Less omniscient nations; more obfuscation of facts

[Fiadon Clevae]

The goal of this suggestion is to obfuscate the military unit counts of other nations, consequently introducing additional complexity to decision making at the individual nation level and at the alliance level, and further improving the importance and interest of intelligence gathering within the game.

 

The suggestion:

• Nation profiles no longer indicate the actual number of soldiers, tanks, aircraft, ships, missiles or nukes that a nation has, but instead are listed as Unknown in the same way that spies are. Nations are unable to see the improvements of other nations' cities or their projects.
• Add an additional project, Satellite Surveillance. Satellite Surveillance allows the nation to see other nations' improvements and projects.
• If a nation has Satellite Surveillance, when viewing other nations, instead of seeing Unknown as the unit count, they will see the maximal unit count the nation could have based on the corresponding improvements the nation has. For example if a nation has a total of 5 barracks, you would see  max 15,000 on their nation profile instead of the exact number they actually have.
• Add a nation setting to determine who the nation shares its military count information with; no one, everyone, alliance members, alliance government by tier (possibly allow setting this differently for each unit type, including spies).
• Military counts should not be filled in automatically in factbooks.
• Remove military units from nation score calculation.

 

The 'why':

• Nations should not be omniscient. To my understanding, in the real world many nations' military capabilities are known due to publicly shared information. For example in Australia the ADF publishes reports outlining the number of personnel employed in various military positions, whereas unit counts for North Korea are estimated based on various intelligence sources such as satellite surveillance, border reports, public military parades and spy operations. This change helps simulate the gathering of information about nations through various methods, such as the Satellite Surveillance project, espionage operations, information revealed directly through warfare, and a nation's prideful bragging via its factbook (a kind of equivalence to military parades?).
• The game should not make the choice for us in disclosing unit counts publicly, it should be left to individual rulers to decide.
• This change would improve the importance of 'gather intelligence' espionage operations.
• This change introduces an additional 'risk vs reward' assessment for individual nations to make in determining how they run their nation. A nation may consider maintaining a smaller standing army to save money on expenses while keeping the corresponding improvements to feign strength, but the risk of course is they will be more easily defeated in a raid or war. It permits a little more diversity in approach to individual nation defence, or even an alliance's general defensive strategy; prioritise return from taxes or military readiness.
• As nations' military unit counts would not be easily observed and nation scores would not bounce around due to military unit counts, it would further enhance the importance of good inter-alliance relations and intelligence gathering in order for alliances to remain informed and prepared for wars. Instead of simply looking at a screen outlining an alliance's military growth as an indicator of military preparation for war, it may be necessary to be more observant of market trades for war time resources, to conduct spy operations, or even plant moles in other alliances or buy information from informants; all offering good provocations for war as well as making intelligence a more interesting and diverse aspect of gameplay.
• While small nations without the Satellite Surveillance project will be blind to the potential military capabilities of other nations, they will likely be member to an alliance that will have members with the Satellite Surveillance project who can share information with them. Although minor, this is another way in which these changes may encourage improved communication and teamwork for information sharing within alliances.

 

Obvious point of serious contention:

• Suggesting a change to the way nation scores are calculated is obviously a major point for consideration. I personally am not sure I understand why military units should affect a nation's score. It seems to me a nation's score should be based on factors such as infrastructure, cities, land, population and improvements. If two nations are identically developed, they should be equally scored, regardless of the decisions they've made about military investments. This point is also necessary in order to properly realise the benefits of this suggestion. If the changes were made without removing military units from nation score calculations, the effect would simply be that the specific types of military units a nation has, won't be obvious. Military growth at the individual and alliance level will still be observable and potentially indicative of preparation for war, nullifying the more interesting potential benefits of the proposal.

[Alex]

I think this is very well thought out, and could be part of the war system overhaul. It was something I was considering already.

[Prince Hunter of Bavaria]

Its very nice, and well organized. One Suggestion, maybe adds an espionage feature that allows the player to see the players military and it lasts up to 24-48 hours. 

One outcome could be less raiding, you don't want to raid someone who has a bigger army. It adds a lot more strategy to the game and makes Alliance Wars more cooperative and forces players together. 

[Edward I]

I like the principle behind the suggestion but not the proposed solution. At the end of the day most rank-and-file members don't make decisions based on military counts other than which nations to declare war on. Because it's pretty easy for just one player to click through a bunch of nations and share their possible military counts, in practice only one government member per alliance would need to buy the Satellite Surveillance improvement.

[BeachBunny]

You do know Score will always give away whether a nation has military or not...

 

Edit: Just finished reading the bottom.

Edited June 25, 2016 by BeachBunny

[Fiadon Clevae]

I like the principle behind the suggestion but not the proposed solution. At the end of the day most rank-and-file members don't make decisions based on military counts other than which nations to declare war on. Because it's pretty easy for just one player to click through a bunch of nations and share their possible military counts, in practice only one government member per alliance would need to buy the Satellite Surveillance improvement.

