Jump to content

Sphere Wars mechanics discussion


Recommended Posts

the cure to spies killing too many spies and most of the other issues with spy warfare is not nerfing assassination ops and spy sats,
its to increase the daily buy of spies, which currently take 25 days to max without projects, 20 days to max with intel, and 15 days with both intel and spy sat. 

increasing the recover time of spies makes spy pins much less brutal, and balances the spy game while not making it obsolete or a waste of money to engage in.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think it's pretty ludicrous that someone attacking with far less planes can kill more of the defender's planes/a near equal amount, in dog fights.

I also think the variation in damage spies can do is crazy. You can get unlucky and lose 5+ spies, or get lucky and wipe out 20 of the enemy spies, when both people are at 60 spies using extremely covert. I realize that projects and policies play a large role in this, but I think that variation is too high.

Edited by EliteCanada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
  • 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


why is it that high? wouldn't that mean that anyone that doesnt have an xxx3 build would never be able to use this, since xxx2 would only be capable of fielding 66.6...% of max navy? i get that you dont want a 1 ship navy blowing up improvements but maybe we could reduce it to like 50 to 66.6...% needed so more people could use it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sgaaph said:

Make attrition policy make ship attacks do more chance to destroy improvements 🤺🤺🎇🎇

i also think attrition should have a higher degree of improvement destruction in both navy & ground, and raid should have lower than ordinary.


id also like to make ordinary kill more units than both, so that it is more than just the middle ground for people unsure if they want to raid or burn someone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might have been mentioned but stop this underdog air strike BS.  Someone attacking with less planes should not be guaranteed a win of taking out more planes than they will loose, even with an utter failure. 

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

2 hours ago, Malinok said:

Might have been mentioned but stop this underdog air strike BS.  Someone attacking with less planes should not be guaranteed a win of taking out more planes than they will loose, even with an utter failure. 

Or at least make it occur way less frequently... 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Ukunaka said:

the cure to spies killing too many spies and most of the other issues with spy warfare is not nerfing assassination ops and spy sats,
its to increase the daily buy of spies, which currently take 25 days to max without projects, 20 days to max with intel, and 15 days with both intel and spy sat. 

increasing the recover time of spies makes spy pins much less brutal, and balances the spy game while not making it obsolete or a waste of money to engage in.


Everyone wants these sphere wars to be quicker and not last for months, but no one wants them to be more decisive. You can’t have both. You either have quick wars with high losses, or you have very long expensive wars.

If you remove the number of spies killed, their use in battle is nullified. Units are too hard to spy away if your opponent has more than half of their spy count. If you increase the number of spies you can get per day, the meta will be to murder spies until the end of time. That doesn’t solve anything, if just takes away from spying’s other uses in wars. Your spies are still going to die, it’s still going to be fruitless to buy them back, but now you get to do it for a longer time!

 

The issue is with how the spy vs. spy mechanic is set up. But this isn’t the thread to introduce an entirely different mechanic idea.

Edited by Lord of Puns
Stupid big words
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Spies should be recruited faster, 4 per day as base and with project reachin 5/6 is pretty good imo.

It'd take:

  • 13(12.5 but rounded up) days to get up to 50 spies with no projects
  • 12 days to get to 60 with Intelligence agency10 days with both Int. Ag. and Spy sat

If the base recruitment rate is 5, then 6/7 with projects, it'd look like this:

  • 10 days to get to 50. No projects
  • 10 days to get to 60, Int. Ag.
  • 9 days to get to 60 with Spy sat. (8.5, but rounded up)

I don't think that being able to reach max spies in 10 days is broken, especially if you keep the spy kill rate as it is now

 

If you're afraid that the meta will shift just to kill other spies, then it may be a good idea to also tweak some spy operation numbers, like most of them aren't useful enough to break or make a war, like killing 20 planes ususally isn't a lot, it should be increased a bit, like 50 air at most sounds good to me. But it's not my job to make those numbers, I just think that spy ops should be made stronger(apart from nuke, missiles and spy kill)

Edited by Dorian Grey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding spies, I'll say this again. If you have spies being built too quickly, the point of spy attacking is heavily nerfed. The concept it that you spend some time getting their spies killed then you have the ability to use that window to disrupt units and such. If people can rebuild too quickly, it makes that window virtually non-existent thus making the point of spies also virtually non-existent.

