Improvements and not having the infra to support them.

[Prefontaine]

Simple enough, You can have 10/1 improvements as long as you built them before the infra was destroyed/sold. This will allow a nation to have a large number of buildings and a smaller strength. Thus a nation could max military buildings, sell all infra and troll smaller nations who have no where near the military capacity their attacker has.

 

Make it so that if you don't have the infra to support a building they start being destroyed. Maybe 1 every 24 hours. Should be random too I suppose.

[Atzuya]

That's maybe too random... With that system a single pyrrhic victory attack against your nation can potentially destroy a vital improvement of your city if left unattended. Losing a mere handful of infra shouldn't warrant the destruction of a random improvement.

 

CMIIW, but I think problem here is that a nation will retain most of their military capabilities even when their infra has been pummeled to hell and beyond. Perhaps when a city's infra goes below half the ideal level (10/4 as an example), the military improvements in that city should count as unpowered, so there'll be no military assets coming out of that city?

[Prefontaine]

That's maybe too random... With that system a single pyrrhic victory attack against your nation can potentially destroy a vital improvement of your city if left unattended. Losing a mere handful of infra shouldn't warrant the destruction of a random improvement.

 

CMIIW, but I think problem here is that a nation will retain most of their military capabilities even when their infra has been pummeled to hell and beyond. Perhaps when a city's infra goes below half the ideal level (10/4 as an example), the military improvements in that city should count as unpowered, so there'll be no military assets coming out of that city?

 

I agree 9/10 shouldn't blow up your buildings. But at a certain point having no infra and all those buildings has to start causing buildings to be destroyed/not work. And your assessment of the problem is correct, your solution is pretty solid as well.

[TheNG]

Perhaps instead of destroying buildings when there is no longer infrastructure to support them, buildings could instead be disabled. Say if you have 10 improvements but 400 infrastructure, the game would select 2 improvements and stop them functioning. Resource improvements wouldn't produce or refine, and for military improvements, you couldn't recruit new soldiers to fill them or use soldiers already within. This would save improvements but also prevent people with no infra from using their army.

[Atzuya]

It had been suggested multiple times in the past, to disable some improvements as the supporting infra goes down, but there's no words whether it's going to be accepted or not :c

[Jerry LeRow]

Hmm... it just basically means you build a production facility/mine/barrack/... and the road was bombed away. The facilities themselves are still there (unless hit with a missile). So perhaps we should decrease the productivity of the facilities by (1-(maximum number of improvements/actual number of improvements))%.

That'd mean e.g. 10/2 -> 1-(2/10)=1-0.2=0.8^=80%. Sequester style, reduce everything. Either he can afford it or he has to sell the improvements.

[Grillick]

This issue has been discussed at length several times, including here. Sheepy appears to have decided that allowing missiles to destroy improvements is the solution to this problem.

 

That being said, I support Prefontaine and Jerry LeRow's suggestions.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Grillick

[Jerry LeRow]

This issue has been discussed at length several times, including here. Sheepy appears to have decided that allowing missiles to destroy improvements is the solution to this problem.

 

That being said, I support Prefontaine and Jerry LeRow's suggestions.

You can call me Jerry   

 

The problem with missiles is that they cost 8,$$$,$$$ 

once someone can afford them, and that'll take some weeks, guys like DEMON abuse this bug 

[Adama]

Allowing improvements to continue functioning even after a nation has been more or less destroyed is proving to be a real problem to game functionality. Nations like DEMON's can sit at the low tiers with massive military complexes and pillage and destroy new nations and no one can do anything about it. Missiles can't do anything about this, because no one with missiles will ever even have the ability to reach down that far unless you build up to 5K infrastructure then sell all the way down just to deal with a single raider.

 

Literally, nothing can be done to stop DEMON and other raiders at this point because no matter how far he is beaten down he can just keep buying mass numbers of military units, bar the ones he has already. Improvements don't have to be destroyed, but at least disable them. This problem is only going to grow as players learn they can raid with more or less permanent impunity on new nations who will have no ability to resist.

