Jump to content
Prefontaine

Changes to military units and attacks.

Military units  

50 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

For many years now people have wanted a change regarding planes being "OP". What makes planes the strongest unit is that they are the only unit that can attack other unit archetypes (ground/navy). Not only are they able to attack other units, if they have no air units standing against them, they kill units without suffering any losses. To address this, either planes need to only be able to attack planes, unit wise, or ground and navy need to be allowed to attack other units archetypes as well. 

 

OPTION 1
Planes can only attack planes. They lose the ability to target ground units and naval units.

OPTION 2

All units can attack all other units. Ground can attack air and navy. Air can attack ground and navy. Navy can attack ground and air.

If this option is selected then discussions can be made after regarding if damage rates are equal between the types, or if there is a rock paper scissors style such as Air is strong against ground but weak against navy. Navy is strong against air but weak against ground. Ground would then be strong against Navy but weak against air. Or however it plays out.

OPTION 3

All units can attack ONE additional unit type beyond their own. For example, Ground can attack ground and air, but not navy. Navy can attack navy and ground, but not air. Air can attack air and navy, but not ground. 

Again, how the actual attack orders are will be up for discussions should this option get chosen. In addition there can be strengths here as well, units attacking outside their archetype might not be as efficient, or something of that sort.

 

  • This thread is NOT for stating that "no change should happen". If there were a change, which of these options would you pick.
  • This thread is NOT for politics. One unit type can attack all others, that gives that unit type an advantage, this is looking at ways to level that advantage.
  • This thread is NOT for suggesting new unit types or projects that impact military units. 
  • Keep it civil.
Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Curufinwe said:

I mean, pretty much what Roq said - nerfing planes by restricting their viability to only air combat (or only air and one other unit type) would be extremely problematic if you're not going to remove updec ranges, since it would be much more difficult to effectively pin whales down, even after they've lost their air. 

If you don't want a plane nerf, then choose one of the other unit buff options. When there are 3 unit archetypes, war shouldn't be all about one of those archetypes in a game. If you ask any player with fighting experience which unit type they'd like to dominate their opponents in, it's air. That's a problem. And just because it'd be more difficult to pin whales doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It should be hard to upswing a nation with many more cities than you. It's also important to define by what you mean by upswings and whales. Taking down someone with a 10 city advantage on you should be hard. 

 

40 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I don't think it's the right solution to the overall problem either way though. 

By all means, what is the solution? You've highlighted in your own post that air is overpowered as it is the only means to take down enemies. As above its important to define what sort of scenarios your talking about when attacking larger city counts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of these are a solution. I like the idea of ships and ground, specifically tanks, having anti-air capabilities. I like the idea of ships being able to be used as a fire support role against ground units (ideally not as affective as planes or ground vs ground since presumably not all ground units are within range of a coast.) I do not think ground units should be able to affect ships though.

Tl;Dr

Ground vs ground/some anti air

Air vs everything (keep same)

Navy vs everything (not as effective against planes and ground)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

These last two wars are the only times where larger nations have had to fight to similar degrees as smaller ones.

That statement is very much false. Larger nations on the winning side often don't have much to do after the first rounds, Knightfall was no different. Larger nations on the losing side are extremely busy (if they stay active). 

 

Lets stick with the 10 city difference. A player can spend about 8.3B getting to 30 cities. 3 players spend about 1.5B each to get 20 cities. Those 3 players have invested a total of 4.5B in a shorter time (as 3 players income is more than 1 players income), and still only invest almost half as much as the 30 city player. At some point you should not be able to beat someone bigger than you. If you're in other games and you're a level 10, you're not going to go gunning at a level 20. It would be stupid to do so. Your concerned about political alliances happening where top tier nations consolidate? Then that requires a political solution, make allies with with alliances with some high city counts. Don't want to do that? Tax your alliance and grow a few of your own large city count players. We grew a few players up in alliances I've been in to help with updeclares at the tippy top. There are plenty of whales sprinkled around the game. Sure, there are few alliances that do consolidate tiers, top included, however if your alliance is weak against a tier, low mid or high, again that calls for political solutions. 

 

There are more other players than there are whales. There are currently 64 players at or above 30 cities. In the extremely improbable case that they all united to become unkillable, the rest of the game still outpaces them financially. Grow your own elite group of fighters and you can take them down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Viselli said:

I don't think any of these are a solution. I like the idea of ships and ground, specifically tanks, having anti-air capabilities. I like the idea of ships being able to be used as a fire support role against ground units (ideally not as affective as planes or ground vs ground since presumably not all ground units are within range of a coast.) I do not think ground units should be able to affect ships though.

