Jump to content

Dynamic Defensive Slots


Zephyr
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now that the war is over and everyone seems open to exploring new ideas, here's mine that I had a while ago which I believe could have some interesting consequences if implemented.

Suggestion:
Your defensive war slots = 1 + your number of active offensive wars.

Why?

  1. Quick and easy implementation.
    Presumably it's simple enough Alex could modify existing code fairly quickly and easily, unlike some other suggestions which require more extensive coding or re-writes.
     
  2. Minimal game knowledge disruption.
    It's a simple modification on defensive slot standing, it does not require a major re-education of players on how the game mechanically works unlike larger game change suggestions.
     
  3. Rebalancing war towards defenders.
    Defence at current sucks; attackers can choose the time of day, get in first strikes, and outnumber you from the get-go. It is possible to wake up to a nation with next to no military left. This suggestion means that a peaceful nation will only be subjected to 1 attacker, making it more realistic for them to hold their own ground. The attacker is not entirely robbed of their advantages, they still get first strikes and choose the time of day to strike.
     
  4. Aggression translates to greater defensive risk.
    Initiating offensive wars will directly result in opening more defensive slots on your nation, therefore your military aggression has consequence for your own defence. For alliances that permit raiding, this means their members are making themselves more easily blitzed by potential foes. Alliance leadership will have to weigh the risk vs reward of policy that allows members to raid. It goes further than this though, alliances that by default respond to aggressors with counters will be making their counters more vulnerable. This could help increase the value of diplomacy over jumping to military action when dealing with raids.
     
  5. Inter-alliance warfare becomes more interesting?
    Lastly I think this could shake-up the way alliances plan engagements with other alliances and maybe encourage more creativity; if an alliance suspects it's going to get hit, it might shut down raiding to close up their defensive slots and thus stifle plans for 2-man blitzes on their members. Similarly during such periods diplomatic resolution of disputes may become more valuable instead of jeopardising defence. Alternatively alliances might bait counters using low infra allies to encourage a target alliance to open more defensive slots responding to raids. This may also mean that nations have better opportunity to recover during wars if they forgo offensive wars and try to control 1 attacker before increasing their defensive vulnerability by taking on offensive wars. I also wonder if it means strategy develops around which tier is initially engaged and where engagements subsequently 'unfold' from.

Thoughts?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. The more you have deployed and engaged elsewhere, the less you have at home.

I suppose this is reflected in losses while your troops are on the offensive, but then again it's not like you do a ground attack and then your troops come home same day. Unless it's Grenada.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with Akuryo here. The answer isn't to nerf raiding or wars, it's to nerf casualties and blitzes. We had that big poll that got 100+ responses by Prefontaine, I would make the next war update based on that poll and then see how that affects things.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect raiders to be upset because it counters their ability to be as effective, especially towards balancing down declares. I've noticed that's the only group protesting here.

  • Thanks 1

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
17 hours ago, Zephyr said:

Suggestion:
Your defensive war slots = 1 + your number of active offensive wars.

Let's see if my simple mind understand this

No wars 1 defensive slot 
1 offensive war = 2 defensive slots
2 offensive war = 3 defensive slots
3 offensive war = 4 defensive slots
4 offensive war = 5 defensive slots
5 offensive war = 6 defensive slots

So I hit James, James gets Bob and Fred to hit me, I now get Sphinx and Joe, Boyce and Leo to hit Bod and Fred

James Bob and Fred are dead and Sphinx, Joe, Boyce and Leo only have two defensive wars, who do you get that can count the whales?

You make whale alliances who can easy beat someone two on one 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just realized my post from last night was never edited when I edited it:

Defensive slots = 3 + 1 * # of offensive slots. with a project that reduces defensive slots by 1

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James II said:

I expect raiders to be upset because it counters their ability to be as effective, especially towards balancing down declares. I've noticed that's the only group protesting here.

I'm not a raider or a raiding alliance, thanks.

If you're gonna try and dismiss my thoughts because you lack the capability to effectively respond to them, at least get your facts you're using to discriminate correctly. 

I see the only people posting in favor of this are more farmy, less aggressive alliances, and two from alliances that have people so vehemently hated that their mere presence puts a target on their back to basically everyone else.

I think we can safely say the opinions of these people should be discarded, as they're obviously only concerned about their Farmville being ruined by a superior coordinated aggressive force, or they're afraid that they'll get backhanded for having insufferable elements among them.

 

See? I did a far better job of dismissing you with completely irrelevant points on your playstyles and IA decisions!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

I'm not a raider or a raiding alliance, thanks.

If you're gonna try and dismiss my thoughts because you lack the capability to effectively respond to them, at least get your facts you're using to discriminate correctly. 

I see the only people posting in favor of this are more farmy, less aggressive alliances, and two from alliances that have people so vehemently hated that their mere presence puts a target on their back to basically everyone else.

I think we can safely say the opinions of these people should be discarded, as they're obviously only concerned about their Farmville being ruined by a superior coordinated aggressive force, or they're afraid that they'll get backhanded for having insufferable elements among them.

 

See? I did a far better job of dismissing you with completely irrelevant points on your playstyles and IA decisions!

Sound argument friend. You literally responded to this guy saying 4 of his points were pointless and on the fifth one you called him stupid. Well done friend!

EDIT: Way to ignore my suggested amendment to the suggestion!

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 is too small. It should never be lower than 3. I can buy into increasing defensive slots to 4 or 5 if you're in 4 or 5 offensive wars, but never reducing it below 3.

  • Upvote 3

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James II said:

I expect raiders to be upset because it counters their ability to be as effective, especially towards balancing down declares. I've noticed that's the only group protesting here.

