Jump to content

Why PaW sucks


Fox Fire
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is only one level to the war system. Size.

The war system in this game just sucks. The attacker always has has the advantage because the only factor determining your chance of victory is size. To add to that, you can only recruit a certain amount of soldiers per day, so if done right, you can pretty much guarantee your victory from the first attack. To then add to that, the.more attacks you win, the more advantages you receive.

This is the most boring and one sided war system ever.

 

This game needs something added to it.

I'm talking about some type of technology/research/etc. Something to add a whole new level of strength to warfare. It can even be something completely unique, just something.

 

Other than this extremely annoying, game ruining fact, PaW is a great game.

 

Consider it.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military purchase is improvement base, the more military improvements you have the more units you can buy at once before the pop limit kicks in.

  • Upvote 1

Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military purchase is improvement base, the more military improvements you have the more units you can buy at once before the pop limit kicks in.

I'm well aware of that. But that's not really my point.

I just can't find interest in this war system without another level of strength being added. Virtually every game except PaW has at least 2 levels to military strength, besides size.

 

Also, why can't I change my forum username anymore? :(

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one level to the war system. Size.

The war system in this game just sucks. The attacker always has has the advantage because the only factor determining your chance of victory is size. To add to that, you can only recruit a certain amount of soldiers per day, so if done right, you can pretty much guarantee your victory from the first attack. To then add to that, the.more attacks you win, the more advantages you receive.

This is the most boring and one sided war system ever.

 

This game needs something added to it.

I'm talking about some type of technology/research/etc. Something to add a whole new level of strength to warfare. It can even be something completely unique, just something.

 

Other than this extremely annoying, game ruining fact, PaW is a great game.

 

Consider it.

 

This game is 2 months old (excluding beta/alpha), and you want technology. If you talk about technology like Civilization V or Empire Earth, I don't think so. This game is *military-based* and isn't with two genres. It isn't fast-paced, like other games. There's another post, to explain that this game is slow-paced, and the last ''technologies'' would take weeks to complete.

 

EDIT: You're back to see this game once again, but your final post was on September 05, then to May 05. Are you sirius?

Edited by Nathan I

ka4k09.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game is 2 months old (excluding beta/alpha), and you want technology. If you talk about technology like Civilization V or Empire Earth, I don't think so. This game is *military-based* and isn't with two genres. It isn't fast-paced, like other games. There's another post, to explain that this game is slow-paced, and the last ''technologies'' would take weeks to complete.

 

EDIT: You're back to see this game once again, but your final post was on September 05, then to May 05. Are you sirius?

This game may have a lot of warfare..... But that's just one more reason to add another level to it.

I'm aware that it's slow paced. I've been lurking around here since PaWs infancy, before there was even a mod team. Its progressed nicely but I still can't believe this hasn't been added.

 

"Welcome back, yet again, Fox!"

"Oh thank you. No applause necessary. :)"

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larger nations will obviously be able to field larger armies, but all nations have ranges in which they can declare so it's not like a huge nation can declare on a small one. And as for military build up, well of course a nation that spends more time preparing for war will be more likely to win. That's like, a given and how it should be.

rsz_1g7q_ak91409798280.jpg

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a roll.

There is one you will follow. One who is the shining star, and he will lead you to beautiful places in the search of his own vanity. And when there is no more vanity to be found, he will leave you in darkness, as a fading memory of his own creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game isn't about SIZE, it's about strategy. As Sheepy stated ''Politics & War is not your run-of-the-mill nation simulation game. Its dynamic mechanics and scenarios are always forcing you to think about each decision carefully before making the final call. Many variables come into play including your nation's crime rating, happiness rating, environmental quality, economy rating, and much more. You are truly in charge, with the ability to make decisions like your national flag, tax rate, and which laws should and should not be passed. Construct cities, build factories and great stadiums, make your nation a great hub of culture and build a grand theater or perhaps a university instead. The options are limitless.'', this game isn't like attack-destroy type of thing.

ka4k09.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larger nations will obviously be able to field larger armies, but all nations have ranges in which they can declare so it's not like a huge nation can declare on a small one. And as for military build up, well of course a nation that spends more time preparing for war will be more likely to win. That's like, a given and how it should be.

