Jump to content

Make Ground Forces Great Again


Rok Semloh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pretty straightforward: very few wars bother to use ground forces, and certainly not on the scale they used to.

In a real war, ground forces are absolutely key to a true and complete victory, yet in the game the first person to spam the most ships (and sometimes aircraft) wins the war.

Make the three types of victories, Naval, Air, and Land all do the same amount of resistance damage (12) so that strategic decisions incorporating more than just 80% navy and 20% air are viable.

Edited by Rok Semloh
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh...  who doesn't use Ground Forces anymore?  I used them religiously against IQ since you guys had very little of it.  Plus the loots were nice.

There's no need to boost Ground Forces.  They're the only ones that aren't completely gutted when you have Control on (Only 50% of Tank power) and it's the only attack that returns loot per hit.  The Resistance Hit is exactly where it needs to be.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rok Semloh said:

Pretty straightforward: (1)very few wars bother to use ground forces, and certainly not on the scale (2)they used to.

(3)In a real war, ground forces are absolutely key to a true and complete victory, yet in the game (4)the first person to spam the most ships (and (5)sometimes aircraft) wins the war.

(6)Make the three types of victories, Naval, Air, and Land all do the same amount of resistance damage (12) so that strategic decisions incorporating more than just 80% navy and 20% air are viable.

(1)Uh... no? Every single war I've been in, ground forces have played a huge part in bringing the enemy down.

(2): Used to...?

unknown.png

Hmmm, something is wrong there. If you are a re-roll, and are referring to the '6 Ground to Win a War', I think that that's so far in the past it's almost irrelevant to really talk about that.

(3): This is not real life. It is a nation simulation game. Realism is pretty much irrelevant.

(4): If you lose to someone spamming ships, you are either not fighting a well balanced war, you don't have a suitable navy, or the other guy's retarded. 

(5): Airstrikes actually reduce the least amount of resistance per MAP out of all conventional attack types, not sure what you're getting at there. If you mean to say they are the most OP, honestly, I've seen someone with 1440 jets have a hard time taking down someone with 800 jets, simply because the 800 jets guy had ground control. If anything, ground offers an already solid counter towards air.

(6): lol

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rok Semloh said:

Pretty straightforward: very few wars bother to use ground forces, and certainly not on the scale they used to.

Dude, lay off the gunpowder. Ground control is very beneficial in wars unless you're attacking an inactive. learn2war

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The detractors above must be high if they actually think that most people use ground forces frequently in war. You're also delusional if you think the majority of wars aren't naval spam.

One person above actually said realism doesn't matter in a game that is trying to mimic real world politics and war... 

The 6 consecutive IT ground victory was actually pretty true to form for a real war's victory criteria in real life. It would be great to see that brought back. The current resistance elimination is way off, gives incentive for some very unrealistic strategies and tactics, and is all around broken. 

  • Downvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rok Semloh said:

The detractors above must be high if they actually think that most people use ground forces frequently in war. You're also delusional if you think the majority of wars aren't naval spam.

The only war you've fought against in the past 30 days is Arrgh. They are not a good sample to judge, since they RP as pirates and thus use ships. 

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still nobody who has a real rebuttal to the obvious need for fixes on ground forces.

I have fought over 100 wars in this game, had 22 cities when 26 cities was the absolute maximum anyone had, and comfortably sat in the top 50 for about a year before quitting and re-rolling.

Ground forces simply aren't viable for sustained continuous attack. They're good for perhaps 1 immense triumph to get ground lock against an enemy who knows what they're doing, and if you run out of ships, planes, and nukes then you could resort to ground forces if that's what is left, but the majority of people don't have strategies centered around ground forces triumphing over their enemies anymore. That's the problem here.

Even if the 10 resistance damage was kept in place and the 6 consecutive ground IT victory was brought back, that would make it much more viable again.

  • Downvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rok Semloh said:

Still nobody who has a real rebuttal to the obvious need for fixes on ground forces.

There is nothing wrong with Ground Forces attack.  There's nothing to fix.

Who were you before?

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Buorhann said:

There is nothing wrong with Ground Forces attack.  There's nothing to fix.

Who were you before?

No.

Ground forces attack is broken as evidenced by the fact that people don't use it nearly as often as they used to. It used to be the main staple of warfare in this game and has been reduced to a side thought. Currently, in-game war is operating in one of the least realistic ways possible.

That's what you'd call broken.

6 hours ago, Conner Temple said:

A person who didn't understand how to war.

I just looked at your nation's war record.

LOL

Edit: Okay, that was harsh, but I still have yet to see one single detractor actually make a case for why the broken ground attack system shouldn't be fixed. Still no takers on day 3? 

Edited by Rok Semloh
  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>people don't use it as often

>it's broken

I don't get this logic.  Just about anybody worth their salt would use Ground Attacks to establish complete control.  After that, they'll use what they need to.  If they're looting, Ground Attacks helps with that.

