Jump to content

Making fortify not "turtle mode"


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

To keep it brief, you should actually change fortify into a mechanic that allows for proper comeback strategy rather than the turtle mode it is right now.

 

  • Change it to 4 maps instead of 3.
  • Keep it at 10 resistance increased.
  • While fortified, you take 10% less casualties in defensive battles and your enemy takes 10% more casualties.
  • While fortified, you take 10% more casualties in offensive â€‹battles and your enemy takes 10% less casualties.
  • You can only use fortify once, and cannot use it again until your enemy breaks it by launching an attack on you.
  • Attacking while fortified does not break your own fortifications.
  • You can also break a targets fortify via an espionage operation.

 

 

The 10% figures may be too high/low, proper testing/balancing would be a good idea, but the general premise is fortify becomes less of a turtle mode that is spammable, and more of a strategic tool for turning the battle like I thought it was originally intended.

 

In this system, a person cannot simply spam maps into fortify, meaning an opponent can save maps to launch a barrage of attacks and potentially throw the weight of the battle in his/her favor.

 

The current system is not strategic. The decision between being beiged or entering turtle mode generally comes down to mathematics, (which one will cost me the most?) rather than strategy to turn the tide.

  • Upvote 4

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we not? Warfare is tipped quite heavily in favour of the attackers in the case of people who aren't running at full war-preparation at all times. This change would be incredibly hostile to new players, and do absolutely nothing but tip the scales yet more heavily in favour of aggressors with fully-optimized cities and supermassive militaries working the War Range Mechanic for all they can get away with,.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we not? Warfare is tipped quite heavily in favour of the attackers in the case of people who aren't running at full war-preparation at all times. This change would be incredibly hostile to new players, and do absolutely nothing but tip the scales yet more heavily in favour of aggressors with fully-optimized cities and supermassive militaries working the War Range Mechanic for all they can get away with,.

 

Implying any of that is not supposed to happen.

 

If you're not a scrub, then you would be tracking mil percentages of every alliance every single day - nay, every hour. If people militarize, the wise choice is militarizing yourself. Not doing so just shows gross misjudgement of the then political landscape of Orbis. You talk about fully optimized cities and 'supermassive' militaries. That's supposed to happen. If they have a bigger military than you, they're supposed to win. If they have better building skills, they're supposed to win. Fortify currently simply nerfs all beige, not allowing it to happen if the defender so desires; which is something that this suggestion solves. Even right now, you only have two options if you're losing - be beiged, lose infra and resources, or continue to spam fortify and have your units and infrastructure mowed down.

  • Upvote 5

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." ~ Prefontaine


Pure Gold, ~KT chat:


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U want people to play strategically? Simple -

 

1.Make sure it costs to start a new account each time. If it cost u nothing to start over again and again and again, no matter what MAPs format is useless.

2.Supporting point 1, yes, u probably need to use ur brain abit more when u are going to declare a war.

3.A monthly fee maintenance will get rid of multis, apply to both individual and alliance accounts.

-----> 4. Then u will see real strategic play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're not a scrub, then you would be tracking mil percentages of every alliance every single day - nay, every hour. If people militarize, the wise choice is militarizing yourself. Not doing so just shows gross misjudgement of the then political landscape of Orbis. You talk about fully optimized cities and 'supermassive' militaries. That's supposed to happen. If they have a bigger military than you, they're supposed to win. If they have better building skills, they're supposed to win. Fortify currently simply nerfs all beige, not allowing it to happen if the defender so desires; which is something that this suggestion solves. Even right now, you only have two options if you're losing - be beiged, lose infra and resources, or continue to spam fortify and have your units and infrastructure mowed down.

 

So what you're saying is that unless you dedicate all of your time specifically to tracking statistics for the however-many alliances, your playing the game wrong? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. And don't even start about the 'political landscape' when we're in a situation where people start global nuclear wars because they got a bit bored. There's very little politics in Politics and War.

 

And yeah, sure, if your Military is outnumber 1.5 to 1, you should have problems. But when the other guy has literally thousands of tanks and you've only ever fielded a few hundred at a time, and he wipes out the vast majority of your standing force in the initial attacks, there's a problem. You shouldn't have to devote the majority of your economy to the military, and play goddamn perfectly according to a specific city setup, to at least be rolled over slightly less. 

 

And yeah, with only having two options, get set back an extreme amount, or get set back an extreme amount and inconvenience the guy who caused the problem, guess which one people are going to want? The problem isn't Fortify, it's War Range. You should not be able to down-declare like you can right now, the people on the defending side have basically no other recourse but to fortify until the end of days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that unless you dedicate all of your time specifically to tracking statistics for the however-many alliances, your playing the game wrong? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. And don't even start about the 'political landscape' when we're in a situation where people start global nuclear wars because they got a bit bored. There's very little politics in Politics and War.

 

And yeah, sure, if your Military is outnumber 1.5 to 1, you should have problems. But when the other guy has literally thousands of tanks and you've only ever fielded a few hundred at a time, and he wipes out the vast majority of your standing force in the initial attacks, there's a problem. You shouldn't have to devote the majority of your economy to the military, and play goddamn perfectly according to a specific city setup, to at least be rolled over slightly less. 

 

And yeah, with only having two options, get set back an extreme amount, or get set back an extreme amount and inconvenience the guy who caused the problem, guess which one people are going to want? The problem isn't Fortify, it's War Range. You should not be able to down-declare like you can right now, the people on the defending side have basically no other recourse but to fortify until the end of days.

y'know the name of the game, right? Shitposts and Spreadsheets

git gud m9

 

Seriously though, what would you expect if you get hit by a nation with a larger military than you?

