train infantry. Barracks cost $3,000 to build.
Barracks allow you to train 0.05% of your cities population as soldiers per day, up to 50 new soldiers a day. Each barracks also allows you to maintain an additional 5% of your cities population as soldiers, up to 1000 soldiers. Each soldier costs $1.25 per day in peacetime, or $3.50 per day in wartime. You can have 10 barracks per city.
This would mean that a small (small by a couple of months time standard) nation with five cities could own 50 barracks, allowing them to maintain 50,000 soldiers while a nation with ten cities could only own 80 barracks, allowing them 80,000 soldiers; since under this proposal each city would need to be defended individually the smaller nation would have, in a sense, an advantage, given that they can deploy 10,000 troops to defend each city while the larger nation could only deploy 8,000.
Now is probably the time to explain occupation; a city would be occupied if the number of successful attacks less the number of failed attacks reaches 10 attacks (whether this little section will work will depend on how attack mechanics are implemented; it may need to be rethought depending on how they work). The last nation to successfully attack the city occupies it and can deploy troops to defend it as they would any other city that they owned but aside from that it does nothing and has no effect; neither the occupier nor the occupied can gain revenue or resources from its ownership nor does it increase the maximum number of barracks either nation can have.
Occupied cities can be liberated in three ways; the alliances fighting agree to peace, the nation is redeployed or the alliance successfully liberates it through force with the same mechanic under which it was occupied in the first place - if another alliance successfully occupies it then it is returned to the owner if the third alliance is not at war with the first, or occupied under the same mechanic if the third alliance is also at war with the first.
For this to work attacking and defending would need to work in a certain way; I see this as a nation could either deploy troops to an attacking pool or to individual cities as defenders; if deployed as defenders they cannot be used to attack and the reverse also would be true. Their stance could not be changed until either 24 hours after the nation last launched an attack or 24 hours after the stance was last changed, whichever is later; newly trained soldiers are automatically equally distributed as defenders in the nations cities (the exception to this is when occupying a city, after which 20% of the attacking troops are automatically assigned to defending that city)
This would mean nations could not use troops in attack and then immediately switch them to defence, meaning that nations will have to either try and balance attacking and defending or alliances will balance attacking and defending, using smaller nations with their higher troop density to hold a region while using larger nations with their higher troops numbers to seize enemy cities while allowing their own to be captured.
As for what the nodes will do I would suggest having something slightly different; rather than giving each hub an effect I would suggest taking the idea of alliance wonders and making it dependent on hubs; at each hub you own you can construct maybe two alliance wonders (if the node is captured then the wonders are captured with it, though I would suggest that if that means they have duplicate wonders then only one wonder gives them its bonus)
It would give alliances more freedom over which hubs they seize, allowing them to choose for strategic reasons, as well as meaning that you don't have to attempt to balance out the effects of each node, while still providing a massive incentive to controlling them.
While this does not quite slot in with your idea of ensuring cooperation between alliances I believe that it will still result in such cooperation; I doubt that an alliance working alone could defend more than a couple of nodes, meaning that they will have to cooperate or have to split their forces and lose all of their nodes to alliances that do.
As one last note, I'd suggest removing the cap on number of nodes that can be controlled; I believe that under what I have proposed above the number of nodes a single alliance could control would be limited by realpolitik; maybe an alliance could seize a chain of nodes, but as I said above I doubt a single alliance could hold more than two nodes that border non-controlled regions (and that would require them to the same size as their nearest two rivals put together, possibly larger depending on how many connections the node has)
Edit/
I sincerely hope this is legible... I really couldn't be bothered proofreading it
-
2
-
-
A while ago I suggested that nuclear weapons should impact global food supply, possibly cutting it by up to maybe 75%; I would still think that would be a good way to go about doing this, given how important food is (though the current system by which if you are in negative food you can't collect will have to change; maybe just implement a starvation meter that for every day you are in negative the meter gains a point, while for every day you are in positive it losses a point, to a baseline of zero; the higher the meter is, the larger a negative population modifier you receive (and maybe also have being in starvation kill off a small number of your soldiers each day))
-
Small pays less than bigger seems quite fair to me . What would happen to wonders when two or more alliances deside to merge?