Yes Yes, but the point is, technology and advancement is always a major factor in war.

Consider Germany in WW2, or the death toll on both sides in Vietnam.

I'd like to see something other than the size of my nation/military play a role in warfare.

But I had a feeling everyone would argue against this since it was yours truly who made the post.

So consider it, or don't.

*waves*

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game isn't about SIZE, it's about strategy. As Sheepy stated ''Politics & War is not your run-of-the-mill nation simulation game. Its dynamic mechanics and scenarios are always forcing you to think about each decision carefully before making the final call. Many variables come into play including your nation's crime rating, happiness rating, environmental quality, economy rating, and much more. You are truly in charge, with the ability to make decisions like your national flag, tax rate, and which laws should and should not be passed. Construct cities, build factories and great stadiums, make your nation a great hub of culture and build a grand theater or perhaps a university instead. The options are limitless.'', this game isn't like attack-destroy type of thing.

Hmmm.... Did you miss where I said I've been here a while?

I think you're still missing the point I'm getting at.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... Did you miss where I said I've been here a while?

I think you're still missing the point I'm getting at.

This game is about strategy in warfare, economics and politics, not about size. But I would like to decrease the advantage war range score from 75% to about 50%.

ka4k09.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game is about strategy in warfare, economics and politics, not about size. But I would like to decrease the advantage war range score from 75% to about 50%.

No, there's actually very little strategy in warfare. Which is exactly whole &#33;@#&#036;ing point.

I know how the game works, noob. But thank you for the enlightening information.

Now please quit contradicting yourself and just STFU, because the point I'm making is clearly way over your head. :)

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more in warfare. You can help and be helped by alliances, but like I said, I want this game to be more tactical, be harder, because attacking with units and seeing winning information is boring, especially with big games.

 

How dare you say a n-word :(

ka4k09.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2258-nation-customization-perks/

 

Go check out this thread. Perhaps its time to start thinking about implimenting it. It was fairly popular then.

Maybe re-suggest that as I think that suggestion had some fantastic ideas in it.

SglhOah.png

Former Staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2258-nation-customization-perks/

Go check out this thread. Perhaps its time to start thinking about implimenting it. It was fairly popular then.

Now there's an idea. The only issue I have is that's it's still dependent on your nations size. Simmaler to improvements. I'm talking about something that would be be dependent on cash. A good thing to throw money at to increase your military/economy/etc. Something that do doesn't rely on how much infra you have, but only, how much you're willing to spend.

 

There's more in warfare. You can help and be helped by alliances, but like I said, I want this game to be more tactical, be harder, because attacking with units and seeing winning information is boring, especially with big games.

 

How dare you say a n-word :(

Hence this post.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2258-nation-customization-perks/

Go check out this thread. Perhaps its time to start thinking about implimenting it. It was fairly popular then.

On second thought, I take that back. I like that idea. Even though it depends on size, A skill tree would give a lot of diversity.

I like it.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

This game isn't about SIZE, it's about strategy. As Sheepy stated ''Politics & War is not your run-of-the-mill nation simulation game. Its dynamic mechanics and scenarios are always forcing you to think about each decision carefully before making the final call. Many variables come into play including your nation's crime rating, happiness rating, environmental quality, economy rating, and much more. You are truly in charge, with the ability to make decisions like your national flag, tax rate, and which laws should and should not be passed. Construct cities, build factories and great stadiums, make your nation a great hub of culture and build a grand theater or perhaps a university instead. The options are limitless.'', this game isn't like attack-destroy type of thing.

 

I think I need to update this, I wrote all that before the game was even started, really.

 

No, there's actually very little strategy in warfare. Which is exactly whole &#33;@#&#036;ing point.

I know how the game works, noob. But thank you for the enlightening information.