(nothing against fortify, but the reasoning in favor is flawed)

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy fix. Make it 7 resistance instead of 10. A ground attack does 6-10 in resistance damage. Currently you can tank out navy with fortify. Even a decrease to 8-9 resistance would greatly aid the beige aspect and make people have to be content with grinding down someone.

"We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge."

 

"Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nuclear weapons use should disable fortify for future use.

 

Or just threaten your enemy with nuclear weapons to prevent prolonging a war.

If you are fortifying against someone nuking you, then you are doing some wrong or the nuker is doing something wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that unless you dedicate all of your time specifically to tracking statistics for the however-many alliances, your playing the game wrong? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. And don't even start about the 'political landscape' when we're in a situation where people start global nuclear wars because they got a bit bored. There's very little politics in Politics and War.

 

And yeah, sure, if your Military is outnumber 1.5 to 1, you should have problems. But when the other guy has literally thousands of tanks and you've only ever fielded a few hundred at a time, and he wipes out the vast majority of your standing force in the initial attacks, there's a problem. You shouldn't have to devote the majority of your economy to the military, and play goddamn perfectly according to a specific city setup, to at least be rolled over slightly less. 

 

And yeah, with only having two options, get set back an extreme amount, or get set back an extreme amount and inconvenience the guy who caused the problem, guess which one people are going to want? The problem isn't Fortify, it's War Range. You should not be able to down-declare like you can right now, the people on the defending side have basically no other recourse but to fortify until the end of days.

Completely agree.

 

While it is reasonable to see all big cities look the same - New York, London, Tokyo - with 4 banks, 3 shopping malls, 2 stadium, max number supermarkets all maxed out, whereas for the rest almost everybody is playing the template, boring, unrealistic optimal model of 3 banks 3 malls 2 stadium 1 subway?? No one has any supermarkets at all??? Wow -_-

 

10 resistance for fortify at the present moment is perfect. At least it protects newbies from spawned multis or other nuisance players.

 

I have a brilliant suggestion too. Every of your city which does not have a supermarket means your soldiers are not getting fruits and groceries, and their effectiveness down by 90% during battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortifying is useful for defending, losing sides in a war. It's essentially a "screw you" to your aggressor because you rebuild your resistance with it. I say keep it, it makes the mechanic much more costly and interesting. 

2016/04/26 –

mIjXiMx.gif

Unreleased Bad Company advert, circa 2018

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that unless you dedicate all of your time specifically to tracking statistics for the however-many alliances, your playing the game wrong? Lol what? I've literally done this for you, go ahead and search Militarization Tracker in the search bar, created a sheet for you that you just need to click. Have that sheet open and you'll get mil statistics for the first 35 alliances, updated every minute, Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Yeah, it does. And don't even start about the 'political landscape' when we're in a situation where people start global nuclear wars because they got a bit bored. M8o, you aren't understanding my point. The point is, although there's a lot of uncertainty in situations, if you feel as if there's trouble, you need to arm up yourself. That, in and of itself, is judging what the 'political landscape' looks like. No, I'm not telling you that it's beautiful, just stating how things are. There's very little politics in Politics and War.

 

And yeah, sure, if your Military is outnumber 1.5 to 1, you should have problems. But when the other guy has literally thousands of tanks and you've only ever fielded a few hundred at a time, and he wipes out the vast majority of your standing force in the initial attacks, there's a problem. That isn't a fortify problem at all, and it's more than expected for that to happen. That's a war range problem, and a downdeclare strategy, which you can still counter by submarining. You shouldn't have to devote the majority of your economy to the military // Mate, the fact is, if you don't have the military to protect your economy, your economy sucks. The best Econ is not one that doesn't have any military, rather, it's one that can protect all those money-yielding slots/infrastructure. Oh and, the entire point of using mil trackers is to build yourself and your alliance mates up, and increase activity, so as to mitigate the damage dealt by a blitz [...]and play goddamn perfectly according to a specific city setup, to at least be rolled over slightly less. 

 

And yeah, with only having two options, get set back an extreme amount, or get set back an extreme amount and inconvenience the guy who caused the problem, guess which one people are going to want? The problem isn't Fortify, it's War Range. You should not be able to down-declare like you can right now, the people on the defending side have basically no other recourse but to fortify until the end of days. Make a separate thread for it, derailing this one won't be advantageous.

 

 

 

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." ~ Prefontaine


Pure Gold, ~KT chat:


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree. Honestly hope this is sarcasm.

 

While it is reasonable to see all big cities look the same - New York, London, Tokyo - with 4 banks, 3 shopping malls, 2 stadium, max number supermarkets all maxed out, whereas for the rest almost everybody is playing the template, boring, unrealistic optimal model of 3 banks 3 malls 2 stadium 1 subway?? No one has any supermarkets at all??? Wow -_- Maybe, just maybe because the PPS they offer is lower than other commerce improvements, and that their true potential is only uncovered after, you know, you buy a 45m+ project?

 

10 resistance for fortify at the present moment is perfect. At least it protects newbies from spawned multis or other nuisance players. 

 

I have a brilliant suggestion too. Every of your city which does not have a supermarket means your soldiers are not getting fruits and groceries, and their effectiveness down by 90% during battle. Very good suggestion. So good, in-fact, that it doesn't belong here.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." ~ Prefontaine


Pure Gold, ~KT chat:


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every of your city which does not have a supermarket means your soldiers are not getting fruits and groceries, and their effectiveness down by 90% during battle.

J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing.jpg

Z98SzIG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if fortify gets nerfed, the penalty for losing a war has to be lowered.  10% of infra, and 25% of resources is a crazy penalty to not be able to avoid.

 

What if they made the % of infra destroyed was based on how long the war lasted? 0.25% per turn of the war? (with a minimum of 3%)

Edited by Vlad m'lad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.