Jump to content

Game Development - February 2021


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think the bombardment would be better if you could do it after getting a blockade, like how you can kill planes after getting ground control. Seems kinda out of place to have a minimum ship requirement for it, unlike really any other mechanic. Plus the losing side will rarely be able to use it with that high requirement percentage of ships.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Menace said:

I think the bombardment would be better if you could do it after getting a blockade, like how you can kill planes after getting ground control. Seems kinda out of place to have a minimum ship requirement for it, unlike really any other mechanic. Plus the losing side will rarely be able to use it with that high requirement percentage of ships.

That’s the only time you can do it. To be able to bombard you have to have the enemy in a blockade. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2021 at 3:00 AM, Prefontaine said:
  • 10% increase in ships killed by ships.
  • New Attack Type: Bombardment
    • When a nation is blockaded naval units can bombard a city instead of performing a naval battle.
    • This attack destroys 33% less infrastructure
    • This attack destroys 2 non-power plant improvements in that city
    • This attack costs 50% less gas to perform.
    • This attack costs 50% more munitions to perform
    • If a bombardment attack happens while the defending nation has defending ships, the casualties caused by those defending ships is increased 25%.
      • Example: If you attack with 200 ships and they have 50 ships defending and those 50 ships were going to kill 20 attacking ships, in a bombardment attack they instead would kill 25 ships.
    • You must use at least 75% of your max navy when performing this attack
      • max navy is determined by the number ships you could have if all of your cities had max dry docks, not how many dry docks you current have

@PrefontaineI like most of the thread. But i am confused on this one. Is the bombardment only for the nation who has been blocked by the attacker, Or is it that the attacker can initiate bombardment after he naval blocks another nation? 

It would be lovely to see the latter in effect as people would actually have to think strategically if to blockade someone or no. But the second option (where the blockadier can bombard the blockaded ones) is overkill for the people/alliances (usually small/micros) if they get into a war and get their improvements destroyed in an all out war.

Of course some people will say that he is a pirate so he fears his improvements get rekt up etc etc. But if you think about it logically, it will hurt the emerging player base, most of whom rely on raiding for their initial growth. And also the alliances who are new and dont have enough money to support the infra and improvements together.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2021 at 3:45 AM, Prefontaine said:

Quality of Life

  • Alliances can only have 1 treaty between them.
  • Alliances have the ability to create up to 8 alliance positions, 5 more than the default 3.
  • All alliance roles will come with a check list for which powers those positions have.
    • Bank Access
    • Changing Roles
    • Ability to see spy counts
    • Ability to see daily reset timers (time zones)
    • Editing Tax Brackets
    • Accept new members
    • View member caches
  • Alliance Trades offers also show in the global trades.
    • These trades will show in a different color
  • Expand leaderboards
    • Increase the leaderboards from top 10 to top 100. Alternatively, include all nations in the leaderboards (suggested filters, upon talking more with Roberts: active, non-VM players, perhaps also with a filter to exclude the brand new nations that only logged in once/haven't built up anything).
  • Allow for a search by discord handle
  • Send an automated email to players with nations emerging from vacation mode after an extended period of time.

I love you 


nohomo

Edited by Duck Jesus
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Trading Treasures

  • Treasures can be directly traded between players.
  • Treasures cannot be traded while either nation has an active offensive or defensive war.
  • A nation with a treasure already in it cannot trade for another treasure. 

Something I just thought of, because it happened to me: We should also disallow treasures from spawning on nations currently at war.

 

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

City/Project Timers

  • New City timers are not effected by projects.
  • New Protects have their own timer of 10 days (120 turns)
  • City timer resets are reduced by 1 credit to 3 credits.
  • Project timer resets cost 1 credit.

I still contend we remove timers all-together on projects.

