Jump to content

War Changes for Testing on Test Server


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

These have been implemented on the test server here: https://test.politicsandwar.com

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
15 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

You're not actually going to cap the score nukes and missiles provide, are you?

Fraggle earned that #1 slot dangit!

Excess missiles and nuclear weapons shouldn't add score because they don't really do anything. You could never feasibly use them, so it doesn't make sense for them to be determinants of who you can and cannot wage wars against.

2 hours ago, Roberts said:

Could we get a numeric value for what "nerfing planes against tanks" means please?

The current formula for determining how many tanks are killed by airstrikes is (with some extra rules, this is just the gist of it):

[Attacking Planes - (Defending Planes * 0.5)] * 2.5

The change I have implemented on the test server is:

[Attacking Planes - (Defending Planes * 0.5)] * 1.5

 

Here's what it looks like proportionally with the changes to unit counts (an increase in Aircraft and a decrease in Tanks per City):

image.png

So you go from being able to kill ~19% of your enemy's tanks in one airstrike with max planes (and your opponent having no planes) to being able to kill ~16% of your enemy's tanks ceteris paribus.

 

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

Excess missiles and nuclear weapons shouldn't add score because they don't really do anything. You could never feasibly use them, so it doesn't make sense for them to be determinants of who you can and cannot wage wars against.

 

I would think you need to take into effect the potential damage.  If I get a group of 3 people together and attack a guy with 5 nukes, after 2-3 days i know he is going to be zero'ed out of nukes, and his ability to do damage to me and mine decreases significantly once he gets dropped to 0 nukes.  If I get a group of 3 guys and hit a guy with 50 nukes, we are all going to be eating nukes everyday, and will be eating nukes everyday over multiple rounds.  There is legit military strength behind that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
23 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I would think you need to take into effect the potential damage.  If I get a group of 3 people together and attack a guy with 5 nukes, after 2-3 days i know he is going to be zero'ed out of nukes, and his ability to do damage to me and mine decreases significantly once he gets dropped to 0 nukes.  If I get a group of 3 guys and hit a guy with 50 nukes, we are all going to be eating nukes everyday, and will be eating nukes everyday over multiple rounds.  There is legit military strength behind that.

I don't disagree with you, but there's still some practical threshold that's unlikely to be reached.

You could launch 4 nukes max in each war, so 3 people attacking someone means they could use at most 12 nukes each round. 48 nukes is 4 rounds of 3 wars; IMO that threshold is fine.

  • Upvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been asked to weigh in, so here we go. First I wanted to show the change what is listed in this thread would have on a nation. Going to go with my 30 city nations here and going to list the score added by having max in each city. If you want to see what it would be with 15 cities, just divide my numbers by 2. 

Soldiers: 225 || New: 180 [80%]
Tanks: 1875 || New: 270 [14%]
Planes: 1350 || New: 600 [44%]
Ships: 900 || New: 450 [50%]

Total: 4350 || New: 1500 [34%]

So that's about a 3x decrease in score from units, the score from units drops to 34% of what it was.

Cities are an 100% increase basically with the change, that would impact my city by +1450 (city 1 works differently), and with the military change difference being -2850 that gives a total change of -1400.

Unit total changes thoughts:

Tanks have also been decreased from 250, to 200 per city, which lowers unit costs, which I like. Aircraft have increased from 90 per city to 100, which I'm mostly indifferent to (round numbers yay). Ships increase from 15 per city to 20 per city, again mostly indifferent to. 

Unit score changes thoughts:

Soldiers, don't care honestly -- not a big enough change to matter. Tank score massive nerf - Tanks should impact military less, this might be a bit too much of a cut. Planes score nerf, I don't care too strongly about this -- Planes are the strongest unit and they're now the strongest unit in terms of score per city. 

City Score changes thoughts:

Don't feel too strongly about it. I've always kind of liked sliding scales for things because the city 5 matters more than city 25 in terms of what you can do compared to your previous city. Maybe cities count for more early on then cap out at a lower number at a certain point. Again I really don't feel too strongly about this.

Infra amount changes thoughts:

I don't see it listed here but I thought there was supposed to be some change to infra score purposed. This is somewhere I definitely like the sliding scale. People can fight at low infra just as well as people at high infra in terms of units being fielded. You're first 1000 infra is more important to your strength than building above 3000. So the more infra you build in a city the less it starts to impact score. First 1000 would be very important, 1001-2000 less important but still important, 2001-2500 not that important, 2501-3000 almost no importance, 3000+ no importance. I get that high infra gives more money which lets you fight longer, but in terms of impacting your direct strength is stops mattering very much, hell in some cases it's a liability as this last war showed on obsessing on causing damage, hah.