If they're looking to destroy Improvements, either Ground or Naval does that.

If they're looking to zero out military, Air will do that.

 

Plus you're just spitballing out there that people don't use Ground Attacks.  You haven't provided any statistical evidence of it.  I can assure you, I war/fight more in this game than you do on worthwhile opponents/targets, and you can look through my recent battle history and see me splurge on Ground Attacks.

5 Naval, 3 Ground is the quickest way to beige someone.  Not Air, not straight Naval.

Let alone, in the event your Air is knocked out - you have to then rely on Ground and Naval to carry the fight.

At this point, I'm starting to think you're just trolling this topic.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Buorhann said:

>people don't use it as often

>it's broken

I don't get this logic.  Just about anybody worth their salt would use Ground Attacks to establish complete control.  After that, they'll use what they need to.  If they're looting, Ground Attacks helps with that.

If they're looking to destroy Improvements, either Ground or Naval does that.

If they're looking to zero out military, Air will do that.

 

Plus you're just spitballing out there that people don't use Ground Attacks.  You haven't provided any statistical evidence of it.  I can assure you, I war/fight more in this game than you do on worthwhile opponents/targets, and you can look through my recent battle history and see me splurge on Ground Attacks.

5 Naval, 3 Ground is the quickest way to beige someone.  Not Air, not straight Naval.

Let alone, in the event your Air is knocked out - you have to then rely on Ground and Naval to carry the fight.

At this point, I'm starting to think you're just trolling this topic.

You aren't wrong at all when you say people should use ground attacks. Of course they should! But the majority still don't. Neither of us has hard metadata from the game to prove it; although I would love it if we could get data from two years ago on ground attacks as a percentage of warfare and now. I would bet my left nut they were far more prevalent when warfare revolved around them (as it should) than now.

18 hours ago, Conner Temple said:

You should know I'm ex-GPA and still a neutral cause. You can't really use me as an example. Also I rerolled.

Yeah I'm just busting your chops man you aren't bad at all. Impressive growth for a nation that young even for a reroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>majority still don't

>But Ground Attacks help establish and keep control

>but the majority still don't use it

>I don't have data on this

Maybe if you actually looked at people's battles that do participate in major wars, you'd see something different than just fighting off raiders (Or raiding in general), because I'm pretty sure that's where you're getting your perspective.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2018 at 8:31 AM, Rok Semloh said:

Still nobody who has a real rebuttal to the obvious need for fixes on ground forces.

I have fought over 100 wars in this game, had 22 cities when 26 cities was the absolute maximum anyone had, and comfortably sat in the top 50 for about a year before quitting and re-rolling.

Ground forces simply aren't viable for sustained continuous attack. They're good for perhaps 1 immense triumph to get ground lock against an enemy who knows what they're doing, and if you run out of ships, planes, and nukes then you could resort to ground forces if that's what is left, but the majority of people don't have strategies centered around ground forces triumphing over their enemies anymore. That's the problem here.

Even if the 10 resistance damage was kept in place and the 6 consecutive ground IT victory was brought back, that would make it much more viable again.

You are arguing with some of the most vetted people in this game and refuse to accept their opinions. You MUST be correct while all of them MUST be wrong and stupid to disagree with you.

Logically speaking, in a "real war", if anything should be buffed to follow real life situations then it would be ships. A real navy is capable of anti aircraft; but that would be game breaking here.

Claiming that naval spam is the war tactic is silly. Why do you think so many alliances sit at max planes in peace time? Must be to spam naval attacks. :thinking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rok Semloh said:

Yeah I'm just busting your chops man you aren't bad at all. Impressive growth for a nation that young even for a reroll.

*takes the compliment*

And that's the benefits of being stuck in a 100/0 growth circle for months at a time. Lots of growth.

  • Downvote 1

LTcxGHN.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2018 at 11:17 AM, Alkaline said:

You are arguing with some of the most vetted people in this game and refuse to accept their opinions. You MUST be correct while all of them MUST be wrong and stupid to disagree with you.

Logically speaking, in a "real war", if anything should be buffed to follow real life situations then it would be ships. A real navy is capable of anti aircraft; but that would be game breaking here.

Claiming that naval spam is the war tactic is silly. Why do you think so many alliances sit at max planes in peace time? Must be to spam naval attacks. :thinking:

You just assumed, wrongly, that you must have more experience. 

You are arguing with one of the most vetted players in this game and refuse to accept his opinion.

Ever thought of it that way?

I was also one of the first to suggest having different types of ground troops and would advocate for more complicated units within each system of battle; ADA troops/ships, Bombers/fighters, etc. and that would still be great to see, although would require extensive testing and balancing and would take a very long time to design, create, and implement and PnW will likely never get to that level.

  • Downvote 3
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.