Jump to content

Hard cap on war declare range based on city count


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=363485

Yes, I know this isn't the best example since the 13 city nation did win the war and looted around 5-6B in cash and prizes, however there was still a 13v34 city war that happened. I suggest there exist a hard floor for declare ranges based on city count. My suggest is you should never be able to declare on a nation over 10 cities less than you. I, for example, have 23 cities, thus I wouldn't be able to declare war upon nations with 12 cities or lower. 

 

The two things for debate are:

  1. Should a limiter like this exist?
  2. How many cities below should the limit be?
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=363485

Yes, I know this isn't the best example since the 13 city nation did win the war and looted around 5-6B in cash and prizes, however there was still a 13v34 city war that happened. I suggest there exist a hard floor for declare ranges based on city count. My suggest is you should never be able to declare on a nation over 10 cities less than you. I, for example, have 23 cities, thus I wouldn't be able to declare war upon nations with 12 cities or lower. 

 

The two things for debate are:

  1. Should a limiter like this exist?
  2. How many cities below should the limit be?

Tbh I'd make that cap 5 cities instead, 10 cities more means 900 more planes which I think would still be way unfair.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Settra said:

So are you saying the hard cap is for the nation with more cities? Or are you saying the hard cap goes both ways? @Prefontaine

You should always be able to swing up. I'm just suggesting a down limiter. Imagine several 30+ city nations running around in the teens city count with just using double buys (and in some cases single buys) to run a muck. 

47 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said:

Tbh I'd make that cap 5 cities instead, 10 cities more means 900 more planes which I think would still be way unfair.

That's too limiting on the war ranges for players IMO. People above 30 cities and upper 20s wouldn't be able to properly defend themselves.

  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prefontaine said:

You should always be able to swing up. I'm just suggesting a down limiter. Imagine several 30+ city nations running around in the teens city count with just using double buys (and in some cases single buys) to run a muck.

Alright I was just making sure that was the case, I think that the down declare limiter should be in place, so yeah 10 cities would make that work as a hard cap.

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

You should always be able to swing up. I'm just suggesting a down limiter. Imagine several 30+ city nations running around in the teens city count with just using double buys (and in some cases single buys) to run a muck. 

That's too limiting on the war ranges for players IMO. People above 30 cities and upper 20s wouldn't be able to properly defend themselves.

The whole idea is based on subjective opinion, so I guess we'd have to agree to disagree. I still like the idea of limiting down declares though.

Edited by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said:

The whole idea is based on subjective opinion, so I guess we'd have to agree to disagree. I still like the idea of limiting down declares though.

Around the 5 city mark the score range declare modifier does it's job well enough when nations are mil'd up. Someone with 25 cities declare on someone around 17 isn't able to double and dominate them if they have any sort of military. However a 25 on a 10 or so, can. 

There are also people with 37ish cities who wouldn't only be able to declare on about 10-20 people in the game.

 

The purpose of this suggestion are for the extreme cases. Warfare of ~10 city differentials have been happening for some time now and aren't that uncommon with how big some players are. IF you were going to limit a number less than 10 you would likely need to employee it only on lower city counts, somewhere 15 or lower IMO.

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a bad idea 2 years ago, it's an even worse idea now.

 

Edited by Malal
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malal said:

It was a bad idea 2 years ago, it's an even worse idea now.

 

Constructive, supported by information. Quality post. Just because it doesn't support your ideas, doesn't mean it's wrong. Perhaps if you provided something meaningful to the conversation you might convince people.

  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the merits of this, but will it further separate the game into upper and lower tiers? Right now the whales have the ability to sell down and hit lower city count nations, while the lower city count nations can submarine and drag whales down. Would this make a gap where those two ranges cross each other? 

image.jpg1_zpszukhjtut.jpg

 

The Redneck Caliphate of Forrest's Critters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I’m personally trying to decide whether I like this or not.

That's kind of my position. Like, i know right know some of Guardian's larger nations are declaring on ones much more than 10 cities smaller to help other Guardian members who are much smaller, and can't handle fighting back while being dragged down as effectively as, say, Memph can. You can look at Guardian's wars and see them doing exactly that, and i don't feel like that's a bad thing.

Obviously people saying updeclares should be limited have lost stock of their senses. If you want to updeclare 12 cities into 33 against a guy who can double buy an air force bigger than your max number of planes, you go right ahead. The game should not use mechanics to protect one from the consequences of stupidity or arrogance.