[Jerry LeRow]

Allowing improvements to continue functioning even after a nation has been more or less destroyed is proving to be a real problem to game functionality. Nations like DEMON's can sit at the low tiers with massive military complexes and pillage and destroy new nations and no one can do anything about it. Missiles can't do anything about this, because no one with missiles will ever even have the ability to reach down that far unless you build up to 5K infrastructure then sell all the way down just to deal with a single raider.

 

Literally, nothing can be done to stop DEMON and other raiders at this point because no matter how far he is beaten down he can just keep buying mass numbers of military units, bar the ones he has already. Improvements don't have to be destroyed, but at least disable them. This problem is only going to grow as players learn they can raid with more or less permanent impunity on new nations who will have no ability to resist.

To battle DEMON we need another strategy, not war. Look at his nation, bank transactions, and you'll see without his alliance (and probably damn high taxes) he can't sustain. Plus he can only produce very few resources himself, he's got to buy the rest on the market. Simply don't sell steel or alu anymore on the open market, pack the "good" alliances in 1 massive shared market and thereby introduce "economic embargos" to the game. Don't buy any resources from DEMON anymore (that's part of his income), don't sell any steel, alu or gasoline on the open market anymore (that's what he needs for his war machinery) and he will fail; I guarantee that. Could be used for other misbehaving alliances, and is an easy tool to use to get rid of those annoying raiders.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Jerry LeRow

[Despartainian]

To battle DEMON we need another strategy, not war. Look at his nation, bank transactions, and you'll see without his alliance (and probably damn high taxes) he can't sustain. Plus he can only produce very few resources himself, he's got to buy the rest on the market. Simply don't sell steel or alu anymore on the open market, pack the "good" alliances in 1 massive shared market and thereby introduce "economic embargos" to the game. Don't buy any resources from DEMON anymore (that's part of his income), don't sell any steel, alu or gasoline on the open market anymore (that's what he needs for his war machinery) and he will fail; I guarantee that. Could be used for other misbehaving alliances, and is an easy tool to use to get rid of those annoying raiders.

 

Sure, that's fine--but that's not the discussion we're having. The problem is that he can use thirteen improvements with only enough infrastructure for two. That makes no sense--and we shouldn't have to rely on missiles to deal with the problem. If you don't have the infrastructure to have functioning improvements, you shouldn't have those improvements. It would be easy enough to disable the last improvement built when infrastructure drops. It wouldn't cost anything to rebuild them, they just wouldn't work anymore. That isn't game-breaking, that should just be part of the game--prioritizing your improvements so that if your infrastructure drops you can still use the ones that are most important to you.

 

What is game-breaking is the ability to use a high-powered nation to raid small-powered nations with a score that prevents nations on your scale from retaliating. It's getting to be a problem, and it's starting to stagnate the game.

[Jerry LeRow]

Sure, that's fine--but that's not the discussion we're having. The problem is that he can use thirteen improvements with only enough infrastructure for two. That makes no sense--and we shouldn't have to rely on missiles to deal with the problem. If you don't have the infrastructure to have functioning improvements, you shouldn't have those improvements. It would be easy enough to disable the last improvement built when infrastructure drops. It wouldn't cost anything to rebuild them, they just wouldn't work anymore. That isn't game-breaking, that should just be part of the game--prioritizing your improvements so that if your infrastructure drops you can still use the ones that are most important to you.

 

What is game-breaking is the ability to use a high-powered nation to raid small-powered nations with a score that prevents nations on your scale from retaliating. It's getting to be a problem, and it's starting to stagnate the game.

 

one idea before:

Hmm... it just basically means you build a production facility/mine/barrack/... and the road was bombed away. The facilities themselves are still there (unless hit with a missile). So perhaps we should decrease the productivity of the facilities by (1-(maximum number of improvements/actual number of improvements))%.

That'd mean e.g. 10/2 -> 1-(2/10)=1-0.2=0.8^=80%. Sequester style, reduce everything. Either he can afford it or he has to sell the improvements.