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

New Projects

  1. Research and Development Center
    • Effect: This project provides two project slots (net: one additional project slot)
    • Cost
      • Cash: $50,000,000
      • Food: 100,000
      • Aluminum: 5,000
  2. Logistics Center
    • Effect:  Opens an additional trade route for Commodities
    • Cost
      • Cash: $5,000,000
      • Food: 25,000
      • Uranium: 5,000
      • Aluminum: 5,000
  3. World Trade Organization
    • Effect: Opens an additional trade route for Commodities
    • Requirements: International Trade Center, Logistics Center, Space Program
    • Cost
      • Cash: $20,000,000
      • Food: 250,000
      • Uranium: 15,000
      • Aluminum: 10,000
      • Gasoline: 10,000

Very cool, Kanye.

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Spies

  • Casualties
    • Spy vs Spy casualties are reduced by 33% for the defender on a successful op, and attacker for a failed op.
  • Missiles
    • Spy attacks against missiles have a 25% chance to destroy an additional missile.

Casualties very cool, I personally enjoyed the 50% reduction myself.

Missiles: Why? This seems like an odd/random choice given missiles are already fairly niche and have to contend with Iron Domes.

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Soldiers

  • 5% increase is casualties from soldiers fighting soldiers. 
  • 33% reduction in tanks killed by soldiers.
    • Soldier only attacks/defends kill too many tanks.

Tanks

  • Tanks ability to kill planes after gaining ground superiority reduced by 33%
  • 15% increase in casualties to soldiers by tanks
  • 10% increase in casualties to tanks by tanks
    • With soldiers killing less tanks

Remove the bolded pieces or you're going to create imbalance. Soldiers already die too quickly and are meant to be a cheap unit to throw at your enemy when you have nothing else left OR meant to supplement your tanks. Having them turn into canon fodder is a pointless nerf.

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Planes

  • 25% increase in tanks killed by bombing runs.
  • 10% increase in planes killed by dogfights

I'd suggest a 10% and 10% on both of these, respectively. 25% is a huge buff vs. tanks and we should see how the tank v. plane nerf plays out before we slash other things.

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Ships

  • 10% increase in ships killed by ships.
  • New Attack Type: Bombardment
    • When a nation is blockaded naval units can bombard a city instead of performing a naval battle.
    • This attack destroys 33% less infrastructure
    • This attack destroys 2 non-power plant improvements in that city
    • This attack costs 50% less gas to perform.
    • This attack costs 50% more munitions to perform
    • If a bombardment attack happens while the defending nation has defending ships, the casualties caused by those defending ships is increased 25%.
      • Example: If you attack with 200 ships and they have 50 ships defending and those 50 ships were going to kill 20 attacking ships, in a bombardment attack they instead would kill 25 ships.
    • You must use at least 75% of your max navy when performing this attack
      • max navy is determined by the number ships you could have if all of your cities had max dry docks, not how many dry docks you current have

Anecdotally, I think we should try 15% buff in ship v. ship. Ships are painfully bad at killing other boats, to me. But I'd be happy with 10.

I disapprove strongly of bombardment as a concept. As stated on discord I think adding improvement-killers in the current war system is a recipe for a bad player experience and a bad meta. This strongly rewards people who have already won the conventional war and strongly incentivizes sitting on people for extended periods of time while you obliterate their economy/war improvements.

I don't think any war system should ever take away a player's ability to act, which is what improvement-killing does. Improvements are frankly too important to die any faster and I personally think we should make them impervious.

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Nukes

  • Nukes can now kill 4 improvements per nuclear missile.
    • 2 of these improvements are "general" improvements and have a chance to be any improvement.
    • 2 of these improvements are any non-power plant, non-military improvement. 
    • In the event there are no available targets, it bumps up the target list. Effectively if someone only has power plants and military structures, the nuke will destroy 4 of any improvement.

Missiles

  • Missiles can now kill 2 improvements per missile.
  • Missile Launch Pad allows a nation to build 2 missiles per day.

Again, I don't think either of these should kill more improvements. I would love to see the ability to build more than one nuke a day as well.

 

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Iron Dome

  • Reduces the amount of improvements killed from a missile by 1. In addition to normal effects

Vital Defense System

  • Chance to block a nuclear missile increased from 20% to 25%
  • Reduces the amount of improvements killed from a nuke by 1.
    • The improvement category this blocks from is the non-power plant, non-military category.

