Regarding the new score formula

[Enzos]

Maybe cities shouldn't contribute to score at all. Just infra and military.

[Ogaden]

Cities probably should count towards score, I thought the old formula for cities was roughly balanced, even then people could get piled on when rekt.  Now it's just silly

[Stormrideron]

This score change is pretty bad as it gives the defenders almost nothing to fight back.

[Clarke]

This score change is pretty bad as it gives the defenders almost nothing to fight back.

We have yet to see defenders be in that position. 

[Ogaden]

We have yet to see defenders be in that position. 

 

Sheepy's yet to build anything I haven't destroyed in 2 hours

[Alex]

Sheepy's yet to build anything I haven't destroyed in 2 hours

 

You're certainly more active than I am, but I haven't given up yet

[LordRahl2]

You do realize this was already possible under the last score formula.

I can say in the last war I had to avoid getting beaten down by nations with more score than me while I had more cities than them.

However if the same were to happen now I think I would stand a better chance and be less dependent on worrying about who's score range I am in because overly powerful nations I feared would now be out of range.

 

If someone can't escape to beige well that wasn't going to be pretty under the last score formula either. But considering the more powerful nations are out of range it's definitely not as bad as before.

 

Well it's questionable as I don't know if you can stay in range with a strong military, you would probably need to purposely not build out of his range. Jacob was sent to beige early on so if Sheepy was not to recover then he can have time as Jacob did to recover on beige and plan an attack.

 

 

 

On the contrary I think everyone complaining here has no clue and once the next global war happens will see that the system is better than before.

Lets say its 210 nations vs 40 nations such as UPN and co vs Arrgh, you know I actually think I have evidence of similar stats prior to the score formula change that the smaller side didn't recover from to fight back and were extracted from.

I could literally go on all day about how everything everyone is complaining about already existed but under the new score formula change the side that has to recover has a better ability to do so but obviously not if the numbers are heavily against it as it has always being and still is. If the numbers aren't on your side then tough shit.

Your facts and the analysis from them is simply wrong.

[Spooner]

There's other ways to rebuild using a nation and they have an alliance bank. 

 

What if their alliance-leader accidentally traded away their entire alliance bank to their sister, Clarke?

[Foltest]

There's other ways to rebuild using a nation and they have an alliance bank. This point you made isn't all that relevant.

 

I think the score formula is tweaked enough but it's not totally terrible on top of the existing changes. 

 

No, "low enough" is purely relative. A nation could have being perma-ZI prior to the changes. You can still face larger opponents in any tier, especially in the low tier that have being knocked down. 

 

Aside from other nations literally funding your nation's war efforts, something that can't reliably be counted upon if you're already in a losing situation, what mysterious "other ways" are you referring to? Spending irl cash for credits? That really shouldn't be the only viable alternative. Not to mention, the score formula shouldn't be designed under the assumption that you'll have major alliance backing or multiple other nations funding you - it should be balanced for all nations.

 

"Low enough" isn't relative at all, actually. If your absolute bottom possible score range is still too high to be able to rebuild/fight back during prolonged warfare. I'm not asking sheepy to return to the old forumla because I was an advocate for it to be changed. Arrgh was abusing the system, in my opinion. Now the system is still open to abuse but in a new way and I'm doing my duty to point it out before a major alliance war happens and mass-butthurt occurs.

 

You're certainly more active than I am, but I haven't given up yet

 

Activity is awesome but I feel like Ogaden is proving my point far better than my hypothesizing can.

[Ogaden]

I think I should have done 3 cities vs 12, 5 is kind of overkill here lol

[Phiney]

I think I should have done 3 cities vs 12, 5 is kind of overkill here lol

I have a strong feeling Sheepy is playing really badly if you are keeping him down with this setup. Bare in mind this is the exact opposite argument others are making about why this change is bad when they say a large nation with no military is basically immune from war as the only people that can attack them have much less cities, so whilst you may be proving yourself right here in this scenario where it's definitely not a big problem just a very niche one, you're making great evidence for why the change isn't bad at the top like some are claiming.

