Battle Ground Recovery (Project)

[Hexapolis]

I don't think I've seen anything along this line of project proposal so here is what I propose: 

A project that allows for the partial recovery of damaged goods on the battlefield of your nation (when you are the defender).

Project name: Battle Ground Recovery

Prerequisite: Recycling Initiative or Green Technologies

Cost:
$25,000,000
1000 Gas, Steel, Aluminum
2000 Iron, Lead, Bauxite

Effect: At the end of (a defensive battle? a war?) a portion of steel, aluminum, and munitions (random 1% to 10% for each) expended by both parties within the project owner's nation territories are recovered as their base material (IE: 1000 steel lost on the battle field could return 10 to 100 iron). 

I believe this is very simple and straight forward: please ask any questions if I left something out and I will edit this to include any missing information.

[Alan]

On 10/7/2020 at 5:53 PM, Hexapolis said:

Project name: Battle Ground Recovery

A better name for this might be "Scrap Yard" or "Salvage Depot".

[Jangles]

I like the idea, but I think looting all defensive battles would be heavily tilted in favor of raiders or guerilla nations as counters spend a lot of ammo to keep those nations zeroed and blockaded, while raiding or launching missiles require very few resources. Being able to recover a portion of ammo after each defensive battle would make an already difficult task for counters, starving ammo, more difficult, and it would enable self-reliance without requiring a nation to be actively doing anything. I'd prefer that losses be recovered at the end of a war, or instead of limiting it to defensive battles it could be immense triumphs that return a small amount of ammo, steel, and aluminum so then you have to actually work for it.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Jangles

[Viselli]

On 10/7/2020 at 5:53 PM, Hexapolis said:

I don't think I've seen anything along this line of project proposal so here is what I propose: 

A project that allows for the partial recovery of damaged goods on the battlefield of your nation (when you are the defender).

Project name: Battle Ground Recovery

Prerequisite: Recycling Initiative or Green Technologies

Cost:
$25,000,000
1000 Gas, Steel, Aluminum
2000 Iron, Lead, Bauxite

Effect: At the end of (a defensive battle? a war?) a portion of steel, aluminum, and munitions (random 1% to 10% for each) expended by both parties within the project owner's nation territories are recovered as their base material (IE: 1000 steel lost on the battle field could return 10 to 100 iron). 

I believe this is very simple and straight forward: please ask any questions if I left something out and I will edit this to include any missing information.

Good base idea but it should happen at the end of the war. I like the fact that only the defensive nation gets the recovery. We don't have maps or invasions but this would give a sense that when attacking someone you are in their nation. 

[Hexapolis]

On 10/9/2020 at 12:18 AM, Jangles said:

I like the idea, but I think looting all defensive battles would be heavily tilted in favor of raiders or guerilla nations as counters spend a lot of ammo to keep those nations zeroed and blockaded, while raiding or launching missiles require very few resources. Being able to recover a portion of ammo after each defensive battle would make an already difficult task for counters, starving ammo, more difficult, and it would enable self-reliance without requiring a nation to be actively doing anything. I'd prefer that losses be recovered at the end of a war, or instead of limiting it to defensive battles it could be immense triumphs that return a small amount of ammo, steel, and aluminum so then you have to actually work for it.

In the event that it was per defensive battle and not per war, unless the raider is a production power-house, it would not be an issue as the munitions would be returned as lead. So that should not be a concern, but it being implemented at the end of a war would resolve that issue.

[KingGhost]

No, War is meant to be a resource sink. I don't think there's a good reason to do this from a game perspective, Then we will make more projects costing a ridiculous amount of resources to combat inflation. Honestly i'm curious why this should be in the game, and don't say for realism.

[Hexapolis]

On 10/23/2020 at 8:51 AM, KingGhost said:

No, War is meant to be a resource sink. I don't think there's a good reason to do this from a game perspective, Then we will make more projects costing a ridiculous amount of resources to combat inflation. Honestly i'm curious why this should be in the game, and don't say for realism.

You asked and I will answer:

War is not meant to be a resource sink; it just is a resource sink. If you like it that way, that's perfectly valid, no complaints from me.
Reasons this should be in the game: to help battered nations recover, as well as for realism. There is nothing wrong with having a touch of realism: I'll have you note that the ships don't fly in the skies, for the sake of realism... Not to mention pollution, disease, and crime mechanics. So realism is a thing, though I understand your desire to keep a game... unrealistic.
Concerning inflation: this project is expensive, and requires a fairly substantial investment. Few nations will use it unless they are either raiders or frequently raided, as any nearly any other project would return higher profit (and inflation) such as Emergency Gas Reserves.

I understand your concerns, and I respect them, but I feel they are presented in an extreme light. Can you provide your opinion on how to make improvements?