Tl;Dr

Ground vs ground/some anti air

Air vs everything (keep same)

Navy vs everything (not as effective against planes and ground)

 

Ships do this thing these days where they carry precision guided ordinance capable of ranges up to thousands of km in some cases. You don't have to be near a coastline for a guided missile cruiser to ruin your day.

 

As for @Roquentin, as I'm given to understand it, was not DBDC a big driver for NPO pushing to the super tier in CN? Are we now to believe that Pacifica, bastion of efficiency and discipline, would... Come up short if it tried to do the same here? Sorry I just don't see a reason why 10 of the finest legionaries the shining star ever saw under banner could not be selected as the valiant souls to get hyper boosted into the 25-30 range, followed by he next group, while still slowly bumping up sub 20s to 20.

Infact the only reason I can come up with is you just don't seem to want to. I run a command economy but it's more influenced from BK than NPO, because BK influence means partial grants that keeps someone my size growing instead of frozen at c21 while BK and NPO tier right on past me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

The point is that it's already hard to take down larger players with smaller ones, as anyone who regularly organizes updecs can tell you.   Making an already difficult task even harder disadvantages the overwhelming majority of the player base that aren't whales by skewing the war system further towards larger players (which, again, tend to be concentrated in a relatively small number of AAs, which is something that should be borne in mind while discussing this topic).  Absent a significant overall of other aspects of the war system (such as easing range restrictions for updecs), all of your proposed changes will have a similar effect, meaning that they're all problematic and probably shouldn't be considered in isolation.

With the exception of GoB, Whales are much more sprinkled around than you think. This misconception has been around for a long time. TEst used to be a consolidated high tier alliance, it's why we were targeted largely in Papers, Please. Claims that we had more whales than the rest of the game and such, when you lined it up was very much not the case. There have been more instances than that as well. 

 

You're also making the assumption this is the only change, or is happening in a vacuum. Attempting to overhaul the war system in one thread is impossible. Things will get derailed left and right.

 

I've fought in a lot of wars, typically I'm doing up declares myself. I know what it takes during organization, execution. I can also tell you I'd much rather be updeclaring in this game than being at the top defending downward.

Edited by Prefontaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure how ground would realistically be able to hit navy & navy hit ground effectively. So voted for the 3rd option.

Although I’m not sure treating all types of units the same is really ideal either. Maybe having it possible for navy & ground to defend against air, ground can attack air & air can still attack everything would be better. I don’t really think air should lose the ability to hit anything completely.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Lets stick with the 10 city difference. A player can spend about 8.3B getting to 30 cities. 3 players spend about 1.5B each to get 20 cities. Those 3 players have invested a total of 4.5B in a shorter time (as 3 players income is more than 1 players income), and still only invest almost half as much as the 30 city player. At some point you should not be able to beat someone bigger than you. If you're in other games and you're a level 10, you're not going to go gunning at a level 20. It would be stupid to do so. Your concerned about political alliances happening where top tier nations consolidate? Then that requires a political solution, make allies with with alliances with some high city counts. Don't want to do that? Tax your alliance and grow a few of your own large city count players. We grew a few players up in alliances I've been in to help with updeclares at the tippy top. There are plenty of whales sprinkled around the game. Sure, there are few alliances that do consolidate tiers, top included, however if your alliance is weak against a tier, low mid or high, again that calls for political solutions. 

 

There are more other players than there are whales. There are currently 64 players at or above 30 cities. In the extremely improbable case that they all united to become unkillable, the rest of the game still outpaces them financially. Grow your own elite group of fighters and you can take them down. 

I mean at least you're honest about the fact that your suggestions are focused on making whales OP, which is the de facto consequence of the ideas you're throwing out there (and a big reason why they're so problematic).  But you're underselling the extent to which whales are already consolidated - about 1/3 of the 30 city plus players were concentrated in GOB at the beginning of the current conflict, which is allied to Guardian (which represents another significant chunk of fairly large players), which is tied to KT/TGH, which has another handful of whale tier folks and so on.  I mean, sure, many AAs have 1 or 2 larger people, but the population is still overrepresented in a handful of places, rather than being evenly distributed across Orbis. So changing the mechanics to advantage them and telling non whale AAs to just deal with it isn't a particularly balanced position to take on the issue. 

