Popular Post Prefontaine Posted July 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) Sheepy has been a bit busy, but I know one of the changes he wants to address is calculation of nation score. This process, hoping to be gradual changes (change one or two things, then after that if that seems like an improvement change one or two things more), needs a large feedback from the community IMO and thus why I wanted to create this thread and start the ball rolling. One thing I know will change is the impact of cities on score. Currently going from city 1 to 2 gives you a 100% increase in your max capabilities to field units. There's a 66.6% increase from 2-3. However from city 20 to 21 you're looking at about a 5% increase. Lower cities count for a much greater possible jump for strength than higher, thus Sheepy wants to introduce a sliding scale for cities impact on score. Here's a graph he made to help show what a possible sliding scale might look like. The x-axis is the number of cities, and the y-axis is the score total from the number of cities you have. The black, straight line represents the current model. The black, curved line with green dots represents what he's considering. The other lines are more extreme options. As you can see cities 2-16 will have a greater increase in score compared to our current system. City 17 will put you at the same level that we currently have, then all cities after 17 will have a diminishing impact on score. This will limit some of the declare ranges on smaller nations fighting smaller nations. Making it harder for someone with 9 cities to declare on someone with 6 cities in some cases, which is a 33% difference in possible military capabilities. This does little to impact larger nations as score/declare ranges are much larger as their city score often represents somewhere between 15%-30% of their strength. Diminishing that by 5% to something like 10%-25% will have little impact the higher you go. Thoughts on the city aspect? I also want to hear what parts of score you think need adjusting? Should military impact be changed? If so what? Planes need to increase more strength? tanks less? Navy more? soldiers less? Etc.. Should infra be brought onto a sliding scale? the first 1500 infra is much more important on your military fielding capacity than the next 1500? Should nukes/missiles be on a sliding scale? Having 0 nukes is much different than having 50, how different is having 50 from 100? Or 100 to 200? Should some projects come with a score increase? Please get back to me with your ideas and thoughts, thanks. tl;dr Changes to the score system might be coming. I want the communities input. If you care about that, please read the thread and give input an any number of the bullet points or anything outside of that you come up with. Edited July 14, 2019 by Prefontaine 1 14 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted July 14, 2019 Author Share Posted July 14, 2019 Also upvoting or downvoting this thread is pointless. Giving replies is what's needed. 2 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Also upvoting or downvoting this thread is pointless. Giving replies is what's needed. I'm working on it :p. The city change seems like a fair enough change. I'd say put it out on the test server to see how it plays out. For military NS, it depends on the unit you're talking about. Due to the sheer versatility and efficacy of aircraft, I do think that the NS needs to be increased (basically doubled). As for tanks and ships, I'd rather see them have more utility than the one they do at the moment, which I think would be preferable to an NS reduction. Infra and project sliding seems unnecessary to me. 1500 base infra is not really necessary for military either. It's the minimum barebones econ setup, but not the mil one. Nuke and missile sliding is also not something I see as being necessary, because the substantial upkeep expense from a large stockpile already deters most people from piling up any appreciable amount. Obviously, bullet points 2 through 5 should only be tested after seeing how the city NS changes affect the overall ranges. Edited July 15, 2019 by Shiho Nishizumi 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 This is objectively political change. There are various changes to resistance/war length that would be far more beneficial. 4 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack g Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 A 34 city nation definitely shouldn't be a le to hit a 20 city nation. So on that i agree. Should be a cap with the war ranges. Like an ns rating as well as no nation can hit lower than 5 cities below itself but can up declare 10 cities or something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted July 14, 2019 Author Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Mack g said: A 34 city nation definitely shouldn't be a le to hit a 20 city nation. So on that i agree. Should be a cap with the war ranges. Like an ns rating as well as no nation can hit lower than 5 cities below itself but can up declare 10 cities or something. Ideas of having capped score ranges based on city counts has been discussed in the past and was very unpopular then. Make it something like if you have 30 cities you can never declare on someone with 19 cities of fewer, something to that effect. If the outlook on that has changed, I think it's a decent safeguard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack g Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) 5 - 6 cities down should be the cap. Otherwise the double buy is retarded. The idea that a 20 city can down declare a 10 city nation and there is no way that a 1 vs 1 the 10 city can win. Is poor game design. 6 city down dec cap for the win Edited July 14, 2019 by Mack g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Turgidson Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Well, I think score changes are stupid. 