Pls nerf the Iron Dome. It's so silly having a 50/50 shot when you're spending 8 MAP's. Why not match the VDS 25% block rate? Otherwise cool changes.

 

On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

Quality of Life

  • Alliances can only have 1 treaty between them.
  • Alliances have the ability to create up to 8 alliance positions, 5 more than the default 3.
  • All alliance roles will come with a check list for which powers those positions have.
    • Bank Access
    • Changing Roles
    • Ability to see spy counts
    • Ability to see daily reset timers (time zones)
    • Editing Tax Brackets
    • Accept new members
    • View member caches
  • Alliance Trades offers also show in the global trades.
    • These trades will show in a different color
  • Expand leaderboards
    • Increase the leaderboards from top 10 to top 100. Alternatively, include all nations in the leaderboards (suggested filters, upon talking more with Roberts: active, non-VM players, perhaps also with a filter to exclude the brand new nations that only logged in once/haven't built up anything).
  • Allow for a search by discord handle
  • Send an automated email to players with nations emerging from vacation mode after an extended period of time.

re: leaderboards - please just do the whole game so everyone can see where they stand. I made a whole public thread on this with unanimous support and people already clarified they would rather see the entire game rankings rather than a simple extended version. A top 10 excludes all those outside of it and most people don't care. A top 100 accomplishes the same thing but with 90 extra people.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Roberts said:

Again, I don't think either of these should kill more improvements. I would love to see the ability to build more than one nuke a day as well.

It was floated at one point, though I presume it went nowhere.

I do agree that making imp killing isn't really the way to go. Lose your mil imps, and if you don't want to refit at the loss of your econ, and you're basically left as a turret which isn't the most engaging thing ever, and isn't something everyone is necessarily able to do either way.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy shit on bombardment. But idk it's preferable to improvements disappearing when there isn't the infra to maintain them.

I like it, but that's because of my sadistic personality and not because it's good for the game or anything. This is going to make dogpiles so much more OP and it's yet another raiding nerf.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

If anything, we should be buffing raiding.

Ehhh...... hold your tongue. Raiding has it's place in Orbis, but should not be buffed in any way. Raids directly harm new and smaller alliances while larger alliances go unscathed (usually). 

Here's an idea, how about ships can attack ground units? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_gunfire_support

Rather than destroy improvements, this would be a lot more balanced.

Edited by Aqua-Corpsman
  • Downvote 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Roberts said:

Something I just thought of, because it happened to me: We should also disallow treasures from spawning on nations currently at war.

Why? Unless you mean they should have it spawn in their nation after the wars expire I don't see much to the point of it. It's a random spawn mechanic, so having it randomly spawn during a war being active.. Well *shrug*

 

12 hours ago, Roberts said:

Missiles: Why? This seems like an odd/random choice given missiles are already fairly niche and have to contend with Iron Domes.

With the increased production rate to missiles, a buff to the chance to get 2 from a spy op.

 

12 hours ago, Roberts said:

I disapprove strongly of bombardment as a concept. As stated on discord I think adding improvement-killers in the current war system is a recipe for a bad player experience and a bad meta. This strongly rewards people who have already won the conventional war and strongly incentivizes sitting on people for extended periods of time while you obliterate their economy/war improvements.

I don't think any war system should ever take away a player's ability to act, which is what improvement-killing does. Improvements are frankly too important to die any faster and I personally think we should make them impervious.

These improvements killed by bombardments are non-power, non-military. They will only hiy Raw resource production, resource refinement, and commerce. Once thing I am considering bombardment will always kill 1 improvement with a chance of a second. The second chance being related to how out of balance the improvement/infra ratio is in the city. If a city is operating with 40 improvements but only infra to support 20 improvements, then the second improvement blowing up has a 50% chance. Even if a player only used naval attacks on someone that would destroy at most 14 improvements in a war. Someone with 15 cities and 2000 infra has 600 improvements. It would take 43 wars to destroy 600 improvements, and they couldn't hit the mil/power anyway. 

The only way to kill power plants is with nukes.

The only way to kill military buildings is with nukes or missiles. 

Noticed that bit for the mil improvements was left out of bombardment on the OP. It has been added.

