Jump to content

Let military building speed be determined by infra


Dajobo
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Dajobo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mr. Goober
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> 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. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Deulos
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.