1 Quote Are you originally from Earth, too? Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now. I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd. Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Thoughts on the city aspect? Well, I think you need to go a step further really, during this war, Sphinx was able to hit someone with 19 cities, Sphinx has what 37 cities, Ripper with max planes, ships, tanks and troops on 34 cities was able to hit someone with 20 cities, no troops, no tanks and not ships and half the number of planes of Ripper almost. Cities are the biggest advantage within war if you take away the number of nations one side has over the other, So you have to come up with a better idea that enables people to declare on those within a city range. I also want to hear what parts of score you think need adjusting? Should military impact be changed? If so what? Planes need to increase more strength? tanks less? Navy more? soldiers less? Etc.. Infra is the biggest issue for nation score, someone with 1k infra can buy as much military as someone with 3k infra however infra adds a hell of a lot to nation score this is most likely the biggest issue that needs sorting. Should infra be brought onto a sliding scale? the first 1500 infra is much more important on your military fielding capacity than the next 1500? Infra should add some nation score but it should drop off and add less the more you get, As said infra is more of a peacetime thing, where nation score doesn't really matter. Should nukes/missiles be on a sliding scale? Having 0 nukes is much different than having 50, how different is having 50 from 100? Or 100 to 200? Nukes should yes however, you should also for once fix the fact that no nation with 14 cities 20k infra can hold 1k nukes, this is just dumb, need to fix it where you have to have an improvement within each city that can hold a nuke, and it will limit the number of nukes you can have, Should some projects come with a score increase? Yes, all military projects should increase nation score. In closing, the nation score as its worked out today is laughable, Cities and military should be the two biggest part of nation score. Let's look at Joe Baker the largest nation within the game who seems to have max military also. 38 cities. this is 17.1% (1850 NS) so his cities account for 17% of his score, something he cannot lose ever? 127,300 infra and it makes up 29.4% (3182.5 NS) of his nation score, almost a 1/3 and he can not buy more planes, ships and what have you than anyone else at 38 cities with 1k infra, all he has is a better income. Also might add easy lost as well. Projects 2.59% (280 NS) enables him to buy extra troops, nukes, missiles as well as protect himself and get extra spies. Military 50.9% (5510 NS) 570k men, 47.5k tanks 3420 planes and 570 ships, are you telling me that this huge as military (that I might add is only capable due to his large city count) is only 5510 Nation score, Hell his military on their own is almost top 50 nation. But let's say he drops the infra down to 1k, drops hit troops and tanks then Joe would drop from 10.8k NS to about 6k NS core hitting those on 20 to 25 cities who have more than 2k infra, just how sphinx and Ripper were able to do. Infra adds way to much nation score, Cities simply do not add enough. Now i know i have those who love to troll me, tag me and such but for once think of the bigger picture of the game and not if it will help you win an easy war or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack g Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Basically your trying to swap tech for cities. In another nationn sim most of us are familiar with... Theres a tech gap. A 50k tech whale nation cant be targeted by anyone outside of the top 250. So the whales stay above the world in a small % of players who can actually be targeted and the rest can only look from the bottom of the mountain. the whales can down dec people completely out of ther league. However, with a city down dec cap and erasing the up dec... Those large nations can be targeted by anyone but can only down dec 5 - 6 cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ayayay Posted July 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 14, 2019 This is the opposite of what should be done. City scores should be doubled or tripled as a whole. 37 city nations shouldn't be able to down declare 20 city nations so easily, and yet you want them to be able to hit a few cities lower? Infra score is meh but reducing it only makes it easier to have massive down declares. @Alex has repeatedly said he doesn't want to make it possible for bigger nations to maintain a hegemony. The fact that 1400 nations have been fighting 700 for a month and the whale tier in the latter has yet to really be touched shows how difficult it is to actually fight large nations currently. In fact if the larger coalition didn't have a bailout of a few hundred more nations that have come/gone the larger coalition would have lost. Quite literally the only reason the smaller coalition full of whales /didn't/ win is because their largest nations didn't sell down and fight the mid tier. 7 Quote 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: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack g Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 So.. down dec should be between 6 and 10 cities with a hard cap. A 20 city nation for example cannot down dec a 10 city nation as it would have 100% more cities than the 10... Instead could only down dec a 14. However a 30 city could down dec a 20 city nation as the 30 only has a 1/3rd of the city count as the 20, and its capped at 10. So a 40 could down dec a 30, a 50 could down dec a 40 and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted July 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Malal said: This is the opposite of what should be done. City scores should be doubled or tripled as a whole. 