In the same vein bumping the spy build count even by double doesn't get the person out of spy lockdown, it just makes it slightly more annoying to keep them down due to having to increase the frequency of spy vs spy ops. 

Ideally, the solution is active duty spies and inactive spies. The outline for such is below:

Quote
  1. When spies are built they are spawned in an undeployed status.

  2. Undeployed spies do not add to your offensive or defensive capabilities. They do not count towards score. They cannot be killed. 

  3. Spies can be moved to active duty from undeployed status at any time.

  4. Spies cannot be moved from active duty to undeployed status.

  5. Active spy amount + undeployed spy amount <= Max spy amount.

  6. Spies kept in reserve for more than 25 days are automatically moved to active

    1. Prevents someone sitting with max spies in undeployed waiting to be blitzed forever. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Malinok said:

Might have been mentioned but stop this underdog air strike BS.  Someone attacking with less planes should not be guaranteed a win of taking out more planes than they will loose, even with an utter failure. 

 

We have way too many mechanics that reward quantity over quality. Like in Dial Up, where the vastly outnumbered coalition destroyed p much every military the blob had, but then they were able to hide in the shit tier and swarm the enemy just suiciding aircraft, and then they obviously had the numbers to pin the aforementioned targets.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Malinok said:

Might have been mentioned but stop this underdog air strike BS.  Someone attacking with less planes should not be guaranteed a win of taking out more planes than they will loose, even with an utter failure. 

I absolutely hate it, but i think you have to have it.  you gotta give the losers a shot at doing something. 
 

24 minutes ago, Insert Name Here said:

 

We have way too many mechanics that reward quantity over quality. Like in Dial Up, where the vastly outnumbered coalition destroyed p much every military the blob had, but then they were able to hide in the shit tier and swarm the enemy just suiciding aircraft, and then they obviously had the numbers to pin the aforementioned targets.

If a group is hugely outnumbered in a war that is a failure of politics not mechanics.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I absolutely hate it, but i think you have to have it.  you gotta give the losers a shot at doing something. 
 

If a group is hugely outnumbered in a war that is a failure of politics not mechanics.

 

I agree with you but the impact shouldn't be this big, especially when you're just promoting long attrition wars where numbers alone are enough to overwhelm an efficient war effort from an outnumbered coalition. Those aren't healthy mechanics imo.

Edited by Insert Name Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2021 at 3:34 PM, dtc justice said:

The following is from @Ockey5, copy pasted, don't @ me over the language or aggression but I do side with his perspective

 

 

"how do i tell him to [email protected]#$ off and let us just learn the war mechanics? THEY CHANGE EVERY fricking WAR"

Change is good. It punishes complacency and rewards innovation and experimentation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2021 at 1:58 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I absolutely hate it, but i think you have to have it.  you gotta give the losers a shot at doing something. 

I think the real problem is how consistent it is, not that it exists. Should be way more rare. Like 1/3 or 1/4 the frequency of what it currently is, rather than killing more/equal planes every attack, when down 700 planes.

Edited by EliteCanada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2021 at 7:33 AM, Prefontaine said:

Do planes consistently kill more ships than naval?

The first one particularly. Two of those is basically the daily rebuild count of ships. While I understand the thinking behind you lose ships when planes don't, but you've had to clear the skies to get to that point. If the plane bombing rate is on par with these kill rates, I think the idea may be to nerf the plane kill rates of ships slightly and maybe buff the naval kills slightly as well. Something like 5%-10% for each. 

They do consistently kill many more ships than naval as long as there isn't any plane resistance on the other side, by about 20%. at c20 300vs 300 naval kills about 35 and you lose 37, 1500 planes will kill about 42 ships and you lose 0. Airstriking ships is the best net damage attack in the game. 

 

I just thinks ships are only useful in specific strategic situations - dropping resistance and maintaining blockade. They also use up so much gas and muni i'll often use naval attacks to simply zero my opponents gas/muni when they're already low so i can blockade and shut them down entirely. 