It is true, under the current suggestion only one member would need the Satellite Surveillance project and the entire alliance could be given a list of the maximal potential military count of nations. I am not sure what would be the most elegant solution to this, but my initial thought is to add satellite surveillance as a type of espionage operation with a daily limit. The daily limit could make sense in that the satellite takes time to position in order to observe a nation's infrastructure. The nation would receive a report in a similar way to other espionage operations instead of revealing this information on nation profiles automatically. The nation being observed would be unaware.

I suppose this would mean that no single nation could simply compile a list by themselves or not at least very quickly. Limiting access to such intelligence could help make intelligence feel more valuable. Spy ranges would apply as well, limiting the nations one can use satellite surveillance on and encouraging participation from more of an alliance's membership in order to compile and keep an updated list of intelligence on maximal potential military counts.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Fiadon Clevae

[Vack]

 A few of my thoughts (all of these assume that the Satellite Surveillance project is implemented as a spy op):

 

- Assuming this is implemented with the "Satellite Surveillance" project idea as a spy op instead, alliances would end up doing spy ops every other day to see who is doing what. Results in partial loss of income, severe impacts on smaller alliances.

 

- It would be shit for alliances with fewer people, because say a 30 man alliance can view 30 nations military, but an 80 man can see all of the 30 man's. This makes it very easy for the larger to assign targets, whilst making it tougher for the smaller one. A solution is to make the "Satellite Surveillance" spy op suggested be executable 3-4 times per nation, keep the rest the same.

 

- It may be an idea to implement satellites as a different type of spy, so you can buy two spies per 12 turns and maybe one satellite per 12 turns. This preserves spy ops as we know them without interfering with their current usage.

 

- The change to score will mean a 15 city nation can roll a 10 city one instantly. A possible solution, city-based scores. I know this is a massive change to everything, and probably carries some negative effects, but number of cities more often than not determines who wins. Though this is a different matter, deserving its own thread.

 

This can't be done without creating imbalance between those who can afford to do regular spy ops and those who can't. It impedes small alliances building and would take a lot of other changes to make it reasonable. Until a solution surrounding the issue of score imbalance arises, I don't think this should be pushed

Edited June 26, 2016 by Noytal

[Fiadon Clevae]

 A few of my thoughts (all of these assume that the Satellite Surveillance project is implemented as a spy op):

 

- Assuming this is implemented with the "Satellite Surveillance" project idea as a spy op instead, alliances would end up doing spy ops every other day to see who is doing what. Results in partial loss of income, severe impacts on smaller alliances.

 

- It would be shit for alliances with fewer people, because say a 30 man alliance can view 30 nations military, but an 80 man can see all of the 30 man's. This makes it very easy for the larger to assign targets, whilst making it tougher for the smaller one. A solution is to make the "Satellite Surveillance" spy op suggested be executable 3-4 times per nation, keep the rest the same.

 

- It may be an idea to implement satellites as a different type of spy, so you can buy two spies per 12 turns and maybe one satellite per 12 turns. This preserves spy ops as we know them without interfering with their current usage.

 

- The change to score will mean a 15 city nation can roll a 10 city one instantly. A possible solution, city-based scores. I know this is a massive change to everything, and probably carries some negative effects, but number of cities more often than not determines who wins. Though this is a different matter, deserving its own thread.

 

This can't be done without creating imbalance between those who can afford to do regular spy ops and those who can't. It impedes small alliances building and would take a lot of other changes to make it reasonable. Until a solution surrounding the issue of score imbalance arises, I don't think this should be pushed

Thanks for your reply, you make some good points. I agree it seems sensible that cities should comprise a large part of a nation's score given that they put a cap on unit counts.

[Flanderlion]

Thanks for your reply, you make some good points. I agree it seems sensible that cities should comprise a large part of a nation's score given that they put a cap on unit counts.

I believe they won't after the mil update, where it will just be infra constraining them.

[Vack]

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept, it adds another element to conflicts beyond "whoever has the biggest gun wins". It becomes more like "If you can't gather intelligence then you lose", which has pros and cons. I'm still thinking of workarounds to some of the problems, I would advice anyone reading to do the same. It would be a great feature if there were a way to seamlessly implement it.

[hadesflames]

But the problem with that is that in a real situation, you would be able to easily see what someone's army looks like when at war. If it's too big you can retreat and regroup. Otherwise you can attack. Unless Alex is planning on turning this into a fully animated RTS, that's too much complexity and you're really just adding more problems than you solve. The current system is fine, because realistically, someone would be able to size up another nation's military before and especially during war.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Sounds good to me, I've always thought it silly that a player should know so much about other nations just by looking at their nation page. It's removing the entire possibility of some fun espionage actions from the game.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[LordRahl2]

I think this is very well thought out, and could be part of the war system overhaul. It was something I was considering already.

You are considering removing mil from the score formula?

[Auctor]

Removing score from military entirely is probably too much. Adding it to military improvements rather than military itself might be the way around it.

