Jump to content
Alex

Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change

Recommended Posts

what you're doing is forcing everyone to play your way (1 play style) versus the conventional way that the majority of the game plays (and the way it's intended to be played.)

That's not true. I proved in the other score thread that people could have a good economic build and still beat us. I even showed the maths and nobody has been able to disagree with my figures.

 

The attack and defend ranges see to that.

 

Also there are alliances that Arrgh avoid hitting because they are quite able to defend themselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as you won't answer my question on IRC, I'll try here.  As the creator of the game, how did you intend the game to be played?

 

I presume you mean in regard to infrastructure, which I mentioned above:

 

 

 

High infra is supposed to be incentivized - otherwise when you have 30 cities with 1000 infra each it's way too hard to manage.

 

If you mean in regard to something else, you'll have to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree because aircraft already offer the most utility and are arguably the most important units in war. There's no reason to make them more powerful. Navies, on the other hand, are the least utilized (in higher levels) and giving them a boost is good for balance.

And totally unrealistic.

 

Increase the amount of casualties planes do to ships when attacking them.

Ships are sitting ducks in such scenarios.

As it is currently, 900 planes will take 8 AP to clear a force of 20-25 ships... and yet will destroy nearly 4,000 tanks in the same amount of time.

Edited by Fasolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And totally unrealistic.

 

Increase the amount of casualties planes do to ships when attacking them.

Ships are sitting ducks in such scenarios as it is.

 

Have you done an airstrike on ships before? They already destroy a lot.

 

And realism is a factor in development, but not the most important one. If you wanted realism, nations with nukes would basically be able to obliterate you at the drop of a hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume you mean in regard to infrastructure, which I mentioned above:

 

 

If you mean in regard to something else, you'll have to clarify.

 

Infra is a small part of the game.  As we have shown, a part you can mostly live without.  So you failed massively in your design...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infra is a small part of the game.  As we have shown, a part you can mostly live without.  So you failed massively in your design...

 

Okay

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you make fair points, and other people have looked over the list of war policies and come to different conclusions (which is good, if someone finds different utility in different policies, then that's how we'll end up with multiple playstyles.)

 

As for "Attrition" I don't think there's anything inherently defensive about it - when I think of a war of attrition I think of General Sherman burning the south in the U.S. Civil War. But that's just my own personal connotation, I suppose. Looking at the definition I don't see anything "defensive" about it.

 

And as for listening to the community, I do my best, but the amount of negativity that is thrown at me over the simplest of changes is ridiculous, and ultimately there are loud voices for and against any change I make. At some point, you're just stuck with my intuition and what I think is best for the game, for better or for worse. But hey, we've come this far based on that, I don't think we're going to burn the game to the ground just yet.

 

The concept of "total war" actually comes from Sherman's march through Georgia, IIRC. It's one of the earliest examples of it in practice that I'm aware of.

 

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march

 

TOTAL WAR

Sherman’s “total war†in Georgia was brutal and destructive, but it did just what it was supposed to do: it hurt Southern morale, made it impossible for the Confederates to fight at full capacity and likely hastened the end of the war. “This Union and its Government must be sustained, at any and every cost,†explained one of Sherman’s subordinates. “To sustain it, we must war upon and destroy the organized rebel forces,–must cut off their supplies, destroy their communications…and produce among the people of Georgia a thorough conviction of the personal misery which attends war, and the utter helplessness and inability of their ‘rulers’ to protect them…If that terror and grief and even want shall help to paralyze their husbands and fathers who are fighting us…it is mercy in the end.â€

 

A war of attrition would be more like what the Red Army did when the Nazis invaded and they burned bridges behind them, etc.

 

But I'll let you get back to trying to avert the apocalypse. xD

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A war of attrition would be more like what the Red Army did when the Nazis invaded and they burned bridges behind them, etc.

 

But I'll let you get back to trying to avert the apocalypse. xD

Don't forget the Red Army literally tells their mass soldiers to just run straight at the Germans so their planes bomb their own men.

When I think Attrition I think Hannibal when the Romans started scorched earth. Or when Russia does scorched earth on Napoleon.

Edited by Hooves
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would probably equate Total War with War of Attrition. Perhaps what you're thinking of (or at least what comes to mind for me) is a Scorched Earth policy. From google:

 

Attrition warfare is a military strategy in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources.

 

Scorched earth

A scorched earth policy is a military strategy that targets anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area.
 
 
Not that it matters, you are correct that there are more important things to worry about  :rolleyes: 
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you done an airstrike on ships before? They already destroy a lot.

LOL. Ive done many airstrikes... Thats how I know.

