Dynamic Defensive Slots

[Guest Zephyr]

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?

[James II]

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.

[Guest Epi]

1

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Anybody who thinks is a good idea reveals themselves for having no ability to think further than 3 steps ahead.

1. Irrelevant to if the change is even good, this is just appeal to Alex's laziness.

2. Also, frankly, irrelevant, part of the bore with this game is that everyone knows everything.

3. By making it literally impossible to be aggressive without notably superior numbers, tiering, or both. Since otherwise being aggressive is now literally suicidal.

4. Aggression translates to either you have to intentionally orchestrate a dog pile or you die.

5. No it doesn't. Try thinking about it for more than 4 seconds. It took me a whole 23 of processing this bullcrap to realize it was a hilariously stupid goddamn suggestion. 

First off, raids aren't a significant concern to established alliances in their main battle line tiers. They don't do alot of raiding there.

Secondly, it doesn't make wars more interesting. All it does is encourage amassing dog piles even more by making victory in an aggressive action otherwise near impossible. They either have to have overwhelming numbers, hoping either for the 1v1s to be drudging stale mates bloddying both severely or that the defender starts countering. Even then, they can just not counter and it becomes a stalemate. 

This puts pretty much all of the emphasis on tiering. Downdeclares go from being wise to being absolutely required for an aggressive action, and the downdeclares required will need to be by 3-5, or even more cities depending on the tier targetted. 

Oh, and even better, if you implement epi's addressing the upper tier buff this would be, now you just go back to aggressive action being suicide. 

 

Aggressors do take the risk, and that risk should be rewarded if executed properly. This myopic suggestion removes any award or benefit for being the aggressor and instead actually penalizes you. Penalizing risk has never, in any multiplayer game, been a good suggestion, and it never will be. If risk doesn't pay nobody will do anything.

Furthermore, @James II, the current way Blitzes and counter offensives function in the current meta, in relation to the argument on deployment, is already quite realistic. Take NPOs entry to GW14 for example, they didn't actually commit their entire forces, and left a large number in reserver to counter attack on targets of high priority.

Meanwhile, if you choose to risk putting forward your entire force, and if you've chosen and executed the situation correctly, you should be rewarded, your attack should be devastating. How devastating depends on how outnumbered you are by your target or what reinforcements enter for that target. How screwed you are now depends on how much they committed, what further reinforcements they have vs what you have. 

It's literally a series of attempted flanking manuveurs, and keeping or not keeping reserved back is a tactical risk in and of itself in these plannings. Because the way mechanics function rewards aggression, people don't often keep reserves and instead go all in for one big KO. There's not really anything wrong or even unrealistic with that decision, just that in the real world it'd be called reckless at best.

[Pascal]

No. I’ve seen a lot of terrible ideas but this one goes even further.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Pascal

[Raphael]

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.

[James II]

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.

[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 

[James II]

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

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

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!

[James II]

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 March 9, 2020 by James II

[Dusty]

We need down votes back

[Avakael]

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.

[Arawra]

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.

[James II]

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.

[James II]

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.

[Dusty]

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 March 10, 2020 by Dusty

[James II]

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!

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

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 March 10, 2020 by Akuryo

[Sketchy]

This is stupid.

The entire balance to the current war system is built around the idea that multiple nations can coordinate to effectively tear down multiple other nations, especially larger ones. This completely eliminates that in favour of the types of players who sit their and do nothing. 

The fact you listed "Re balancing war towards defenders" as a positive speaks volumes of your mindset. If people want the first strike advantage, they should strike first. Its that simple. Aggressors SHOULD be rewarded because otherwise everyone would just sit around lobbing insults at each other trying to get the other to move first.

Being first to strike is a HUGE incentive for global wars to start which are a core part of the game. If alliances feel that they have a strategic disadvantage rather than a strategic advantage to striking first, people will strike less overall and we'll hit another period of stagnation.

Aggressors are the ones who draw the starting battle lines and decide the time, they don't have as much control over how counters play out as the defender, they more than not are the ones who take the largest PR hit, they have to do MORE coordinating and organisation than the defenders to in order to be successful in an even fight.

[Arawra]

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 March 10, 2020 by Aether

[James II]

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 March 10, 2020 by James II

[Arawra]

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 March 10, 2020 by Aether

[James II]

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 March 10, 2020 by James II

[Arawra]

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.