Foltest Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) Soldiers, tanks, and planes need re-balancing. The core of warfare is fundamentally broken at the formula level. I'm not even going to provide an argument to support this piece because it's almost universally accepted as truth. Instead I'll spend the thread talking about what the main problems are and how I think we could fix them. So what exactly am I talking about: The current war system favours a first-strike strategy too heavily in multiple ways detailed below. My thoughts: - Soldiers, airplanes, and tanks get destroyed far too quickly and can't be rebuilt fast enough to make any kind of impact in a realistic fighting situation. - tanks cost way too much steel. For example, my nation spends 12,500 steel to max out tanks. It would cost 2,700 aluminum to max out my planes, or 3,750 steel to max out my navy. - airplanes destroy too much infra per attack, they're actually demonstrably more cost-effective than a nuclear weapon. So what needs to happen: - Raising the amount of military that can bought at one time, up to one third or even one half of your total capacity. - Lowering the amount/percentage of units killed per ground battle or air battle - Halving or even further reducing the cost of tanks putting them on-par with other units. Reminder that even halving their cost would still put them at twice as much steel as it costs to MAX OUT A NAVY. - Lower the infra damage done by both air battles and ground attacks. Why? Because our war system is heavily one-sided at the moment. The loser in a war has no real ability to fight back, even when not overwhelmed numerically. Wars shouldn't be a curbstomp for whomever decides to strike first - though that should definitely have an impact. Edited July 6, 2016 by Holton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 The loser in a war loses. Shocked! This sounds like a feature, not a bug. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 minimize the war damage given by the plane slightly as they are effective as 1 missile or 1 nuke in 3 strikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted July 6, 2016 Author Share Posted July 6, 2016 [12:52] <+Avruch> and then finally, you fraction the gas/ammo cost of attacks forgot to add this too, if everything does less damage pls lower the cost of the attack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooner Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Imo, conventional war simply needs to be cheaper. Both sides lose in war, every single time. The only question is who loses more -- we only war in this game because we're bored tbh. In real life, usually there's at least *some* strategic benefit from winning a war. Right now I spend about ~$50 Million to get maybe $3-4 Million in loot, lol. Profitable raiding has been dead since the Arrgh score change. 1 Quote ☾☆ High Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Can we sticky this or another thread like it so that we do not have to have the same argument in different threads after every war? And OP's ideas are terrible both mechanically and from a gameplay perspective. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted July 9, 2016 Author Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Extended or large-scale wars shouldn't be profitable. But the war system needs basic balancing. Steel is produced at similar rates to other resources. Tanks are not the omnipotent unit of warfare. Why are we using so much steel to gear up during war? Edited July 9, 2016 by Holton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacity Peace Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I was actually thinking of there being like different kinds of buildings of a certain type. Like 5 different barracks. The original can make 1k soldiers a day, and 3k total. The 2nd one can make 800 a day, 3k total, but half the cost. The 3rd one can make 250 soldiers a day, 2500 total, but these soldiers cost half the food upkeep. The 4th one can make 100 a day, 4k total soldiers, 50% more cost. The 5th one can make 200 a day, 2000 total soldiers, no cost to make them(still pay for upkeep) (this is just an example) But giving a system like this would allow flexible militarizes for those who want to raid as cheaply as possible, those who want an adequate defense for a low cost and those who want as strong of a military as possible for a full-out war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Bagel Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 on tanks, I say we keep the price of tanks the same, reduce the total number of tanks you can have, but increase their strength. That makes them cheaper over all and more cost effective. Quote <&Partisan> I'm roleplaying a not snake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacity Peace Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 on tanks, I say we keep the price of tanks the same, reduce the total number of tanks you can have, but increase their strength. That makes them cheaper over all and more cost effective. Other than making the numbers pretty, that is redundant compared to just changing how much steel is needed for a tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguar Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Sheepy actually said that some of these things you mentioned will be changed in new war system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Sheepy actually said that some of these things you mentioned will be changed in new war system Which is worrisome. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnanimus Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I suggest having a cap on the amount of military that can be used while attacking. A nation can not use all its standing military attacking while leaving its boundaries undefended. A certain percentage (let us say 20%) should be unavailable during attacks. While defending you can use all your military. This somewhat reduces the first strike advantage a lil bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I suggest having a cap on the amount of military that can be used while attacking. A nation can not use all its standing military attacking while leaving its boundaries undefended. A certain percentage (let us say 20%) should be unavailable during attacks. While defending you can use all your military. This somewhat reduces the first strike advantage a lil bit. And will increase down-declare strength even more. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 The assertion in the OP should be backed up with data. But the data does not support his hypothesis. He claims those who first strike win. However, in all the alliance wars since the VE war, Mensa HQ and allies have always prevailed regardless of whether they were the initiators, or the defenders. The war system works just fine if you know how to deal with it. It is true that in individual wars (nation v nation), first strike advantage is huge, if only because you can coordinate with others and hit at the same time. However, for the alliance war, this is easily countered by... counters. i.e. allied nations or alliances with fresh forces who, you guessed it, *counter* your attackers. Both sides have a chance to do first strikes in the individual war sense as long as they are organized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnanimus Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 And will increase down-declare strength even more. No need to change the score calculation. My suggestion was to just limit the attacking military. By attacker here I mean not the one declaring, but the one that is executing a military operation (such as ground attack or air attack etc.) This is just to limit the use of full military to attack and allow some military to remain in your nation for defending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 No need to change the score calculation. My suggestion was to just limit the attacking military. By attacker here I mean not the one declaring, but the one that is executing a military operation (such as ground attack or air attack etc.) This is just to limit the use of full military to attack and allow some military to remain in your nation for defending. I was not talking about a score change. As it stands the defense to down declares is to have several nations updeclare on the attacker. If you are only at 80% AND smaller even this, already challenging, tactic will be impossible. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.