Jump to content
Alex

9/17/2014 - Embargoes and Improvement Destruction

Recommended Posts

I've made two small changes to the game today. 

 

First, embargoes have been added. Embargoes are pretty simple, you add a nation to your embargo list and you can't trade with each other on the global market anymore. You'll be able to see each other's trades, but they'll show up listed in red and you won't have the option to accept them. You can still trade with each other in the alliance/personal trade markets. When you add an embargo or end one, the other person will be notified of it in a conversation titled "Embargo".

 

Second, when you execute a ground battle and get an immense triumph (highest level) victory, you have a 10% chance of destroying a random improvement (power plants excluded) in the enemy city you're attacking. This is to help combat the issue of players having very high numbers of improvements with very low infrastructure numbers. While this won't really apply retroactively (players already in this situations aren't likely to have immense triumph's on them because of low score) it should help prevent this scenario in the future.

 

Lastly, I really wanted to get the separate alliance tax for resources done tonight but ran out of time. I promise it's at the very top of my priority list and will be done ASAP.

 

Thanks guys!

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh improvement destruction... I guess we will need a new column in the war page for the destroyed improvements :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the embargo work on the alliance level?  Like can an alliance issue an embargo against another alliance/nation?  Or do I have to make that a suggestion if its not already in? haha in other news I LOVE these updates great work Sheepy!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the embargo work on the alliance level?  Like can an alliance issue an embargo against another alliance/nation?  Or do I have to make that a suggestion if its not already in? haha in other news I LOVE these updates great work Sheepy!  :D

 

Right now it's only nation on nation, alliance embargoes might be added later.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheepy, what did I do? I can change. Just lift your embargo of me. We can talk it out. Don't starve me of overpriced, not-supposed-to-be-accepted admin trades.

 

...

...

...

 

Sheepy?

 

Edit: Wait, what?

Second, when you execute a ground battle and get an immense triumph (highest level) victory, you have a 10% chance of destroying a random improvement (power plants excluded) in the enemy city you're attacking. This is to help combat the issue of players having very high numbers of improvements with very low infrastructure numbers. While this won't really apply retroactively (players already in this situations aren't likely to have immense triumph's on them because of low score) it should help prevent this scenario in the future.

I've commented in IRC, I am against this. Implement a depowered situation instead.

 

 

[23:15:21] <~Sheepy> The odds of losing a drydock or stadium are going to be lower, though

[23:15:29] <Atzuya> really? nice :)
[23:15:41] <~Sheepy> Well, just because you're going to have less of those than other imps Atzuya

That's not a sustainable solution Sheepy <_<

Edited by underlordgc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Immense Triumph Ground Battles now offer a 10% chance to destroy a random improvement (excluding Power Plants)

What you think will happen: low-tier turrets with improvements won't be able to buy them back.

What will actually happen: low-tier turrets will now not only be able to destroy infra, but improvements, and there is still nothing that can be done to stop them since the entire problem is that nobody can defeat them because all of their score comes from their military.

 

This needs to be reversed immediately. Seriously. You need to start running your ideas by people before implementing them. This is not Beta anymore. Holy [email protected]#$ this idea is not at all the way to go about this.

Edited by Hereno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hereno i told him that every nerf proposed against raiders will only work against ones whou a raided. The only solution was - build your military, but you do not want to build it because then only way to afford it - start raiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I understand this right, the random destroy generator sees no difference between a farm, an air base, and a stadium? 

 

And why is power exempt?  The game certainly doesn't have to be a slave to reality, but maybe just a wee bit would have warfare look a bit more like warfare.  Highest priority targets would be military improvements, power and it's resources, manufacturing (munitions, gasoline, steel, alum), food supplies, then, anything else.  Blowing up a shopping mall or stadium?  Really?

 

A 10% random generator for all improvements is the easy way out and not at all appropriate for what this game should be.  It's a cop out.  If you want wars to destroy improvements fine, but at least take the time to do it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I understand this right, the random destroy generator sees no difference between a farm, an air base, and a stadium? 

 

And why is power exempt?  The game certainly doesn't have to be a slave to reality, but maybe just a wee bit would have warfare look a bit more like warfare.  Highest priority targets would be military improvements, power and it's resources, manufacturing (munitions, gasoline, steel, alum), food supplies, then, anything else.  Blowing up a shopping mall or stadium?  Really?

 

A 10% random generator for all improvements is the easy way out and not at all appropriate for what this game should be.  It's a cop out.  If you want wars to destroy improvements fine, but at least take the time to do it right.