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Ehhh...... hold your tongue. Raiding has it's place in Orbis, but should not be buffed in any way. Raids directly harm new and smaller alliances while larger alliances go unscathed (usually). 

Here's an idea, how about ships can attack ground units? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_gunfire_support

Rather than destroy improvements, this would be a lot more balanced.

New and smaller alliances should be targeted though. We have far too many of them hogging up the incoming member base and then losing these newer members to inactivity due to the smaller AAs having little sense of community to keep the newer players active and engaged.

We have currently 369 AAs ingame, 250ish have likely less than a dozen members, and once we discount banks and micro raiders, a good 150 of these AAs are just open fodder without the knowledge and protection offered by the larger AAs. And rightfully so

A larger threat posed by raiders will force these newer players into the larger AAs which will in turn force new talent into these alliances' govs leading to a turnover in government faces.  It's probably one of the main reasons why most of the major alliances have had largely the same gov lineups for years, simply because it's easier to just break away and form your own micro, and remain attached to the parent AA via a protectorate agreement, than it is to actively seek greater influence within the parent alliance.

Plus, if you buff raiders, the larger alliances can likely be subjected to raids all the same too 👍

Edited by Charles Bolivar
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this guaranteed improvement destruction, the tactician/guardian policies will probably need a rework. The possibility of destroying an improvement from a ground or naval attack will probably feel almost insignificant and become obsolete as an attrition method vs nukes/missiles/bombardment. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2021 at 5:52 PM, KingGhost said:

Isn’t this only going to be ever used in a situation where one side is already overwhelmingly winning?

I can’t see this every being used outside a scenario where one side is already being dogpiled. You will never aim to kill Improvs otherwise.

I see this being big trouble for raiders. Ships are expensive and if they're losing 42 improvements per war cycle, they're gonna have to rebuild a lot. I think having to actually destroy improvements is a better alternative to "improvement degradation" which was thrown around as an idea a lot last year. 

 

18 hours ago, Isjaki said:

Bombardment will make dogpiles even more one-sided

I think dogpiles are supposed to be one-sided - maybe this is a way to incentivize more balanced wars? It could create a bad gameplay experience, but if your alliance is getting dogpiled maybe they need to step their FA game up or folks should find a new alliance. I could see both of those things being healthy for the game, folks act a bit more cautiously because war is more damaging and people move alliances more, get to know more people, the power balances change more frequently. 

I don't know enough about the politics to know if the recent dog-pilings are because people deserve to be dogpiled or because the game mechanics make dogpiling more common. There needs to be a way to incentivized more balanced warfare - that'll be how this gets more fun. I don't know if bombardment is a step towards balance or away from balance. 

 

16 hours ago, Roberts said:

Something I just thought of, because it happened to me: We should also disallow treasures from spawning on nations currently at war.

...

Anecdotally, I think we should try 15% buff in ship v. ship. Ships are painfully bad at killing other boats, to me. But I'd be happy with 10.

I disapprove strongly of bombardment as a concept. As stated on discord I think adding improvement-killers in the current war system is a recipe for a bad player experience and a bad meta. This strongly rewards people who have already won the conventional war and strongly incentivizes sitting on people for extended periods of time while you obliterate their economy/war improvements.

I don't think any war system should ever take away a player's ability to act, which is what improvement-killing does. Improvements are frankly too important to die any faster and I personally think we should make them impervious.

 

I agree with treasures - but I also think you shouldn't be able to trade them while actively in war, maybe that's the case and I missed it. Seems obvious though, - it'll be too easy to just hand it off to a buddy and get it back after - unless the goal is to remove treasure hunting. 

 

For ships - I think ships vs ships should have a higher kill rate than planes vs ships - they spend so much more gas/muni and since they can't hit ground or planes - i imagine they should be engineered to kill other ships to some degree. 

 

For improvements, I disagree - I like the idea of destroying improvements - there's always something to do when you're being sat on - whether it's a missile/nuke/spy op - or if you're completely shut down, rebuild a city to 500 infra with just coal/oil power and barracks. you can do that and build max soldiers for less than the daily bonus. Could do it with multiple cities if you play baseball.

