Lu Xun Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 The game should just be one giant blob of everyone pointing planes, nukes, and d- at each other. Discuss. (I actually have non-shit suggestions for how to fix tiering issues, but I'm about to go to bed.) 5 Quote . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 58 minutes ago, Inst said: The game should just be one giant blob of everyone pointing planes, nukes, and d- at each other. Discuss. (I actually have non-shit suggestions for how to fix tiering issues, but I'm about to go to bed.) Then why post shit suggestions? Go to bed and save us the hassle? 3 2 Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 Just so that I remember to fix the post. ==== There are two basic problems with tiering. First, the game can be argued to NOT have enough tiering. Second, the game's tiering problem can be argued to be too much. ==== How can the game, for instance, not have enough tiering? Isn't tiering something that people complain about all the time? Yes, but tiering solves a major problem of games like these. Games like these tend to dissolve into hegemonies of some kind, with a political coalition being dominant and effectively calling the shots. Hegemonies themselves tend to be unstable, and eventually fall apart. Both of these phenomenon tend to create rather lopsided wars which aren't very thrilling for parties involved. Tiering, on the other hand, creates the potential for local centers of power to overwhelm global centers of power. You can have regional hegemonies that completely control a tier, but beyond the basic tier control, they're rather impotent outside. In their specific tier, they might seek military relationships with alliances in their tier to consolidate their power, but outside their tier, their primary interest is economic, not military, because they can't really touch people outside their tier. ==== Another way to look at it is that tiering itself is a problem, and that alliances should be encouraged to have broad score ranges. The problem, however, is that ex-IQ alliances basically control the 18 City tier, and by controlling the 18 tier they also control the 14 and even 12 or 9 tiers. Likewise, their rivals control the 30+ tier and by doing so can control the 23 city tier, organically, and they also can control down to the 15 city tier through innovations in military tactics. ==== To summarize these two factors, either the updeclare / downdeclare together are broken, or the down-declare is broken. These merit two very different solutions. ==== In the first case, if we seek to make regional hegemonies more paramount, the trick would be to limit their interactions with alliances outside their tier. That would involve making cities comprise even more of their military score, i.e, pushing the city score modifier to 100 instead of its current 50. The current war range is roughly +50% cities and -50% cities,, with certain situations having created -67% cities last war, and +200% cities in Knightfall. Doubling the city score modifier would have pushed it closer to -33% cities and +50% cities, although updeclares would have been more difficult and expensive. A different and more elegant way to fix it would simply be to cap downdeclare range based on city count (-25%, +75%). On the other hand, it would take out a lot of tactics wherein players modify their non-plane military percentages so as to either drop into score tiers wherein their side has control, or boost above the enemy's capability to launch updeclares. ==== In the second case, if we choose to abolish tiering altogether, a different way might be to make it so that Seb at City 40 can hit nations at City 10. The trick, however, would be to change the offensive and defensive slot system. Instead of having everyone always have 5 offensive slots and 3 defensive slots, the number of slots available would be based on the strength of opponents being engaged. That's to say, a player could only be engaged by 3x their score of defensive slots. This would make it so, that if downdeclares are attempted, the offensive potential of downdeclares would quickly be limited to 1-2 nations downdeclared upon, and updeclares could see 10 nations attacking a whale in apparent suicide waves that, nonetheless, end up attritioning whale planes to manageable levels. 1 1 Quote . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 My personal preference is to force tier consolidation for the obvious reason that TKR and NPO will never get along. People have tried, over and over again, but this game has essentially been not "Politics and War" but "TKR and NPO" since day one. Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them. 1 Quote . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigbigadorlou Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 There's a really simple and elegant solution to all of this: make cities be worth more NS. The city gap makes a larger score gap. Easy. 2 Quote Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 8 hours ago, Inst said: My personal preference is to force tier consolidation for the obvious reason that TKR and NPO will never get along. People have tried, over and over again, but this game has essentially been not "Politics and War" but "TKR and NPO" since day one. Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them. ummm.. neither NPO or TKR existed on day one or day 300 for that matter. 1 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 17 hours ago, Inst said: My personal preference is to force tier consolidation for the obvious reason that TKR and NPO will never get along. People have tried, over and over again, but this game has essentially been not "Politics and War" but "TKR and NPO" since day one. Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them. Silent War: NPO attacked TKR Trail of Tiers: NPO attacked TKR Knightfall: NPO attacked TKR Dial up: NPO attacked TKR They have a crush for us and you shouldn't intrude on other alliance's sentimental affairs 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 On 7/5/2019 at 4:37 AM, Inst said: Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them. They're already in different tiers, and it's not helping. Your argument is invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted July 11, 2019 Author Share Posted July 11, 2019 NPO and TKR are both average City 18, incidentally. Quote . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 I feel like we've been down this Trail before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mohammad Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Lets take this down to the level of the average joe: Make wars based on city count, dont know the numbers, but thats what @Alex is for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.