There would also be a quite large exploit in the fact that an alliance could empty itself of all but one member and then have that member, with the support of the rest of the alliance, purchase the wonder at a discount.
-
You can build them in a solo alliance too. Maybe even for cheaper since you have fewer members. IMO, the meaning of a "wonder" diminishes if say 5000 nations have Manhattan Projects.
I don't think we want to encourage micro alliances; I don't believe that adjusting the cost based on the size of the membership makes any sense.
-
It should never give cities because it appears that they are going to be the primary cap on growth; instead allow the receiving nation to choose between cash, food, oil, coal etc (all non-processed materials)
-
We really need to get the war system soon before I feel the overwhelming urge to somehow roll someone through the forums
-
The only things of merit I see here are the parts which, ironically, copy (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). I'm referring to limits on attacks, number of nations that can attack another at one time, and the range of nations that can attack another. I really don't want to see peace mode in this game, though. At least not in the same form as (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Nations need to be able to recover but let's get a little more creative.
Someone suggested a view weeks ago that each nation could earn 'action points' that accumulated every hour until the cap was reached; attacks would use them, with some attacks using more than other attacks.
Personally, I quite liked that suggestion; I felt that it could make a war system that would be more interesting than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s and less connected to update but also just as simple.
-
I agree with Lambdadelta; far too complex, and I believe most of the current players would also agree.
-
Tbh, I think wars should always be losses, but a successful war can make peacetime more profitable.
-
o/ Fancy graphics
Oh, and o/ Guardian while I'm at it; good to see you here; I hope that here we can find common interests rather than opposing each other as we did in Martian Empires
-
There is no incentive for small nations to focus on resource production, and it is simply far too easy for large nations to build up small ones (or even for several small ones to build each other up
Fortunately, we have a couple of suggestions to deal with this already
Wait, you're the guy objecting to them o.O
Anyway, I would agree with this suggestion, particularly Lambdadelta's take on it, if the cost was sufficiently high that it took a long time to go through the upper levels; maybe even by the final stages it took six months or a year of saving to be able to go up a level.
This could also give older nations something to work towards instead of collecting revenue.
Edit/
For the tiers, maybe something like this: (All numbers and unlocks being entirely arbitrary & pulled out of my arse)
Level zero:
Allows the purchase of Infra, Land and mines, excluding Uranium mines.
Level one:
Oil and/or Coal - 250 units
Bauxite and/or Iron - 250 units
Food - 250 units
Lead - 250 units
$125,000
Allows the construction of Coal and Oil powerplants
Level two:
Oil or Coal - 500 units
Bauxite and/or Iron - 500 units
Iron - 500 units
Food - 500 units
$250,000
Allows the construction of Iron and Lead refineries
Level three:
Iron - 750 units
Food - 500 units
$250,000
Allows construction of barracks
Level four:
Allows construction of Oil Refineries
Level forty-five:
Iron - 10,000
Petrol - 5,000
Food - 10,000
Aluminium - 5,000
$50,000,000
Increase average income $0.1
Etc
(Or maybe don't even make it linear; allow a nation to purchase whatever they can afford; if they don't want military units yet, they don't have to 'unlock' them)
-
Over thousands of years
Anyway, if this is implemented I would prefer to have it also have a minimum amount of stockpiled food, maybe 1000 units, or maybe scaled to nation size, before these penalties kick in for the food above that amount.
-
Would prevent large stockpiles negating the effects of embargoes; iSupport
-
It will have no value for practically everyone, tbh, and probably will just end up clogging the market screen with useless trades, making it in some ways worse that useful.
-
1
-
-
Uh, but why?
It would be absolutely pointless.
-
^That looks awesome.
-
Capping by the sender doesn't resolve the issue; the money received by the receiver could still be very high, depending on how large the sender is. Capping the amount received means that it doesn't matter how large the sender is, they still can't drop vast amounts of cash on a nation.
