Jump to content

Active and Reserve military [Beige Mechanic replacement]


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

No no no.

Look, it's a replacement for a tiny part of what we need. The military rebuild is honestly a very small part of what beige was needed for: cycling already mitigated that much.

No, what we'd still be missing is the opportunity to escape blockade. Even though a defender could be blockaded forever already, it was overwhelmingly difficult and with some pressure and smart play one could usually squeak out a turn of freedom for resupply or evacuation. Now, it's trivial to permablockade, and 'reserve' military in no way helps with that (on account of all opponents trivially being in range with max military at all times).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd limit reserve military to 50% of the max capacity, which would allow you to build up to 50% and then get to 90-100% of units with a double buy.

Allowing people to have 100% of their military in reserve would be too big of a nerf to blitzes.  

1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No no no.

Look, it's a replacement for a tiny part of what we need. The military rebuild is honestly a very small part of what beige was needed for: cycling already mitigated that much.

No, what we'd still be missing is the opportunity to escape blockade. Even though a defender could be blockaded forever already, it was overwhelmingly difficult and with some pressure and smart play one could usually squeak out a turn of freedom for resupply or evacuation. Now, it's trivial to permablockade, and 'reserve' military in no way helps with that (on account of all opponents trivially being in range with max military at all times).

I agree that permablockades would still be an issue that would need to be addressed, but that doesn't make this suggestion a bad one to give people space to recover units.

 

Edited by Azaghul
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No no no.

Look, it's a replacement for a tiny part of what we need. The military rebuild is honestly a very small part of what beige was needed for: cycling already mitigated that much.

No, what we'd still be missing is the opportunity to escape blockade. Even though a defender could be blockaded forever already, it was overwhelmingly difficult and with some pressure and smart play one could usually squeak out a turn of freedom for resupply or evacuation. Now, it's trivial to permablockade, and 'reserve' military in no way helps with that (on account of all opponents trivially being in range with max military at all times).

I wouldn't say it's a tiny part. There are two main problems to the beige removal, being able to rebuild units and perma blockade. Rebuilding and perma blockades were already a problem in the previous iteration - More difficult, but not very difficult. 


This change will allow players to be able to rebuild without beige. They will be getting their butts kicked while they're fielding no military, but can come out with fresh units all at once and work to coordinate with other players doing so. With this method supplied players can come back after being beaten down with coordination. Victors will hit war chests more frequently, or at least parts of them, as due to blockades being more of a thing and actually being able to get your full military to be back and continue the fight which is an added bonus. Making war chests less invincible outside of lucky bank hits. 

 

There is a suggestion to help provide aid to blockaded people here: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/52-game-suggestions/

 

This suggestion is to address the ability to rebuild units. Biege was supposed to allow that but was extraordinarily flawed in doing so. This feature will help do part of what beige intended.

  • Downvote 4

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Azaghul said:

I'd limit reserve military to 50% of the max capacity, which would allow you to build up to 50% and then get to 90-100% of units with a double buy.

Allowing people to have 100% of their military in reserve would be too big of a nerf to blitzes.  

I totally agree with this part. Having IT on someone is not a good enough trade off. You blitz someone on day one, they come back around on day two at full military strength, remove all those ITs you got by attacking them in the first place, and just plainly destroy you. This would completely discourage aggressive action by alliances. 

Instead, just as Azaghul said, limit the number of units that can be in reserve. Be it 50 to 80% of your total capacity. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Azaghul said:

I'd limit reserve military to 50% of the max capacity, which would allow you to build up to 50% and then get to 90-100% of units with a double buy.

Allowing people to have 100% of their military in reserve would be too big of a nerf to blitzes.  

The best solution I've come up with regarding this is:

  • Units can only be kept on reserve status for a period of time, 10 days or 14 days, sort of thing. That way going into a war you'll likely already have military in active status because you want defenses during peace time to prevent raids. This also makes having your war plans leaked a more dangerous thing, because alliances can order militaries to be built into reserve and wait. Then the other alliance can delay to them to pop to active -- etc.. it adds another dynamic.

The reason I'm not the biggest fan of your solution is that a big part of coming out and fighting fresh is having that days rebuys available to you. 

  • Downvote 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

The best solution I've come up with regarding this is:

  • Units can only be kept on reserve status for a period of time, 10 days or 14 days, sort of thing. That way going into a war you'll likely already have military in active status because you want defenses during peace time to prevent raids. This also makes having your war plans leaked a more dangerous thing, because alliances can order militaries to be built into reserve and wait. Then the other alliance can delay to them to pop to active -- etc.. it adds another dynamic.

