The current meta and you.

[Guest Frawley]

22 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

In 2-3 years i suspect NPO will average something like 25 cities or more. Which based on the way the game is currently sounds awful. Mid tier suddenly being c25, or higher, sounds frankly insane. And boy would it suck for new alliances who'd have to tier to city 18 to even begin being relevant to anything. 

This is more a symptom of perpetual games, the mid point tends to always move up.

[Sir Scarfalot]

Just now, Frawley said:

This is more a symptom of perpetual games, the mid point tends to always move up.

Not if the perpetual game is ended by some actor taking total hegemony with mechanics that permit holding down whoever they choose to indefinitely. In that situation, the midpoint tends to move down as people leave, both as being forced out or as being bored and useless.

[Memph]

The situation with City 20 NPO nations struggling to take on City 28 nations is imo the result of a combination of lower activity levels among the alliances in their coalition that have 21-25 city nations, with somehow doing poorly in a spy war where they outnumbered KETOG/Chaos coalition's spy counts 4 to 1.

[Guest Frawley]

18 minutes ago, Memph said:

The situation with City 20 NPO nations struggling to take on City 28 nations is imo the result of a combination of lower activity levels among the alliances in their coalition that have 21-25 city nations, with somehow doing poorly in a spy war where they outnumbered KETOG/Chaos coalition's spy counts 4 to 1.

I'd be happy to use the battle sim to model a perfect activity version the above scenario, under existing and Scarfies rules.

[Wendell]

@Prefontaine
You know what's strange?

You aren't fighting in the global yet you are saying that the winning side should win and the losing side should lose. And "let's make it quick." This is not a bar fight, wars are meant to last for a long time.

But I have a tiny, microscopic suggestion for you. Instead of patronizing the side you think should win, why don't you feed Alex good suggestions, that you claim to be so good at.

Kindly, step out of the Kool Aid.

Thank You

Edited July 22, 2019 by Deulos

[Sir Scarfalot]

2 minutes ago, Frawley said:

I'd be happy to use the battle sim to model a perfect activity version the above scenario, under existing and Scarfies rules.

You don't even need the battle sim.

Spy round: 6 operations and 180 spies simply beats 2 operations and 60 spies. Outside of implausible scenarios, the spy war should be won within the first three-five attacks, leaving the c28 crippled on the spy front. Even if the c28 sees it coming and knows who to hit, they can only at best cripple two opponents; the third gets to strike back from full spies. At that point, the c20s simply need to wait for the next day's spy operations to refill before attacking aircraft with their next set of operations prior to the blitz.

Round 1: 3 c20 declare on c28. Assuming all are on max planes with full buy to spare, then c20 will have 20/28ths of the c28's planes. However, the 3 spy attacks destroy somewhere around 8% planes on the c28, so it's more like 20/26.

First strike advantage goes to the attacker, since they can declare at any point in the turn, so oustside of extraordinary scenarios (hackerman meme), they're going to be able to aggressively dogfight without hindrance. This gives them a 42% advantage, which means the trades are actually in their favor (28ish/26).

So, with 3 of them doing the same dogfight, that cuts down the enemy's planes by more than three times whatever each c20 lost.

At this point the c28 has only bad options. They can get GC... which renders the air battle now only a bit less in the favor of the c20s doing aggressive dogfights (GC is a 33% advantage, while being the aggressor in a dogfight is a 42% advantage, let alone the casualties). The c28 can fortify, which is even worse (25% advantage vs 42% advantage). The c28 can ground battle and fortify, but that opens up the option for yet another round of dogfights before the c28 can take advantage of the 42% aggressive bonus that they should have been doing with the few surviving aircraft they had.

Now, if the c20s refuse to build anything other than aircraft, then the c28 can harass them with ground and naval battles, possibly even beiging them. The problem with that though is that when that happens, the c28's defense slot is open and ready for another c20 to come in and fill the slot, while the losses on the c20 that got beiged can be recovered due to the beige.

This scenario exists regardless of which beige ruleset we're under. The only difference between my suggestion of all wars ending in beige versus the current system of the c20s having no intention to win the war and thus expiring (which is rulebreaking under the strictest definition) is that under my system, no matter who wins the conventional war, be it the c20s or the c28, neither side can maintain permanent blockade and ZM on their opponent. Under your system the winning side would be able to do that and the loser, be it the c20s or the c28, would thus be able to be rendered unable to compete and have no incentive to peace. Under my system, *both* sides get the opportunity to rebuild and thus iterate the war for another round. This would actually shorten large-scale global wars, since rebuilds and subsequent destruction of said rebuilds both require an expenditure of resources; holding down someone in ZM does not cost the ZM'd nation anything and thus they have no incentive to peace at all.

