War Policy Feedback

[Spooner]

From the podcast:
 

Tactician has no real drawback. 15% nerf to spies is nothing, because spies don't currently do anything useful. You said spies are balanced, they are not.

 

For that same reason, the Covert/Arcane policies are absolute garbage. Spies are only useful for taking down nukes and nothing else.

 

The only way to make this worthwhile is to make the "cheapest" spy operation cost free. That's the only way to do this, and I've suggested this a few times. Assassinating tanks/soldiers/planes/literally anything else but nukes is not cost effective. It's not worth the monetary cost. If you want your war policies to be balanced, you need to make spies useful. Otherwise the war policies will be accordingly imbalanced.

 

The rest were alright, so hopefully it would bring more dynamism into the game. You said, though, that pirate/raiding nations would likely use the "pirate" war policy -- I suspect that many of them would use the Guardian policy -- it's what I would do.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Syrup

[Woot]

I'll summarize the podcast since nobody is going sit through a 20 minute podcast:

 

Sheepy is thinking about 10 different war policies:

 

Attrition: Do 10% more infra damage, do 20% less looting. For alliance wars.
Turtle: Take 10% less infra damage, take 20% more loot damage. This deliberately cancels out the attrition policy.

 

Blitzkrieg: 1st attack does 10% more damage in causalities. But if you're attacked, your attacker starts with an extra action point.

Fortress: When attacked, attacker and defender start with 1 less action point.

 

Moneybags: Lose 40% less loot, take 5% more infra damage

Pirate: Get 40% more loot, double chance to lose improvements in ground and naval battles.

 

Tactician: Doubles chance to destroy improvements in ground and naval battles. Incoming spy operations 15% more effective.

Guardian: Half chance of losing improvements from ground and naval battles.

 

Covert: Spies are 15% more effective, take 5% more infrastructure damage

Arcane: Incoming spies are 15% less effective, take 5% more infra damage

 

These could be changed once every 5 days and are publicly visible.

 

---------------------

He also kept talking about how this is supposed to fix the complaints about low-infra raiders. I don't understand how people are still complaining about that or how this will fix it.

 

But as a stand-alone suggestion, I like the idea. Though the specific numbers need to be changed a lot. I agree with Syrup that covert/arcane is garbage.

[Spooner]

 

He also kept talking about how this is supposed to fix the complaints about low-infra raiders. I don't understand how people are still complaining about that or how this will fix it.

 

But as a stand-alone suggestion, I like the idea. Though the specific numbers need to be changed a lot.

 

Maybe not fix it, but at least provide alternative strategies to play the game. That said, personally, I would make the numbers more influential. These small numbers are basically just tweaking the game instead of providing a meaningful change to the gameplay.

 

I feel the same way about treasures. They were meant to incentivize war (or at least skilled diplomacy) but the bonuses are so lackluster than nobody really cares enough about them to fight over them. GPA's sitting on three of them & attacking that alliance has literally no diplomatic fallout. Treasure bonus should be doubled, imo, but that's a discussion for another day.

[Magnanimus]

If the war policies are publicly visible, I suggest we should allow them to be changed every day or at least once every 2 days. If they can be changed every 5 days then it is better to make them invisible and can only be revealed through a successful spy attack (it does not matter what kind of spy attack it it).

[Spooner]

If the war policies are publicly visible, I suggest we should allow them to be changed every day or at least once every 2 days. If they can be changed every 5 days then it is better to make them invisible and can only be revealed through a successful spy attack (it does not matter what kind of spy attack it it).

 

Disagree -- public visibility makes for more interesting planning/counterplay/bluffs.

[Mayor]

Making spy attacks free for regular sabotage (tanks, soldiers, aircraft) is actually a really good idea.

Having a higher cost for stealing information, assassinating spies and detonating nukes would make sense imho.

[Phiney]

From the podcast:

 

Tactician has no real drawback. 15% nerf to spies is nothing, because spies don't currently do anything useful. You said spies are balanced, they are not.

 

For that same reason, the Covert/Arcane policies are absolute garbage. Spies are only useful for taking down nukes and nothing else.

 

The only way to make this worthwhile is to make the "cheapest" spy operation cost free. That's the only way to do this, and I've suggested this a few times. Assassinating tanks/soldiers/planes/literally anything else but nukes is not cost effective. It's not worth the monetary cost. If you want your war policies to be balanced, you need to make spies useful. Otherwise the war policies will be accordingly imbalanced.

 

The rest were alright, so hopefully it would bring more dynamism into the game. You said, though, that pirate/raiding nations would likely use the "pirate" war policy -- I suspect that many of them would use the Guardian policy -- it's what I would do.

Just to clear up cost effectiveness, If you've already removed their spies to get at the nukes or someone else has, it is cost effective to spy away tanks and ships.

 

Also so you don't have to keep writing it out here's Sheepys table:

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Phiney

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Interesting concepts.

[Magnanimus]

Disagree -- public visibility makes for more interesting planning/counterplay/bluffs.

Visibility allows for setting up easy counters. It will enhance the first strikers advantage of setting his policies as a counter measure for the defenders.

 

If it is hidden, it will provide a much added strategic planning and will require attackers to have a plan B. It will reduce the first strike advantage and also visibility can be obtained by using spy ops first before declaring war.

 

This will make spy ops all the more important during wars.

[Kid Winchell]

What if war policy were something set on a per-war basis?

[Samdoo]

Nice idea.. It doesn`t address any issues players face with wars. If this was put in place with probably about 10 other changes, It`d be more interesting. 

[Wayne]

Disagree -- public visibility makes for more interesting planning/counterplay/bluffs.

Imo they should be hidden, successful spy attacks should be able to make it visible.

[Magnanimus]

Imo they should be hidden, successful spy attacks should be able to make it visible.

At last we agree on something