Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bjorn Ironside

Anti Air gun project

Recommended Posts

@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 by Elijah Mikaelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first in depth, balanced, and generally good idea.for a project that iv seen for a while

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.