[Rozalia]

I have a strong feeling Sheepy is playing really badly if you are keeping him down with this setup. Bare in mind this is the exact opposite argument others are making about why this change is bad when they say a large nation with no military is basically immune from war as the only people that can attack them have much less cities, so whilst you may be proving yourself right here in this scenario where it's definitely not a big problem just a very niche one, you're making great evidence for why the change isn't bad at the top like some are claiming.

 

Who has said this exactly? As far as I've seen they've referred to people will heavy if not full military. 

[Phiney]

Who has said this exactly? As far as I've seen they've referred to people will heavy if not full military.

Memph made the most compelling argument against the change I heard here https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10936-changing-the-score-formula/page-8# and there's also a thread In the cdg saying the same thing from others.

 

Edit: also your too big with full mil theory was debunked thoroughly ages ago by seabass when he did the maths showing that the vast majority of people that are at the top now have more people that can hit them not less.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Phiney

[Ogaden]

I have a strong feeling Sheepy is playing really badly if you are keeping him down with this setup. Bare in mind this is the exact opposite argument others are making about why this change is bad when they say a large nation with no military is basically immune from war as the only people that can attack them have much less cities, so whilst you may be proving yourself right here in this scenario where it's definitely not a big problem just a very niche one, you're making great evidence for why the change isn't bad at the top like some are claiming.

 

The point was actually in regards to the fact that due to city score changes, large nations can downdeclare on Jacob while still with significant amounts of infra and military, whereas before he would have dropped out of range until he rebuilt his army and infrastructure.

 

The argument Sheepy made in response to this is that, this is fine, because the large number of cities offers enough of an advantage that the 12 city Jacob can easily outbuy anyone and defeat a fully militarized 5 city nation that attacked him.

 

I am currently demonstrating how this is completely false, and without the ability to "drop out of range and rebuy", any nation, no matter how gigantic in terms of cities, can be held down effortlessly by a much smaller opponent due to the other, existing game rules. Without the rearming window, Jacob is helpless until his attacker has some other, non war related reason to stop attacking (peace treaty for instance).

 

This demonstration shows how the higher exposure to attacks due to retaining score despite loss of infra and military means that it is impossible to get back up once knocked down, unless the opponent alliance completely lacks even a small presence in the lower tiers.

 

Because of Sheepy's previous updates (infra requirements to build military, much higher military score) the small increase in fighting capacity of one day rearming and buying a modest amount of infrastructure with which to rearm with puts Sheepy's test nation in range of my, on paper, theoretically much weaker nation, a 5 city nation with full tanks and planes.

 

Due to the nature of immense victory losses, even though my daily buy is much lower (though competitive since I am not penalized for low infra while Sheepy is) I am destroying all of his military in my daily attacks while taking almost no losses, but once the war expires I can immediately redeclare, because his score has not dropped much, because it is majority from his cities.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Ogaden

[Ogaden]

Sheepy is essentially suffering from 5 different problems which make it an unwinnable war for him:

 

1: Planes are OP

I have 450 planes.  That's not that many, Sheepy can build up to 1080 planes, but due to infra rebuy caps and the very slow rebuy rate of planes, he can only buy about 100 a day, which is way too few to avoid an immense victory to blow up all his planes, and every airstrike I can take out 1000 tanks, half his daily rebuy.

 

2: Air Superiority is OP

Ground combat is entirely reliant on how many tanks you have.  If you have lost air superiority your opponent can already bomb the shit out of your tanks, making your tanks half as powerful is overkill at that point.  In order to overcome my 6000 tanks, sheepy would need to build 10,000 tanks due to my air superiority, but he can't even get to 2000 because of my airstrikes.

 

3: Immense Triumphs are OP

Even though Sheepy's rebuy rate is fast and in a few days he can overwhelm me, he doesn't have a few days, because every time I get an immense triumph he suffers 100:1 losses, and my rebuy rate is only half his, not one hundredth.

 

4: He can't do this forever

Because war resources are severely limited, and Sheepy is choosing not to just magic in resources for him to fight with, he cannot afford to spend 2000 steel a day for very long.  I can because I'm not spending anything, the only thing I'm using prodigiously is ammunition and gasoline.  I've yet to replace a tank.