In terms of your 20 city versus 30 city example, under the current mechanics it is still quite possible for the 30 city nation to defeat its attackers, assuming they use sound tactics to do so (such as using its higher troop capacity to get ground and aggressively going after the air of their opponents to grind them down).  10 city updecs against active, fully militarized opponents are already quite challenging, so altering the mechanics to make it even more difficult further privileges a group that already enjoys significant military advantages over smaller nations.   Whales already have a disproportionate military and economic footprint - removing the only effective method for smaller folks to deal with them only cements those advantages, which probably shouldn't be the goal of a mechanics fix that ostensibly aims to make warfare more balanced.

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

You're also making the assumption this is the only change, or is happening in a vacuum. Attempting to overhaul the war system in one thread is impossible. Things will get derailed left and right. I've fought in a lot of wars, typically I'm doing up declares myself. I know what it takes during organization, execution. I can also tell you I'd much rather be updeclaring in this game than being at the top defending downward.

Well it is rather difficult to gauge the impact of an overhaul if you're only focusing on one aspect of it, since there is no indication what other changes are being considered or how they would relate to one another.  For the record, it's also problematic to preface your proposed change to one aspect of the war mechanics with 'these are your only options, so pick one' when you're simultaneously saying that a minority of larger players deserve a disproportionate advantage over everyone else.  It effectively forces people to opt for the 'least bad' alternative (rather than a better one than what you're proposing) and shuts down legitimate criticism of problematic ideas, which really isn't how a good faith discussion about mechanical changes should be structured.

Finally, as a 20ish city nation, I'd much rather deal with a counter from a 10 city nation than updec a 30 city nation (assuming everyone involved is fully milled), so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one 😛

 

Edited by Curufinwe
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think something like the perk system which adds more complexity and tactics to the war system would far prefereable over dumbing down the war system into treating all units the same almost or just simple rock/paper/scissors balancing between the 3 without more information on how these changes would be implemented. None of the options sound very good compare to doing something better instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the "These are 3 shit suggestions" option in the poll?

 

Aerial superiority has ALWAYS been a thing in any war in the history of the world. Sure, there's some ground and naval capacities to counter, but they're largely ineffective, compared to simply having the superior airforce.

 

Your example with 30 city nation vs three 20 city nations is bullshit imo. So what, that someone (player or alliance, doesn't really matter) spent more on one nation (30 cities) than the others? If Poland, Czech Republic and Denmark decided to attack Germany, there's no guarantee that either side would be victorious, just like there's no guarantee who would win in P&W in your scenario. As Curu said somewhere; if you're a goodie goodie whale, you'll make a splash and keep the dolphins at bay, especially with beige mechanics being the way they are.

 

Don't make Alex kill his own game, please.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Options are pretty bad when there is no way to vote for air to still be able to attack everything without everything being able to attack everything.

Edit: Maybe doing so it takes less days to max air would be a good thing though. Does take kind of a long time to rebuild an Air Force to meaningful numbers once it gets worn down.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Well it is rather difficult to gauge the impact of an overhaul if you're only focusing on one aspect of it, since there is no indication what other changes are being considered or how they would relate to one another.  For the record, it's also problematic to preface your proposed change to one aspect of the war mechanics with 'these are your only options, so pick one' when you're simultaneously saying that a minority of larger players deserve a disproportionate advantage over everyone else.  It effectively forces people to opt for the 'least bad' alternative (rather than a better one than what you're proposing) and shuts down legitimate criticism of problematic ideas, which really isn't how a good faith discussion about mechanical changes should be structured.😛

Where in this thread did I state I was looking for a good faith discussion about mechanical changes? I was simply polling data. I only want to know which of those three options you like best, or dislike the least. If people want all archetypes being able to fight that requires lots more balancing than just having one additional. If people only want archetypes to hit one, that makes things very simple. If people want a middle ground, that falls in the middle. That is the info I am seeking. If I was going for an in depth pitch I would have done so, if I was going to lay out the overhaul ideas, I would have done so. Instead I'm trying to find out which of these three options people find most appealing. It's a simple stance. You're free to not cast your vote. By all means. I'm going to go forward with the data I do collect though. I stated in the OP I'm ignoring the "no" votes, that's why there isn't an option in poll. However, if you don't vote, please don't post a fit complaining about not liking the "only units in an archetype can attack that archetype" option when the detailed overhaul thread happens. Where actual debated will be welcomed. 