Changes to unit rebuys:

Making it easier to come back helps whales and makes up-declares harder and I don't like it.

I greatly like the system I've suggested for spies. Active military and Inactive military. You can rebuild units that can't be destroyed (except your buildings getting destroyed which house them by a nuke or something like that) and then deploy military from inactive to active all at once. So you'd be able to rebuild units while still being declared upon and come back out at some point in the fight with full. Tie this in with coordination it makes working together more important. In conjunction this should get rid of beige as you don't need a declare-proof time to rebuild in and thus makes actually winning wars a good thing rather than beige cycling. 

Damages to other units:

Once you have ground control you should be able to perform a ground attack (maybe even for 2 MAPs [if so reduce resistance impact]) that targets airfields or naval that has a small chance to destroy one of those military buildings and damage those unit types. Caps could be what can be housed in 1 city, or whatever you all think makes sense there. Naval should also be able to shell factories for tanks, and airfields once a blockade is established (this shelling could cost 3 MAPs [if so reduce resistance impact])

Nerfing airstrikes to tanks:

Honestly being able to kill near 16% of a unit type in a single attack seems too high, and that's your nerfed amount. That's nearly 50% at max by 3 opening attacks against your nation in some case. And that's just the MAPs they start with that day.

Capping score to nukes/missiles:

Makes sense, 50 might be too low. Maybe doubt that for nukes and triple it for missiles. 

 

The other stuff I've not mentioned I don't care about. I'd talk about other things I'd like to see done, but I don't think this is the place for that.

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alex said:

I don't disagree with you, but there's still some practical threshold that's unlikely to be reached.

You could launch 4 nukes max in each war, so 3 people attacking someone means they could use at most 12 nukes each round. 48 nukes is 4 rounds of 3 wars; IMO that threshold is fine.

Changing for the sake of change never helps. This impacts at most 10 nations. 

 

What are your plans if you do this? 950 nukes refunded?  820 ish nukes launched on the world? You're making a very unnecessary change with no valid reason.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fraggle said:

Changing for the sake of change never helps. This impacts at most 10 nations. 

 

What are your plans if you do this? 950 nukes refunded?  820 ish nukes launched on the world? You're making a very unnecessary change with no valid reason.  

I see you failed at reading. He's not capping nukes at 50. He's capping score you get from them at 50. This means nukes 51-infinity no longer add score.

You wanna launch em at people over that, go for it, you wanna keep them, go for it, he's not preventing that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with these changes with regrades to aircraft damage to tanks because if we look at real conflicts such as ww1, ww2 and the iraq war it shows that above all air power was very important and that i believe that this importance should be reflected in the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realism isn't an argument in a game where you can triple your population overnight, baseball through blockades, immediately strike someone on the opposite end of the world, etc.

And you cite Iraq (because I presume Highway of Death). I can just cite Vietnam where the U.S. literally dropped thrice as much as they had dropped during WW2 on it's entirety, and yet still lost over 3k planes (not aircraft in total, just planes), 90% of those casualties coming from ground AA fire and SAM's (not present at all in game). Include all flying crafts and that goes up to the five digit range. With the N. Vietnamese themselves only losing low three digit aircraft counts. 

Aircraft in WW2 also displayed their limitation in instances like Iwo Jima, where the heavily dug in troops were able to out trade (in terms of casualties) their attackers which enjoyed a 3-1 advantage in terms of grunts, and near if not total air and naval supremacy. This isn't represented in game. Also, during the outset of the Battle of the Bulge, where weather (also not represented here) severely impaired their operational capacity. Not to mention the entirety of the Winter War, where the geography and dense forestry also limited their capabilities (too, not represented here).

Rather than outright killing power, the main benefit from air power on tanks in those early instances, was one of psychological stress and disruption on the enemy organization. Both of these matter greatly in real life, but neither are a factor in game. 

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a revision proposal I came up with.

  • Changing the Nation Score Formula
    • Increasing the Score per City from 50 to 100 (after City #1) - Yeah, this is fine.
    • Adding a base +10 Score to everyone - Needed change.
    • Changing Military Unit Score to be closer in-line with actual value
      • Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each - Fine
      • Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.009 each - Hang on. You just made tanks OP and you're cutting their score? Keep this the same, unless you drop the changes to tanks.
      • Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.2 each - Aircraft are still very powerful. Make it 0.5 -> 0.3.
      • Ships: 2 -> 0.75 each - Too much of a drop imo. 2 -> 1 seems better.
      • Capping Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons at 50 each - Why not just cap nukes in geneather than implement this bizarre change?
  • Increasing the un-raidable limit from $100,000 to $1,000,000 for all nations - Yuck. 
  • Changing conventional unit rebuys to be 1/4 across the board
    • Soldiers: 750 / 3,000 - Why are we reducing the amount we can buy? Keep it at 1/3.
    • Tanks: 50 / 200 - Good
    • Aircraft: 5 / 20 - better than before. I like that we can build more planes now, but I still think a 1/3 buy is better.
    • Ships: 1 / 4 (Drydocks per city will go from 3 -> 5) - Good
  • Changing Ground Control so that when you have it your Tanks destroy Aircraft in subsequent successful Ground Battles - only if you don't mess with tanks score. 
  • Nerf Airstrikes ability to destroy Tanks - see above. This actually balances tanks, don't reduce their score.
    @Alex

