Tie military into city count instead of pop

[Raphael]

City count is how we tier everything anyways.

Put caps on military based on your total cities rather than your population (ie- infra). Gives nations more of a fighting chance and creates less of a snowball effect during wars. This would also help to address the activity gap between people who can log on multiple times a day and people who might log on once a day. You would still get rewarded for your effort and activity because of resistance, but at least effective damage can be dealt in a non-suicidal way,  giving more room to "flip" wars as well.

 

Not to mention, the "realism" this update offered is only skin-deep when rebuying the destroyed infra instantly gives me fighting-age troops summoned from the planes of Oblivion.

[Azaghul]

That's how it already works ???

[Vladamir Putin]

 

5 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

City count is how we tier everything anyways.

Put caps on military based on your total cities rather than your population (ie- infra). Gives nations more of a fighting chance and creates less of a snowball effect during wars. This would also help to address the activity gap between people who can log on multiple times a day and people who might log on once a day. You would still get rewarded for your effort and activity because of resistance, but at least effective damage can be dealt in a non-suicidal way,  giving more room to "flip" wars as well.

 

Not to mention, the "realism" this update offered is only skin-deep when rebuying the destroyed infra instantly gives me fighting-age troops summoned from the planes of Oblivion.

So basically, you want to remove the population cap.

Although it would be fun to see 0 infra nations smashing those with half their city counts, it would be rather unbalanced. 

[AwesomeNova]

On 6/14/2018 at 7:24 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said:

City count is how we tier everything anyways.

Put caps on military based on your total cities rather than your population (ie- infra). Gives nations more of a fighting chance and creates less of a snowball effect during wars. This would also help to address the activity gap between people who can log on multiple times a day and people who might log on once a day. You would still get rewarded for your effort and activity because of resistance, but at least effective damage can be dealt in a non-suicidal way,  giving more room to "flip" wars as well.

 

Not to mention, the "realism" this update offered is only skin-deep when rebuying the destroyed infra instantly gives me fighting-age troops summoned from the planes of Oblivion.

 

I find the current military cap a nice compromise between gameplay and realism. A nation with a large population can, and most likely would, have a large military. A city-based cap would harm nations with a small amount of 2k infra cities, as they can't defend their high-infra cities. Conversely, pirate nations with a high amount of low-infra cities would have a very large military to raid nations with lower city counts. your proposed system would cause unbalanced gameplay.

For 'realism' though, I think a sort of manpower systems similar to HOI4's manpower system is better. It's simple, your manpower would consist of a chunk of your population, and you recruit from your manpower. Then, it replenishes slowly. This is a decent idea, but I don't think we need THIS much realism.

[Raphael]

On 6/15/2018 at 12:38 AM, Azaghul said:

That's how it already works ???

Sorry if I was unclear, I'm talking about infra = population = military caps being changed to a flat-rate city count formula. 1 city = X military, remove the infra/population thing because how infra is related to population already doesn't make sense.

On 6/15/2018 at 1:41 AM, Vladamir Putin said:

 

So basically, you want to remove the population cap.

Although it would be fun to see 0 infra nations smashing those with half their city counts, it would be rather unbalanced. 

The way infra works now is silly. Military has a population cap, infra being destroyed instantly drops my population. Infra being built instantly grows my population. This directly impacts everyone's ability to wage war after taking the slightest amount of damage.

Right now population is too volatile to be a cap on military. I understand the reasoning and desire for realism when it was implemented but it makes the gameplay less fun.

On 6/16/2018 at 12:05 AM, AwesomeNova said:

I find the current military cap a nice compromise between gameplay and realism. A nation with a large population can, and most likely would, have a large military. A city-based cap would harm nations with a small amount of 2k infra cities, as they can't defend their high-infra cities. Conversely, pirate nations with a high amount of low-infra cities would have a very large military to raid nations with lower city counts. your proposed system would cause unbalanced gameplay.

