Dajobo Posted April 26, 2020 Share Posted April 26, 2020 Problem: All that matters in regards to war is how many cities you have. This means raiders with more cities and no infra will always beat people trying to grow their nations. Making military size set by infra instead just copies CN and wouldn't solve the issue at all. Solution: Keep military size exactly as it is but let military building speed be determined by infra. E.G. A city with 1000 infra needs three days to rebuild army. 2000 needs two days and 3000 can rebuild all in one day. Now more cities means more military so you still keep that incentive and balance. More infra now is also worthwhile as you can rebuild faster meaning infra doesn't make you a sitting duck. Infra is expensive over 3k so encouraging people to spend up on it also sucks a lot of cash out of the game slowing inflation. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vali Posted April 26, 2020 Share Posted April 26, 2020 the only thing id change is adding a tower or babel project, where if you have a city at 10,000 infra, you can build your military capacity in one turn. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Danzek Posted April 26, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted April 26, 2020 Why dont we just give the richest player's in the game a panic button they can press which deletes the nation that's attacking them? Problem solved. Anywho, idk why you are trying to 1v1 raiders. Seems like a no brainer that if you want to protect your infra, you'd get people to counter. 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted April 27, 2020 Author Share Posted April 27, 2020 (edited) Borg the bit you aren't considering here is balance. Atm there is no purpose in infra as it is a handicap. Why do you think raiders have bugger all infra? This means the game mechanics are all skewed to more small cities. They can't lose a city, they can't lose land and they have about 5 bucks worth of infra. Raiding is 100% risk and consequence free while trying to build a nation is super risky. The second thing is raiders chose to attack. Usually it's players who's RL doesn't allow them to be online enough to co-ordinate with others. This makes raiding totally risk free again. Players trying to build a nation don't chose to 1 v1 a raider. They don't even chose to be attacked. Why shouldn't a larger nation be a harder target? Edited April 27, 2020 by Dajobo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRM Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 (edited) Your argument makes zero sense. First off, the risk factor. Have you ever raided? If so, you'd know that raiding isn't stable. One day you can be making millions, while the next, you hit dry targets and got countered badly. Secondly, the 1 v 1 thing. If raiders chose 1 v 1s, why would they have no infra? No, they'd have infra to make more money altogether. Raiders choose risk ovee stability. They go big or they go home. Your argument is based on baseless presumptions. Edited April 27, 2020 by Mr. Goober 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Reason #584 why we need downvotes returned. 3 1 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzek Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 > Borg the bit you aren't considering here is balance. Atm there is no purpose in infra as it is a handicap. Why do you think raiders have bugger all infra? lmao. No purpose to infra. What about the tens of millions you make daily from your cities? It's already balanced. You can choose to have a strong military by using a war/raid build or a strong economy by having a high infra econ build. You want both. Which makes 0 sense in a GW context, as it means whichever side is winning is going to snowball because they are able to hold onto their infra better. > This means the game mechanics are all skewed to more small cities. For war? yes. For econ, no. > They can't lose a city, they can't lose land and they have about 5 bucks worth of infra. Raiding is 100% risk and consequence free while trying to build a nation is super risky. They lose a lot of money by having almost no economy. That's a huge opportunity cost right there. Raiders then have to put in a lot of effort for that tradeoff to be worthwhile. > Why shouldn't a larger nation be a harder target? It does. i.e. by having more cities or more military. Anyway, this is pointless. You dont want fair fights, you want no fights. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForgotPants Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 22 hours ago, Dajobo said: Borg the bit you aren't considering here is balance. Atm there is no purpose in infra as it is a handicap. Why do you think raiders have bugger all infra? This means the game mechanics are all skewed to more small cities. They can't lose a city, they can't lose land and they have about 5 bucks worth of infra. Raiding is 100% risk and consequence free while trying to build a nation is super risky. The second thing is raiders chose to attack. Usually it's players who's RL doesn't allow them to be online enough to co-ordinate with others. This makes raiding totally risk free again. Players trying to build a nation don't chose to 1 v1 a raider. They don't even chose to be attacked. Why shouldn't a larger nation be a harder target? There is so much wrong with this post that I can't even begin to write a counter. Instead of making suggestions with absolutely 0 logic, why don't you come out and say what you really want? I'll help with the words; "PEACE MODE" o7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted April 28, 2020 Author Share Posted April 28, 2020 As predicted raiders all hate the idea. What a shock! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 7 hours ago, Dajobo said: As predicted raiders all hate the idea. What a shock! As a person with a bunch of infra, i also think this is a pretty crappy idea. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 8 hours ago, Dajobo said: As predicted raiders all hate the idea. What a shock! A shitty combatant proposed a shitty change to the war mechanics, color me shocked! Wow, see how fast that logic falls through? Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRM Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 8 hours ago, Dajobo said: As predicted raiders all hate the idea. What a shock! Funny you say that, cause for reasons I don't understand, out of the 3 ppl who upvoted this suggestion, two of them are former raiders who just recently switched to farming, and one is an active raider. Mind boggling, I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Ghost Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, Mr. Goober said: Funny you say that, cause for reasons I don't understand, out of the 3 ppl who upvoted this suggestion, two of them are former raiders who just recently switched to farming, and one is an active raider. Mind boggling, I know. Im all for new ideas let the man say what he has to say 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 (edited) On 4/26/2020 at 6:40 AM, Dajobo said: Problem: All that matters in regards to war is how many cities you have. This means raiders with more cities and no infra will always beat people trying to grow their nations. Making military size set by infra instead just copies CN and wouldn't solve the issue at all. Solution: Keep military size exactly as it is but let military building speed be determined by infra. E.G. A city with 1000 infra needs three days to rebuild army. 2000 needs two days and 3000 can rebuild all in one day. Now more cities means more military so you still keep that incentive and balance. More infra now is also worthwhile as you can rebuild faster meaning infra doesn't make you a sitting duck. Infra is expensive over 3k so encouraging people to spend up on it also sucks a lot of cash out of the game slowing inflation. The point where your logic falls flat is when there is a global and everyone has 3000+ infra. You can easily destroy enough infra in 4-5 ground attacks to effect military speed. And nations with like 8 cities that have all this infra will go down pretty quickly and get pinned indefinitely while accruing alot of debt. And really you can ALREADY rebuild military faster with more cities. This suggestion just fixes what isn't broken and although elaborate, makes zero sense. Edited April 28, 2020 by Deulos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.