Jump to content
Alex

Alliance Bonuses

Recommended Posts

Howdy there folks! I've been doing some brainstorming and have come up with what I believe is a good idea to implement alliance bonuses. This might be a new idea for some of you, but it's something Aquinas suggested and we've been kicking around ever since.

 

Here's the idea:

 

There will be 30 bonuses, 6 on each continent. Here's a crude paint drawing:

 

9vqSw5B.png

(It's turrible)

 

Based on what continent your alliance is located on, you'll start in one of the blue dot areas. I'm not entirely show how those will work, but every alliance on that continent will stake some claim there, and I'm thinking it will be a color competition, if there's more reds than blues (or stronger reds) then they'll get a minor bonus on that continent.

 

Anyway, the alliance leaders will be able to move out and stake some claim in nearby bonus locations. They'll do this by allocating a certain percentage of their overall score to a dot, and if they have the majority out of all the alliances staking a claim there they'll get it's bonuses. Bonuses won't be applied immediately, I'm thinking I'll have the game update them each hour so that they aren't constantly being swapped around. Each alliance will be able to control a maximum of 3 bonus locations. (The bonuses provided will vary, some will be better than others and more constantly fought over)

 

Alliances won't be restricted to their own continents, they'll be able to move out and take over locations that are connected (i.e. SA alliance takes Brazil bonus then West Africa bonus). I'm thinking I'll get rid of the idea of alliance governments being a factor because it is pretty pointless. Alliance HQ will only be necessary for decided what blue dot you start out on, and the alliance colors will determine what color controls the blue point on the continent and likely to receive the bonus you'll have to be that color nation on that continent in an alliance of the same color (if that makes sense).

 

Now you're saying, "Okay Admin, this sounds nice and all, but what makes it so important?"

 

Well, young whippersnappers, here's how it makes things fun.

 

With 30 bonus locations and a maximum of 3 held by each alliance, they makes a minimum of 10 alliances competing for bonus points. Bonuses won't be anything gamebreaking major, but they'll be important enough that you'll really want to be controlling at least one. The stronger you are, the more you'll be able to control, and also the weaker your opponents are the more you'll be able to control. This should encourage a lot of competition between alliances, they should be fighting over these bonus locations. It will also encourage cooperation, alliances of the same color and continent will try and work together to secure themselves a bonus.

 

Things should be more fun this way, a little more visual and a little less all text, and make things more fun and dynamic. Instead of having wars because "so-and-so spied on us!" they will be for legitimate reasons.

 

When will this be implemented into the game? I don't really know, but hopefully soon. This and the war system are priorities, and then we'll really see the havoc begin.

 

Now, shoot me your feedback and tell me how you'd really think it would work better/needs to be tweaked/etc. etc.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is... interesting, I'll admit.

 

I'll wait to see how it's implemented before making judgement on whether it's the good or bad kind of interesting though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 bonuses? :P

 

Not sure if I completely agree with the hub graph, but the fundamental idea sounds interesting. Also I don't think every continent has to have an equal number of bonuses (making certain continents more competitive than others). Making this play out akin to a game of alliance-wide Risk. Hmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, wow; I am constantly impressed by what you are trying to do with this game.

 

Second, despite that, I would like to suggest a few change :P

 

Before you read anything please take a look at the at the attached jpg file; it's a map with the nodes named for easy reference (since I forgot to include a key, dashed lines are continent dividers, arrows are connections while red dots are nodes while blue dots are hubs, even in South America where I, for some reason, named them differently :/

(Also, f*** photobucket and its insistence on reducing my file sizes to 60kb)

 

Anyway, back onto topic

 

First, capturing nodes. Your current plan, I believe, encourages stat padding rather than war, so as to allow alliances to throw more score onto their nodes. In addition to that it means that a small, well coordinated alliance cannot take control of nodes because they cannot throw enough points at it, even if the alliance they face has 90% of its membership only checking in every ten days.