37 city nations shouldn't be able to down declare 20 city nations so easily, and yet you want them to be able to hit a few cities lower? Except a C37 can't downdeclare on a C20 easily (and if memory serves me right, Sphinx wasn't max air when he did his rodeo either. Again, there's a lot of context that's being deliberately left out for narrative purposes). If the C20 inflates himself to that point, then quite frankly that's on him for stacking too many tanks and ships, which are seldom if at all ever worth it due to their expense and fairly lacking utility. Meanwhile, the extreme NS compression that has been ongoing makes it difficult if not nigh-impossible for a similarly sized nation to hit said NS compressed nation and for it to be able to avoid or mitigate the chances of retaliation, thanks to absurd updeclare ranges. Ironically enough, it makes it so that only whale-sized nations can downdeclare with relative safety (safety, not ease), both because they have the upfront planes to both more quickly neutralize whoever they're hitting alongside tanking any potential counters better, and because of more substantial double buys which would make it easier for them to buy out of range. However, to insinuate that such downdeclares are easy to pull off is mere delusion. At an NS range of 2350 (about average for C20 people with wartime (800) infra, max air, and an usual amount of projects (5) ), the downdeclare range is 3133 NS. Someone at 28 cities and at 800 infra, with only planes and 5 projects (which is about the standards I'm going with) can't even hit that range. They'd need to either sell infra (I'll touch on infra in a moment), some projects, or planes. And obviously, that's 2350, and not the even lower ranges that are possible with infra selling/buying shenanigans which we've seen in this war so far. And of course, that's merely city 28. The larger they are the higher the lower ceiling is. Quote Infra score is meh but reducing it only makes it easier to have massive down declares. Quite frankly, with the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it became meta in the future to simply preemptively sell your infra down to 1500 or lower. Hence, I don't think that it's much of an issue in on itself. With that said, I do think that infra should be relatively more rigid on both acquisition and selling. Quote Alex has repeatedly said he doesn't want to make it possible for bigger nations to maintain a hegemony. The hegemonic trends as of late have been from the bottom and the middle, not the top. Alex has simply not caught up to that fact yet. Quote The fact that 1400 nations have been fighting 700 for a month and the whale tier in the latter has yet to really be touched shows how difficult it is to actually fight large nations currently. No, that 700 have been able to fight 1400 and whale tier is (relatively) unscathed, is a testament to the ineptitude of said 1400. Especially given context that's being deliberately omitted to drive the narrative. A solid 40% of Coalition A's forces were at half strength at best, yet that contingent managed to bring down one of the heaviest hitters of Coalition B on the outset of the blitz, alongside busying up it's partner. The alliances that came on the days that followed the blitz came in piecemeal, which resulted in them being picked off; that is the real reason why they were ineffectual. It was a strategic mishandling of assets from Coalition B, not the overpowering capabilities of the upper tier in Coalition A. Besides, the slowness has more to do with a desire on Coalition B to play it long term, rather than a true mechanical impairment. I've seen plenty of people bragging about how this will go for months, so... Quote In fact if the larger coalition didn't have a bailout of a few hundred more nations that have come/gone the larger coalition would have lost. Quite literally the only reason the smaller coalition full of whales /didn't/ win is because their largest nations didn't sell down and fight the mid tier. Pick that 2350 NS C20 I mentioned earlier. Shove him down to 2040 because of 300 infra/city and dropped projects. New downdeclare range is 2720. Guy keeps losing daily planes so he drops a bit further. Now he's at 1890 NS. New downdeclare range is now 2520 (and he'll keep dropping further with subsequent attacks). Pick the aforementioned C28. Have him also drop to 300 infra/city and the two projects. 2860 NS. That's about 680 planes he needs to drop to get in range. The sale of planes leaves him without reserves, and not even max air. That opens him up to be picked off. Again, that's with a mere C28. It gets worse with the larger nations. It's also critical to mention that mass infra imports weren't a thing when this scenario was ongoing. Which meant that, thanks to the generous ranges, the C20 was not bothered by the amount of time it took to sell down to 300 infra, while for the C28 it's a several-minutes window where he can be hit in turn, because at 300 infra he obviously can't buy up planes to the max. And obviously, it takes longer for the C28 to build said infra simply because he has more cities. Even longer downtime for larger nations which left a wider window open for retaliation. So no, it's not just a matter of "lol you didn't try hard enough". There's an actual mechanical inhibition behind it. Which doesn't even cover the economic expense. I'm also seeing plenty of cherrypicked examples being used here arguing about savage downdeclares, in particular Ripper's. Which is not an example, but a flat-out lie. For starters, Ripper isn't even at 34 cities, but 32. Furthermore, since Moon didn't bother to mention which war he was talking about, I dug through his wars and the only one that was close to that was