Make wars less uneven

[ShiningLioness]

So ODN has been in a losing war over the past few rounds. The first round I got taken by surprise, although I had my airforce maxed as I always do in peacetime in event of raiding. Even so I wasn't able to hold my own. But by the time I came out of beige I had completely maxed my military: ground forces, aircraft, ships. It got wiped out again literally within one turn. Not one day: one turn. (Yeah, I'm new to war. I didn't know to expect this. I know none of what I'm saying is new to most people who are reading this thread but spare me taunts about my noobishness, thx.)

I'm currently on round three of this cycle. My nukes were spied away daily while I was on beige. Although I knew it wouldn't do me much good, I rebought planes, but didn't rebuy ground forces because tanks cost so much steel and I knew it would go within one turn. That meant that when they ground attacked me I couldn't hit back with planes due to ground control. Air superiority swiftly followed. It means I'm unable to even get one hit back while they raze me once again because even when I have the same number of units, I can't use all of them. Literally all that I can do is fortify.

As most people who will be reading this thread know, that leaves nukes and missiles, which you can at least fire without air superiority or ground control being a problem. But unlike The Game Which Must Not Be Named (at least in its early stages), nukes aren't as devastating in this game. (Which is dumb, because they're supposed to be nuclear missiles.) Conventional attacks are far more value for MAPs. But even nukes are not convenient to purchase once the war has actually started. I was purchasing them the entire time I was on beige and simply had them spied away each day.

I don't know what should be done about this, but something needs to change. I don't mind being utterly wrecked in a war, but I think it's dumb that the system is set up so that I can't land a single hit and I end up with zero MAPs at the end of each battle while my opponents have 75-100. Removing air superiority/ ground control etc, or making it harder to get, could help. At least in The Game Which Must Not Be Named when I was rolled in wars from time to time, I could always hit back, even if I suffered disproportionate loss. If the war system doesn't change, I honestly intend to delete my nation. Again, not because I can't take a beating, but because the entire reason I built my nation in the first place was so that when I was ready I could fight some great wars. There is no point in accumulating pixels for its own sake: that's why it's called politics and *war*.

I know I'll be accused of crying etc etc but I honestly don't care. It's not crying; it's pointing out legitimate issues in the war mechanic. Accuse away and observe my complete indifference.

 

[Sir Scarfalot]

Well, see, what you're currently suffering from is the late stages of unstable equilibrium, where losing an alliance war in the current mechanics of the war system leads to a complete inability to play the game pretty much at all and being wholly at the mercy (and inevitably, if not immediately or currently, the lack thereof) of hostile alliances. This kind of situation is indeed a legitimate issue and you are completely correct in both your assessment of the problem and its' extent. There are more options available to you though beyond just missiles and nukes, however. They don't include deleting your nation, so don't do that. (How you got to 19 cities without understanding raiding or submarine tactics though is beyond me, and in light of that your ignorance worries me greatly, bub.)

What's really important though is that you are correct. At best, you're still losing. You are going to be triple teamed and your military zeroed out almost instantly out of beige, and there is now nothing you can personally do about it. Your opponents have your score range well locked down, and you don't have enough allies in that range to help. (Again, I'm not sure how you got that many cities without understanding the risks involved.)

This kind of thing is why I'm so cheesed off that people supported the fortify nerf. Pre-nerf, you'd at least have been able to fight constantly and effectively using nukes/missiles against your opponents no matter how overwhelming the wealth and power gap between you and them may have been; now, your options are needlessly limited and the constant looting cycle causes your alliances' defeat to hit your side harder and cost the victorious side less, which is exactly the wrong way for balance to go in a perpetual game.

...

What, were you expecting me to say 'get gud' or 'rekt' or 'lol u salty'? Of course you were, you literally said so, with salt. All of those apply, obviously, but I agree with your concerns completely. The mechanics DO favor the victorious more than they should, and I've argued that ever since the fortify nerf was even proposed. This isn't a game that should be able to be completely and utterly won in perpetuity, by anyone, because that is how these games die. I've seen that happen almost a dozen times due to the players and/or developers not respecting how utterly awful things can get for everyone, winner and loser both, when perpetual games are "won".

