Jump to content

Majima Goro

Members
  • Posts

    1144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Majima Goro

  1. Never forget! KT and their war crimes!
  2. But you MADE them do it so you literally are at fault here.
  3. Looks like this Alan character is going to get a visit from someone
  4. Time to unleash the micro BABAI on your coalition!
  5. This already does happen. You can keep buying soldiers and suiciding them without munitions to kill tanks. Blockades are a problem yes although maybe having blockades being auto-broken every say 6-12 turns isn't an option, atleast not one I believe will be a popular one.
  6. I have no idea what your point is. I'm talking in a numbers perspective that the number of kills for any city remains a constant, be it in defensive or offensive wars. I'm not saying I'm going to use c10s cs c100s. I'm saying that the entire bs about squaring and applying percentages to make it seem like a c40 v c35 matchup is a extremely one-sided battle is unnecessary and in fact, extremely false. A c35 hitting a c40 is a close matchup. Infra here is an unnecessary thing to bring up since the c35 could have more infra or even infra with the c40. As for experience, that is also a non-factor. In most wars, the first hits are coordinated by milcom. Be it a c35 or a c7, they are expected to listen to milcom when they hit. Also, 3 c35s hitting a c40 with airstrikes is going to kill a shit ton of planes on the c40. Unless they were online to strike back first, the c40 would be extremely dead. Your entire point tbh should be that the game is too incompetent these days and Alex should make it easier for incompetentence to win if they have more numbers. Again, this topic is meant to discuss how to make it such that losing nations can fight back better or get better time to get ready. If you want to discuss about secret treaties, then you should make a new topic. Secret treaties aren't gameplay mechanics, they are a failure of FA
  7. Updeccing literally *is* supposed to be costly. Also percentages aren't a good stat at all times. Pure numbers might serve as better stats at times as well. Especially since the number of kills in PnW is not related to ratios(percentages) but is related to numbers. If you have a c10 hitting a c100, they would kill same number of planes that they would have against a c50. The causalities too are dependent on how many planes the opponent has. FunFact: The highest city updecc where you would kill equal or more planes than you lose is 1.35x your city. This means a c30 can hit a c40 and take out planes equal to or more than he'd lose. 3 c30s working together can hence take down a c40 such that the c40 loses 3x the planes the c30s individually do.
  8. BABAI approves of this post Pro tip: If you are easily offended, do not join. If you can't handle people with differing views from you, do not join. If you aren't based, do not join.
  9. Man this thing reminds me of NPO-BK(coalition) kek-hitting people who peaced out. Guess old habits die hard lol.
  10. Is this like a new way to raid or smth? Like just do a DoW on the forum asking for a 1v1 and get no counters? God damn you guys are real intelligent!
  11. There is no way to stop people from dogpiling. There only are ways to make it easier to make a comeback for the smaller group. If you want to stop dogpiles from happening, you will need to do it politically, as in, go to a sphere or alliance or bloc and get them to treaty your own till numbers on both sides are more or less balanced.
  12. A majority of wars till date have been dogpiles. While there are few examples of how a side with superior activity and "competence" in general have been able to "win" against dogpiles, dogpiles are generally hated by the community. The reason for the hate is that it is extremely hard to win a dogpile. While there have been a number of changes to solve this problem, none of them seem to have been effective enough. The most notable among these failed changes has been the reduction to causalities for defenders in the war compared to the aggressor. While such a system looks good on paper in a 1v1 situation, nations have 3 defensive slots and hence we really need to look at a 3v1 situation, sometimes at 9v1 situations even. The biggest reason for the failure is that to oppose an invading force, the defender needs to attack the aggressor as well in which case the causality nerf applies to the defender. Plus, having already lost units in the opening hits by the aggressor, the defender is effectively already fighting an up-hill battle.The topic of this forum post however is not to criticize past decision - it is to provide a solution and maybe influence any future ones. Potential Solutions: Ending all wars in beige: This has been one of the most suggested changes to fight back against dogpiles. Dogpiles always rely on two things-Manpower and Beige Cycling. Ending all wars in beige makes Beige Cycling extremely difficult. Even at the current rate of 2 days of beige, at worst, the person on the losing side of a war would be able to get into a situation where he is being sat on by a single player alone and has upto 4 days of beige. Double Buys and coordination by the losing side could easily subdue this single person sitting on a zeroed person, letting them build up to at least some days of military buys and rejoining the battle against the enemy. Moreover, since both beiging and expiring the war