Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 (edited) @Alex I believe this will fix the issue most people are having with the war system right now, YES planes should be powerful but there should be a counter to that power in order to stabilize the game play. The project should be expensive. Anti Air Project 100,000,000 Cash 10,000 steal 6,000 Aluminum 10,000 Gas {This would make it cost more than the NRF and MLP and PB added together} How would it work. Unlike most projects this will have a cause and effect depending on how you are doing in the battle, YES it will also have an effect based on land. however this is simple a defensive project only. so when attacking its worthless. You can make 3 planes a day from each hanger, Five hangers a city by the number of cities so for my nation that's 3 x 5 x 36 = 540 planes for one re-buy my max planes are 3,250 so will vase all stages on my plane count, you will need to work yours out yourself. will also base it on the standard 3000 land that over 95% of nations have or less Stage one: No one has ground control so it has the standard rate of 2% of all attacking planes die for each 1000 land. On a standard nation with 2,000 land, I would lose 4% of all my planes this would be 130 planes, 1/4 of my re-buy Stage two: The defending nation has ground control, its now at an advance rate of 4% for each 1000 land, On a standard nation with 2,000 land, I would lose 8% of all my planes this would be 260 planes, 1/2 of my re-buy Stage three: The attacking nation has ground control, this would be a substandard rate at 1% of all attacking planes die for each 1000 land On a standard nation with 2,000 land, I would lose 2% of all my planes this would be 65 planes, 1/8 of my re-buy Now I understand what you are all thinking, WHAT about those who have 3000 land or even worst that fat farmer with 10,000 land (How you doin) I agree those numbers above for a nation with 10,000 would be unstoppable, more so if they have ground control, even 5000 land that's not very costly would would stop 40% of planes way to powerful. So I would say that 3000 land to 10000 land only adds 0.5% Stage one, at 10,000 land it would be 4% for the first 2000 land and then 4% for the last 8000 land Stage one, at 10,000 land it would be 8% for the first 2000 land and then 4% for the last 8000 land Stage one, at 10,000 land it would be 2% for the first 2000 land and then 4% for the last 8000 land So even IF i had ground control the most I would kill would be 12% of all planes and for a nation my side that's 390 planes not even a full rebuy Even if you do it for a nation with 23 cities that's 2070, lose 12% that's 248.4 planes and there re-buy is 345. Edit: As this project does shot down planes, if you run out of ammo or gas it stops working, Edited November 28, 2019 by Elijah Mikaelson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Storm Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 I think it's a good general concept to nerf planes and give land more value, if all the above numbers are drastically slashed to something reasonable. As is your proposal creates an insurmountable defensive advantage in the air unless you're fighting a major downdec. I already lose most of my rebuy fighting people with equal or greater plane counts, and this proposal would essentially double that damage. Air would become a unit you hold and never use if every offensive airstrike killed 2/3rds of your rebuy on top of the regular casualties. The maximum possible loss should be closer to 25% of daily buy, and even then this is going to drastically nerf updeccing whales. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, Pop said: I think it's a good general concept to nerf planes and give land more value, if all the above numbers are drastically slashed to something reasonable. As is your proposal creates an insurmountable defensive advantage in the air unless you're fighting a major downdec. I already lose most of my rebuy fighting people with equal or greater plane counts, and this proposal would essentially double that damage. Air would become a unit you hold and never use if every offensive airstrike killed 2/3rds of your rebuy on top of the regular casualties. The maximum possible loss should be closer to 25% of daily buy, and even then this is going to drastically nerf updeccing whales. numbers could do with reworking, I did not take in to account if both sides have maxed planes. was mostly thinking of when i had no planes vs GoB and CoS and simply could not do anything at all with a 11 city down declare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Storm Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said: numbers could do with reworking, I did not take in to account if both sides have maxed planes. was mostly thinking of when i had no planes vs GoB and CoS and simply could not do anything at all with a 11 city down declare The more I think about this the less I like it ngl. A defensive only option like this basically kills any airstrike that isn't a downdec. Say I have 2160 planes and I hit someone who also has 2160 planes, in the current system we take roughly similar casualties with a slight advantage to the attacker. Maybe 300 dead for me and 360 dead for them if I get a good roll. Your proposal would make that 500+ dead for me and 360 dead for them. It would become untenable to offensively airstrike anyone who wasn't significantly smaller than you. In my opinion games where defensive is stronger than offense tend to be hella boring so idk if I'd even want to continue playing if this became reality. I guess this suggestion could still be viable if it only operated when the defending nation was at 0 planes. It makes logical sense that you can't shoot AA fire indiscriminately while your own airmen are in the sky. And it would still nerf planes by causing a new point of loss when the enemy has 0 air and you're just bombing tanks/ships/infra/whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Pop said: The more I think about this the less I like it ngl. A defensive only option like this basically kills any airstrike that isn't a downdec. Say I have 2160 planes and I hit someone who also has 2160 planes, in the current system we take roughly similar casualties with a slight advantage to the attacker. Maybe 300 dead for me and 360 dead for them if I get a good roll. Your proposal would make that 500+ dead for me and 360 dead for them. It would become untenable to offensively airstrike anyone who wasn't significantly smaller than you. In my opinion games where defensive is stronger than offense tend to be hella boring so idk if I'd even want to continue playing if this became reality. I guess this suggestion could still be viable if it only operated when the defending nation was at 0 planes. It makes logical sense that you can't shoot AA fire indiscriminately while your own airmen are in the sky. And it would still nerf planes by causing a new point of loss when the enemy has 0 air and you're just bombing tanks/ships/infra/whatever. in all wars the attacking side always bulk up with troops and generally out numbers the other side, never seen a even battle ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Storm Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 37 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said: in all wars the attacking side always bulk up with troops and generally out numbers the other side, never seen a even battle ever. You've never seen someone with equal or lesser aircraft attack someone with a similar or greater aircraft count? No offense, but I don't know if you're qualified to suggest military balance then chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 Prohibitively expensive for a project that will easily replace the Propaganda Bureau as the must have military project. This is the wrong avenue to address the war imbalance. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Pop said: You've never seen someone with equal or lesser aircraft attack someone with a similar or greater aircraft count? No offense, but I don't know if you're qualified to suggest military balance then chief. talking about nations not planes when i said never seen a fair fight, such as this war and all others before it, one side out numbers the other by quite some nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tikonsociety Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 This is the first in depth, balanced, and generally good idea.for a project that iv seen for a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaliciousOnion Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 what if aa project made tanks usable in defense against planes instead? i know you want to link it to land but a. having more land would realistically be harder to defend, and b. it would make tanks more useful, and c. it means the defense can be dealt with over time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Echoing Durmij: A project isn't the way to go about balancing planes. Balancing the war system should come from... you know... balancing the war system. Lowering casualties and raising daily buy limits would probably help even things out imo. If people can't blitz and wipe you before you log in, that would be a good first step. That being said, I like the concept of a project that kills a percentage of attacking planes based on ground control and land. I think it needs to be capped at like 5% of attacking planes in a perfect scenario though. 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.