[True King]

Making it cheaper to rebuild infra might actually help those who war more often to catch up, since they could buy their infra higher between wars & it not be a complete waste if they’re expecting it wrecked.

Another way to make the advantage of bigger city nations not as big without cities constantly decreasing in how many military building you can have would be double how many of each you can build in your first 5 cities. Would allow newer nations a better chance, since a nation with even twice the cities could only max out at 50% more units rather than 100%. As nations get to higher city counts; the first 5 allowing double the military buildings wouldn’t have as much of effect; although still let lower city count nations have a better chance.

Since the first 5 are already treated differently in build time; could also double how much NS they give & military units produced. Think something like that would do enough to put the top tier players in range of more people w/o those people being at a greater disadvantage than those they can reach already.

[Prefontaine]

3 hours ago, Deulos said:

@Prefontaine
You know what's strange?

You aren't fighting in the global yet you are saying that the winning side should win and the losing side should lose. And "let's make it quick." This is not a bar fight, wars are meant to last for a long time.

But I have a tiny, microscopic suggestion for you. Instead of patronizing the side you think should win, why don't you feed Alex good suggestions, that you claim to be so good at.

Kindly, step out of the Kool Aid.

Thank You

If you were actually reading, you'd see I'm asking the community if they think the way things are is a problem. Since this is an opinion based problem, or non-problem, there's little need to address it if the community doesn't feel it's an issue. As I stated in the OP, I'm not saying either is good or bad, that's for the players to decide -- thus the point of this thread.

 

Kindly read the thread instead of making assumptions.
Thank you. 

[True King]

4 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

If you were actually reading, you'd see I'm asking the community if they think the way things are is a problem. Since this is an opinion based problem, or non-problem, there's little need to address it if the community doesn't feel it's an issue. As I stated in the OP, I'm not saying either is good or bad, that's for the players to decide -- thus the point of this thread.

 

Kindly read the thread instead of making assumptions.
Thank you. 

Long wars aren’t a problem, ability to keep fighting even when losing keeps people in the game. Making it easier for alliances to pin nations down constantly until they quit or accept absurd terms would result in just that. Main reason I’ve heard against really harsh terms in this game is people can just keep the war going rather than accept.

So I don’t see reason to make it harder to put up a resistance against superior odds & think it would result in many just calling it quits when it’s game over & they can’t do anything.

[Sir Scarfalot]

38 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Long wars aren’t a problem, ability to keep fighting even when losing keeps people in the game. Making it easier for alliances to pin nations down constantly until they quit or accept absurd terms would result in just that. Main reason I’ve heard against really harsh terms in this game is people can just keep the war going rather than accept.

So I don’t see reason to make it harder to put up a resistance against superior odds & think it would result in many just calling it quits when it’s game over & they can’t do anything.

Thank you. Have an upvote for a good point well made.

[True King]

Although of course people who sell everything at the start & have negative income the whole time wouldn’t like long wars possible. Although people selling down all their cities to leave just enough slots for military improvements destroy themselves from the start & that’s why in part.

Game mechanic changes to make victories more decisive wouldn’t bring faster peace to those who self destruct their infra & improvements at the start; could be kept at war even longer with game mechanic changes to make one side completely at the mercy of the other.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Long wars aren’t a problem, ability to keep fighting even when losing keeps people in the game. Making it easier for alliances to pin nations down constantly until they quit or accept absurd terms would result in just that. Main reason I’ve heard against really harsh terms in this game is people can just keep the war going rather than accept.

So I don’t see reason to make it harder to put up a resistance against superior odds & think it would result in many just calling it quits when it’s game over & they can’t do anything.

This would be a sensible statement if the entire point of beige holding wasn't to make notable resistance almost entirely pointless, and to bleed them until they accept whatever terms.

 Current mechanics and politics mandating months long wars already cause people to call it quits. So what's your point exactly? Maintain status quo because change could be just as bad, or worse? Your entire post sounds as much like fear for change as it does indictment for the current situation, and actually fails to answer the question posed by the OP.

Is change needed, or not? 

[True King]

Just now, Akuryo said:

This would be a sensible statement if the entire point of beige holding wasn't to make notable resistance almost entirely pointless, and to bleed them until they accept whatever terms.

 Current mechanics and politics mandating months long wars already cause people to call it quits. So what's your point exactly? Maintain status quo because change could be just as bad, or worse? Your entire post sounds as much like fear for change as it does indictment for the current situation, and actually fails to answer the question posed by the OP.

Is change needed, or not? 

The mechanics don’t mandate long wars as much as the grudges among some, so if it’s a long war over a grudge would be longer or result eliminating an opponent from the game.

[Guest Epi]

At some point we come to the realization that although mechanics could be improved, the main reason we are fighting absurdly long wars is because both sides refuse to lose :p 

If people stopped being as stubborn as the micros, this wouldn't be a problem.

