"No defense mode" for planes

[Azaghul]

Current situation:

Whenever you are attacked by air, combat automatically occurs.  If you are severely outnumbered the plane loss is extremely lopsided.  And this situation makes it very easy for someone to keep air supremacy through air attacks that wipe out any of your buys.  Planes also have the longest build up time which makes them the hardest to build back up once outnumbered.

Proposal:

Allow you to put your planes in a "no defense" mode in a war.  In that mode, your units don't contest the battle and neither the attacker nor defender take plane casualties.  Changing to or from "No defense mode" costs 1 MAP.

If the attacker targets planes, the additional planes killed by that targeting are still killed.  So they can still attack your planes to keep you from building more, but it's slower and takes more MAPS/resources/resistance than it does currently.

Reasons:

- Makes planes slightly less OP by making it easier for someone to climb back towards contesting air battles again.
- Creates more space for building back up to make more wars contested and interesting.
- Gives people more options to make wars more dynamic.

[Prefontaine]

If you're on discord currently, give me a PM please. 

[Viselli]

I do think you should be able to give basic orders for aircraft such as prioritizing defending only when the attacker is targeting troops vs defending when the attacker targets cities (infra.)

[Wendell]

@Azaghul

I made a similar suggestion about defense mode for all units. But it was about preserving resources. Maybe you can also add that too...

[Lu Xun]

This is embarrassing given that you're basically asking for the abolition of updeclaring. You're a TKR elder FFS and pushing for this is pretty much Dolphinplan 2.0.

 

#BanNPO2020.

[Daniel Storm]

I think this would be good rebalance for air provided that dogfights still work the way they currently do. Right now if somebody has less than half of your air upon declaration you can just go straight for tanks/ships/infra and still get 3:1 or better air casualties. This way you'd be forced to dogfight more often and would face the tradeoff of leaving tanks+ships or air intact.

[Lu Xun]

Just now, Pop said:

I think this would be good rebalance for air provided that dogfights still work the way they currently do. Right now if somebody has less than half of your air upon declaration you can just go straight for tanks/ships/infra and still get 3:1 or better air casualties. This way you'd be forced to dogfight more often and would face the tradeoff of leaving tanks+ships or air intact.

He said that targeting planes would only kill the additional planes, and we know that dogfight target plane damage is roughly 33% of plane damage dealt.

[True King]

Just now, Inst said:

He said that targeting planes would only kill the additional planes, and we know that dogfight target plane damage is roughly 33% of plane damage dealt.

He said the additional damage for targeting that type would still be dealt, so how much it does now when targeting air.

[Lu Xun]

1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

He said the additional damage for targeting that type would still be dealt, so how much it does now when targeting air.

"Dogfight airstrikes destroy approximately 50% more planes than an anti-infrastructure airstrike".

 

In other words, 67% of plane damage would be removed in defense mode.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Inst

[True King]

Just now, Inst said:

"Dogfight airstrikes destroy approximately 50% more planes than an anti-infrastructure aircraft".

 

In other words, 67% of plane damage would be removed in defense mode.

He said additional units are still killed, nowhere does he say “only” though.

[Lu Xun]

.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Inst

[Lu Xun]

30 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

He said additional units are still killed, nowhere does he say “only” though.

Proposal:

Allow you to put your planes in a "no defense" mode in a war.  In that mode, your units don't contest the battle and neither the attacker nor defender take plane casualties.  Changing to or from "No defense mode" costs 1 MAP.

If the attacker targets planes, the additional planes killed by that targeting are still killed.  So they can still attack your planes to keep you from building more, but it's slower and takes more MAPS/resources/resistance than it does currently.

 

I want to point out that this entire situation is embarrassing. BKNPO has shown tactical adaptation and has been able to adopt the tactics of its opponents. Meanwhile KERCHTOG has had many opportunities to adapt, and I was personally in terror that they would have, and they've taken advantage of any of these. Instead, all of the adaptation windows have closed before KERCHTOG has been able to exploit them, and they've been resorting to "nerf planes!!!11" which is codespeak for "nerf NPO / ban NPO!".

 

I wish the administration to remember that the simple fact that BKNPO had more nations than KERCHTOG represented that BKNPO combatants represented a greater majority of players. Put another way,, KERCHTOG is claiming that because they represent old players (and I've been on and off since 2014), their views should count more.

 

But from a business perspective, a credit direct-bought from Paypal in BKNPO should be worth as much as a credit direct bought from KERCHTOG, irrespective of the player's age.

 

And from a game health perspective, depending on older players only results in the breeding of boredom and cynicism. If you want to look at what happened in Cyber Nations, the game's true death began when necAnt, a player in an upper tier alliance, proposed that Tech, an auxiliary resource hoarded by old players, become a more important resource that determines the outcome of wars. Because Tech accumulation was strictly the function of time (i.e, you were limited to only 300, now 600 tech every 10 days), it meant that old players as well as alliances with strong logistics ended up becoming disproportionately powerful and that politics broke down as it became impossible for new alliances to break into the top ranks.

 

KERCHTOG keeps on insisting that NPO killed CN. What actually killed CN was a Graemlins player making a suggestion that seemed good to the game admin at the time. That NPO managed to establish a stability / hegemony in a dead game was merely because the game was dead; no new players kept on coming in and the "rentier" class (as in John Maynard Keynes famous phrase "the euthanasia of the rentier") destroyed it.

 

===

 

As of right now, what we are seeing is a revolution in elites, i.e, should BKNPO achieve its strategic aims, the old crypto-hegemony of established players goes down, and not even to be replaced by BKNPO ones. Farksphere is growing, a sphere made up of players who have been to date immaterial to the game. The #5 alliance is called The Immortals, technically a Pantheon splinter, and is made up entirely of small nations, recruited by a player who is less than 3 years old in game terms.