would result in beige, players would be more inclined to beige their wars for the loot and infra damage than to just sit around and let a war expire. Ending all wars in beige do have some abusable points like where pirates could use this to get beiged before raiding new targets or slotfilling being hard to detect because the person is doing attacks. But such abuses would be easy to notice and punish. To make getting beiged by expired wars punitive for the defender, the target would lost 4% of their infrastructure as they would in case of being defeated. To make it punitive for the aggressor, a war beiged due to expiry will not give any beige loot to the aggressor. This would also stop abuses by pirates who might attack an inactive player, do a single attack to get their resistance below 100 and then expire the war without doing any more attacks but looting the target. Increasing Resistance Loss due to attacks: A second way to stop sitting would be to increase resistance loss due to attacks. Currently, the least number of attacks needed to beige a person 8 attacks. This implies that if you are attacked, the attacker would be able to do 8 battles against you and you will lose units 8 times. Now, if say the number of battles a person could do to you was reduced to 5. You would in theory lose 37.5% less units. The attackers would have to attack you more to zero you. This makes it more likely for the attacker to beige you and give you time to rebuild. This plus the lower causalities to defender would mean it is harder to zero a nation out without beiging them and giving them time to rebuild. The proposal hence is that the resistance lost per attack be increased. A new resistance table would need to be drawn up for this. However, that is something a person good with numbers should do and not me. The theory is if more resistance is lost, sitting would be harder and beige time would help people recover. It is also possible that the players would enter beige with some military leftover. Decreasing defensive slots: This might be a controversial suggestion and might not be liked by all. However, a 2 defensive slot system could immensely help a smaller side. In a war with say an opponent 10 times larger than you own, the odds would always be 3v1 since that is the maximum number of defensive slots you have. Any person other than these 3 would just be sitting out there waiting for their turn. However, 3 people attacking 1 person might actually be overkill. A 2v1 might be more manageable. Not only this, since 2 people would kill less units, it might be more difficult to sit as well. Plus, upon getting beiged, it is possible the defender would still have a part of their military leftover. As to why this would be a bad thing to do, this would make the whales in the game extremely powerful, especially since it would be very hard to drag their military down and inflict much damage on them. Increasing daily buy limits: Another way to let dogpiled nations fight back is to increase daily buy limits for nations. Being able to buy more military daily(say 25%-33%) of your military daily would allow nations to easily fight back their aggressors, even if they have more military. Even though these attacks would probably be suicide attacks, a well-coordinated team attack could easily help beat down or even zero the aggressors in such situations. The downside to this is that since the aggressor too can buy more military, it might become more of a stalemate war with the winner being decided by whoever has a larger bank or more willpower to keep fighting. To implement this however, causalities would need to be increased to make it worthwhile to fight and double buy against the aggressors. Different kill rates depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender: I opened with how reducing causalities to make wars even didn't exactly work out the way it was intended to. This is a patch to that change. Basically, depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender, your causality rates would differ. If you are the aggressor, you would lose more units and kill less units in offensive wars compared to what the defender would. That is to say, if you lose 100 soldiers and 10 tanks and kill 200 soldiers and 30 tanks in an offensive ground battle as an aggressor, the defender would lose 50 soldiers and 5 tanks while killing 300 soldiers and 50 tanks in an offensive ground battle as the defender(the numbers are just examples). The difference in numbers signifies the "Home Advantage" of the defender. This could make chipping at the aggressor by defenders more worthwhile than they are now and give a better way to fight back.
  13. I agree that war ranges and war slots should be abolished totally. Allow unlimited offensive and defensive wars regardless of size.
  14. Oh shit, looks like I'm going to get cancelled again boys.
  15. A bad thing has happened irl to me. My lasagna fell down
  16. They join Rose so they can attack HW obviously
  17. What OOC beliefs does my nation portray, Mr.CategorizesPeopleBasedOnTheirNation-sama https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=262298
  18. Best way is to let all wars end in beige. The side with lower resistance would be beiged but won't lose resources(and maybe not infra) This would effectively make any numbers superiority useless.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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