 

another idea: auto-sell the improvements and give the nation the normal refund (i tihnk about 50% of the resources used to build it or so...)

i mean improvements=infrastructure rounded to the last 50-unit divided by 50. you have a clear number of the amount of improvements allowed and we only need a formula for the auto-sell. there's an auto-power-shutdown when energy demand exceeds energy supply, there's an auto-revenue-drop once you run out of resources you need to power the imp/feed your population...

[Demon]

Thus a nation could max military buildings, sell all infra

 

except - you cannot sell infra. Thanks for your effort of ZeroInfraing me BTW. It was so fun reading your arrogance and knowing how clueless you are.

[Jerry LeRow]

except - you cannot sell infra. Thanks for your effort of ZeroInfraing me BTW. It was so fun reading your arrogance and knowing how clueless you are.

you can't sell infra when your actual improvements exceed your max improvements (or, when you're abusing the system). sell 11 improvements in moskva and you can sell infra down to 100.00. or sell 9 in zharkov and you can go down to 50.00

Edited September 16, 2014 by Jerry LeRow

[Demon]

and you'll see without his alliance (and probably damn high taxes) he can't sustain.

lolwut? really?

[Demon]

you can't sell infra when your actual improvements exceed your max improvements (or, when you're abusing the system). sell 11 improvements in moskva and you can sell infra down to 100.00. or sell 9 in zharkov and you can go down to 50.00

 

and i didn't sell any infra. and didn't want to. game works as designed.

[Jerry LeRow]

lolwut? really?

1 city commerce rate 4%, other city 0%. your economy is a lolwut

 

 

and i didn't sell any infra. and didn't want to. game works as designed.

and i just said you must sell improvements in order to sell infra. yes. the game works as designed, but no, it's not how it should work. this mistake allows terrorists like you to rise.

[Demon]

1 city commerce rate 4%, other city 0%. your economy is a lolwut

on a contrary - your economy is fine and i'm going to rob you next. thats how i support 2000tanks x 1300 steel price = $2.6mln. so yeah... high tax rates? lol

[Jerry LeRow]

on a contrary - your economy is fine and i'm going to rob you next. thats how i support 2000tanks x 1300 steel price = $2.6mln. so yeah... high tax rates? lol

tax rates and income levels are correlated, i think you get basically the same revenue from it.

 

not much to rob here (if you even reach up to me), i spend my money to grow... you could try that too, makes you less enemies  

[Demon]

revenue from what?

[Jerry LeRow]

revenue from what?

people work. people earn money by that. people pay taxes from that. you get tax revenue

[Demon]

except  i don't

[Despartainian]

Guys, if you don't mind, your "conversation "could take place somewhere else.

[Hereno]

I agree that what DEMON is doing right now is gamey to the extreme, but he's following the rules and just bending the mechanics to absurdity. The thing is, he won't be able to get any more improvements or swap any of them or do anything other than raid in the lower tier. Unless, of course, he buys a new city, jacks the infra up to 500, and then repeats the cycle. Having cities contribute to score partially fixes this, but I think the easiest and best solution would be to disable new city purchases while you have negative improvements in any of your cities.

 

Actually, I just realized something. He's already capped at soldiers based on his citizen count. Why doesn't the same thing apply to tanks?

Edited September 16, 2014 by Hereno

[Alex]

I agree that what DEMON is doing right now is gamey to the extreme, but he's following the rules and just bending the mechanics to absurdity. The thing is, he won't be able to get any more improvements or swap any of them or do anything other than raid in the lower tier. Unless, of course, he buys a new city, jacks the infra up to 500, and then repeats the cycle. Having cities contribute to score partially fixes this, but I think the easiest and best solution would be to disable new city purchases while you have negative improvements in any of your cities.

 

Actually, I just realized something. He's already capped at soldiers based on his citizen count. Why doesn't the same thing apply to tanks?

 

At one point you couldn't have more units of any type than you had soldiers, someone told me it was ridiculous and so it was changed. (This was some time ago). Now, it appears, it is not so ridiculous, and the number of tanks/ships/aircraft should in fact be pegged to soldier count.