 

This is a positive trend insofar as we are moving to a tripartite system. Changing the game in the way desired is merely a return to the cryptohegemony. And if BKNPO manages to adapt to the changing gameplay system (i.e, single whales become more powerful than massed players in economic and militaryterms), they may, first, be able to successfully contest KERCHTOG$ attempts at retaining their hegemony, and second, there is no longer a revolutionary impetus. The same policies that protect KERCHTOG$'s hegemony will be the ones that protect BKNPO's hegemony, to the detriment of new players, and this game will die.

@Alex

 

CN had its necAnt. He was a well-meaning person and a decent guy by any measure, but the change he suggested killed the game. PnW should not have its necAnt.

[True King]

33 minutes ago, Inst said:

 

 

@Alex

 

CN had its necAnt. He was a well-meaning person and a decent guy by any measure, but the change he suggested killed the game. PnW should not have its necAnt.

If anything I wondered how useful it would be, since using it would signal to opponents you want to build up air. Don’t think it would make as much sense if no defense mode gave your aircrafts a defensive boost.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Solution: Make it only usable once your aircraft have dropped below a certain % of max. Now a whale can't turn it on to avoid having their aircraft shredded and focus on taking GC and ripping his targets apart offensively. 

What that % should be i don't know, but there's the solution.

[True King]

Could even maybe make it free & not have it effect dog fights. If it’s just telling your planes not to bother defending ground or navy, shouldn’t really need a cost.

[Lu Xun]

2 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

If anything I wondered how useful it would be, since using it would signal to opponents you want to build up air. Don’t think it would make as much sense if no defense mode gave your aircrafts a defensive boost.

The proposed numbers basically go into 33% of current dogfight aircraft damages; as I've quoted, Azaghul was asking only for additional damage to be dealt (dogfights only deal 33% then).

 

A further problem becomes that aircraft are used as cheap defenses. If aircraft is nerfed, everyone becomes more vulnerable to raiding, and interdiction-type operations become more difficult to pull off. As of now, given that TKR etc use a raid / tankbusting strategy, It is in their favor now, but what of when the war ends? People talk about Arrgh as though they're the primary raiders, but GOONS and Mythic can be pretty annoying as well.

[Azaghul]

 

18 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

He said additional units are still killed, nowhere does he say “only” though.

My proposal that it'd be "only" the extra units, the base units wouldn't be killed... but that could also be modified .  

16 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Solution: Make it only usable once your aircraft have dropped below a certain % of max. Now a whale can't turn it on to avoid having their aircraft shredded and focus on taking GC and ripping his targets apart offensively. 

What that % should be i don't know, but there's the solution.

This might work.

A couple other potential balancing mechanics:

1) You can't launch offensive air attacks if you're in "no defense" mode.
2) Put some kind of time restriction on how often you can switch and/or how long it can be done before or after you make an air attack.
3) It doesn't take MAPS but applies to all of your wars.

An example:

You have 1000 planes and have a war against someone with 500 planes and another person with 2000 planes.  If you turn defense mode on, it'd make it harder for the person with 2000 planes to take your air down.  But you also wouldn't be able to use your air against the 500 plane guy and he'd be able to get air control because you wouldn't be contesting his attack.

The 500 plane guy could also put himself in no defense mode to make it harder for you to kill his air before the 2000 plane guy kills yours.  This has potential uses for both sides in that kind of scenario.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Azaghul

[Viselli]

3 hours ago, Azaghul said:

 

My proposal that it'd be "only" the extra units, the base units wouldn't be killed... but that could also be modified .  

This might work.

A couple other potential balancing mechanics:

1) You can't launch offensive air attacks if you're in "no defense" mode.
2) Put some kind of time restriction on how often you can switch and/or how long it can be done before or after you make an air attack.
3) It doesn't take MAPS but applies to all of your wars.

An example:

You have 1000 planes and have a war against someone with 500 planes and another person with 2000 planes.  If you turn defense mode on, it'd make it harder for the person with 2000 planes to take your air down.  But you also wouldn't be able to use your air against the 500 plane guy and he'd be able to get air control because you wouldn't be contesting his attack.

The 500 plane guy could also put himself in no defense mode to make it harder for you to kill his air before the 2000 plane guy kills yours.  This has potential uses for both sides in that kind of scenario.

Great catch with the application to all wars. This is a proposal of a national military doctrine which should apply to all wars when a nation uses it.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

On 11/5/2019 at 2:10 PM, Azaghul said:

 

My proposal that it'd be "only" the extra units, the base units wouldn't be killed... but that could also be modified .  

This might work.

A couple other potential balancing mechanics:

1) You can't launch offensive air attacks if you're in "no defense" mode.
2) Put some kind of time restriction on how often you can switch and/or how long it can be done before or after you make an air attack.
3) It doesn't take MAPS but applies to all of your wars.

An example:

You have 1000 planes and have a war against someone with 500 planes and another person with 2000 planes.  If you turn defense mode on, it'd make it harder for the person with 2000 planes to take your air down.  But you also wouldn't be able to use your air against the 500 plane guy and he'd be able to get air control because you wouldn't be contesting his attack.

The 500 plane guy could also put himself in no defense mode to make it harder for you to kill his air before the 2000 plane guy kills yours.  This has potential uses for both sides in that kind of scenario.

It does sound more useful the way you meant it, think Inst is exaggerating on how "bad" of an effect this would have. Although understand the arguments against it during the war, but overall good idea.