Damaged Infrastructure, Not Destroyed

[PackAnimal]

My proposal: Make infrastructure lost during war damaged, not completely destroyed. Attacks would do the same infra damage, but only 20% of infra would be completely lost, the other 80% could be rebuilt for a cheaper amount (say 60% of normal price?). Additionally, 'damaged' infra could slowly regenerate itself over time at the rate of ~5 infra per turn per city.

 

Before people shit on my numbers, these are numbers which would change depending on balancing and what Sheepy thinks would work. I only use these numbers for the purpose of being able to demonstrate how it may work.

 

So, during a war, a 12 city nation with 1800 infrastructure, takes 600 damage per city in infra during a war. Under the current system they would have to completely rebuild their infra that they lost, which without alliance help would take about a 2 weeks- 1 month to completely rebuild. During this time all growth is stunted, and their progression in the game stops. What i propose is that instead only 120 infra would have been permanently lost per city (the top 120), and 480 infra would be in a 'damaged' state. While in this damaged state it doesn't provide population or income, and essentially acts as if it's been destroyed. However, as soon as there are no active wars with this nation, the infrastructure starts to slowly rebuild at 5 infra per turn per city. If this was left to happen, then the natural 'fixing' of the damaged infra would take 96 turns, or 8 days. Alternatively, the nation could pay to fix the infrastructure, to speed up the process, but the infra costs a discounted rate compared to what it would otherwise be, so for instance it would only cost 60% of the usual infra price to rebuild their infra. Moreover, at higher tiers more infrastructure is destroyed, and so it would take longer for infrastructure to be rebuilt at this level, but not the same excessive amount of time.

 

 

This way war is still damaging to the loser, and would slow their growth down significantly, but equally it doesn't put them into a state where they are taking months to rebuild infra to pre-war levels. This will still causes the losing alliance to have to spend time rebuilding, as the most expensive 20% of  infrastructure will still have to be completely rebuilt. If Sheepy is going to try and make wars more frequent and less damaging/expensive (to encourage more wars) then this is a possible way to do it.

 

 

 

[Frijoles]

From a RL viewpoint, this makes sense (aside from the auto-regen). War doesn't completely destroy all infrastructure. It destroys quite a bit (so I'd argue with your numbers for balancing) but it doesn't just sweep half of your city off the map. 

 

I support having some Infra (the most expensive portion) to be removed and having another portion simply damaged that can be repaired for less. 

 

I do not support having it auto-regen.

[PackAnimal]

From a RL viewpoint, this makes sense (aside from the auto-regen). War doesn't completely destroy all infrastructure. It destroys quite a bit (so I'd argue with your numbers for balancing) but it doesn't just sweep half of your city off the map. 

 

I support having some Infra (the most expensive portion) to be removed and having another portion simply damaged that can be repaired for less. 

 

I do not support having it auto-regen.

 

Sounds fair to me. My idea on that was to allow really damaged nations (think alpha atm) after their longstanding war to benefit slightly, and if a nation was knocked so low it costed way too much to rebuild the infra, such as the above made-up nation being nuked in all cities (very unlikely to happen I know) then they would still be able to rebuild a bit automatically without cash input. I understand what you're saying though and partially agree 

[Frijoles]

I think I get your premise - basically you want to help prevent a player from simply quitting because all the work they've put into the game is suddenly gone. Correct? That's why I like the idea, and honestly I probably wouldn't be bothered by the auto-regen should it be a small amount or capped out. 

 

So, if a city started with whatever amount of infra and is taken down to less than, say, 1k it could auto-regen to 1k and the rest would have to be built up. If the player purchased infra before it got to 1k, surpassing the 1k mark, the auto-regen would cease. Regen rates could be smaller like 1% per turn or something so that people aren't just sitting there to save that tiny bit of money anyway. 

[PackAnimal]

I think I get your premise - basically you want to help prevent a player from simply quitting because all the work they've put into the game is suddenly gone. Correct? That's why I like the idea, and honestly I probably wouldn't be bothered by the auto-regen should it be a small amount or capped out. 