one with NPO, where he obviously had to drop substantial amounts of military to get in range (down to mid 3400's), thus disproving the notion that he was max mil at the time, but he also did it hours after reset which meant he didn't double buy out of range. At most he had day and half's worth of tanks and ships. All of his other wars were at 3k ns base for the targets, and the Yakuzas he hit at the onset of the blitz had ground. Again, that runs counter to his claim. Meanwhile, 4200 NS can be declared on by 2400 NS. Do I need to say more? Edited July 14, 2019 by Shiho Nishizumi 1 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: No, that 700 have been able to fight 1400 and whale tier is (relatively) unscathed, is a testament to the ineptitude of said 1400. Especially given context that's being deliberately omitted to drive the narrative. A solid 40% of Coalition A's forces were at half strength at best, yet that contingent managed to bring down one of the heaviest hitters of Coalition B on the outset of the blitz, alongside busying up it's partner. The alliances that came on the days that followed the blitz came in piecemeal, which resulted in them being picked of; that is the real reason why they were ineffectual. It was a strategic mishandling of assets from Coalition B, not the overpowering capabilities of the upper tier in Coalition A. The fact that this strategy has existed for 3 years now, it can only be used by the side with more nations, and that there has never been a major increase in its effectiveness proves that the strategy is as effective as it can be. Also, the strategy is not a winning one, it's to force a white peace. The strategy also wasn't full used in KF as there was a 8:1 nation advantage, so Several whale aa's went in at full military. Thus, historically, this strategy can only produce a white peace at best. The current war there is a bit over a 2:1 nation advantage and half of the outnumbered coalition went in at half military. If the strategy is as effective as you make it out to be why didn't your coalition attempt it? Because it's a strategy that isn't easy to do and requires the resources and morale to take constant beatings for the sake of the coalition of the whole. As evidenced by many nations in your coalition constantly floating score higher and higher, essentially abandoning the war effort, it is not an easy thing to do. 1 1 Quote 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: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 If your goal is to help widen the war ranges in the lower tiers where you claim these changes will have the most effect, then simply increase the value of cities in the score formula. This change is overly complicating things and, as others mentioned, would cause a new problem in the upper tier. Increase score for cities flatly and everyone's ranges will widen out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 3 hours ago, Malal said: The fact that 1400 nations have been fighting 700 for a month and the whale tier in the latter has yet to really be touched shows how difficult it is to actually fight large nations currently. Intentionally hiding in the lower tier and not building military other than planes as a strategy is, surprise surprise, going to make it difficult to take out larger nations. Blaming the game mechanics for strategic choices of your side is a bit ridiculous. Your side possessed the upper tier to take us on but chose not to risk it. Its not an indicator of an issue with the game its an indicator of an issue with your strategy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Malal said: The fact that this strategy has existed for 3 years now, it can only be used by the side with more nations, and that there has never been a major increase in its effectiveness proves that the strategy is as effective as it can be. What? It's the opposite. The strategy has only gained momentum, as the city gap of those employing it narrowed down when relative to that of their opposition. Simply take a look at the outcomes of GGF/ToT and AC. I do agree that KF is an apple to oranges comparison due to the extreme lopsided nature of that conflict, hence I'll clarify that now so I don't have to reiterate on it later. At any rate, the different outcomes on the two former conflicts, in part it was due to the match ups of the non-IQ alliances in each war. However, it was also due to the jump on average city counts with NPO in particular, IQ in general. Quote Also, the strategy is not a winning one, it's to force a white peace. The bravado indicates intentions that contradict that notion. Quote If the strategy is as effective as you make it out to be why didn't your coalition attempt it? Because it's a strategy that isn't easy to do and requires the resources and morale to take constant beatings for the sake of the coalition of the whole. Do I actually need to spell it out letter by letter? Fine. The reason Coalition A didn't do it is simply because (aside from the limitations which I highlighted, but you promptly ignored) it's a raw numbers game when it comes down to aircraft (the nation counts grow quite exponentially in the lower tiers for Coalition B side). Furthermore, there was another mechanical limitation, in the form of offensive wars slots. Yes, TGH, KT and many others were constantly sitting on 5/5 offensives early in the war. No, I'm not asking to have it changed, but merely pointing out that it was a thing. And I think that you're overestimating the effort it takes. Infra gets burned sooner or later, not to mention the wholesales that were done. Resource management is a thing. Simply take a look at 69. Morale I'm more inclined to agree as being an actual concern on that strategy. However, there's a difference between taking a beating or one or two rounds, and then submarining, and that of getting dragged and spending a couple