Everything should burn - I think some projects should be able to be destroyed if they're a building (Trade Center or Research Center) and not a technological advancement (like Recycling Initiative or Pirate Economy). 

More improvement destruction should just make city rebuilds more common and investing in 3.5k infra builds less common (depending on the war outlook of your particular alliance). 

Once it's leveled though- it would be easy to just continue to level it as soon as one rebuilds. Maybe the difficulty of destroying infra and improvements should increase as you have less and less left, like how infra gets more expensive the more you buy. That way the first 10 improvements out of 50 die pretty easy but the last 10 are much more durable. 

Edited by MBaku
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MBaku said:

I see this being big trouble for raiders. Ships are expensive and if they're losing 42 improvements per war cycle, they're gonna have to rebuild a lot. I think having to actually destroy improvements is a better alternative to "improvement degradation" which was thrown around as an idea a lot last year. 

 

I think dogpiles are supposed to be one-sided - maybe this is a way to incentivize more balanced wars? It could create a bad gameplay experience, but if your alliance is getting dogpiled maybe they need to step their FA game up or folks should find a new alliance. I could see both of those things being healthy for the game, folks act a bit more cautiously because war is more damaging and people move alliances more, get to know more people, the power balances change more frequently. 

I don't know enough about the politics to know if the recent dog-pilings are because people deserve to be dogpiled or because the game mechanics make dogpiling more common. There needs to be a way to incentivized more balanced warfare - that'll be how this gets more fun. I don't know if bombardment is a step towards balance or away from balance. 

 

I agree with treasures - but I also think you shouldn't be able to trade them while actively in war, maybe that's the case and I missed it. Seems obvious though, - it'll be too easy to just hand it off to a buddy and get it back after - unless the goal is to remove treasure hunting. 

 

For ships - I think ships vs ships should have a higher kill rate than planes vs ships - they spend so much more gas/muni and since they can't hit ground or planes - i imagine they should be engineered to kill other ships to some degree. 

 

For improvements, I disagree - I like the idea of destroying improvements - there's always something to do when you're being sat on - whether it's a missile/nuke/spy op - or if you're completely shut down, rebuild a city to 500 infra with just coal/oil power and barracks. you can do that and build max soldiers for less than the daily bonus. Could do it with multiple cities if you play baseball.

Everything should burn - I think some projects should be able to be destroyed if they're a building (Trade Center or Research Center) and not a technological advancement (like Recycling Initiative or Pirate Economy). 

More improvement destruction should just make city rebuilds more common and investing in 3.5k infra builds less common (depending on the war outlook of your particular alliance). 

Once it's leveled though- it would be easy to just continue to level it as soon as one rebuilds. Maybe the difficulty of destroying infra and improvements should increase as you have less and less left, like how infra gets more expensive the more you buy. That way the first 10 improvements out of 50 die pretty easy but the last 10 are much more durable. 

Wait until you are NPO. The game as a whole shouldn't be forced to join Rose because of a bad mechanic.

P.S. For the record, that has happened before. All the players in the game were Rose.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless raiders suddenly run around with commerce builds this won't do anything to them.

Now that it's been specified bombardment doesn't hit military or power buildings, along with the push to have it require a large number of ships to even do, it's gone overnight from "umg scary op" to "lol no one cares only plebs will use this".

Because frankly I don't know anyone with competence who gives a crap about non power or military improvements in war, all their infra will be gone anyway so their commerce and civil won't matter, and it's certainly not going be worth the trouble to roll the dice on maybe hitting a factory that might not even be running and also be irrelevant.

Nuke turrets use nuke plants to store money because they're expensive and hard to target, so it's not useful there either.

Tbh, at this point just scrap it lol. 

Edited by Akuryo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MBaku said:

I see this being big trouble for raiders. Ships are expensive and if they're losing 42 improvements per war cycle, they're gonna have to rebuild a lot. I think having to actually destroy improvements is a better alternative to "improvement degradation" which was thrown around as an idea a lot last year. 

I mean, i don't really get the point you are making. 