[Wendell]

8 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

As I stated in the OP, I'm not saying either is good or bad, that's for the players to decide -- thus the point of this thread. 

 

Then just create the poll and sit down. Nobody has time for a wall of text about what you want or think. Save that for game suggestions.

In case you didn't know, the wall of text is what I was referring to in my previous reply.

[Lu Xun]

.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Inst

[Wendell]

2 hours ago, Akuryo said:

This would be a sensible statement if the entire point of beige holding wasn't to make notable resistance almost entirely pointless, and to bleed them until they accept whatever terms.

  Current mechanics and politics mandating months long wars already cause people to call it quits. So what's your point exactly? Maintain status quo because change could be just as bad, or worse? Your entire post sounds as much like fear for change as it does indictment for the current situation, and actually fails to answer the question posed by the OP. 

 Is change needed, or not?  

Wut? Are you still talking about beige holding? We get it someone held you over and you're mad. I already told you to launch missiles and keep a massive war chest... You're being incompetent and contrarian.

[Lu Xun]

5 minutes ago, Deulos said:

Wut? Are you still talking about beige holding? We get it someone held you over and you're mad. I already told you to launch missiles and keep a massive war chest... You're being incompetent and contrarian.

Buy credits off the credit market and you can never be fully blockade held. 

[Hodor]

On 7/21/2019 at 2:21 AM, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

The change in meta was only borne out of Paracov’s stupidity. They were both bad enough to lose and then double down on that by accepting their losses rather than equalizing damage. This led to super high damage differentials and weak alliances and their eventual fall. 

Alliances of all sides have learned that short high damage wars only encourage repeats of that. Any self-respecting leader has no desire to make wars “fun” for the other side at the expense of their own members, nor any obligation too. 

I think there is a lot Paracov did wrong. I am curious though, why you all are pretty confident this war is being won by your Coalition. What metrics are important to you in measuring victory? It seems that given the massive damage deficit in this war it may boil down to opportunity costs (which is weird since by your own admission our whale tier is still reasonably untouched).

I ask because over the past 10 days you've not had 3 running where your coalition was positive in damage, and those positive days were 1) wiped out by the next negative day and 2) an order of magnitude less than the opening days of the war where you went negative. At this rate it would take you 300+ days straight of your best day yet to flip damages.

So, while I think there is a lesson to be learned about accepting a loss too soon. There is also much wisdom in accepting a loss as a loss, and not living in a fantasy world. Especially since you can then use the time that would've been spent in a low damage war of attrition actually planning a successful war. My last point, and this may be wrong, I've not heard anything about harsh terms from our side's leadership, but have from yours. So if you're fighting to avoid terms, maybe that should be cleared up.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Hodor

[The Mad Titan]

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

I think there is a lot Paracov did wrong. I am curious though, why you all are pretty confident this war is being won by your Coalition. What metrics are important to you in measuring victory? It seems that given the massive damage deficit in this war it may boil down to opportunity costs (which is weird since by your own admission our whale tier is still reasonably untouched).

I ask because over the past 10 days you've not had 3 running where your coalition was positive in damage, and those positive days were 1) wiped out by the next negative day and 2) an order of magnitude less than the opening days of the war where you went negative. At this rate it would take you 300+ days straight of your best day yet to flip damages.

So, while I think there is a lesson to be learned about accepting a loss too soon. There is also much wisdom in accepting a loss as a loss, and not living in a fantasy world. Especially since you can then use the time that would've been spent in a low damage war of attrition actually planning a successful war. My last point, and this may be wrong, I've not heard anything about harsh terms from our side's leadership, but have from yours. So if you're fighting to avoid terms, maybe that should be cleared up.

We’re measuring victory by the fact your coalition is down to about 50 intact people with it falling everyday. You’ll need to work on the myth of an untouchable upper tier more since we have pulled down several 30+ people and continue to do so with impunity. 

Again stats is the only defense, and sure you have more damage and we likely won’t flip it when you include Surfs Up it’s a far closer picture. Just cause we weren’t the ones who caused the damage doesn’t mean the damage didn’t occur. 

And nothing to clear up when you lose an aggressive war the terms aren’t as kind. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Aragorn, son of Arathorn

[Micchan]

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

I think there is a lot Paracov did wrong. I am curious though, why you all are pretty confident this war is being won by your Coalition. What metrics are important to you in measuring victory? It seems that given the massive damage deficit in this war it may boil down to opportunity costs (which is weird since by your own admission our whale tier is still reasonably untouched).

I ask because over the past 10 days you've not had 3 running where your coalition was positive in damage, and those positive days were 1) wiped out by the next negative day and 2) an order of magnitude less than the opening days of the war where you went negative. At this rate it would take you 300+ days straight of your best day yet to flip damages.