[jaguar]

War system is complicated enough, I think there's no need for any of this

[Andrezj Kolarov]

War system is complicated enough, I think there's no need for any of this.

 

You're joking right? Have you played any strategy game ever made? Believe me, PW is not complicated.

 

EDIT: I mean, come on, you cannot claim a strategy game with 7 units (5 if you exclude missiles and nukes) is complicated.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[LordRahl2]

Removing score from military entirely is probably too much. Adding it to military improvements rather than military itself might be the way around it.

So a score increase from an empty barracks?

[Auctor]

sure. Then if you don't want the score bloat, you can just decom the barracks.

[LordRahl2]

Cool, I was more inquiring if Alex planned on this.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Making spies more useful by obfuscating military forces sounds like a good idea. However I am against making it project dependent. Spies currently see little use beyond killing nukes. Making only spies able to gather intelligence would be a better choice, increasing the importance of CIA as well.

 

And I completely agree with the suggestion of removing military score from the score formula. As is, you cannot attack a nation larger than you who does not have a military. It makes no sense.

[Caecus]

War system is complicated enough, I think there's no need for any of this

 

 

You're joking right? Have you played any strategy game ever made? Believe me, PW is not complicated.

 

EDIT: I mean, come on, you cannot claim a strategy game with 7 units (5 if you exclude missiles and nukes) is complicated.

 

 

I actually have to agree with him. While the idea is good, the premise of this game is that anyone can pick it up and learn it. The ease of access and adaptation of the game to new players is a key factor in PnW's longevity. 

 

 

 A few of my thoughts (all of these assume that the Satellite Surveillance project is implemented as a spy op):

 

- Assuming this is implemented with the "Satellite Surveillance" project idea as a spy op instead, alliances would end up doing spy ops every other day to see who is doing what. Results in partial loss of income, severe impacts on smaller alliances.

 

- It would be shit for alliances with fewer people, because say a 30 man alliance can view 30 nations military, but an 80 man can see all of the 30 man's. This makes it very easy for the larger to assign targets, whilst making it tougher for the smaller one. A solution is to make the "Satellite Surveillance" spy op suggested be executable 3-4 times per nation, keep the rest the same.

 

- It may be an idea to implement satellites as a different type of spy, so you can buy two spies per 12 turns and maybe one satellite per 12 turns. This preserves spy ops as we know them without interfering with their current usage.

 

- The change to score will mean a 15 city nation can roll a 10 city one instantly. A possible solution, city-based scores. I know this is a massive change to everything, and probably carries some negative effects, but number of cities more often than not determines who wins. Though this is a different matter, deserving its own thread.

 

This can't be done without creating imbalance between those who can afford to do regular spy ops and those who can't. It impedes small alliances building and would take a lot of other changes to make it reasonable. Until a solution surrounding the issue of score imbalance arises, I don't think this should be pushed

 

A reasonable analysis. I whole-heartedly agree that these changes would disproportionately affect smaller alliances. However, in light of the fact that larger alliances already dominate the political arena (to the point where most players would make whale noises when a micro posts on the alliance affairs forum), I would argue that the political arena shift will not be too different from the status quo, which is favoring more protectorate statuses for smaller alliances rallied around the major blocs.

 

The "fog-of-war" concept advocated here is an interesting one, which I have no doubt will spice up the intricacies of PnW gameplay. However, I do believe that it would complicate things for new players. "Fog-of-war" is not an easy concept, especially in this particular game inter phase. After all, everyone learns that the knight moves in an L before learning Kriegspiel. A harder game to pick up is a game that has less time for people to gain attachment to and stay in. 

[Greene]

I think the solution to the military score is to simply have the max potential military be used as score. So if one has 5 barracks, then the score would account for 15000 soldiers. It forces players to decide if they want to have the improvements but not the military (or not).

 

As for the Satellite, I would argue that it should be an alliance improvement and not a player improvement. If an alliance purchases the improvement, then the they would be able to see the data for their members only, but no other alliances. I also think it should be something that costs several credits, similar to flags. I then think alliances should be able to set which permission has the ability to see the alliance members' stats, from Members, Officers, Heirs, or only Founders. In this way, alliances would be able to enable their members to see each other's stats, which also would put the stats at risk of leaking from every member, or only allow certain people as defined by their in-game permissions.

[LordRahl2]

I think the solution to the military score is to simply have the max potential military be used as score. So if one has 5 barracks, then the score would account for 15000 soldiers. It forces players to decide if they want to have the improvements but not the military (or not).

 

As for the Satellite, I would argue that it should be an alliance improvement and not a player improvement. If an alliance purchases the improvement, then the they would be able to see the data for their members only, but no other alliances. I also think it should be something that costs several credits, similar to flags. I then think alliances should be able to set which permission has the ability to see the alliance members' stats, from Members, Officers, Heirs, or only Founders. In this way, alliances would be able to enable their members to see each other's stats, which also would put the stats at risk of leaking from every member, or only allow certain people as defined by their in-game permissions.

Oh I love this idea. We can keep the whales either in range or they will need to derez their military infrastructure.