Jump to content

Lucianus

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Lucianus

  1. Alliances are organizing wars not to lose or to stalemate, but to win. There is rarely an offensive with the expectation that the attacking side is going to lose to war. If you declare a war, you want to win it.

    Regardless of the system, that basis of alliances acting in their own best interest, which they logically will do, is not going to change. Thus, alliances will have only one option to still guarantee a victory if blitz advantage is effectively eliminated, and that is to organize coalitions large enough to win counterblitzes.

    As a result, those counterblitzes won't be worth it as the attacking coalition will be large enough to win it, and thus, this new system, even though it wants to give an opportunity to fight back, will not achieve that. The main consequence of the beige changes is larger dogpiles, it's not extra opportunities to fight back.

  2. Before we did that, large alliances had their milcom check militarization updates daily, and in other times more often then that. Basically we made a bot do what a human did before, but don't think people won't track militarization if the bots stop doing so. If the bots don't track militarization, Milcom departments will. 

  3. For tanks versus planes: I think a reduction in the damage tanks can do to planes is positive, but I would propose to use the same mechanism for this as is used for planes which target soldiers, tanks or ships. The way it works for planes is (attackers_planes - 0.5 * defenders_planes) * a factor that differs for each type of unit. I would propose to not do a strict reduction of 33%, but rather have defending tanks mean something and be able to reduce the amount of lost planes. So the formula becomes (attackers_tanks - 0.5 *defenders_tanks) * a factor. I would propose to use this formula instead of a 33% reduction rate, regardless of defending tanks. If the defender has just as much tanks as you do, there will be a 50% reduction in destroyed planes and if the defender has no tanks, the damage done by tanks will be the same as it is currently. 

    • Upvote 1
  4. Currently, the national project spy satellite makes all spy ops performed 50% stronger (50% more spy vs spy kills, 50% more tanks, planes, ships kills).

    I've heard from some people that the amount of spy kills in 1 damage is too high. Currently, it is possible to kill up to 29 spies (if you're lucky) with spy sat. Some argue this is too high, and I can understand the concerns around that. On the other hand, spy sattelite requires the project missile launch pad and space program. The cost of spy sat is quite substantial, as is the cost for the space program. Therefore, the project, which costs many project slots and is expensive, should have a significant advantage in the spy war, otherwise it's not worth the cost. 
    I think it's a good solution to replace the 50% bonus from spy satellite with an extra spy op (from 2 to 3, provided you have intelligence agency). 

    This solution reduces the problem of too many spies killed in 1 op, while keeping a significant advantage for those with spy satellite. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  5. There are a few points I'd like to address,

    The most important one is that beige is based on the amount of infra (whether percentual or absolute) decides the amount of beige time. As a milcom head, I can say that I honestly don't care how much infrastructure there is destroyed in the cities of the enemy. Once a war starts both sides will go down to +-800 infra anyway, one side just takes a bit more time. The most important aspect to determine who is winning is the amount of troops both sides have, not the amount of infra. When this system is introduced, I can see that many nations will intentionally do attacks that are utter failures (even if they are on the winning side) to prevent to destroy infra. 

    Another point is that it's easy to 'beat' the system. If you're the losing side and in need of beigetime, why not declare a few attrition wars that you know you're gonna lose, just so you can lose infra from there which is very cheap to rebuy once you're down to 700-1000 infra. Those attrition wars can give you a lot of beige time for almost no cost. 

    Even though I seriously appreciate it that in this system there is no incentive to lose wars on purpose or to let them expire, there still is an incentive to not attack as good as you can or to declare wars with the intention of losing them, which does not sound good to me. 

    Besides that, in the video you pointed out one of the problems was that it was helpful to declare on your allies in the old system to give them beige time. This is true and I agree that it should be fixed. However, I fail to see why the current system would fix that. As infra costs almost nothing once a nation is below 1000, what stops me from declaring on an ally and getting attacked with a lot of ships while on attrition to gain beige time? The rebuild cost for to rebuy from 500 to 1000 infra is 1.3-1.5M/city, so I could get my infra destroyed and thus a full rebuild for the cost of only 1.5M * cities. I would take that deal, hence not preventing this issue. 

    • Upvote 3
  6. so I saw a suggestion to let you rebuild your army, all troops, in 3 days.

    I think this is a very bad idea. At day change, you can rebuild in a double buy 73.3% of your planes (current is 36.6%. I focus this on planes cause they are the most powerful unit. If you can rebuild 73.3% of your planes in a double buy you make it impossible for all small nations to ever succesfully fight against whales. By doing this, you make sure that the whales become overpowered and all wars are basically won with just the whales, cause they can win all wars against smaller nations.

    For example, if you attack with 3 c25 cities on a c30, currently it's a hard fight, but in some ways possible to win, and that should be the case. With this update, even if the initial attack went well for the attackers, the whale can just rebuild and keep all three c25 nations down. The city count becomes much more important and succesfull declares on nations that does have a higher city count becomes impossible, so basically the game will be dominated by whales if this happens. 

    Also, I think the system with spies works good as it is now. If you have all 3 spy projects you can rebuild 4 spies a day and it shouldn't be higher, case otherwise all spy ops have to be used for spy vs spy and will almost never be used to destroy other units, which defeats the purpose of the spies. 

    Furthermore, to do something that makes planes less overpowered can be interesting. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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