Edited April 11, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot
salty salty salty :P

[Soxirella]

Is the game you refer to CyberNations? Go ahead and say it, CyberNations!! If this game can have a CN related award given, then why not mention it by name.

 

Anyway, I feel you but I bet before I have finished my reply, someone else will probably point out to you the "Political" aspect of the game. In reality, this game is all about one group trying to grossly outnumber another, so essentially it is "Mostly Politics" and "A little bit war", cause war outcomes are usually decided before the first attack, and comeback is only in theory and never in practice.

 

Nukes are probably a painful way for the other to get a victory, but your best bet is to amass 50-100 nukes before the start of a war, to really be credible. I do agree that Nukes are not damaging enough, compared to what a conventional gang banging can do and I'd rather make Nukes be barely available and used as a tool to shift the tide and go conventional from nuking. See: 

 

At least you can take it as a positive point that this game is not like Travian, another game where alliances resort to gang banging as well, but there, you can loose your cities/villages. You can lick your wounds and try to come back another day.

[Phino]

suicide is not the answer, join arrgh now!!!

[ArcKnox]

6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Well, see, what you're currently suffering from is the late stages of unstable equilibrium, where losing an alliance war in the current mechanics of the war system leads to a complete inability to play the game pretty much at all and being wholly at the mercy (and inevitably, if not immediately or currently, the lack thereof) of hostile alliances. This kind of situation is indeed a legitimate issue and you are completely correct in both your assessment of the problem and its' extent. There are more options available to you though beyond just missiles and nukes, however. They don't include deleting your nation, so don't do that. (How you got to 19 cities without understanding raiding or submarine tactics though is beyond me, and in light of that your ignorance worries me greatly, bub.)

What's really important though is that you are correct. At best, you're still losing. You are going to be triple teamed and your military zeroed out almost instantly out of beige, and there is now nothing you can personally do about it. Your opponents have your score range well locked down, and you don't have enough allies in that range to help. (Again, I'm not sure how you got that many cities without understanding the risks involved.)

This kind of thing is why I'm so cheesed off that people supported the fortify nerf. Pre-nerf, you'd at least have been able to fight constantly and effectively using nukes/missiles against your opponents no matter how overwhelming the wealth and power gap between you and them may have been; now, your options are needlessly limited and the constant looting cycle causes your alliances' defeat to hit your side harder and cost the victorious side less, which is exactly the wrong way for balance to go in a perpetual game.

...

What, were you expecting me to say 'get gud' or 'rekt' or 'lol u salty'? Of course you were, you literally said so, with salt. All of those apply, obviously, but I agree with your concerns completely. The mechanics DO favor the victorious more than they should, and I've argued that ever since the fortify nerf was even proposed. This isn't a game that should be able to be completely and utterly won in perpetuity, by anyone, because that is how these games die. I've seen that happen almost a dozen times due to the players and/or developers not respecting how utterly awful things can get for everyone, winner and loser both, when perpetual games are "won".

Usually when an opponent has been utterly beaten, they surrender under whatever terms their opponent demands. It's only in pnw that the default response to being completely annihilated is to stubbornly hold out until your opponent gets bored of smashing your face into the ground and okays white peace. This is a diplomacy problem, not a mechanics problem.

[Buorhann]

What ArcKnox said.

While the mechanic issues are stated, this is more of a leadership/diplomacy issue than a mechanical one.

If you're in an alliance led by someone who refuses to find peace in way that's beneficial to you or others, why are you following that gov?

[Arkiri Arch]

Don't be apart of an alliance led by a guy who literally tells the aggressors that him and his alliance won't fight back and will just lay down. Maybe you wouldn't be utterly rolled if you had competent leadership or alliance mates.

I do though agree with some of your statements, mainly about nukes being underpowered and how buying units once opponents have air superiority is most times a lost cause. Airstrikes being able to kill an entire days tank rebuy, in one turn is ridiculous. Along with how ground battles kill a fraction of tanks compared to airstrikes. Shouldn't tanks going head to head cause more casualties than an airstrike? Also you said all your nukes were spied away, currently the only way to combat that is to either have a better and more organized spy blitz/warfare than your opponents or wait to buy nukes right before you use them which limits you to nuking one person per day.