 

Instead, I would propose that they can be captured through war, and indeed make the entire war system based around these nodes and hubs. This can, I believe, be done through implementing a system of 'war goals'; an alliance can, at any time, declare an IG war on another alliance, and then it can add a war goal to capture a connected node; for instance, if alliance X controlled the Canadian Node and alliance Y controlled the Greenlandic Node alliance X could declare war on alliance Y and then add the war goal of capturing the Greenlandic Node.

 

Wars would last until the engaged alliances agree to end them, while war goals would last for either seven days or until the 'war score' is equal to or greater than one; if the war lasts seven days then it ends in status quo ante bellum, while if the 'war score' passes 1 then the attacking alliance gains control of the node and the the defending alliance has their nations redeployed to the continental hub (I'll go over what that could mean later). Once a node has been captured it new war goals cannot be declared on it for 100 hours (so as to allow defending nations to be deployed - once again, more on that later).

War score is calculated by the following equation:

(# of defending cities occupied)/(# of defending cities not occupied))
(If (# of defending cities) = 0 then the attacking alliance automatically wins.

(More on what occupied means later)

 

An alliance would defend the node it owns and attack from them by deploying nations to the node; to encourage forward planning deployment wouldn't be instantaneous and instead would take three days; in addition to that once a redeployment is started it cannot be changed until the nation has arrived at its destination (you better watch out who you put in charge of your nation movement; a turncoat could suddenly order all your nations redeployed and leave you without defenceless)

 

Nations can only be deployed to nodes that their alliance controls and that are on the same continent that they are on (though they can attack over continental boundaries). Nations cannot, however, be redeployed from nodes that are currently war goals (so as to prevent heavily occupied nations being withdrawn to pull the war score down)

 

Hubs act slightly differently; Hubs can be contested by any alliance that controls 10% or more of the total score within the hub. Contesting a hub means that that alliance can declare war goals on nodes neighboring the hub; score is simply taken from the nation score that we have now. If you contest a hub you are able to attack from it to the neighboring nodes; if you do not contest a hub you cannot.

 

Now, onto what this means for wars on the national scale.

 

First, there would be no size restrictions; any nation can attack any nation, assuming their alliances are at war, though they may only use ground troops if they are in neighboring nodes or hubs (other attacks, such as air attacks, could be launched from anywhere to anywhere). This will of course need some balancing, but I don't believe that it will need much due to the occupation system; I would suggest a slight modification to the barracks would do it; using the following formula to determine the maximum number of barracks a nation can own.

30 + (# of cities) * 5
With a maximum of 10 barracks in each city; and change their effects from

Barracks allow you to train infantry. Barracks cost $3,000 to build.

 

Barracks allow you to train 1% of your population as soldiers per day, up to 1,000 new soldiers a day. Each soldier costs $1.25 per day in peacetime, or $3.50 per day in wartime. You can have 1 barracks per city.

to

Barracks allow you to train infantry. Barracks cost $3,000 to build.

 

Barracks allow you to train 0.05% of your cities population as soldiers per day, up to 50 new soldiers a day. Each barracks also allows you to maintain an additional 5% of your cities population as soldiers, up to 1000 soldiers. Each soldier costs $1.25 per day in peacetime, or $3.50 per day in wartime. You can have 10 barracks per city.

This would mean that a small (small by a couple of months time standard) nation with five cities could own 50 barracks, allowing them to maintain 50,000 soldiers while a nation with ten cities could only own 80 barracks, allowing them 80,000 soldiers; since under this proposal each city would need to be defended individually the smaller nation would have, in a sense, an advantage, given that they can deploy 10,000 troops to defend each city while the larger nation could only deploy 8,000.

 

Now is probably the time to explain occupation; a city would be occupied if the number of successful attacks less the number of failed attacks reaches 10 attacks (whether this little section will work will depend on how attack mechanics are implemented; it may need to be rethought depending on how they work). The last nation to successfully attack the city occupies it and can deploy troops to defend it as they would any other city that they owned but aside from that it does nothing and has no effect; neither the occupier nor the occupied can gain revenue or resources from its ownership nor does it increase the maximum number of barracks either nation can have.