 

So, if a city started with whatever amount of infra and is taken down to less than, say, 1k it could auto-regen to 1k and the rest would have to be built up. If the player purchased infra before it got to 1k, surpassing the 1k mark, the auto-regen would cease. Regen rates could be smaller like 1% per turn or something so that people aren't just sitting there to save that tiny bit of money anyway. 

 

Yeah that sounds like a better system than the one i thought of, though very few would wait when infra at that level is so cheap, and certainly capping the regen is a good idea, to perhaps 1500 or so. In this case, larger nations would still benefit due to 'fixing' the cheaper infra, meanwhile smaller nations with lower incomes could rebuild naturally most of the way.

[Vack]

Yeah I guess it adds to immersion, but the auto regen is dumb

[Sam Hyde]

Someone could rationalize that the auto-regen is simply your own people taking initiative and fixing infra by themselves, but even without it, I approve of this idea. A shame this wasn't thought of sooner, but better late than never.

[LordRahl2]

"Months to rebuild infra"?  Who is having that problem?

[BeachBunny]

You guys really need to figure out how to rebuild your nation. It should never take months.

[LordRahl2]

Maybe they mean it takes months to return to 2750 infra per city.  That, by the way, is a GOOD thing.

[durmij]

I think the greater issue is still the absurd difference between infra lost and improvements destroyed. I lost over 12k infra last war and 2 improvemeets, and have had similar numbers in previous wars.

 

On OPs idea, the regeneration is a complete nonstarter. It would give larger nations an even bigger leg up over smaller nations because each city would have it's separate regen queue.

 

A fading infra rebuild discount could be workable however. The balancing would take a lot of work.

Edited August 6, 2016 by durmij

[LordRahl2]

Infra costs do fade the lower the cheaper.  Which is the way it SHOULD fade.

[Peacity Peace]

Immersion > realism

[Dr Rush]

I'd like to make an observation if I may.

 

If we assume that players determine how much infra to build based on maximizing RoI(how much money it will make before being blown up divided by build cost). We find that a discount to rebuilds shifts the ideal infra build upwards. Further this upward shift directly corresponds to the extent of the discount. Effectively meaning it will take the same amount of time to rebuild & cost the same, just with bigger infra numbers & an entry cost premium.

[Frijoles]

On OPs idea, the regeneration is a complete nonstarter. It would give larger nations an even bigger leg up over smaller nations because each city would have it's separate regen queue.

 

I'd note that the regen wouldn't unequally affect larger nations versus smaller nations city-wise. Each would get the autoregen at whatever % per day and capped at a certain level. Each city would have its own regen queue, yes, and that remains the case for smaller nations as well. 

 

If anything this would assist the smaller nations a bit more if they do not have support of an alliance to rebuild nor the income to do it quickly themselves. 

[LordRahl2]

I'd note that the regen wouldn't unequally affect larger nations versus smaller nations city-wise. Each would get the autoregen at whatever % per day and capped at a certain level. Each city would have its own regen queue, yes, and that remains the case for smaller nations as well. 

 

If anything this would assist the smaller nations a bit more if they do not have support of an alliance to rebuild nor the income to do it quickly themselves. 

 

It would disproportionately help tall nations or are you saying it would only regen infra up to like 1k infra?

[Frijoles]

Correct. It would only regen to a certain point and cease at that point. 

 

If a nation had cities pre-war at 700 infra each, it would cap at the 700. If they had at 1500, it would cap at the 1k - so on and so forth. It would always cap at 1k. Theoretically.

[LordRahl2]

K.  That it stops at 1k makes it a much better idea.

 

What it does do is help older nations more than younger ones.by a bit (more cities = more free infra).

[Frijoles]

That is true. They will save a small amount of money per city that will ultimately be more than what a newer nation would save simply because of the amount of cities. The newer nations would benefit, though, in that they aren't making as much money and would get a hand up where it counts - the pocketbook.