 

5: I can keep this up forever

The only thing that could foreseeably end this conflict for me is when I finally run out of ammunition from blowing up his stuff

Edited April 14, 2016 by Ogaden

[Phiney]

The point was actually in regards to the fact that due to city score changes, large nations can downdeclare on Jacob while still with significant amounts of infra and military, whereas before he would have dropped out of range until he rebuilt his army and infrastructure.

 

The argument Sheepy made in response to this is that, this is fine, because the large number of cities offers enough of an advantage that the 12 city Jacob can easily outbuy anyone and defeat a fully militarized 5 city nation that attacked him.

 

I am currently demonstrating how this is completely false, and without the ability to "drop out of range and rebuy", any nation, no matter how gigantic in terms of cities, can be held down effortlessly by a much smaller opponent due to the other, existing game rules. Without the rearming window, Jacob is helpless until his attacker has some other, non war related reason to stop attacking (peace treaty for instance).

 

This demonstration shows how the higher exposure to attacks due to retaining score despite loss of infra and military means that it is impossible to get back up once knocked down, unless the opponent alliance completely lacks even a small presence in the lower tiers.

 

Because of Sheepy's previous updates (infra requirements to build military, much higher military score) the small increase in fighting capacity of one day rearming and buying a modest amount of infrastructure with which to rearm with puts Sheepy's test nation in range of my, on paper, theoretically much weaker nation, a 5 city nation with full tanks and planes.

 

Due to the nature of immense victory losses, even though my daily buy is much lower (though competitive since I am not penalized for low infra while Sheepy is) I am destroying all of his military in my daily attacks while taking almost no losses, but once the war expires I can immediately redeclare, because his score has not dropped much, because it is majority from his cities.

Don't worry I entirely understand the point you're making, I'm just pointing out you're also making an unintended point which goes against what a few people have been saying on the other side of things. Both points against the current score system cannot be true as they are opposites.

[Ogaden]

Honestly at this point I'm exposing all the totally unbalanced elements of the war system.  The war system is clearly not intended to be decisive within an hour of an alliance war being declared, yet it is.  The score changes in and of themselves are not game breaking, but they amplify and exacerbate other issues to game breaking levels.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Ogaden

[Rozalia]

Memph made the most compelling argument against the change I heard here https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10936-changing-the-score-formula/page-8# and there's also a thread In the cdg saying the same thing from others.

 

Edit: also your too big with full mil theory was debunked thoroughly ages ago by seabass when he did the maths showing that the vast majority of people that are at the top now have more people that can hit them not less.

 

You stated something and I told you I've not seen anybody who has said that, instead it being in the other direction. So you linked me it, the one person it seems... nice I suppose. There could be a torrent of them in the CDG I suppose, can't dispute that... but there could also be a ton of bestiality porn on there too, can't dispute that either. So apologies but I ignore any reference to threads or posts in the CDG. Anyway what I don't understand how you can ridicule those talking about max military and state in the same breath that the most compelling argument was someone saying no military was going to be a thing. Very odd, most would tell you it wouldn't considering how you just get a smaller nation to roll over them. 

 

Second bit is simply irrelevant and completely unneeded. The numbers do in fact check out, but there is more to it then just that with how things have now been set up. Not that I feel this is the place nor would such a discussion matter at this point. 

[Ogaden]

Sheepy is essentially suffering from 5 different problems which make it an unwinnable war for him:

 

1: Planes are OP

I have 450 planes.  That's not that many, Sheepy can build up to 1080 planes, but due to infra rebuy caps and the very slow rebuy rate of planes, he can only buy about 100 a day, which is way too few to avoid an immense victory to blow up all his planes, and every airstrike I can take out 1000 tanks, half his daily rebuy.

 

2: Air Superiority is OP

Ground combat is entirely reliant on how many tanks you have.  If you have lost air superiority your opponent can already bomb the shit out of your tanks, making your tanks half as powerful is overkill at that point.  In order to overcome my 6000 tanks, sheepy would need to build 10,000 tanks due to my air superiority, but he can't even get to 2000 because of my airstrikes.