 

To address you're other comments. I have no problem with strong nations being stronger than weaker nations. I've always said consolidating tiers is bad, it's why TEst was allied to a middle tier and lower tier alliance. By the way, consolidating the middle tier is also a bad thing. You may think I'm underselling current consolidation, but that's simply because you're overselling yours. In your scenario with the fully mil'd 30 city nation, it's virtually impossible for that 30 city nation to actually attack any of the 20's unless there's a major infra imbalance (or nukes in a fragglish case). You want to talk about economic impact? Lets use my nation. I'm at 30 cities with 3k infra, I pull in about 23.5M cash daily. At 20 cities, I made about 15.5M, 8M less a day. The resources are hard to compare considering how different the markets were then versus now, but I'd probably have grown 1/3 in resource production so we'll make that around a 5M difference there, totally 13M extra a day in cash and resources. Less than a clone of my 20 city nation would've been making. As you've stated there are many more players around that 20 range. Your alliance alone has a more impactful economy than all the 30+ nations currently active in the game combined. 

 

I get why you don't like the idea of what you assume this change might be. You perceive yourselves as the underdogs against whale consolidation, you've found a tactic that you believe works and don't want it to change. 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would probably undo my vote if I could without voting for another, as I’m not even sure the middle ground option & don’t like any. Although the reasoning behind my vote is I think taking away the ability of air to hit everything is to crazy to pass anyways; although for other types I like the idea of doing so they can attack another type where it makes sense over just doing so everything can attack everything.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum

Share this post


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

Where in this thread did I state I was looking for a good faith discussion about mechanical changes? I was simply polling data. I only want to know which of those three options you like best, or dislike the least. If people want all archetypes being able to fight that requires lots more balancing than just having one additional. If people only want archetypes to hit one, that makes things very simple. If people want a middle ground, that falls in the middle. That is the info I am seeking. If I was going for an in depth pitch I would have done so, if I was going to lay out the overhaul ideas, I would have done so. Instead I'm trying to find out which of these three options people find most appealing. It's a simple stance. You're free to not cast your vote. By all means. I'm going to go forward with the data I do collect though. I stated in the OP I'm ignoring the "no" votes, that's why there isn't an option in poll. However, if you don't vote, please don't post a fit complaining about not liking the "only units in an archetype can attack that archetype" option when the detailed overhaul thread happens. Where actual debated will be welcomed. 

If your poll  is structured to affirm a predetermined outcome, then it's a poorly structured poll on your part.  To provide an an analogous example, if I put together a poll asking people to rank Leo as 1) a good leader, 2) a great leader or 3) the greatest leader and then ignore all other responses, I can then report to him that every single respondent believes that he's at least a good leader, which may not be representative of actual opinion on the matter.  Your poll is set up to skew its results in a similar way, which means that your 'data' won't be worth much in the end.  If you want to have a discussion about pros and cons of a war mechanic change then that's your prerogative (and we can have that if you like), but trying to frame the results of such a flawed sampling as community support for a particular change would be pretty disingenuous on your part and hopefully something Alex would be wise enough to disregard.

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

To address you're other comments. I have no problem with strong nations being stronger than weaker nations. I've always said consolidating tiers is bad, it's why TEst was allied to a middle tier and lower tier alliance. By the way, consolidating the middle tier is also a bad thing. You may think I'm underselling current consolidation, but that's simply because you're overselling yours. In your scenario with the fully mil'd 30 city nation, it's virtually impossible for that 30 city nation to actually attack any of the 20's unless there's a major infra imbalance (or nukes in a fragglish case). You want to talk about economic impact? Lets use my nation. I'm at 30 cities with 3k infra, I pull in about 23.5M cash daily. At 20 cities, I made about 15.5M, 8M less a day. The resources are hard to compare considering how different the markets were then versus now, but I'd probably have grown 1/3 in resource production so we'll make that around a 5M difference there, totally 13M extra a day in cash and resources. Less than a clone of my 20 city nation would've been making. As you've stated there are many more players around that 20 range. Your alliance alone has a more impactful economy than all the 30+ nations currently active in the game combined. 

Well I find you owning your self interest refreshing (usually the authors of these sorts of threads make more of an effort to cloak their argument in terms of universal, rather than personal, interest), I was actually referring to the ability of a whale to fight off updecs under the current mechanics, rather than their ability to downdec people smaller than themselves.  However, downselling (and subsequent rebuying) does allow for some fairly significant downdecs even when infra levels are comparable - unless the whale in question has truly ridiculous levels of infra (or all the nukes, like Fraggle) relative military levels are actually a bigger factor in punching down than infra per se, which is why mid and lower tier AAs often rely on score compression to offset it.  Your proposal to nerf planes would likely force mid tier players to maintain higher mil levels overall, which in turn would leave them more vulnerable to downdecs from whales (like you).  Again, I can see where a whale would see this as a great idea, but it disproportionately penalises smaller nations who (as you've pointed out) make up the overwhelming majority of the player base.  Wanting strong players to be strong is one thing, but trying to push through a mechanical change that primarily benefits those players via a rigged poll is something else entirely.