 

[Micchan]

I'm here thinking for solutions but every idea in the end makes the game easier for whales 

[OsRavan]

2 hours ago, Arkiri Arch said:

Don't be apart of an alliance led by a guy who literally tells the aggressors that him and his alliance won't fight back and will just lay down. Maybe you wouldn't be utterly rolled if you had competent leadership or alliance mates.

I do though agree with some of your statements, mainly about nukes being underpowered and how buying units once opponents have air superiority is most times a lost cause. Airstrikes being able to kill an entire days tank rebuy, in one turn is ridiculous. Along with how ground battles kill a fraction of tanks compared to airstrikes. Shouldn't tanks going head to head cause more casualties than an airstrike? Also you said all your nukes were spied away, currently the only way to combat that is to either have a better and more organized spy blitz/warfare than your opponents or wait to buy nukes right before you use them which limits you to nuking one person per day.

 

Wait what? lol are you referring to me?  I think there's been a misunderstanding (deliberate as pr or legitimately?) of something.  If nothing else i've fought in every round of wars ive had (sometimes concentrating on one opponent or another).  My guess tbh is that's referring to a comment I made when first hit (with no military build up since we werent expecting it) to someone in TGH who offered me peace for 10k resources.  And I responded that no, I wouldnt pay tribute even if that meant I just had to sit there and endure a beating I didn't mind that.  A sort of good natured, in good spirit "well this isnt going to be much fun for you, but hey guesse i'm a punching bag for a round" There wasnt much of a way to fight back in that first round since all the military was destroyed in one go, and my spies, and no nuke stockpile (and I had been blockaded and couldnt get any resources in to buy stuff).  So yeah, i pretty much sat like a lump that first round other then i think a nuke or two.  

Not that any of that really matters or is germane, but very weird if you're trying to twist my comment into some sort of "ODN's leader said they wouldnt fight".  I mean, clearly we are right?  Including said leader?  ::Shrugs::   I mean us and GH are at war (or war from odn perspective, 'eternal raid' from theirs heh).  No reason to be insulting about it.

 

As to SL's point.  I dont have much of a problem with the war system being so slanted to the 'winning' side, but I think its important to give outlets or facets where you can be a winner even if caught by surprise or outnumbered.

So say spies for example.  Way too many destroyed in the 'attack spies' option.  Way too hard to build up again (you essentially wont while the war lasts).  Same with nukes if you dont have a big stockpile. OR really anything else. ::considers:: I suppose I would do one of three things. 

 

1) Either make it possible so you can build back up fully after a round of losing wars. i.e maybe make beige last longer.  That way if you keep beating me into the ground because you're bigger or better or better coordinated then me, that's fair.  But at least there is a chance to go in 'fully geared' between rounds of war.

2) Bring the old fortify back.  As someone up thread said, that lets you have a chance to make some better strategic choices and trade offs on the defensive.  Or alternatively look at how resource pillaging works with this.  How blockade works.  Maybe allow resources to flow between a bank and a nation more freely (and maybe tweak the pillaging of a bank as a result?) so that once blockaded its not essentially a devil's choice between 'game over' or 'lose more resources then you do damage'.

3) Separate some of the mechanics somewhat. Make it possible (or easier) for example that you can lose a conventional war, but hold an edge in spy mechanics.  Or nuke mechanics.  Its not impossible now, but much harder.

 

My two cents anyway.

Edited April 11, 2018 by OsRavan

[Azaghul]

There needs to be some way for people to be able to fight back at least in a small way once they are whiped.  Right now, without other nations intervening to flip it the other way, there is basically nothing someone can do conventionally beyond create units to be easily slaughtered for little purpose.  One thing that I like about CN is that even when your nation is way outclassed and outnumbered in units, there are a lot more opportunities to win some conventional battles with good tactics.

