Jump to content

Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Excuse me? I didn't sell down my infra you shit-spouting clown. Your friends in BK did that. You're gonna invoke my name, know what you're talking about.My infra got blown to ash, you can check how much i've lost on NPOwned. 

And no, they really shouldn't be rewarded for hiding from their own tier to kick people with 12 cities with their maxed plane c20s.

 

Furhtermore, you're talking 20 nukes for a SINGLE 2000 infra city. I don't need to explain why what you said is unimaginably moronic, i hope.

Guess you just had to reset City 1 maybe, which proves they’re not so invincible. Although not sure why you want a change which would mainly benefit highly centralized war economies like theirs.

Also despite pretty much no cash income at lower infra levels; upkeep per improvement remains the same. So easier to end up with negative income with a disproportionate amount of improvements. So it does come with a cost keeping more improvements than your income can cover the expenses for.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

For anyone not in alliance which can afford to keep rebuilding to the needed infra levels for their strategy; it would be game breaking annoying though. People like Akuryo could have kept their improvements & made the enemy destroy it; its their own fault they chose to sell down rather than benefit from their peak infra level. Don’t think we should reward people for destroying their infra before the enemy can when in a war they assume it will be wrecked anyways.

That improvement fail affect comes after 5 days according to original suggestion so no it wont be annoying.

I have no idea why you keep saying it’s not invincible as akuryo posted 20 nukes for just 1 city is kind of invincible. What do you mean by reset city 1. This change is to put an end to unlimited supply of RSS and not for the benefit of one sphere or other. 

 

Edited by Limbuwan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Limbuwan said:

That improvement fail affect comes after 5 days according to original suggestion so no it wont be annoying.

If you don’t have enough money to rebuild where you were, it would still be annoying. People would need massive war chests to be able to war & would make it much harder for newer players or alliances to compete with those who have years worth of resources/cash saved. 

Losing a billion worth of infra isn’t a big deal if your improvements are still functional. Although if improvements stopped working, suddenly losing infra would matter a lot more & be much harder to recover from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

If you don’t have enough money to rebuild where you were, it would still be annoying. People would need massive war chests to be able to war & would make it much harder for newer players or alliances to compete with those who have years worth of resources/cash saved. 

Losing a billion worth of infra isn’t a big deal if your improvements are still functional. Although if improvements stopped working, suddenly losing infra would matter a lot more & be much harder to recover from.

what kind of reasoning is this "Annoying"? if you're pinned and 5 days are up then wait for login bonus tear down the city to what infra can support and go declare really low and inactives which will give you money, rinse and repeat. As for this new player/alliance problem, this is an unintended benefit. We'll have less alliance which is poorly run and hopefully treaty web mess is reduced. The one who can still run an alliance by then would have fairly good experience and has connections so they won't get bothered even if the global is ongoing. 

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

2 minutes ago, Limbuwan said:

what kind of reasoning is this "Annoying"? if you're pinned and 5 days are up then wait for login bonus tear down the city to what infra can support and go declare really low and inactives which will give you money, rinse and repeat. As for this new player/alliance problem, this is an unintended benefit. We'll have less alliance which is poorly run and hopefully treaty web mess is reduced. The one who can still run an alliance by then would have fairly good experience and has connections so they won't get bothered even if the global is ongoing. 

As it is now, even if your infra is wiped & you can’t afford to rebuild; not a big deal. If your improvements stop working along with infra; infra goes so fast war it will never be worth buying infra higher than you expect to make a profit on before you go to war next. I mostly get infra for the extra improvements slots rather than thinking about that even.

So I’m completely against this change.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

I like this idea as it will force people to rethink how they fight, personally, I order all my members to sell to 700 infra and we are able to buy max until all the time and in 28 cities topping up to 700 infra costs about 5m, the only issue I have is if you do not have the infra to support the improvements they should simply stop working.

As to the long gaps within globals wars if anything think it has anything to do with econ or the game you are so mistaken, the reason we do not have more global wars is the fact they are always one-sided, it had taken KETOG, Chaos and Rose plus others to even have the guts to hit BK knowing the hell storm that would bring, even with those the odds are so heavy in BK favour they won before it started.