Occupied cities can be liberated in three ways; the alliances fighting agree to peace, the nation is redeployed or the alliance successfully liberates it through force with the same mechanic under which it was occupied in the first place - if another alliance successfully occupies it then it is returned to the owner if the third alliance is not at war with the first, or occupied under the same mechanic if the third alliance is also at war with the first.

 

For this to work attacking and defending would need to work in a certain way; I see this as a nation could either deploy troops to an attacking pool or to individual cities as defenders; if deployed as defenders they cannot be used to attack and the reverse also would be true. Their stance could not be changed until either 24 hours after the nation last launched an attack or 24 hours after the stance was last changed, whichever is later; newly trained soldiers are automatically equally distributed as defenders in the nations cities (the exception to this is when occupying a city, after which 20% of the attacking troops are automatically assigned to defending that city)

 

This would mean nations could not use troops in attack and then immediately switch them to defence, meaning that nations will have to either try and balance attacking and defending or alliances will balance attacking and defending, using smaller nations with their higher troop density to hold a region while using larger nations with their higher troops numbers to seize enemy cities while allowing their own to be captured.

 

 

As for what the nodes will do I would suggest having something slightly different; rather than giving each hub an effect I would suggest taking the idea of alliance wonders and making it dependent on hubs; at each hub you own you can construct maybe two alliance wonders (if the node is captured then the wonders are captured with it, though I would suggest that if that means they have duplicate wonders then only one wonder gives them its bonus)

It would give alliances more freedom over which hubs they seize, allowing them to choose for strategic reasons, as well as meaning that you don't have to attempt to balance out the effects of each node, while still providing a massive incentive to controlling them.

 

 

While this does not quite slot in with your idea of ensuring cooperation between alliances I believe that it will still result in such cooperation; I doubt that an alliance working alone could defend more than a couple of nodes, meaning that they will have to cooperate or have to split their forces and lose all of their nodes to alliances that do.

 

 

As one last note, I'd suggest removing the cap on number of nodes that can be controlled; I believe that under what I have proposed above the number of nodes a single alliance could control would be limited by realpolitik; maybe an alliance could seize a chain of nodes, but as I said above I doubt a single alliance could hold more than two nodes that border non-controlled regions (and that would require them to the same size as their nearest two rivals put together, possibly larger depending on how many connections the node has)

 

 

Edit/

I sincerely hope this is legible... I really couldn't be bothered proofreading it :P

post-83-0-59194400-1388106524_thumb.png

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Also, f*** photobucket and its insistence on reducing my file sizes to 60kb)

 

As an aside, you know there are settings in Photobucket that allow you to retain full scale when linking images or opting to limit the scale, right?

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems a bit like Risk in some respects. Not identical, but similar.

 

I like the idea of moving around a % of score, that seems pretty interesting. Perhaps adding in more territories would allow for more competition between alliances? 

 

Will each territory be unique, or will there be some that are the same? I think they can be more powerful if each is unique and thus gives a different, powerful bonus.

 

Is there anyway to reset them by game means? Like.. if one alliance just really wants the +2 tons of food to every nation buff, they can just sit on it and no other alliance can take it right? Even by war, as war would just reduce both their scores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of having wars because "so-and-so spied on us!" they will be for legitimate reasons.

To me, still a legitimate reason to go to war, but I see your point.

 

Looks nice, though I'll wait for the actual implementation to see how it works in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good idea. But I see there's only enough nodes for maybe ten alliances. So this system is reserved for the top ten?

 

(Is this idea still alive?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this idea was implemented as color stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this idea was implemented as color stock. 

 

 

That would be extremely disappointing if that were the case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good idea. But I see there's only enough nodes for maybe ten alliances. So this system is reserved for the top ten?

 

(Is this idea still alive?)

I hope this is still in development.

 

It seems like this will only actively involve the top 10, but it will impact everyone. IMO, This will decrease the number of unviable alliances and increase the membership of the top 10 alliances.

 

It's a compelling motivation for active political and military maneuver. I like that it makes the map much more significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I demand that these modes actually get a name and will not be called "nodes." With this demand I must ask if these are to be political centers, resource centers or financial centers etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea still looks good, even with colour bonuses, and I think it'd be interesting to see it implemented. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.