 

3: Immense Triumphs are OP

Even though Sheepy's rebuy rate is fast and in a few days he can overwhelm me, he doesn't have a few days, because every time I get an immense triumph he suffers 100:1 losses, and my rebuy rate is only half his, not one hundredth.

 

4: He can't do this forever

Because war resources are severely limited, and Sheepy is choosing not to just magic in resources for him to fight with, he cannot afford to spend 2000 steel a day for very long.  I can because I'm not spending anything, the only thing I'm using prodigiously is ammunition and gasoline.  I've yet to replace a tank.

 

5: I can keep this up forever

The only thing that could foreseeably end this conflict for me is when I finally run out of ammunition from blowing up his stuff

 

So lets look at how to fix these issues:

 

The first issue is immense triumphs. It is currently way too easy to get an immense triumph, there should be a chance, based on the relative odds, that the smaller side in a battle can eke out a victory.  Unless completely outnumbered, even an immense triumph should be possible for a modestly smaller military force.  Moderate success victories should be the most common victory type, an automatic immense victory should only really happen against 10:1 odds. Casualties should be closer to even, winning even an immense triumph should involve many more casualties for the victor.

 

Air power is too strong, maybe reduce the damage from airstrikes against infra, tanks and soldiers by half.  Air superiority should only reduce tank power by 1/3rd, like ground control does.

 

Steel is burned too fast, and is too difficult to replace, and a losing military runs out of steel too quickly compared to other war resources.  I would reduce the steel used in tanks to 0.5 or even 0.25

 

Finally I would reduce city value back down to 25 from 50, but keep military and infra strength where it is, so nations drop down further from war loss.  If not this, then nations should be beiged from other forms of war loss other than 6 ground attacks, so they can rebuy military after a defeat.  Maybe if they lose more than half their score in a single war they get beiged automatically?

Edited April 14, 2016 by Ogaden

[Phiney]

You stated something and I told you I've not seen anybody who has said that, instead it being in the other direction. So you linked me it, the one person it seems... nice I suppose. There could be a torrent of them in the CDG I suppose, can't dispute that... but there could also be a ton of bestiality porn on there too, can't dispute that either. So apologies but I ignore any reference to threads or posts in the CDG. Anyway what I don't understand how you can ridicule those talking about max military and state in the same breath that the most compelling argument was someone saying no military was going to be a thing. Very odd, most would tell you it wouldn't considering how you just get a smaller nation to roll over them.

 

Second bit is simply irrelevant and completely unneeded. The numbers do in fact check out, but there is more to it then just that with how things have now been set up. Not that I feel this is the place nor would such a discussion matter at this point.

Cmon son. Something can be compelling until proven otherwise, I was compelled and now ogaden has shown that to not be true. There's no need to be a bit of a dick about this I'm not saying the points ogaden is making now are wrong, I'm just pointing out it voids another argument being concurrently made by others.

[Rozalia]

Cmon son. Something can be compelling until proven otherwise, I was compelled and now ogaden has shown that to not be true. There's no need to be a bit of a dick about this I'm not saying the points ogaden is making now are wrong, I'm just pointing out it voids another argument being concurrently made by others.

 

Just making my observation. I didn't come for an argument nor to be rude, merely felt what you said came off as a bit of an anecdote. I won't labour the matter. I'm liking Ogaden's presentations thus far, very well put. 

[Prefontaine]

So lets look at how to fix these issues:

 

The first issue is immense triumphs. It is currently way too easy to get an immense triumph, there should be a chance, based on the relative odds, that the smaller side in a battle can eke out a victory.  Unless completely outnumbered, even an immense triumph should be possible for a modestly smaller military force.  Moderate success victories should be the most common victory type, an automatic immense victory should only really happen against 10:1 odds. Casualties should be closer to even, winning even an immense triumph should involve many more casualties for the victor.

 

Air power is too strong, maybe reduce the damage from airstrikes against infra, tanks and soldiers by half.  Air superiority should only reduce tank power by 1/3rd, like ground control does.