You all want more wars and more global wars, stop picking fights you can win and pick fights worth fighting win or lose 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that improvement destruction doesn't scale up.  It's a lot different to have say, 5 military improvements destroyed on a 3 city nation than on a 30 city nation.  Maybe make improvement destruction a proportion of infra damage.  Every 300-500 infra damage destroys 1 improvement.

Edited by Azaghul
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets take a 2000 infra 20 city nation. They have 40 Improvements per city, and thus 800 total improvements. 

A nuke takes 12 maps and kills 2 improvements. That's 2400 MAPs just to take a nation down to half of their improvements, or 200 nukes. You can launch 4 nukes per war without them fortifying. Thus, it would take 50 wars of nuking just to take down 50% of their improvements. Meanwhile the amount of infra destruction from each city getting nuked twice, and half them getting it thrice would leave them at virtually no infra left. Meanwhile they still have 50% of their improvements working.

And that's just nukes. Missiles are even slower. Navy/Ground are RNG. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't going to war against a major alliance bloc or sphere expecting a war longer than a month, you're retarded. All the most recent wars have shown that wars are going to be significantly longer.

Also seems like the new strategy will be to sell down infra, so I doubt this change affect anyone really but the whales.

IQ will just drop tiers to the incompetent/noob tier and sweep it up. Their mid tier will grind anything to dust by hitting the lower and mid tiers. Their upper tier will just hide out and wait.

 

When you sell infra down, you have to sacrifice your improvements, so yeah. I was a city 24 with 900-1300 infra. I didn't necessarily have any production. I still have a portion of my warchest left over too.

Hitting military improvements is a no-go vote for me. Just you're just gonna turn the game into missile/nuke battery time for anyone on the losing side without any real chance to coordinate air force/navy grind downs on double buy days. Unless of course you just plan to nuke/missile/ghost ship beige, but coalitions frown upon that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

I order all my members to sell to 700 infra and we are able to buy max until all the time and in 28 cities topping up to 700 infra costs about 5m,

This is a good idea, you should keep doing this.

 

As a side note:

Why not have a beige defeat destroy one improvement per city?

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
9 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

This is a good idea, you should keep doing this.

 

As a side note:

Why not have a beige defeat destroy one improvement per city?

Not really a great idea it sucks, however when you are facing a group who has like 500 to 800 infra in most cases and down declare by like 10 to 15 cities you have no choice, the whole Nation score is totally bullshit as I'm sure you can agree, Alex really needs to fix that.

Well, that's not a bad idea in truth, but it still won't do much as the war drags on, as most will simply just keep military improvements and like 700 infra, and that would cost about 7m to fix in 30 city nation. Not sure what will be the fix as you can never make everyone happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If improvement destruction is something we want to see more of, then why don't we implement some kind of strategic weapon that kills off an improvement every time it's used? Maybe it'll have to cost a project slot like nukes, but be cheaper and easier to use. Ideally, it'd even be able to target a specific category of improvements, but let's not get too greedy here.

To counterbalance it, there'd need to be a project similar to the VDS that has a chance of blocking this weapon.

Edit: In order to be a really viable solution to the issue, they should cost half the action points of nukes to use, and project holders really need to be able to build 2 per day instead of just one. They still need to be cheap, but also destroy less infra per use; their main purpose after all would be to destroy improvements.

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

50 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If improvement destruction is something we want to see more of, then why don't we implement some kind of strategic weapon that kills off an improvement every time it's used? Maybe it'll have to cost a project slot like nukes, but be cheaper and easier to use. Ideally, it'd even be able to target a specific category of improvements, but let's not get too greedy here.

To counterbalance it, there'd need to be a project similar to the VDS that has a chance of blocking this weapon.

Edit: In order to be a really viable solution to the issue, they should cost half the action points of nukes to use, and project holders really need to be able to build 2 per day instead of just one. They still need to be cheap, but also destroy less infra per use; their main purpose after all would be to destroy improvements.

Soooo....

Missiles -2 MAP and +1 build per day?

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

  • 1 month later...

Nukes could destroy an extra, but I don’t think they need to be destroyed more. The gamble of an air force base, power plant or something useless getting destroyed makes it interesting. Should be damn hard to wipe out all improvements systematically w/o caring about lucky shots 

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.