Edited by Curufinwe
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't necessarily call the poll rigged since you have the ability to downvote his post and abstain from the poll, adding context to this vote, which sheepy will no doubt take into account.

Regarding a mechanical change, i'd like to see one. But i'd have to agree with the rest of the Forumquisition, the upper-tier and mid-tier have become so polarized we can't introduce a change that drastically tips the balance. If possible, it might be worth introducing some new mechanics to reward players for game knowledge and mechanical skill, rather than age which already buffs their income considerably (IIRC 40% population increase after 300 days).

Maybe we could take a note from the recently deceased baseball and give people a way to spam their way into a slightly better military position 😜

Edited by Epi
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

If your poll  is structured to affirm a predetermined outcome, then it's a poorly structured poll on your part.  To provide an an analogous example, if I put together a poll asking people to rank Leo as 1) a good leader, 2) a great leader or 3) the greatest leader

That's a poll with the same 3 options. Mine is a poll with 3 different options. I stopped reading after this point because I've got to go.

3 minutes ago, Epi said:

I wouldn't necessarily call the poll rigged since you have the ability to downvote his post and abstain from the poll, adding context to this vote, which sheepy will no doubt take into account.

Considering this isn't a proposed change, nothing will be taken into account regarding Alex. This is information gathering on the three options that will be moved into the next phase for balancing the system. 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

That's a poll with the same 3 options. Mine is a poll with 3 different options. I stopped reading after this point because I've got to go.

That's a poll that is structured to affirm a certain outcome.  Your poll is structured to affirm a certain outcome.  Both polls have the same issue, except I probably wouldn't craft a poll that way since I realise that the results would be skewed due to its poor structure.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

That's a poll with the same 3 options. Mine is a poll with 3 different options. I stopped reading after this point because I've got to go.

3 different options:
1.  Nerf planes

2.  Nerf planes

3. Nerf planes

yeah...

 

'Planes are currently the only unit type which can attack other unit types giving them an advantage over other unit types. Please review the options in the OP and vote accordingly on how to balance the issue'

Please note that this is a leading question (or poll), 'Vote accordingly on how to balance the issue' suggests that because they give an advantage over other units, they have to be balanced. That might be true, but it also might not be. You are also implying that your solutions are the only way to balance this. 

 

Edited by GeneralJon
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to be cornered into voting for "the option I dislike the least" because I dislike all of them and have no intention of my vote being used to support something when I dislike it to begin with.

Keep your poll, I vote 'present'. If you want to have an honest discussion then, at a minimum, "Keep the current system" should have also been an option.

I agree with other commenters that a change of this type really should only be considered as part of a larger adjustment in the war system. I am intrigued by the anti-aircraft ideas and even the naval support options may have some merit when considered in a comprehensive change. The options in this poll are not sufficient to consider.

Edited by Malichy
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd echo Malichy.  All of these options are horrible and I refuse to vote for any of them.  Count me as "here and against all of them."

 

You've completely missed the point of what is wrong with the war system.  Which is namely it is *too* one sided to larger nations.  Sure they should have an edge.  But it shouldnt be a snowballing thing where you can't ever do any damage to them once a war turns against you.  The problem is the difficulty in competing with an opponent who is larger then you. All of these suggestions widens the gap and makes it more difficult for players who are newer or dont have an amazing support network alliance to boost them super quickly.  It would kill game dynamism.

Larger nations already have an INSANE edge.  What you need is more ways you can at least HURT them even if you lose wars.  Not less. The idea shouldn't be to have a bunch of untouchable overlord nations reigning over a bunch of peons.

I'll also add if you want to pick something broken to fix start with spies.  The idea you can spend a month building them up and they are all gone in a day or two never to be gotten back for the whole months long war is ridiculous.

Edited by OsRavan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you double buy planes on update, the amount is so insignificant compare to people with max planes it’s pretty pointless. So maybe it’s the time needed to rebuild them & their ability to destroy everything else untouched which is making some want them nerfed, although I think doing do so it takes less time to rebuild your Air Force or buffing another unit would be better than nerfing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.