[KingGhost]

14 hours ago, Hexapolis said:

it just is a resource sink. If you like it that way, that's perfectly valid, no complaints from me.

This logic just makes no sense, Is there a purpose for warring that i am missing in game? The only thing war accomplishes in this game is to burn resources, there is literally no other in game purpose, so it's function in the game is to be a resource sink, it's what its meant to be. Its the main way to keep resources in this game from overly inflating there is quite literally no other way to burn that many resources legitimately. So it is meant to be a resource sink.

15 hours ago, Hexapolis said:

So realism is a thing, though I understand your desire to keep a game... unrealistic.

I said it in my original quote as to prevent your main reason from being realism, never said anything is wrong with it but the main reason for it should not be off realism, not that you are doing that.

As for your reasoning 

15 hours ago, Hexapolis said:

to help battered nations recover,

This is not needed also you never mentioned WHY currently nations need help recovering. Almost every alliance is able to rebuild their members after a war that isn't ridiculously out of proportions,  as time goes on alliances will only generate more revenue. I mean there was already problems with inflation (which is why Alex has been making these projects which costs a ridiculous amount of raws and money). There isn't a need for this project in any way, people would obviously support it because it gives them free shit and free shit = good idea. Most alliances do not need help rebuilding their members to a decent level.

15 hours ago, Hexapolis said:

Concerning inflation: this project is expensive, and requires a fairly substantial investment.

The ROI would be high, but the problem is it will be paid back eventually, then you permanently have a project with hundreds of nations getting returns on 5%~ of Munitions, gasoline, Steel, Aluminum spent. There will be hundreds of high tier who will buy the project since they have the slots to and the costs is low for them, i mean its like 2-3 days of income for mid high tier, those people buy space station + telecommunications because their city + infra ROI is much worse than those projects, same will happen to this one, it will be more efficient ROI for them than another city or more infra AND by helping nations rebuild higher faster they start their ROI faster, snowballing into more resources generated.

War is the main way for the game to delete resources there is just no point in making it less effective.

[Guest Zephyr]

16 hours ago, Hexapolis said:

War is not meant to be a resource sink; it just is a resource sink.

I have to agree with KingGhost, war is likely intended to be a resource sink. It's hard to imagine that Alex would have overlooked the need for resources to be consumed by some process in order for them to remain valuable and in demand, which results in commerce, an important part of the game's economy. In fact all 11 of the game's resources are useful for military and war in some way, whether it be upkeep (food for soldiers), military improvement development, military unit development, or the actual operation of military units in war. It would seem self evident that war is intended to be a resource sink, however I suppose we could resolve this dispute by quite simply asking @Alex, "Is war intended to be a 'resource sink'?".

[Prefontaine]

3 hours ago, Zephyr said:

@Alex, "Is war intended to be a 'resource sink'?".

I can answer that for you. Yes it is. Everything in this game is a cash or resource sink. New cities, projects, Indra, units. These games are resource management political simulators. A large reason for the tank steel cost reduction is because of overly steel sink tanks were. 

[Hexapolis]

Okay, fair. 
Based on the above argumentation for the fact that war is a resource sink, I am inclined to agree that it is one of the  intended purposes. However, I do not think that is the main purpose of wars. Wars are for resource acquisition, wars are for fun, but most importantly, wars are a political tool: Do what we ask, "please" (with 200k soldiers, 10k tanks, 1k aircraft, and 200 ships on standby). I will not deny that the reasoning that resources must be consumed is logical. However, based partially on the fact that the steel cost of tanks was halved due to their un-usability due to the absence of steel supply comparative to the consumption causing drastic inflation. Steel is currently more than 250% the price when I joined in February, and one can only imagine that as in the real world, the inflation has been pretty constantly upwards. 

[MBaku]

I have a similar but different idea - 

Project: Loot and Pillage

This project allows you to loot resources as well as money. The aggregate value of the resources and money stolen will not exceed the amount money you would get without the project. The difference is you can drain resources as well as money. It can be a very small max percentage of the overall. 

 

This would allow folks gather more resources per war and less money, also drain more resources and less money from the opponent. 

 

What do you think?

 

I honestly don't even want it to be a project, i'd prefer if that's how the looting function worked just in general. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by MBaku

[Hexapolis]

On 10/28/2020 at 12:59 PM, MBaku said:

I have a similar but different idea - 

Project: Loot and Pillage

This project allows you to loot resources as well as money. The aggregate value of the resources and money stolen will not exceed the amount money you would get without the project. The difference is you can drain resources as well as money. It can be a very small max percentage of the overall. 

 

This would allow folks gather more resources per war and less money, also drain more resources and less money from the opponent. 

 

What do you think?

 

I honestly don't even want it to be a project, i'd prefer if that's how the looting function worked just in general. 

I think you could propose this as a project, but I don't see how it is quite similar to this concept. It would certainly be interesting