So, while I think there is a lesson to be learned about accepting a loss too soon. There is also much wisdom in accepting a loss as a loss, and not living in a fantasy world. Especially since you can then use the time that would've been spent in a low damage war of attrition actually planning a successful war. My last point, and this may be wrong, I've not heard anything about harsh terms from our side's leadership, but have from yours. So if you're fighting to avoid terms, maybe that should be cleared up.

tl;dr

[Hodor]

47 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

We’re measuring victory by the fact your coalition is down to about 50 intact people with it falling everyday. You’ll need to work on the myth of an untouchable upper tier more since we have pulled down several 30+ people and continue to do so with impunity. 

Again stats is the only defense, and sure you have more damage and we likely won’t flip it when you include Surfs Up it’s a far closer picture. Just cause we weren’t the ones who caused the damage doesn’t mean the damage didn’t occur. 

And nothing to clear up when you lose an aggressive war the terms aren’t as kind. 

Okay, so it's measured by military units?

Statistics wasn't a defense, it was context to the question posed. Why must you always be so touchy? Sheesh.

On terms: lol.

[Smith]

1 hour ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

We’re measuring victory by the fact your coalition is down to about 50 intact people with it falling everyday. You’ll need to work on the myth of an untouchable upper tier more since we have pulled down several 30+ people and continue to do so with impunity. 

Again stats is the only defense, and sure you have more damage and we likely won’t flip it when you include Surfs Up it’s a far closer picture. Just cause we weren’t the ones who caused the damage doesn’t mean the damage didn’t occur. 

And nothing to clear up when you lose an aggressive war the terms aren’t as kind. 

The damage we took during Surf's Up was a sunk cost. That damage was going to happen regardless of whether this war happened or not. At the beginning of this war, Chaos and KETO had already taken massive damage (particularly Chaos) and were unable to generate revenue while BKsphere was plotting another dogpile and making money. Now both sides are in cinders and making minimal money.

From our perspective the only alternative to this would have been rebuilding and probably getting dogpiled by you 2 months from now (though I'm sure you are planning to do this even now).

Also, since we are talking stats, let's not forget the billions and billions of infra your side deleted. 

Furthermore, you keep citing air superiority, but why do you think that even matters? In Knightfall, your overwhelming numbers advantage allowed you to create a safezone where some of your nations could have a reasonable amount of infra and make money while our coalition could not. This is not going to be the case in this war. Even if 100% of your side has air and 100% of our side does not, what difference does it make? There is nothing left to destroy. 

As far as your claims that this is an "aggressive war" on our part, I'm just going to sum up my argument with TheNG since he never responded to me:

Calling this an aggressive war on our part is silly. Once those leaks were revealed it was clear our side had two options. Either wait to get dogpiled by you or take the fight to you. We did not start this, this is your war. All we did is speed up your timeline. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Smith

[The Mad Titan]

25 minutes ago, Smith said:

The damage we took during Surf's Up was a sunk cost. That damage was going to happen regardless of whether this war happened or not. At the beginning of this war, Chaos and KETO had already taken massive damage (particularly Chaos) and were unable to generate revenue while BKsphere was plotting another dogpile and making money. Now both sides are in cinders and making minimal money.

From our perspective the only alternative to this would have been rebuilding and probably getting dogpiled by you 2 months from now (though I'm sure you are planning to do this even now).

Also, since we are talking stats, let's not forget the billions and billions of infra your side deleted. 

You keep citing air superiority but why do you think that even matters? In Knightfall, your overwhelming numbers advantage allowed you to create a safezone where some of your nations could have a reasonable amount of infra and make money while our coalition could not. This is not going to be the case in this war. Even if 100% of your side has air and 100% of our side does not, what does it even matter? There is nothing left to destroy. 

As far as your claims that this is an "aggressive war" on our part, I'm just going to sum up my argument with TheNG since he never responded to me:

Calling this an aggressive war on our part is silly. Once those leaks were revealed it was clear our side had two options. Either wait to get dogpiled by you or attack and take the fight to you. We did not start this, this is your war. All we did is speed up your timeline. 

Chaos is the only one with a valid CB, which I’ve stated before. As for stats, I don’t think anyone will change anyone’s mind. Your side considers it totally separate but we consider it damage that we would have done ourselves. Regardless it’s damage that occurred immediately prior to this war and with this war continuing into it.  

[Micchan]

35 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Chaos is the only one with a valid CB, which I’ve stated before. As for stats, I don’t think anyone will change anyone’s mind. Your side considers it totally separate but we consider it damage that we would have done ourselves. Regardless it’s damage that occurred immediately prior to this war and with this war continuing into it.  

If we ignore infra value you are still in negative for soldiers, tanks, air, ships, loot, and infra raw number, waiting for the next crazy explanation that you will manage to come up with