[Hooves]

It's a beautiful day outside
Birds are singing, flowers are blooming
On days like these
You wake up to 0 military

Doesn't even take 4-6 hours for a coordinated attack to nullify you. The best you can do is get on as fast as possible while you're potentially at work. Or get allies to save you when they could be busy themselves. Do or Die scenario, gotta go fast like sonic.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Hooves

[ShiningLioness]

6 hours ago, Azaghul said:

There needs to be some way for people to be able to fight back at least in a small way once they are whiped.  Right now, without other nations intervening to flip it the other way, there is basically nothing someone can do conventionally beyond create units to be easily slaughtered for little purpose.  One thing that I like about CN is that even when your nation is way outclassed and outnumbered in units, there are a lot more opportunities to win some conventional battles with good tactics.

 

Yes.

[ShiningLioness]

So not only is there no action on this, but admin's response is to propose actually getting rid of beige? o.O

[Roquentin]

There's no incentive for most people to play a game where they can be subjugated as opposed to being able to hold out. It's bizarre people see having to accept whatever is demanded as some sort of ideal scenario. That's a horrible gameplay experience. 

[Buorhann]

49 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

There's no incentive for most people to play a game where they can be subjugated as opposed to being able to hold out. It's bizarre people see having to accept whatever is demanded as some sort of ideal scenario. That's a horrible gameplay experience. 

How's that going in that other game for you?

>accept whatever is demanded

Most people, like myself, are always open to negotiation.  Whether people want to negotiate or know how to, that's a different story.  Stating "Hey, we can end X for Y." and the reply is "No, frick you, we won't accept that"  with no counter offer or willingness to negotiate, that's not a gameplay issue.  That's a player issue.

[durmij]

Just as an off hand remark, but recruitment times need to change from base 3/5/6/5 to 3/4/4/4 with the accompanying tweaks in unit numbers and prices. And an across the board damage nerf with a matching drop in attack cost. Basically, make zeroing someone take more actions.

Can't fix the playerbase though. That shit's fricked beyond hope.

Edited April 18, 2018 by durmij

[Edward I]

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

How's that going in that other game for you?

Not sure what you mean?  If you're alluding to unreasonable surrender terms, to the best of my knowledge the last time a major CN alliance imposed any surrender terms beyond an admission of defeat on another alliance was early 2014.

[Buorhann]

3 hours ago, durmij said:

Just as an off hand remark, but recruitment times need to change from base 3/5/6/5 to 3/4/4/4 with the accompanying tweaks in unit numbers and prices. And an across the board damage nerf with a matching drop in attack cost. Basically, make zeroing someone take more actions.

Can't fix the playerbase though. That shit's fricked beyond hope.

I actually agree with that.  A 3/4/4/4 could help the issue.

[OsRavan]

Well I still say the problem is that *everything* is too one-sided.  ::considers::  You dont need wars to be even, but give some real dynamic choices to the weaker side.  Or at least make it require more effort to keep them down across the board.

Like now, its just straight forward to blockade someone.  They cant keep resources in their naiton in any amount because of how fortify works.  You cant build up your military to have a chance of doing any real damage if outnumbered.... especially if you cant keep resources without it being pillaged. The military losses all pile on each other and its impossible to dig out of the hole once you get into it without others coming in. It should be HARD not impossible.  Theres not even an option where you can really bleed the opponent while losing. Spies just get decimated and you cant ever build them back (it takes too long) which also means you cant stockpile nukes unless you start with like 50 plus, because they will just be spied away.

There is nothing perse wrong with any of these mechanics in and of themselves, but all put together it causes things to get very one-sided.  It would be much more dynamic if it was possible to be a major threat in different ways.  Or if it required your enemy to subdue you in several avenues.  If the edge in military didnt connect to spies, or to nukes, or to pillaging resources.  Take your pick.    But something to give the weaker side some viable strategies beyond essentially tough it out lol.  Not auto victories, but dynamic chances of different strategies that your enemy would have to counter.

 

[Guest Epi]

563

Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi

[Sir Scarfalot]

34 minutes ago, Epi said:

I agree with Durmij and Buorhann here, a boost in recruitment power if you've just lost a war would help a lot. You wouldn't have to extend the beige and you could reasonably come back for another round.

Alright, when are you going to change your member rank to 'necromancer'?

[Guest Epi]

564

Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi

[Sir Scarfalot]

5 hours ago, Epi said:

When alliances finally stop making their theme "The" and "Everything greek" + special shout out to "Knights"

fair enough