of months down in Vietnam. Some people love it and ask for seconds, but it isn't exactly the majority's cup of tea. Quote As evidenced by many nations in your coalition constantly floating score higher and higher, essentially abandoning the war effort, it is not an easy thing to do. Read above. In fact, it'll also need acknowledgement on the limitations on downdeclares given the current situation, but I won't hold my breath in that regard. Edited July 14, 2019 by Shiho Nishizumi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Yea.... 30 city nations cannot hit 20 cities nations easily. At 28 cities, I was able to hit a 20 and an 18 which both had full mil. All my other wars are within +/-5 cities of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 cities are way to low in score value. i also think some military is to high in score, but that may just be there relative value and i would think it would be better to raise other values and reevaluate before making to many changes at once. projects are also defiantly to low value and i could see an argument that not all projects should have the same value. there is also the issue of land. it cant be destroyed and adds nothing to score. with the new projects adding major food demand and food production going to 0 in major global wars it makes land an even better investment. in peace times it lets you grow even more food, which can either sustain you through a war or be sold at massive profits. im not sure what, if anything, should be done with land but i would be remiss not to mention it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Malal said: The fact that this strategy has existed for 3 years now, it can only be used by the side with more nations, and that there has never been a major increase in its effectiveness proves that the strategy is as effective as it can be. Lol no. Don't even know where to start with this one hahahaha. To the point of the thread? I think cities should count a bit more for NS calculations and troops a bit less. The real problem with the way ns is calculated presently, in my opinion, is that you can declare and then double buy over update, which leads to silliness. It might even make sense to count unbought troop capacity as NS if the player is below max on that troop type, thinking about it. Edit: but honestly, I'm averse to changes at all. Admin is weak, and tends to make them half cocked in accordance with who whines the most, and I'd sooner have that sorted out in the meta. Edited July 14, 2019 by Spaceman Thrax 1 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Planes really don't need adjusting. They are only powerful if you have a large Nations advantage, even then GC makes it tough and they are also the only unit realistically to take down whales. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 >Suggestion offering a solution to a balance issue, based on mathematically grounded logic >the predictable happens See the downvotes on the OP to see what I mean. Anyway, when it comes right down to it, changing score range is just another way to fix the more fundamental balance issue, which is the possibility to "win" a perpetual game. We cannot, EVER, allow perpetual games to be won, because if they are then they're no longer perpetual and indeed have ended. Thus, the only real change that needs to happen is all wars result in beige. That'll deal with the situation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 9 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Giving replies is what's needed. Ask Sheepy to not damage the game again with a change like this. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esentia Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Really the only point of Score I can see is it limits who can a Player can Declare on. Perhaps there is another reason for it, but if so I am not seeing it... Cities and to a much lesser degree Projects are the only things which represent true static power. Everything else can be destroyed to compress score and then (other than military units) almost instantly rebuilt. Your potential Military Capability is limited only by your number of cities. So at a minimum Score should increase linearly with the number of cities. Better would be the opposite of what you are suggesting. A player with a large number of cities has a tremendous advantage in their rebuild. So unless you make a bunch of other even more fundamental changes what you propose would simply be a gift to players 25+ range. Current: A 15 and 30 City player (A & B respectively) have a base score of 750 and a 1500. The 30 City player (B) can have no Military... declare on the 15 City player (A) just before the update and do a 2x build. The 2x build of B can give them 147% of A's MAX Infantry, 88% of their MAX Tanks/Ships, 73% of their MAX Planes since the Propaganda Project increases daily build but not Max build. Proposed: As above, but more extreme since the 30 City player (B) will only have a score of 800. Half of that is 400 which would be an 8 City Player (A). In this case the 2x build of Player B is just silly compared to the MAX units of Player A... 275% of Infantry, 165% of Tanks/Ships, and 138% of Planes. Or they could still go after a 15 City Player, but without having to sell off all of their Military first. In conclusion this is a potentially interesting idea if applied in reverse, but a terrible one if applied as suggested. Unless the goal is to just directly benefit the high City Count nations. So the "old" at the expense of the "new". Exacerbated by Cities/Projects being the only thing which has a Timer so it is truly ties to how long a nation has existed. I say just keep it the way it is, but if you do make a change why would you do it in such a way as to give a further advantage to those who are already powerful? Torson 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.