For 'realism' though, I think a sort of manpower systems similar to HOI4's manpower system is better. It's simple, your manpower would consist of a chunk of your population, and you recruit from your manpower. Then, it replenishes slowly. This is a decent idea, but I don't think we need THIS much realism.

Right now the instantaneous loss and regeneration of my population does not convey realism. Not only that but this small adjustment would do wonders for the game.

[Alex]

14 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Sorry if I was unclear, I'm talking about infra = population = military caps being changed to a flat-rate city count formula. 1 city = X military, remove the infra/population thing because how infra is related to population already doesn't make sense.

This already exists. Your military is hard capped by how many military improvements you have, which is hard capped by how many cities you have. Are you suggesting less military improvements per city? I.E. Only 3 Barracks instead of 5 or something?

[Raphael]

21 hours ago, Alex said:

This already exists. Your military is hard capped by how many military improvements you have, which is hard capped by how many cities you have. Are you suggesting less military improvements per city? I.E. Only 3 Barracks instead of 5 or something?

My suggestion is to have the military cap (which is currently a population, ie. infra, cap) changed to being based on your city count RATHER than population. As mentioned, I think it would solve a lot of problems going forward and really make war a lot more fun and competitive.

[Ukunaka]

51 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

My suggestion is to have the military cap (which is currently a population, ie. infra, cap) changed to being based on your city count RATHER than population. As mentioned, I think it would solve a lot of problems going forward and really make war a lot more fun and competitive.

@Alexwhat he is meaning to say is remove the population % military caps. (15% soldiers, 1.5% Tanks, 0.1% Air, 0.01% Ships)
since the military is already Caped by city count. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Ukunaka

[Raphael]

16 hours ago, Ukunaka said:

@Alexwhat he is meaning to say is remove the population % military caps. (15% soldiers, 1.5% Tanks, 0.1% Air, 0.01% Ships)
since the military is already Caped by city count. 

Yes, I guess I didn't realize cities already capped military.

Population is too volatile to be a good cap for military and infra isn't weighted heavily enough into score to prevent issues with miss-matched wars. I don't think infra should be inflated in value because that would cause other scoring issues in the upper tiers, therefore the only solution is to remove the population cap.

Again, I totally understand the desire for realism but it can only get skin deep when population instantly vanishes like a Thanos attack or instantly appears when you build or destroy infrastructure. Even in terms of game develop, because of the way score works the population cap favors infra-heavy builds which leads to war avoidance not to mention punishes raiders unduly.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Bartholomew Roberts

[Sir Scarfalot]

6 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Yes, I guess I didn't realize cities already capped military.

Population is too volatile to be a good cap for military and infra isn't weighted heavily enough into score to prevent issues with miss-matched wars. I don't think infra should be inflated in value because that would cause other scoring issues in the upper tiers, therefore the only solution is to remove the population cap.

Again, I totally understand the desire for realism but it can only get skin deep when population instantly vanishes like a Thanos attack or instantly appears when you build or destroy infrastructure. Even in terms of game develop, because of the way score works the population cap favors infra-heavy builds which leads to war avoidance not to mention punishes raiders unduly.

I would tend to agree, though in truth, one only ever needs 1500 infrastructure to properly 'max out' military, assuming one invests in a hospital and police station, and isn't running a deficit. Even then, you only need that in order to fully max out your navy; maxing out your soldiers, aircraft and tanks require less infrastructure, only about 1000, and even then, you've got enough infrastructure for a decent number of ships.

If anything, the biggest problem I have with the population caps is how they are calculated per military branch; why is it that if I decommission my tanks, all those personnel are unable to be used as soldiers or pilots or sailors instead?

[Skittles]

I'll throw my 2 cents into this: if this change is added, pirates will be all the more powerful because they intentionally keep their infrastructure low, which also happens to restrict their military. This change would allow them to have max military and still maintain a low infrastructure, which would make them a lot stronger and a lot less afraid to dive into wars. However, I'm not sure I'm entirely opposed to making pirates stronger, it'll definitely provide more wars and make the game a little more interesting to say the least.