-
These are awesome ideas, I love them. Keep coming up with more suggestions!
For aluminum a thought: You could have a recycling policy that maybe increases aluminum production but costs money (because you're subsidizing it).
To add on to this, maybe allow aluminium and steel to be produced, at great expense and damage to the average income, in recycling plants should a certain policy be activited; could allow an embargoed nation to keep fighting. I suppose this could be compared to the way that Britain called for anything aluminium to be donated to the government so that they could be melted down to produce fighters during WWII
-
I don't know. I'd like to set a fair cap on that so that you can but not to such great extent, however with the market as free as it is that creates some issues. You could just send 10m 100 times instead of sending 100m once. Or, if there was a limit you could still send 10m to 6 nations and have 5 of those nations send it forward to one of them and he'd end up with the 60m.
I'm not sure what the best response for this is. Unless we just set a limit on the amount of money you could send for nothing in return (let's say it's $10m) and only let each nation accept one of those every X amount of days or whatever.
We've discussed a couple of methods for this; one was to limit the amount of cash a nation could receive in foreign aid to a certain percent of their daily income; maybe 10% or so - enough to help them but not enough for them to grow out of control. (This probably would involve making foreign aid separate from the trade system)
-
It is if it unbalances game play, which I strongly believe it does.
So what is the point of an alliance then if we aren't allowed to use them to develop our nations quickly?
I think you guys are severely overreacting to something that is a natural function of alliances.
I think I listed some already, but I can throw another at you if you insist; Mutual Defence
May I ask; do you believe that the capacity to aid needs some sort of cap, abet not this sort of cap?
-
It is if it unbalances game play, which I strongly believe it does.
-
This is actually the best point made in this thread.
Good pointing out Reagan.
Edit: Me and somebody else were actually just discussing how the market is useless right now. Everyone wants to sell and nobody wants to buy because everyone is gaining resources and nobody is losing anything.
Maybe we should abolish the market? Its not like its really "needed" as we can all do business with private deals. Sure the market is convenient, but Reagan has a good point. These markets always fail.
The market isn't being used much at the moment because no one needs surplus resources yet; it is still easy to be self sufficient. In a couple of months or maybe even weeks, however, people will start to run out of certain resources and then they will start to import and that is when the market will become useful.
Why is an alliance working together to grow together a "problem" that needs to be "corrected"?
What exactly is the point of an alliance in your view, then?
I don't agree at all that we need to discourage teamwork and coordination among allies. If you want to compete, then you have to compete.
Honestly, you might as well get rid of foreign aid entirely. But oh wait, that would also benefit larger nations.
Lastly, a question: All of you keep talking about trading resources for money. Most people do not seem to be doing that - At least not the smart ones. They are sending money. It's called sending aid, but this is not mentioned anywhere in your suggestions. Do you guys want to remove that completely?
You will have to coordinate regardless; it's likely that some resources are going to be in short supply (given the predominance of nations in Europe and North America) so alliances are going to have to work at rectifying that internally. What we want to prevent is nations jumping up to top tier immediately; it means that wars, once implemented, will be a wipeout, with the larger alliance easily winning because they can afford to bankroll their members and it means that new alliances will be unable to compete, as they won't have nations to bankroll their smaller nations with.
Not to mention having to coordinate to do things like control your colour sphere, your continent, etc.
How is anything we've seen so far "end game stage"?
I think in the grand scale of things, everything we are doing now will be small fry. Why is it impossible to think that a year from now we might have 10,000 score nations? Is that really so hard to come to terms with?
Uh, yes. 10k nation score doesn't actually seem to be possible with the current mechanics.
I'm fine with reinstituting aid slots and perhaps putting a cap on the amount we can send. But this stuff about how alliances sending aid is terrible is just too much for me. I'm tired of people crying about an alliance working together instead of putting their own workboots on and building their own alliances just as we and even TSE are currently doing.
I will remind you that I am a member of TSE and this exploit is the only reason that we are as powerful as we are; not because we are particularly good builders, we are not, but because we have larger nations pouring cash into smaller ones.
