Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blackatron

Regenerate resistance over time

Recommended Posts

Frawley recently made a topic where he proposed making attacks do less damage to resistance in order to make wars go on for longer, and in the cases where one/both combatants are unwilling to beige more interesting. I think there was a fairly positive response, but sadly it got quite heavily derailed. So I would like to propose a different change that might have a similar effect.

To outline the issues as I see them:

  1. Wars when fought "properly" only last about 2 days, when they are supposed to last 5, generally speaking wars should probably last most of the total length to create longer term interest and more tense wars.
  2. Wars can never unintentionally end in a draw, there is almost no way that one combatant will not be able to reduce the other person's resistance to 0. In my opinion "winning" a war should be something that requires "effort" if you are evenly matched and not using attacks effectively it should be perfectly possible to not be able to defeat your opponent.
  3. The necessity to delay/cease attacks when attempting not to beige should be reduced.

To prevent this I suggest that resistance should automatically regenerate for both nations over the course of the war, at a rate of 1 point per turn. The resistance damage of each of the attacks could correspondingly be slightly increased in order to not make wars end too slowly when one side is winning all of their attacks.

Benefits of this approach:

  1. Chance for longer wars with more attacks.
  2. Players must consider how to use their MAPs effectively and which attacks are most likely to succeed much more carefully now, since failing any attack actually has more of a negative effect on the attacker.
  3. Even in a losing war it is possible for nations to hold out and avoid a beige if they are willing to invest money and resources in an ongoing fight.

Thoughts?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Blackatron said:

To prevent this I suggest that resistance should automatically regenerate for both nations over the course of the war, at a rate of 1 point per turn. The resistance damage of each of the attacks could correspondingly be slightly increased in order to not make wars end too slowly when one side is winning all of their attacks.

 

I feel like not much will change with this, except the winning nation will have to have 1-2 more immense triumphs.  IMO the actual issue causing wars to end quickly tend to be because of double buying by the attackers, strategic planning with the other people in the defender's slots, and inactivity of the defender.

All 3 of these are user-generated and are just smart ways of playing the game.  Adding resistance during a war wouldn't really change anything except make the attackers attack 1-2 more times(look at fortify and how useless that was).  

I will say this if we were to removal double buying capabilities and then add this mechanic that could be interesting.  There would still be some questions that would need to be answered, but that seems more of a reasonable answer to make wars more competitive than just forcing the losing nation to take more hits.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Balish said:

IMO the actual issue causing wars to end quickly tend to be because of double buying by the attackers

I don't think I understand this, double buying is something that allows someone who is getting beaten to have a chance to rebuild and fight back (assuming opponents have lower city counts). Or do you mean double buying immediately after declaring war either to be a lower NS when declaring or to immediately replenish initial losses? Even if so I don't know that that is what makes the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that by the time you have a force ready to counter, the opfor has already defeated / neutralized the victim.

But the other part of t he problem is that if you add resistance-boosting mechanisms, it becomes impossible to beige race when you're losing.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s disingenuous to say that wars should last the full five days. If anyone’s winning a war in 2 days then it was a stomp from the start. I’m of the opinion of not letting a one-sided war be dragged out any more than it already can be. If you want to be damaging, coordinating a blockade and nukings can hold a nation down for 10 days and cause them to lose up to 24,000 infrastructure, if they even have that much.

 

For transparency’s sake, I live off of raiding, so being caught in wars against broke targets is very annoying. Not to get off topic, but allowing more intel gathering operations a day would make up for lengthening wars because then at least you could scope out more targets without slowing your operation down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blackatron said:

To outline the issues as I see them:

  1. Wars when fought "properly" only last about 2 days, when they are supposed to last 5, generally speaking wars should probably last most of the total length to create longer term interest and more tense wars.
  2. Wars can never unintentionally end in a draw, there is almost no way that one combatant will not be able to reduce the other person's resistance to 0. In my opinion "winning" a war should be something that requires "effort" if you are evenly matched and not using attacks effectively it should be perfectly possible to not be able to defeat your opponent.
  3. The necessity to delay/cease attacks when attempting not to beige should be reduced.