 

Power plants are exempt because if you take out a power plant, you deactivate all of your opponent's improvements in that city. Imo, that would be OP.

 

What you think will happen: low-tier turrets with improvements won't be able to buy them back.

What will actually happen: low-tier turrets will now not only be able to destroy infra, but improvements, and there is still nothing that can be done to stop them since the entire problem is that nobody can defeat them because all of their score comes from their military.

 

This needs to be reversed immediately. Seriously. You need to start running your ideas by people before implementing them. This is not Beta anymore. Holy [email protected]#$ this idea is not at all the way to go about this.

 

This is not a retroactive solution to the issue of raiders as illustrated before. This isn't even a direct result of the big stink about raider nations everyone is making. In response to that, we have embargoes - a way to limit trade that could, with enough coordination, potentially be used to cut someone off from vital resources.

 

Second, when you execute a ground battle and get an immense triumph (highest level) victory, you have a 10% chance of destroying a random improvement (power plants excluded) in the enemy city you're attacking. This is to help combat the issue of players having very high numbers of improvements with very low infrastructure numbers. While this won't really apply retroactively (players already in this situations aren't likely to have immense triumph's on them because of low score) it should help prevent this scenario in the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some debate as to whether alliance leaders should be given that much power. With the embargo system currently, you could still embargo another alliance by having your members embargo all the members of their alliance, but that is a bit tedious. I think the best compromise would be allow nations to embargo alliances, but not give alliances themselves the power to set embargoes for all member nations.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take his all improvements down, he will still be able to hold by the military, however it's effective if he uses basic tank/infantry or advanced tank/infantry/aircraft attack type. IMO, taking all improvements down will seriously result in a complete surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry sheepy but the term leader is there for a reason. If you don't trust your alliance leader to make the right decisions just change alliances or make your own. There should never be a case of the game making an alliance leader having too much power over their members, since the tools to have more power are optional. It allows an extra avenue of politics surrounding this power

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Phiney. Alliance leaders should be able to manage the construction in member nations' cities, wage war directly, and create trade offers from member nations to the global market. After all, leader means absolute authority.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brilliant you can take my point and make it sound rediculous, well done. You want a compromise, how about a "suggested" embargo that an alliance leader can impose. The trade shows up red but you still can do it if you want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can take your point and make it sound ridiculous because it is ridiculous.

 

You say that giving the leader the authority to establish embargoes "allows an extra avenue of politics surrounding this power." Never mind the fact that placing that power solely in the hands of the nations themselves "allows an extra avenue of politics surrounding this power." Your argument in favor of giving it to the leadership is equally supportive of putting it in the hands of the members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be in both. The extra politics caused by allowing alliance leaders to embargo other alliances is the potential disagreement with the decision from the alliance members.

 

You also didn't comment on my suggested compromise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in a compromise. Alliance leaders should not be able to enforce a blockade through game mechanics. They can declare one and announce it to their members, and they can take action against their members who fail to comply, but those members should always have the ability to fail to comply.

 

Also, your compromise only addresses buying offers on the market. How would sell offers be treated?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's been a month since this topic was last posted but allowing alliance leaders to engage in economic warfare would add another strategic layer to this game that would definitely add a bit more dynamism to it. To draw a comparison to another game ((That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)) it allowed for sanctions to be placed on individual nations which was an interesting function for color politics but really failed to have much meaning.

 

But in a game that will be driven by markets, well giving alliances the power to shut out others from their markets is an ingenious idea. It would mean that alliances would and could punish each other in a manner beyond the mechanics of war and really, only adds to the tools a leader would have when engaging their enemies.

 

The idea that it would be "too powerful" for an alliance leader to wield is asinine and although it wasn't outright stated I feel like that is a part of the apprehension from it. To the point, if an alliance is truly powerful enough to disrupt a global market through embargoes then I can definitely promise you the man at the helm isn't going to be an idiot unable to wield that gun.

 

I mean sure there are questions to be had about individual "sovereignty" but if that's the case then it shouldn't be discussed in the context of alliance politics. Because when you join an alliance you're willingly parting with a degree of autonomy & sovereignty in exchange for security, protection, and what have you... if anything it would mean that if your a member you'd want to have a say in your alliance and introducing elements that would promote intra-political discussions in alliances is a good dynamic to have in a growing game.

 

tl;dr Alliance leaders should definitely have the ability to issue economic fatwas against whoever they please. Suggesting otherwise is pretty silly. It'll promote inter-alliance conflicts that will drive the game to develop it's own history & drive intra-alliance politics as members and leaders of alliances debate whether to drop the "embargo" bomb on their enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.