But all of these solutions are overly complex trying to solve a simple problem. Nobody here with any sense is advocating against the idea of alliances aiding their members. That is literally one of the main points of an alliance - to collect taxes from its members (or however they get their aid money) to tactically distribute among their members to boost important areas of growth. Coordination. Teamwork. Its why we form alliances.
The only real issue is, as you all say, getting someone to end game status. As it stands, yes, it is fairly easy to boost people into the top tier - but the current top tier is only like getting to 1 month of organic growth. I don't think shaving off 1 month is an issue. The issue is having 10 10k nations (a year or two down the line) all aid bombing a dude up to their level in a few weeks. I don't know how many would do this (I personally wouldn't offer more than starter aid imo) but I can see why that would be a problem. There are two solutions to this: limit aid slots or cap the cash you send.
The current reason slots are unlimited is because I convinced sheepy of the need for unlimited transactions for a proper market to function., I stand by this conviction, but the market doesn't have to be the same as aid slots. You can do something like project-terra where there is one open market - anybody can post offers to it, and anybody can buy them - that is handled separately from slots, and you can buy/sell as much as you want on there. Then there are your aid slots, maybe limit those based on improvements or something. And then limit the cap of cash you can send. A mil? I dunno we'll have to figure that out as we go.
The advantage of this open market as well is that it prevents people (well to a better extent any way) from abusing it to still spam lots of aid. Sure you could post buying 1 iron for 100mil and ask one of your members to grab it. But anybody else who sees it can grab it first and there goes your 100mil. Its not perfect, sure, but it brings a significant layer of risk to help deter this.
I agree with Reagan that markets are going to be hard to make without inevitably creating loopholes. I don't think we should give up on it though. Did (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) cut out this problem? Yeah. But (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) has increasingly stale gameplay with very few elements that simply isn't fun and encourages exactly 1 build/play style for all members.
Tbh, I would aid bomb them without hesitation, and I'm probably not the only one; a strong top tier is very important in these games and I would do everything I can do to boost my own. (And because myself and others would be willing to do this you would find yourself having to do it, or else find yourself with an upper tier that doesn't stand a chance against your opponents ones)
Except you can offer to sell one iron for $100,000; I don't think anyone would want to grab that.
-
ENTP
Extravert(33%) iNtuitive(88%) Thinking(62%) Perceiving(11)%
You have moderate preference of Extraversion over Introversion (33%)
You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing (88%)
You have distinctive preference of Thinking over Feeling (62%)
You have slight preference of Perceiving over Judging (11%)
I was stuck on the same for about four years, but recently it's been shifting quickly.
I have no idea how accurate these are, but comparing the current to the past is definately interesting.
Taking Land and Resources in war (and possibly curb damage a bit)
in Suggestions Archive
Posted
I haven't tested it myself, but from reading this it appears that two things need changes:
The amount of damage dealt; even if it realistic, taking 60 damage off each attack after a nation is out of soldiers appears a little over the top; maybe this should be reduced to thirty
The maximum number of troops a nation can have on hand; maybe set it at 30% of the population (or, even better, set it so that every soldier you have results in one less citizen paying tax; should set a soft limit while allowing nations to go over that soft limit just before they attack somewhere)
Personally, I have no issue with war not providing economic benefits; I don't believe it should, for war is expensive - economic benefit, if any, should come as a result of the war, in the form of reparations or control of 'map hubs?'
Edit/
Turns out that I have tested the war system.
It appears that after you have run out of soldiers your opponent can empty out your bank; this seems, well, problematic, as it means that once a nation has reached zero soldiers they will struggle to recover, for their opponent will not only have more soldiers than them (and thus can kill of all their soldiers easily) but they won't have any money (without collecting, and thus putting that cash at risk) with which to purchase more soldiers.
As such, I would suggest limiting the amount of cash that can be stolen, even when a nation is out of soldiers, and also making it harder to kill of the last soldiers a nation has; if you want a realism reason, once you outnumber the enemy by, say, ten to one, they are going to be fighting a guerilla war.