 

900 planes will take two strikes at 8 AP to take out a force of 25 ships (2 strikes for a force of 20 too, according to the battle sim)

And yet in the same amount of time destroy nearly 4,000 tanks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay

 

You vaule infra highly it seems, judging by your comments and attempts to protect it.  Yet you made infra something that is not overly needed.  Instead of tying military to improvements, you could have tied it to population, which in turn is tied to infra.  Suddenly making infra highly sought after.  Tying them to improvements was bad design.  One nuclear power plant, and 5 barracks, Airforce bases and factories are all the improvement slots a real man needs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I was against the change before, but now I see just how much some players have taken a flaw and exploited it greatly (and that number of players growing). As a result, I approve of the formula change. After looking it over, it just boost the score of high military low infrastructure nations, while lowing the score of low military high infrastructure nations. I think this brings about a great balance. The current system forces everyone to just build 100% military and hope for the best, which isn't a big deal if you're a large nation. The problem is large nations are attacking small nations that can't possibly adopt a 100% military model unless they want to become raiders themselves (or just not grow and be happy with their 5 cities and 1000 infrastructure). This is what is forcing one play style.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure why Arrgh has all this hate about it. They lose lower tier targets, but gain upper tier targets. There are a lot of large nations with a ton of infrastructure and practically no military that will drop score and make them more in reach of raiders. This seems like a fare trade off to me. Helps reduce large nations (high cities) from attacking/raiding/picking on smaller nations (less cities).

 

The Military Policies are interesting and l look forward to seeing how they are utilized. While I think there are to many, I think in the end they will be a solid addition. I see myself utilizing several of them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You vaule infra highly it seems, judging by your comments and attempts to protect it.  Yet you made infra something that is not overly needed.  Instead of tying military to improvements, you could have tied it to population, which in turn is tied to infra.  Suddenly making infra highly sought after.  Tying them to improvements was bad design.  One nuclear power plant, and 5 barracks, Airforce bases and factories are all the improvement slots a real man needs.

 

Yes, and I'll be the first to admit that I made some mistakes with initial planning of the game. But military units are tied to population now.

 

I'll admit I was against the change before, but now I see just how much some players have taken a flaw and exploited it greatly (and that number of players growing). As a result, I approve of the formula change. After looking it over, it just boost the score of high military low infrastructure nations, while lowing the score of low military high infrastructure nations. I think this brings about a great balance. The current system forces everyone to just build 100% military and hope for the best, which isn't a big deal if you're a large nation. The problem is large nations are attacking small nations that can't possibly adopt a 100% military model unless they want to become raiders themselves (or just not grow and be happy with their 5 cities and 1000 infrastructure). This is what is forcing one play style.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure why Arrgh has all this hate about it. They lose lower tier targets, but gain upper tier targets. There are a lot of large nations with a ton of infrastructure and practically no military that will drop score and make them more in reach of raiders. This seems like a fare trade off to me. Helps reduce large nations (high cities) from attacking/raiding/picking on smaller nations (less cities).

 

The Military Policies are interesting and l look forward to seeing how they are utilized. While I think there are to many, I think in the end they will be a solid addition. I see myself utilizing several of them.

 

This is quality feedback, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best example, and maybe most horrid, of "War of Attrition" would be the Battle of Verdun.

 

War of Attrition would be casualties more than anything... Like the "human meat grinder" of Verdun.

Force the enemy to pour troops in and kill them to such an extreme point the enemy's will to comtinue is broken (usually soaking you in blood too).

 

Allied Stategic Bombing of Germany and Japan too, to an extent. The part focused on killing as many civilians as possible - the fire bombings to create massive "fire storms" especially (such killed more than either atom bomb).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and I'll be the first to admit that I made some mistakes with initial planning of the game. But military units are tied to population now.

 

You didn't fo far enough, that is why you continue to have the problem of the hordes of low infra/high city raiders running amok and ruining your game.  I'm pretty battered atm, with most cities around 800.  I'm still a force to be reckoned with in my score range.  So try fiddling with the numbers more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I was against the change before, but now I see just how much some players have taken a flaw and exploited it greatly (and that number of players growing). As a result, I approve of the formula change. After looking it over, it just boost the score of high military low infrastructure nations, while lowing the score of low military high infrastructure nations. I think this brings about a great balance. The current system forces everyone to just build 100% military and hope for the best, which isn't a big deal if you're a large nation. The problem is large nations are attacking small nations that can't possibly adopt a 100% military model unless they want to become raiders themselves (or just not grow and be happy with their 5 cities and 1000 infrastructure). This is what is forcing one play style.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure why Arrgh has all this hate about it. They lose lower tier targets, but gain upper tier targets. There are a lot of large nations with a ton of infrastructure and practically no military that will drop score and make them more in reach of raiders. This seems like a fare trade off to me. Helps reduce large nations (high cities) from attacking/raiding/picking on smaller nations (less cities).

 

The Military Policies are interesting and l look forward to seeing how they are utilized. While I think there are to many, I think in the end they will be a solid addition. I see myself utilizing several of them.

 

Just how many of these low infra/high city accounts do you think there is?  At a rough guess...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably does make 90% of the game happier at the expense of the 10%. I just wish the 90% could adapt instead of asking for the game to change. Everybody has the same opportunities to use the exact same strategies but for some reason everybody is sitting at 2k infra complaining that 800 infra is too powerful. Do you guys really need a game mechanics change to stop a tiny, friendless band of pirates that you vastly outnumber? Why don't you try actually doing something in the game other than logging in once a day to sell resources?