The reason I'm not the biggest fan of your solution is that a big part of coming out and fighting fresh is having that days rebuys available to you. 

Problem with this is the fact that in 90% of wars, the defenders know that they are being targeted. This will be especially true with the fact that ground is now stronger, and alliances will probably be milling up b4 the blitz now more than ever, giving a heads up to their target that "Hey, we are coming".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

The best solution I've come up with regarding this is:

  • Units can only be kept on reserve status for a period of time, 10 days or 14 days, sort of thing. That way going into a war you'll likely already have military in active status because you want defenses during peace time to prevent raids. This also makes having your war plans leaked a more dangerous thing, because alliances can order militaries to be built into reserve and wait. Then the other alliance can delay to them to pop to active -- etc.. it adds another dynamic.

The reason I'm not the biggest fan of your solution is that a big part of coming out and fighting fresh is having that days rebuys available to you. 

I agree that having rebuys available is a big advantage of coming out fresh.  I think the problem here is trying to adapt this to work with two separate scenarios: The impact of initial blitzes vs the impact on someone trying to rebuild.

One really good thing about the advantage of striking first is that it helps to balance out the political disadvantage of being the aggressor.  It encourages preemptive strikes when tensions are high.  If everyone builds up because of tensions but most of that is in reserve, that not only takes away the first strike advantage but turns it into a major disadvantage because counter-attacks will be more effective than initial attacks.

I think there's merit to the idea in general but it needs to impact rebuilds without impacting first strikes.  What you propose doesn't change that, but I think we could figure out something.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr. Goober said:

I totally agree with this part. Having IT on someone is not a good enough trade off. You blitz someone on day one, they come back around on day two at full military strength, remove all those ITs you got by attacking them in the first place, and just plainly destroy you. This would completely discourage aggressive action by alliances. 

Instead, just as Azaghul said, limit the number of units that can be in reserve. Be it 50 to 80% of your total capacity. 

This would be a valid concern if the new meta for everyone with an IQ greater than a desert salamander wasnt to max everything but ships, and really, probably even ships too, once a war is expected.

Yeah good luck just GCing me with 50% of your tanks useless in a meta where the score range means you aren't gonna be anywhere near big enough for that to not matter. 

 

Man good luck breaking that AS too when the GCs start yeeting your planes you know.

 

Given that everyone with an IQ greater than aforementioned desert salamander knows this, being able to come out with anything but max military will be a general waste of your time. You won't be in range of anyone smaller, the same people, at the same size, with the same max military. And if ya got decked hard enough to be zeroed before, there's a good chance your alliance is losing because it's actually not very easy to do that anymore. Which means, you're probably just gonna get priority #1 kneecapping list, rather than "ooohhh throw them in here and tip this battle", because if you've actually used the mechanics, it takes units almost as long as Queen bloody Elizabeth to die, which means your disadvantage stays a disadvantage, even if you get a lucky RNG roll. 

 

Honestly, Alex doesn't seem to pay attention to this forum, but I'm not that mad. Because frankly, not enough of the suggestions ever made in it have ever heard of "The Big Picture" before and focus on random irrelevant details in very specific situations. Ironically, the same thing Alex does to constantly make bad decisions.

 

Stop suggesting bad decisions.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Azaghul said:

I agree that having rebuys available is a big advantage of coming out fresh.  I think the problem here is trying to adapt this to work with two separate scenarios: The impact of initial blitzes vs the impact on someone trying to rebuild.

One really good thing about the advantage of striking first is that it helps to balance out the political disadvantage of being the aggressor.  It encourages preemptive strikes when tensions are high.  If everyone builds up because of tensions but most of that is in reserve, that not only takes away the first strike advantage but turns it into a major disadvantage because counter-attacks will be more effective than initial attacks.

I think there's merit to the idea in general but it needs to impact rebuilds without impacting first strikes.  What you propose doesn't change that, but I think we could figure out something.

That's what the thread is about, coming up with ideas and why I put that the initial blitz is a bit of a problem in the OP. I personally don't think the trade off of Sups for not killing units is worth it. I kinda like the idea of requiring reserves to be forced into active status after a period of time to avoid constant reserves status. I even think part of the downside is actually a benefit, people building up and putting into reserve while expecting an alliance war to start, but the aggressors can shift timings around when the force pop-out into active happens and thus adding some more strategy into that opening salvo. Becomes a little more cat and mouse based on how people are rolled out. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the current score system, this change is not viable at all. With the previous system, yes, it might have been viable due to the heavy downdeclares
But with downdecalres dead, there is no way you can get this system to work

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.