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

I... don't think this is a good idea. The downdeclare range is good as it is; with this suggestion implemented, having cities would be too punishing IMO. Sometimes you just get rekt, so you downdeclare to do what you can anyway. The opponents that attacked you down to that level shouldn't be just letting you run rampant throughout their lowest tiers regardless; when the little guy has backup he's hardly helpless.

What would solve the issue a lot more thoroughly is to change decommissioning so that once you've decommissioned units, you can't buy that kind of unit again that day. Much how you can't decommission units after buying that kind of unit in the turn, but if it went both ways then it'd be a heckuva lot more fair.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

I... don't think this is a good idea. The downdeclare range is good as it is; with this suggestion implemented, having cities would be too punishing IMO. Sometimes you just get rekt, so you downdeclare to do what you can anyway. The opponents that attacked you down to that level shouldn't be just letting you run rampant throughout their lowest tiers regardless; when the little guy has backup he's hardly helpless.

What would solve the issue a lot more thoroughly is to change decommissioning so that once you've decommissioned units, you can't buy that kind of unit again that day. Much how you can't decommission units after buying that kind of unit in the turn, but if it went both ways then it'd be a heckuva lot more fair.

Honestly the fix for the whole thing is making improvements much easier to destroy. For every 1000-2000ish infra you kill, you maybe get 1-2 improvements. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Honestly the fix for the whole thing is making improvements much easier to destroy. For every 1000-2000ish infra you kill, you maybe get 1-2 improvements. 

that's a good idea

 

Listen to J Kell's new single: 

 

About The Author

 An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

I meant currently you only get about 1-2 improvements for that much infra through normal means.

Right, and I was encouraging the idea to make it more.

Listen to J Kell's new single: 

 

About The Author

 An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you declare on a small nation with a whale nation and you do a double buy you are likey in the 2500-3500 range where you can be hit by 3 mid-upper tier nations able to destroy all you have in half day, I don't see the problem

I'm ok with a cap only if it's higher, like 20 cities and only for downdeclares

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I'm in favor, I think the change would really only be a positive one. My only concern is the addition of more complexity to the rules around war declarations which can make things confusing and difficult to learn. However, newer players really wouldn't have to worry about this and it wouldn't be a restriction that mattered a lot.

  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wholly opposed to the proposed static city restriction on down declares.  In tandem with the current score restriction, I find the proposition to be too limiting for large nations to meaningfully fight a "losing" war (e.g., the current conflict).  A better solution would be a variable, city-based restriction like the following: (Attacker City Count / 2) - 2 = Declaration Floor

(The example formula isn't necessarily a formal recommendation -- rather, a general suggestion of what should instead be considered.)

Examples: 

A nation has 5 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 1 city (rounded);

A nation has 10 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 3 cities;

A nation has 18 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 7 cities;

A nation has 25 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 11 cities (rounded);

A nation has 32 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 14 cities.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2018 at 2:34 PM, Micchan said:

If you declare on a small nation with a whale nation and you do a double buy you are likely in the 2500-3500 range where you can be hit by 3 mid-upper tier nations able to destroy all you have in half day, I don't see the problem

This. Sure, one might downdeclare like nuts and then doublebuy, but then what? Well they've got more score and can thus be downdeclared on by more prepared nations, that's what. Heck, even the OP showed a case wherein the guy that got hit turned it right around with the help of higher tiered allies anyway!

Don't put in a crutch like this, the score range mechanics are perfectly fine as they are.

2 hours ago, War Hawk said:

I'm wholly opposed to the proposed static city restriction on down declares.  In tandem with the current score restriction, I find the proposition to be too limiting for large nations to meaningfully fight a "losing" war (e.g., the current conflict).  A better solution would be a variable, city-based restriction like the following: (Attacker City Count / 2) - 2 = Declaration Floor

(The example formula isn't necessarily a formal recommendation -- rather, a general suggestion of what should instead be considered.)

Examples: 

A nation has 5 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 1 city (rounded);

A nation has 10 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 3 cities;

A nation has 18 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 7 cities;

A nation has 25 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 11 cities (rounded);

A nation has 32 cities and can declare on nations with as few as 14 cities.

At that point you're just describing the effects of the current score range mechanics; if anything the numbers your example gives are unrealistic without changes to the system. Best I could ever do is hit a fully mil'd up and high infra 5 city nation if I remember right, and that was with 12 cities during the 69 day war. Oh, and that battle that I'm thinking of was pretty close too, since he'd had so much support from his allies' downdeclares against me anyway.

tl;dr: We don't need this proposed change.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
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.