     

unknown_3_1_65.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Changeup said:

 


Tanks need a large score deflation regardless of a buff. Currently they're the largest score contribution for units by a large amount, they also cost the most, and are thus the largest liability while doing very little damage in the scope of things. 

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with the size of the score cut, but one does need to be done.

16 hours ago, Fraggle said:

Changing for the sake of change never helps. This impacts at most 10 nations. 

 

What are your plans if you do this? 950 nukes refunded?  820 ish nukes launched on the world? You're making a very unnecessary change with no valid reason.  

You can have as many bombs as you want. They just won't impact score after a certain point.

  • Upvote 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually enjoying something that's put in place on the test server that has nothing to do with the changes being tested:

A daychange happening every 4 turns. This actually makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to hold people down long-term because it still takes 60 turns for a war to expire and a beige still gives 25 turns of beige time. You get 6 rebuys in 24 turns which would be enough to rebuild fully during the duration of a single beiges beige time even with the 1/6 daily rebuy. Letting a war expire will also let the target rebuild, because they have so many rebuys that you are basically forced to do enough attacks to beige them to hold them down.

I think that would actually get rid of the issue that people would not wanna win wars. Double buys while doable more frequently wouldn't be directly buffed which people have an issue with. The main downside would be that it requires higher activity if you want to rebuy as often as possible, you would have to be online at least every 16 hours to double buy, if you cant be online every 8 to single-buy, but tbh I think that's not too activity requiring.

Anyway, it's a bit offtopic since it isn't whats being tested, but I thought it would be worth throwing it in.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things I noticed are:
1) Double Buys will be extremely powerful. You can literally flip a war with a double buy.
2) Score for military units should remain same. Else a built up c10 can hit a zeroed c10 and never let people recover.
3) At first, GC is not doing what it is said in the thread.  GC is currently super powered.

A few things that might be changed are:
1) GC and AS effects to be temporary=The effect remains only till the next attack. This will let people with similar armies be able to keep killing each other in a non-lopsided battle.
2) Buffing score of units so that cities arent the only deciding factor in war ranges
3) Nerfing GC slightly to balance it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dryad said:

I'm actually enjoying something that's put in place on the test server that has nothing to do with the changes being tested:

A daychange happening every 4 turns. This actually makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to hold people down long-term because it still takes 60 turns for a war to expire and a beige still gives 25 turns of beige time. You get 6 rebuys in 24 turns which would be enough to rebuild fully during the duration of a single beiges beige time even with the 1/6 daily rebuy. Letting a war expire will also let the target rebuild, because they have so many rebuys that you are basically forced to do enough attacks to beige them to hold them down.

I think that would actually get rid of the issue that people would not wanna win wars. Double buys while doable more frequently wouldn't be directly buffed which people have an issue with. The main downside would be that it requires higher activity if you want to rebuy as often as possible, you would have to be online at least every 16 hours to double buy, if you cant be online every 8 to single-buy, but tbh I think that's not too activity requiring.

Anyway, it's a bit offtopic since it isn't whats being tested, but I thought it would be worth throwing it in.

Back in the day before the game was officially launched, we had a speed round where turns were like every 20 mins or something (it was 5 years ago, i cant remember what i ate yesterday)  but what i do remember is the problem with it was, you would go to bed one night, and wake up completely wrecked, because people could roll out so many attacks on you before you were aware you were even attacked.  I see the 4 hours day change being a similar problem.  You go to bed, wake up the next day, your opponent has already attacked you and has had 2 rebuys to reload before you even know what is going on.   For those that are hyper active, I agree this would be a boon for them.  I dont expect most players log in more than once or twice a day tho. (Alex feel free to correct me since i have 0 data to back up that last claim.)

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
17 hours ago, Fraggle said:

Changing for the sake of change never helps. This impacts at most 10 nations. 