To prevent this I suggest that resistance should automatically regenerate for both nations over the course of the war, at a rate of 1 point per turn. The resistance damage of each of the attacks could correspondingly be slightly increased in order to not make wars end too slowly when one side is winning all of their attacks.

Benefits of this approach:

  1. Chance for longer wars with more attacks.
  2. Players must consider how to use their MAPs effectively and which attacks are most likely to succeed much more carefully now, since failing any attack actually has more of a negative effect on the attacker.
  3. Even in a losing war it is possible for nations to hold out and avoid a beige if they are willing to invest money and resources in an ongoing fight.

Thoughts?

 

You wanted thoughts, here are my thoughts.

Alright so your first issue is that wars should last 5 days. They shouldn't, there's no game rule or precedent that says a war should ideally last 5 days, that's just the max time you have to finish a war. Just because you have 5 days to finish it, doesn't mean it's ideal to fight the entire time. Let's not forget that most wars are decided in the first 12 maps, and unless you're looking to change how MAPs and units work in general, I doubt there is a clear way for wars to become more tense just because you've made them longer without tweaking a hundred other mechanics.

Second issue is that you want wars to be harder to fight and require more effort? That's what I'm gathering. That'll realistically never happen, every war has a clear winner before it's declared, that's why it's declared most of the times. Even so, if you declare a war where you seem to be the obvious winner, there are plenty of ways a person can fight back and beat you, you can get countered, one of your units like ships focused down giving the other person a way to win by running you down with ships for the entire war, and because ships are more efficient, you'll lose even if you have an advantage with aircraft, simply because of how MAPs work. There's no difference to how hard a war is, regardless if it ends in 2 days or 5 days. Most wars are replays of what you've done previously over the front you're fighting.

I don't understand your third issue. What I'm gathering is that you have a problem with needing to stop attacking to expire someone. Now, when you expire someone, you're the obvious winner and they can't feasibly fight back, that's why you're expiring in the first place. Wouldn't extending the war further only make it harder for the person you're expiring to come back? I think that's a massive contradiction to your previous point, where you wanted winning wars to require more effort.

You continue on by saying that even in a losing war, you could avoid a beige and continue to fight. In the way current mechanics work, continuing to fight a single war only delays your rebuild. You realistically want to get beiged as soon as possible to have a window open where you can come back.

From what I gather, you basically want fortify to come back. Whether fortify was removed as a good game change or a bad game change is a massive topic not fit for this conversation. But in Alex's eyes, it warranted removal so it was removed. Extending resistance points would really bring him back to the issue he had with fortify in the first place.

Edited by Radoje
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said before, there's a difference between tactical victories and strategic victories, as well as local victories and global victories.

Wars should be decisive in a strategic sense, i.e, the winning coalition should be able to put down the losing coalition and force terms. On a tactical sense, however, there should always be areas, engagements, and so on, where a decisive victory is possible even for the losing side.

Your coalition is trying to achieve such by infra-targeting, even if the vast majority of engagements end in defeats, and with opfor units capable of continued action. But it would be better if, in the future, it would be possible to achieve local victories, i.e, to get players on the winning side to start crying uncle and freaking out because their dogpile can't save them.


In fact, we sort of have this now. Guardian and Grumpy were able to give CoS and TEst a very bloody nose and both alliances, despite being on the winning side, have seen players leave their alliance. Unfortunately, this is merely because of how broken downdeclares are in this game; a 5 city nation can trivially hit a 3 city nation and come in with what's effectively 420% the force, meaning that a single 5 city nation could successfully engage at least 3 3 city nations. Scaled up to your tier, it would be roughly equivalent to a 30 city nation hitting an 18 city nation.

 

I don't think revisions to the beige mechanic would help us out much. Sure, it'd allow players to attempt to relieve injured nations with a greater window of opportunity. But overall, engagements, battles, or wars as a game term as opposed to an alliance term, these are over when one group of combatants have been demilitarized and neutralized, so extending the nominal length of wars just means that the defeated party is stuck being whipped for longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason why wars have a 5 day deadline is because there needs to be one, otherwise nations will just remain permanently pinned down.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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