On 6/15/2018 at 1:41 AM, Vladamir Putin said:

 

So basically, you want to remove the population cap.

Although it would be fun to see 0 infra nations smashing those with half their city counts, it would be rather unbalanced. 

Nah you would still need infrastructure to make the improvements man

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

1 hour ago, Cianuro said:

 

Nah you would still need infrastructure to make the improvements man

If someone else destroys all your infra, you are still allowed to keep your improvements.  Which as a pirate isnt exactly difficult to do.   But this entire topic is pretty obviously biased to helping raiders raid more effectively.

[Sir Scarfalot]

5 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If someone else destroys all your infra, you are still allowed to keep your improvements.  Which as a pirate isnt exactly difficult to do.   But this entire topic is pretty obviously biased to helping raiders raid more effectively.

If someone destroys your infra, you do get to keep any surviving improvements... but you still lose improvements to ground, naval, missile, or nuclear attacks. And you need to rebuild alllllllllll your infrastructure to replace lost improvements.

As a guerilla warrior and old pirate, I truthfully don't think we really need any changes to be made on improvement damage or population requirements other than that fortification be reverted to where it costs 4 action points but recovers 10 resistance (no I will not let that go). It's not at all difficult to summon eldritch powers baseball up the money to build yourself up to 1k infra/city with the new baseball environment, and that much infrastructure easily gets you a decent enough military buying power to raid. Not enough improvement slots to be economically self-sufficient, perhaps, but enough to raid.

[Vladamir Putin]

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

As a guerilla warrior and old pirate, I truthfully don't think we really need any changes to be made on improvement damage or population requirements other than that fortification be reverted to where it costs 4 action points but recovers 10 resistance (no I will not let that go). 

I don't know what's worse, the fact that it made pirating annoyingly difficult to profit off of, or the fact that fortify is pretty much worthless now.

Would have been nice to have fortify have a chance of removing a random immense an opponent has on you, or decreases the amount of infra/loot you lose. But nope, completely worthless.

[Ukunaka]

i think with fortify it should stay 3 but give a random amount of resistance between 3-7 with the formula making 3 more likely than 7. or that if it doesn't increase the resistance then it should be reduced to 2 or even 1 MAP because as it stands now it is worthless as a strategic maneuver and is typically only used when someone has rolled over and accepted their demise or very rarely by those waiting for reset.

i also think missiles should be reduced to 6 MAPs instead of 8

Edited June 26, 2018 by Ukunaka

[Raphael]

 

On 6/25/2018 at 3:58 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If someone else destroys all your infra, you are still allowed to keep your improvements.  Which as a pirate isnt exactly difficult to do.   But this entire topic is pretty obviously biased to helping raiders raid more effectively.

Not to get too deep into this line of discussion, but I do want to address that the raiding playstyle is a significant percentage of the active playerbase and the last few updates to the war system have nerfed raider's ability to wage war. I think some adjustment, that also happens to have positive ramifications for everyone in the war system, is warranted.

[Keelan Kyle]

We could tie approval rating into your max military, the higher your approval rating, the more people that will enlist to defend their country, the lower the approval rating, the less that would enroll to defend their country, maybe set zones, like 0-25% is half your normal max, and 26-75% is normal and 76-100% is 50% more troops than your normal max. Just an idea.

[Sir Scarfalot]

14 hours ago, Keelan Kyle said:

We could tie approval rating into your max military, the higher your approval rating, the more people that will enlist to defend their country, the lower the approval rating, the less that would enroll to defend their country, maybe set zones, like 0-25% is half your normal max, and 26-75% is normal and 76-100% is 50% more troops than your normal max. Just an idea.

The single quickest way to lose approval is to have war declared on you and lose, so causing people to artificially lose more wars as they start losing wars would be quite poor game design. I get where you're coming from, but it just cannot fit within current mechanics with any semblance of playability or balance.