I expect pixelhuggers to be in full support because it allows them to gain more ROI, especially towards their infrastructure. I've noticed that's the only group in support here.

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Avakael said:

1 is too small. It should never be lower than 3. I can buy into increasing defensive slots to 4 or 5 if you're in 4 or 5 offensive wars, but never reducing it below 3.

Yeah

3 default + {# of offensive wars - 1 |#<=0}

Then have a project that reduces {# of offensive wars - 1 |#<=0}

Would be more fun. You'd have to pay more care in over extending, and it gives na excuse for a project.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Aether said:

I expect pixelhuggers to be in full support because it allows them to gain more ROI, especially towards their infrastructure. I've noticed that's the only group in support here.

The guy who suggested it is a raider

Wars Won:    512
Wars Lost:    44

He's done far more than you you pixelhugger.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James II said:

Just realized my post from last night was never edited when I edited it:

When you realize your bad idea was a bad idea then try to save it...

2 hours ago, James II said:

Defensive slots = 3 + 1 * # of offensive slots. with a project that reduces defensive slots by 1

Correcting it to what is still a bad idea... Love it

Edited by Dusty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dusty said:

When you realize your bad idea was a bad idea then try to save it...

Correcting it to what is still a bad idea... Love it

Compelling argument friend!

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, James II said:

The guy who suggested it is a raider

Wars Won:    512
Wars Lost:    44

He's done far more than you you pixelhugger.

Actually, he's a pixelhugger.

First off he rerolled from Typhon to escape the war. Secondly, he raids at a tier and score where counters, especially ones of any competency that aren't just free money, are extremely rare.

 

His suggestion is based off being a pixelhugger before and again when he grows into a range where people will actually hit back. Nice try though.

 

Edit: apologies, didn't even have the dignity to reroll, he just had Alex delete cities.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James II said:

The guy who suggested it is a raider

Wars Won:    512
Wars Lost:    44

He's done far more than you you pixelhugger.

This change is inherently supported by pixelhuggers because it tries to discourage offensive warfare. If you can't see that, I don't know what else can be said.

Also, see: Akuryo's reply.

Edited by Aether

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Aether said:

This change is inherently supported by pixelhuggers because it tries to discourage offensive warfare. If you can't see that, I don't know what else can be said.

Also, see: Akuryo's reply.

You only raid inactives.

I suppose my real gripe here is someone actually suggested something and folks come crying in here shitting on the person by calling their arguments "irrelevant" or "stupid", calling Alex lazy, and offering nothing other than the hope that they can continue being pixel huggers by raiding mostly inactives. You've contributed nothing to the conversation other than a few "whaaa you're a pixel hugger" jabs.

It'd be better if you nurtured ideas, encouraged them, said "Hey thanks for the suggestion but this is why I don't think it'd work"

Instead of trying to politicize it because it hurts your raiding of people who don't fight back by allowing more folks to counter you.

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, James II said:

You only raid inactives.

I suppose my real gripe here is someone actually suggested something and folks come crying in here shitting on the person by calling their arguments "irrelevant" or "stupid", calling Alex lazy, and offering nothing other than the hope that they can continue being pixel huggers by raiding mostly inactives. You've contributed nothing to the conversation other than a few "whaaa you're a pixel hugger" jabs.

It'd be better if you nutured ideas, encouraged them, said "Hey thanks for the suggestion but this is why I don't think it'd work"

Instead of trying to politicize it because it hurts your raiding of people who don't fight back by allowing more folks to counter you.

1.) Baseless assumption, you cannot see all my wars, furthermore, anyone who took literally 10 seconds to look at my recent wars can see my opponents are not all inactive.

2.) It's not shitting on the person, it's shitting on their suggestion. Your remark about raiders being the only opposed to the change was not only misinformed and misleading, but also contributes zilch to the conversation except for trying to discriminate and dismiss real criticisms.

3.) I appreciate people trying to make suggestions, but this ain't it, chief. People make good suggestions, people make bad suggestions, It happens, it's okay, it's nothing personal when it gets shot down. Calm down.

4.) This was the point I was making with my pixelhugger remark. Taking your argument and reversing it on you. I can just as easily claim you only support this claim because you lead an alliance full of high-tier, with high infra, discouraging conflict as will happen in this suggestion, benefits the ROI of your infrastructure immensely. Don't play this card.

Edited by Aether
  • Upvote 1

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aether said:

1.) Baseless assumption, you cannot see all my wars, furthermore, anyone who took literally 10 seconds to look at my recent wars can see my opponents are not inactive.

2.) It's not shitting on the person, it's shitting on their suggestion. Your remark about raiders being the only opposed to the change was not only misinformed and misleading, but also contributes zilch to the conversation except for trying to discriminate and dismiss real criticisms.

3.) I appreciate people trying to make suggestions, but this ain't it, chief. People make good suggestions, people make bad suggestions, It happens, it's okay, it's nothing personal when it gets shot down. Calm down.

4.) This was the point I was making with my pixelhugger remark. Taking your argument and reversing it on you. I can just as easily claim you only support this claim because you lead an alliance full of high-tier, with high infra, discouraging conflict as will happen in this suggestion, benefits the ROI of your infrastructure immensely. Don't play this card.

There's a degree of cordiality that can take place, that isn't. You auto shit on the suggestion and offered not alternative. You were hostile about it because it hurts raiding.
 

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James II said:

There's a degree of cordiality that can take place, that isn't. You auto shit on the suggestion and offered not alternative. You were hostile about it because it hurts raiding.
 

My first response in this thread was reversing your irrelevant point unto you. Trying to discriminate and dismiss people's criticisms is not at all cordial.

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.