 

I figure I might come out slightly ahead personally in my raiding, since I raid inactives at the extremely low score level and this will bring bigger nations into my range. But this whole affair makes me sad.

 

Sheepy, if you're changing the score calculations I'd like an option to delete cities please, when I bought my cities I never expected them to be worth 50 score.  

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably does make 90% of the game happier at the expense of the 10%. I just wish the 90% could adapt instead of asking for the game to change. Everybody has the same opportunities to use the exact same strategies but for some reason everybody is sitting at 2k infra complaining that 800 infra is too powerful. Do you guys really need a game mechanics change to stop a tiny, friendless band of pirates that you vastly outnumber? Why don't you try actually doing something in the game other than logging in once a day to sell resources?

 

I figure I might come out slightly ahead personally in my raiding, since I raid inactives at the extremely low score level and this will bring bigger nations into my range. But this whole affair makes me sad.

Bravo!

 

Greatest compliment of all I guess, is the need for "god" to wave his mighty hand and save the cowering masses.

 

Besides too... all this does is reward the least active and drive the most active into becoming less.

 

I wrote something over a month ago saying changes should encourage activity and team building / involvement, not make those who come here infrequently have less the need to do so.

 

 

 

Sheepy, if you're changing the score calculations I'd like an option to delete cities please, when I bought my cities I never expected them to be worth 50 score.

Agreed... You should be able to demolish a city.

Edited by Fasolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of score and war ranges is so that you're only able to fight people who can field similar levels of military as you. Otherwise, there wouldn't be war ranges at all, and we'd like 20 city, 2,000 infra nations attack brand new players. But how fun would that be for the new players?

 

If you really want cities deleted, you can PM me, and I can remove them. But there's no way to undo such an action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of score and war ranges is so that you're only able to fight people who can field similar levels of military as you. Otherwise, there wouldn't be war ranges at all, and we'd like 20 city, 2,000 infra nations attack brand new players. But how fun would that be for the new players?

 

If you really want cities deleted, you can PM me, and I can remove them. But there's no way to undo such an action.

 

Could have done it based on city count, seeing as that is the controling factor on military strength... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of score and war ranges is so that you're only able to fight people who can field similar levels of military as you. Otherwise, there wouldn't be war ranges at all, and we'd like 20 city, 2,000 infra nations attack brand new players. But how fun would that be for the new players?

 

If you really want cities deleted, you can PM me, and I can remove them. But there's no way to undo such an action.

 

Hang on - Wasnt that fixed by the pop caps? Because it did that >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on - Wasnt that fixed by the pop caps? Because it did that >.>

 

No - it was a step in the right direction, but did not ultimately solve the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I dislike Arrgh's raiding tactics, I have to say that initially these new values struck me as more of an axe than a scalpel approach.

 

 

 

Sorry @ my pirate friends, but you shouldn't be allowed to wreck everyone in your range because you have more cities than them.

 

 

Alternatively, maybe we shouldn't double and halve values as a first measure. The war system needs tweaking, not just war ranges - from my very limited experience so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how many of these low infra/high city accounts do you think there is?  At a rough guess...

 

I'd say just a small percentage (1-2% of players). BUT, the point is these people shouldn't be able to attack someone with half the number of cities. The only reason there are high city/low infrastructure nations is because those once large nations where beaten down during the last war and they found a sort of haven for raiding. These are established nations that have just a jack ton of military improvement compared to the nations at that level (and I'm even assuming all parties involved have full military). Sure, these nations are limited by their max units because of population now, but they can build a military to equal the smaller, fully military stocked nation in just 1 day (because of all those military improvements). This makes it impossible to fight back, even with coordination.

 

This is an exploit that Sheepy clearly didn't account for and what this potential fix is attempted to help limit. This update won't stop these type of things from happening either, but it will help give some more breathing room at the lower levels and give them a far chance to establish a sizeable military/cities before entering what has become a death zone for growth.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of score and war ranges is so that you're only able to fight people who can field similar levels of military as you.

Many of the people I fight have more cities than me and could potentially field a much larger army.

They end up in my point range because while I have a very strong standing military... they have little or nothing kept in defense.

 

Which leads to the real problem behind all of this...

 

Many dont want to field any military at all, because they dont want to pay the upkeep cost.

 

They are focused fully on "farming" resources, and cash from commerce... and dont want to be that involved in anything more, beyond checking in daily, and maybe a little more during the very infrequent "declared wars".

 

And so they cry for changes to the game, rather than get more active and involved in playing the game - adapting their play style to both defend themselves and deter attacks from happening in the first place (which would lead to much more active alliances and in turn a more involved game / player base).

 

 

Otherwise, there wouldn't be war ranges at all, and we'd like 20 city, 2,000 infra nations attack brand new players. But how fun would that be for the new players?

And that extreme doesnt happen, nor anything close... So its a non-issue.

Edited by Fasolt
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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