Now please quit contradicting yourself and just STFU, because the point I'm making is clearly way over your head. :)

 

I have to disagree with you on the strategy aspect. Yes, the game is different than other games in that we don't have a modifier that affects who wins battles aside from random dice rolling, however even just a modifier doesn't add strategy. It's just another variable that changes things. Even if there was some variable called Tech that you could buy, it wouldn't really add any strategy, as there would still be an optimal tech/unit ratio that anyone who was willing to do the math would go for. In the end we might simply find that nations who could gobble up the most tech would just be unstoppable, etc.

 

Imo, another variable like that is not at all what this game needs. It doesn't add any real strategy at all.

 

The war system is already, by design, full of strategy. As a nation, you have to decide what your interests are. National Security? Build a big army. Sure, it'll cost a lot in upkeep and you won't make as much money as another nation might, but you will be plenty ready to fight off any attackers (assuming there are any, since most will simply go after someone more vulnerable instead). Is your strategy economic growth? Keep a minimal army force. Sure, you might get rolled once in a while and lose a chunk of your money and resources, but you'll be able to produce a lot of money and potentially grow faster.

 

The above is a good example of strategy. You have to pick and choose your interests and how to pursue them, and we haven't even gotten into how an actual war works yet. Keeping money and resources on hand is part of strategy -- you can choose to keep a stockpile of gasoline, munitions, steel, aluminum, food, etc. so that if you get into a war, you're more than capable of sustaining yourself. On the other hand, you could invest all those resources and your money into your nation to potentially grow faster (assuming you don't have to go to war). Strategy.

 

Let's say you are at war with someone. How you've built your armed forces, and how they've built there's will dictate a lot about your strategy. Do they have a smaller soldier force, but a lot of tanks? Bulk up your air force and get air superiority, you'll effectively cut their tank force in half, allowing you more success in your ground battle campaigns. Do they outnumber you in ground and air? Get some ships and blockade them. If they aren't well stockpiled you could essentially starve them out until you win. Do they have a big airforce but small ground forces? If you can get ground superiority you can half their air force.

 

You can see there's clearly a lot of strategy to war - picking and choosing how you build your forces and use your MAPs is more than just "click to attack". You have to manage your resources and forces and put some time and thought into things if you want to succeed. If you've got a big enough nation there's even more strategy involved once you throw Missiles and even Nuclear Weapons into the equation. Those things do crazy amounts of damage, but also cost a lot of MAPs.

 

Anywho, long rant short, I believe the game's war system already does illustrate quite a bit of strategy.

  • Upvote 2

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

Imo, another variable like that is not at all what this game needs. It doesn't add any real strategy at all.

Sheepy is right. It doesn't add any "strategy". Look at how Bloc was. It has technology. All it does is pull you more toward making the decision to be a militarised nation or focus on your economy. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheepy is right. It doesn't add any "strategy". Look at how Bloc was. It has technology. All it does is pull you more toward making the decision to be a militarised nation or focus on your economy. 

I've never played Bloc, but when you're just stacking up on technology like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), it doesn't add strategy, it's just boring. (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), fun as it was is just "Stack technology, war, stack technology", if technology like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) is added, the game will just end up like it. PW is already close enough to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) as it is, I don't think making it even closer would be a good idea what so ever. Firstly, it'd get boring and it'd be the same thing as (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), secondly, people don't want to play a game that looks like a close. Adding tech would most certainly make it look like that, we don't want another (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)...we want a new game with new mechanics. 

 

As for strategy, I agree with Sheepy. There is a lot of strategy involved as it is. For example "Do I go for nukes or missiles" or "Tanks or planes". Besides, the real strategy is planning the wars out with the alliance, if you want that, go and join an alliance and help them in their war department. Plan blitzes and regiments and attacking, rather then &#33;@#&#036;ing about it on here.

 

I do certainly think the war system here could do with some serious improvement, but making it a complete clone of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) with technology isn't going to help us or be good. It's just going to be boring old (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) over again. Stacking technology and then warring, then so on. 

 

All I'm going to say here, is that if you want a game like this, go and play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways). Because that's what you're asking for and it isn't going to happen. If you want strategy, join an alliance and their military departments. Seems better to me then &#33;@#&#036;ing on here, does it not?

  • Upvote 1
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.