 

What are your plans if you do this? 950 nukes refunded?  820 ish nukes launched on the world? You're making a very unnecessary change with no valid reason.  

he is removing the nation score, not the nukes you will still have the nukes and be able to use them I am sure, so why should anything be refunded ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Back in the day before the game was officially launched, we had a speed round where turns were like every 20 mins or something (it was 5 years ago, i cant remember what i ate yesterday)  but what i do remember is the problem with it was, you would go to bed one night, and wake up completely wrecked, because people could roll out so many attacks on you before you were aware you were even attacked.  I see the 4 hours day change being a similar problem.  You go to bed, wake up the next day, your opponent has already attacked you and has had 2 rebuys to reload before you even know what is going on.   For those that are hyper active, I agree this would be a boon for them.  I dont expect most players log in more than once or twice a day tho. (Alex feel free to correct me since i have 0 data to back up that last claim.)

I think it's much less of a problem than faster MAP generation. I mean, attacks would still be made at the same pace, both attacker and defender would just rebuy more military inbetween attacks and sure you would have to be online more often to buy and attack at perfect timing, but tbh I would think this does the exact opposite and make it much harder to get zeroed so easily since the casualties arent increased while recruitment rate is higher.

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2020 at 8:29 AM, Alex said:
  • Changing Military Unit Score to be closer in-line with actual value
    • Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each
    • Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.009 each
    • Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.2 each
    • Ships: 2 -> 0.75 each
    • Capping Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons at 50 each

So that would be:

  • Soldiers from 7.5 score to 6 score per city.
  • Tanks from 62.5 score to 11.25 score per city.
  • Planes from 45 score to 18 score per city.
  • Ships from 30 score to 11.25 score per city.
  • Full Max from 145 score to 46.5 score per city.

I agree with the ratio of unit score, but the reduction of 100 score for max mil just further defines tiering that would already be defined by increasing the city score.

Seems like it would be better to go with.

  • Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0006 each (9 per City)
  • Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.014 each  (17.5 per city)
  • Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.3 each (27 per city)
  • Ships: 2 -> 1.25 each (18.75 per city)

That would bring Full Max from 145 score to 72.25 score.

 

On 4/2/2020 at 8:29 AM, Alex said:
  • Increasing the Score per City from 50 to 100 (after City #1)

The current range of score per city is 75 - 220 assuming 1k infra.

With the military score changes I proposed above alone, that changes to 75 - 147.25 assuming 1k infra.

At that point you shouldn't need to increase Score per city by more than 75 score. Which would come out at 100 - 172.25

Your proposal as it stands right now would be 125 - 171.5. which is far too defined for tiering, and would severely hurt peoples ability to defend themselves from attacks below. If you can't counter nations who are updeclaring on you at all  you are basically scewed.

On 4/2/2020 at 8:29 AM, Alex said:

Adding a base +10 Score to everyone

This makes perfect sense given the current minimum is 0.25, no objections.

 

On 4/2/2020 at 8:29 AM, Alex said:

Increasing the un-raidable limit from $100,000 to $1,000,000 for all nations

I don't really see what the point of this is. Nations small enough to benefit from keeping 1m in their nation have beige protection, everyone else 1m is pennies. 

 

On 4/2/2020 at 8:29 AM, Alex said:

Nerf Airstrikes ability to destroy Tanks

Changing Ground Control so that when you have it your Tanks destroy Aircraft in subsequent successful Ground Battles

No....? Christ there is no need to nerf planes. Changing the score formula balance will resolve the primary issue with planes. This game is not rock paper scissors. The units don't need, nor should they be, evenly powerful. The idea is to protect your planes.

 

On 4/2/2020 at 8:29 AM, Alex said:

Changing conventional unit rebuys to be 1/4 across the board

  • Soldiers: 750 / 3,000
  • Tanks: 50 / 200
  • Aircraft: 5 / 20
  • Ships: 1 / 4 (Drydocks per city will go from 3 -> 5)

As I addressed on the other thread, there is no reason to increase rebuy. This is just going to make wars even more about who has the largest stash rather than who fights the best. Ever since you implemented resistance/beige mechanics wars have been a never ending back and forth until one side goes broke or gives up. This is a huge part of why the war system has become so toxic and boring at times. People need to be EASIER to pin not harder. The old system was too easy to pin people, it wasn't perfect, but we've gone way too far in the other direction.

Also most definitely DO NOT make dry docks 5 slots per city. Its already a struggle to fit in slots on a low infra build since you made the econ changes all those years ago, stop making it harder for smaller nations to max their military by increasing the amount of slots they need. There isn't even a good reason for this other than uniformity which is a completely superficial reason that isn't worth the trade off. If anything you should be reducing the slots not increasing them.

 

  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lightside said:

There is no reason to change score. The current score system works well.

It really doesn't. It's basically the one thing I agree with here that does need to be changed the most.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

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.