Hooves Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Defensive slots should be reduced to 2 instead of 3. This has always been the issue that I was happy to see in the test server. Now it's not there anymore. 3 is a crowd that makes the target they hit instantly be crippled without any sort of chance to come back. Especially with the current war system being every day recruitment. Even with per turn recruitment it's still far too strong. If 3 people coordinate a ground attack, or coordinate a dogfight. They can essentially remove 50%+ of the target's military within seconds. With 2, at least it's more workable with the new system, but still quite the stretch with the current. Also given the fact any victory can remove control on all the target's wars they had on others. It's all a matter of promoting big alliances, rather then the small alliances Alex mentions about control points. There's no problem with big alliances, it's just this essentially makes them a preferred playstyle. It also promotes blobbing as the best political playstyle. Edited September 21, 2016 by Hooves 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Defensive slots should be reduced to 2 instead of 3. Sry, but that would only benefit certain players. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted September 21, 2016 Author Share Posted September 21, 2016 Sry, but that would only benefit certain players. Depends whatever score/recruitment the new war system rolls with. I did find this funny though. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 The war system currently being tested makes standard downdeclares powerful enough to rip people up. If you reduce the defense slots this doesn't help the people being downdeclared on that much and makes updeclares against mildly active opponents virtually impossible. Reducing offensive slots prolly makes some sense just in terms of limiting downdecs in that system though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 From a TEst POW sure go ahead, we'd just be even harder to deal with. From a game POW !@#$ no, it would make the Updeclearing(the most fun aspect of the game) alot weaker. And we need it to keep runnaway nations(Ace) in check. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 The war system currently being tested makes standard downdeclares powerful enough to rip people up. If you reduce the defense slots this doesn't help the people being downdeclared on that much and makes updeclares against mildly active opponents virtually impossible. Reducing offensive slots prolly makes some sense just in terms of limiting downdecs in that system though. Never thought about offensive slots before. Better to ask then to never know they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 The war system currently being tested makes standard downdeclares powerful enough to rip people up. If you reduce the defense slots this doesn't help the people being downdeclared on that much and makes updeclares against mildly active opponents virtually impossible. Reducing offensive slots prolly makes some sense just in terms of limiting downdecs in that system though. I don't think reducing offensive slots would solve anything. If anything, we need more offensive slots. The more wars you declare, the more spread thin you are and the more vulnerable you become. Reducing offensive slots won't solve the downdeclaring issue either. That issue needs a warscore range. Reducing defensive slots on the other hand does help with the issue slightly, since 2 people down declaring is alot easier to handle than 3. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Reducing offensive slots would limit how much downdeclaring you could do. It'd require alliances to coordinate their downdeclares. I get what you're saying about being spread thin but with the replacement bank system on test server that's so much less of an issue it ain't even funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Reducing offensive slots would limit how much downdeclaring you could do. It'd require alliances to coordinate their downdeclares. I get what you're saying about being spread thin but with the replacement bank system on test server that's so much less of an issue it ain't even funny. I prefer not to use the test server as an indication until it's been added to the main server, especially when most of the war changes proposed seem pretty shit so far. Limiting offensive slots will do more harm for the defenders than good. You WANT them to be able to overextend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Limiting offensive slots will do more harm for the defenders than good. You WANT them to be able to overextend. I agree with this. Add offensive slots if you want overextended players. As to reducing defensive slots to 2- you would effectively make down-declares just about invincible when executed well which seems unbalanced. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 It also works vice-versa for offensive slots. If the person isn't reckless, it's just as unbalanced as defensive slots. I'm starting to think one of the main problems is ground/air superiority. With the snowball potential that you already have with numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 It also works vice-versa for offensive slots. If the person isn't reckless, it's just as unbalanced as defensive slots. I'm starting to think one of the main problems is ground/air superiority. With the snowball potential that you already have with numbers. It does not work vice-versa for offensive slots because if the person is not reckless they do not use the 5 available to them now. Ground/Air superiority means that you are winning. When you are winning you are, almost by definition, winning. Not sure that is a problem though - seems to be so by design. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 I know that people will perceive this is unfair, but why not reduce the number of slots for nations below a certain city level and leave it the same for people above. Noobs are the ones who need protection from this, but you need the 3 slots to have a chance at a successful updeclare. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Reducing the slots to 2 was one of the terrible things Alex wanted to implement. It'll be literally impossible to take down big nationa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 (edited) The entire discussion seems moot. The problems with the war system go waaay beyond the number of slots. In my opinion, sheepy should completely ditch the war system we have right now and build a new one from the ground up that is geared towards more alliance vs alliance combat. With the exception of raiding, which could easily be made into a seperate mechanic, basically all wars are alliance related due to the nature of the game and the need to be in an alliance. The was system on the other hand, is built on a nation vs nation basis with mechanics geared towards that which seems ridiculous. Edited September 23, 2016 by Sketchy Quote 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.