Theres no way we are going to value damaging raiders more than actual balanced game mechanics for real alliance wars which much more players in the game are involved in. Right?

 

Also theres about a 0% chance that because this mechanic makes dogpilling even worse that people will avoid dogpilling because its fair, it just aint happening. Also the simpler solution is to just not add this mechanic rather than hoping that due to this mechanic people don't dogpile.

This new war mechanic clearly adds no value to actual wars besides in scenarios where one side is clearly outnumbering the other by a significant amount where they can afford to waste slots, resistance, and MAPS on killing literally non mil, non power improvements and even then its arguably not even adding value just curb stomping even more for no reason.

The most strategic war value i see is that it rewards alliances with good training or milcom to tell you not to use this in an actual war while some micros spam this attack.

Can't we just change this so it somehow can interact with other types of units so ships aren't just a perma waste of steel over half the time. @Prefontaine

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KingGhost said:

Can't we just change this so it somehow can interact with other types of units so ships aren't just a perma waste of steel over half the time. @Prefontaine

*cough cough*

16 hours ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Ehhh...... hold your tongue. Raiding has it's place in Orbis, but should not be buffed in any way. Raids directly harm new and smaller alliances while larger alliances go unscathed (usually). 

Here's an idea, how about ships can attack ground units? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_gunfire_support

Rather than destroy improvements, this would be a lot more balanced.

 

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Unless raiders suddenly run around with commerce builds this won't do anything to them.

Now that it's been specified bombardment doesn't hit military or power buildings, along with the push to have it require a large number of ships to even do, it's gone overnight from "umg scary op" to "lol no one cares only plebs will use this".

Because frankly I don't know anyone with competence who gives a crap about non power or military improvements in war, all their infra will be gone anyway so their commerce and civil won't matter, and it's certainly not going be worth the trouble to roll the dice on maybe hitting a factory that might not even be running and also be irrelevant.

Nuke turrets use nuke plants to store money because they're expensive and hard to target, so it's not useful there either.

Tbh, at this point just scrap it lol. 

I thought part of the concept thrown around is that if there are no non-military improvements that the bombardment would then target other improvements like power and military. Or maybe that's just nukes. It seems silly that if your'e running up against a 1 npp/1 police station/5553mmr build that once the police station is gone, bombardment effectively does nothing. 

The whole idea behind "improvement degradation" was that folks didn't think it made sense to keep 60 improvements forever when you're down to 200 infra. I think destroying improvements will add another level to the game in warfare but making bombardment kill only non-military seems pointless. 

If we don't want improvements to be destroyed more often scrap it, if we don't want them to be destroyed at all - go with roberts idea and just make them impervious. But if we think destroying improvements would be a useful aspect of the game then i think making them easier to destroy in battle is better than just having them slowly wither away, which was under consideration for a bit. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two additions to bombardment have been listed:

This attack destroys 2 non-power plant, non-military improvements in that city.

  • If there are only power plant and military improvements, this attack kills no improvements.

For clarity.

  • If you have 20 or less improvements in a city this attack will only kill 1 improvement.
  • If you have 5 cities or less, this attack only kills 1 improvement.

This is to reduce the impact on smaller nations, nations who have been ground down, or nations who constantly fight. 

 

 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Bombardment as currently proposed is useless.  Killing 1-2 resource/civic improvements is very, very small.  At 35 cities @ 3200 infra I'd go into a war with about 1640 resource/civic improvements after military/power.  Even a 20 city nation @ 2500 infra will go into a war with about 600 resource/civic improvements.  If each improvement is worth 10-20k in profitability per day (maybe up to 30k, but we're talking averages), loosing two improvements is about 1 mill in income over a month.  It would take many months to pay for the gas/munitions even with the 50% reduction.

It should scale up with how many ships are used, which also serves as a good replacement for the "75% of max capacity" mechanic. 1 improvement for every 50 or 100 ships used.  This has the added advantage of making it meaningful for the upper tiers without being overpowered in the lower tiers.  The more cities you have, the more improvements you have, the less each improvement is worth to you, and the more the attack costs.

GnWq7CW.png

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.