 

Steel is burned too fast, and is too difficult to replace, and a losing military runs out of steel too quickly compared to other war resources.  I would reduce the steel used in tanks to 0.5 or even 0.25

 

Finally I would reduce city value back down to 25 from 50, but keep military and infra strength where it is, so nations drop down further from war loss.  If not this, then nations should be beiged from other forms of war loss other than 6 ground attacks, so they can rebuy military after a defeat.  Maybe if they lose more than half their score in a single war they get beiged automatically?

 

Discussions have been made several times to change things to something along the lines of: 1 Overwhelming gives 1/4 of the max superiority, Second would give 2/4, third, 3/4 and 4th would give full superiority bonus. Then attacks that happen after that mark have a bonus to damage against infra, or increased looting, etc.. That last part is obviously not required.

 

Air used to be stronger, was nerfed. Problem is only air can kill air. Everything else can die 2 ways. Something else needs to be there to help kill air. 

 

Tanks were talked about becoming .5 steel each, or 1/2 the number of tanks and 2x the strength of them. Essentially 50 tanks in the new mode would equal 100 tanks as they currently are. Both cut the tank costs in half.

 

You're last point I don't have enough of an opinion on currently. 

 

The point I'm making is that you're arguing for things that have been discussed a lot, and in length in most cases. Lots of times they get lost in the wind of new threads being spammed and taking priority because they spark controversy. Plenty of times it just falls to Sheepy either not wanting to do it, not caring, or not thinking it's important enough. I've said numerous times that the high city/military low infra build was extremely overpowered, it took an alliance using it in mass to convince Sheepy it was a problem worth addressing. Good luck convincing him. I gave up fighting a lot of the fights a long time ago.

[Clarke]

Aside from other nations literally funding your nation's war efforts, something that can't reliably be counted upon if you're already in a losing situation, what mysterious "other ways" are you referring to? Spending irl cash for credits? That really shouldn't be the only viable alternative. 

 

"Low enough" isn't relative at all, actually. If your absolute bottom possible score range is still too high to be able to rebuild/fight back during prolonged warfare. I'm not asking sheepy to return to the old forumla because I was an advocate for it to be changed. Arrgh was abusing the system, in my opinion. Now the system is still open to abuse but in a new way and I'm doing my duty to point it out before a major alliance war happens and mass-butthurt occurs.

 

 

Activity is awesome but I feel like Ogaden is proving my point far better than my hypothesizing can.

Clearly you never experienced much war if you can't think of ways sure ways one can rebuild if their alliance bank is empty and they have no cash. 

If you're at the absolute bottom, you're still in range of a nation at its appropriate military strength for that size that can attack you, that's why it is relative because your enemies aren't always going to have enemies at that range to attack. 

No no no, I think I told you enough times, everything you mentioned already existed under the old score formula. What you're trying to achieve is a new change to game that is separate from the score formula. 

 

It's not a new way, it already existed under the old score formula.

The main difference is no one complained before because they usually accepted that it was an uphill battle but not Arrgh. 

I'm not going to be so bold to suggest that the only reason wars finish so early is because its hard to recover but its obvious if it wasn't such an uphill battle wars would last longer and probably have different outcomes, I mean in a real full out global war. 

That's partly why I keep saying this score change is better because nations with high military's were an obstacle for recovering but now those nations are pushed out of range of fallen nations.

 

 

Memph made the most compelling argument against the change I heard here https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10936-changing-the-score-formula/page-8# and there's also a thread In the cdg saying the same thing from others.

 

Edit: also your too big with full mil theory was debunked thoroughly ages ago by seabass when he did the maths showing that the vast majority of people that are at the top now have more people that can hit them not less.

I don't think that is a compelling argument because an 18 city nation could already attack a 12 city nation. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Clarke

[Foltest]

Like I said, Ogaden is making my point very clearly through in-game demonstration.

 

While absolute zero infra may not be the majority result in wars (from my observations), it's not hard to extrapolate the same consequences to varying degrees in different situations.

 

 

 

 

I don't want to add too many other replies lest Sheepy find this thread tedious and stop reading.

[Clarke]

 

Like I said, Ogaden is making my point very clearly through in-game demonstration.

The point where its hard to get the upper hand when you have a huge disadvantage in military?

Ogaden didn't need to show you that, we have had two years of that.