But the ability to maintain a blockade in a dogpile is what makes the game boring - particularly because it's so cheap to maintain that blockade when you outnumber your opponent. Maybe we need to drastically increase the RNG on navals so a double buy against max ships has a decent chance of breaking free with even a pyrrhic victory. Even this is often too expensive and has little strategic value. 

 

I dislike the superiority of planes in the meta - the war is over once you get air superiority - you can trash ships for a massive net damage advantage, and cutting tank power in half makes it so difficult to regain the advantage in a competitive war. I think AS should not cut tank power in half - it should simply increase the casualties planes can do. That way an opponent can still fight back with surprise attacks and a double ground buy. (This has the added bonus of solving the plane suicide problem that many are complaining about)

 

I think a healthy meta allows you to have the potential to win in the two other spaces if your opponent is winning in one. Right now, the whole game is air dominance - then the loser has to move to guerilla/raider tactics. Once you lose air you can't compete in air, ground, or sea. That's silly and boring. 

 

I also dislike that if you build a single troop - you can no longer decommission anything for the rest of the day. building and decomming troops make for dynamic gameplay for folks that are dogpiled. Tank flashing was popular in gw16 but you only flash a single buy or else you're stuck with all the tanks for the day. Maybe each turn you get a percentage that you can decom based on how many troops you built or something. 

 

Edited by MBaku
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2021 at 7:34 PM, Malinok said:

Might have been mentioned but stop this underdog air strike BS.  Someone attacking with less planes should not be guaranteed a win of taking out more planes than they will loose, even with an utter failure. 

Is it some kind of defender bonus?

I am just curious because the struggle to obtain an immense triumph against someone half my plane count is real.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MBaku said:

They do consistently kill many more ships than naval as long as there isn't any plane resistance on the other side, by about 20%. at c20 300vs 300 naval kills about 35 and you lose 37, 1500 planes will kill about 42 ships and you lose 0. Airstriking ships is the best net damage attack in the game. 

 

I just thinks ships are only useful in specific strategic situations - dropping resistance and maintaining blockade. They also use up so much gas and muni i'll often use naval attacks to simply zero my opponents gas/muni when they're already low so i can blockade and shut them down entirely. 

But the ability to maintain a blockade in a dogpile is what makes the game boring - particularly because it's so cheap to maintain that blockade when you outnumber your opponent. Maybe we need to drastically increase the RNG on navals so a double buy against max ships has a decent chance of breaking free with even a pyrrhic victory. Even this is often too expensive and has little strategic value. 

 

I dislike the superiority of planes in the meta - the war is over once you get air superiority - you can trash ships for a massive net damage advantage, and cutting tank power in half makes it so difficult to regain the advantage in a competitive war. I think AS should not cut tank power in half - it should simply increase the casualties planes can do. That way an opponent can still fight back with surprise attacks and a double ground buy. (This has the added bonus of solving the plane suicide problem that many are complaining about)

 

I think a healthy meta allows you to have the potential to win in the two other spaces if your opponent is winning in one. Right now, the whole game is air dominance - then the loser has to move to guerilla/raider tactics. Once you lose air you can't compete in air, ground, or sea. That's silly and boring. 

 

I also dislike that if you build a single troop - you can no longer decommission anything for the rest of the day. building and decomming troops make for dynamic gameplay for folks that are dogpiled. Tank flashing was popular in gw16 but you only flash a single buy or else you're stuck with all the tanks for the day. Maybe each turn you get a percentage that you can decom based on how many troops you built or something. 

 

I agree, a lot of nations are simply having max air builds and are able to completely dominate all three areas of warfare simply due to getting air superiority.

While its not impossible to win these conflicts, its prohibitively difficult. 

Blockade them with your navy, nope, they will airstrike your navy until the blockade is broken. 

Get ground control. Nope, they wreck your tanks and half their power. 

A simple fix for this is upping the amount of planes someone can take out with a successful ground attack. When someone has a 300-400 plane advantage over you, taking our 50-80 planes isn't going to do enough to turn the tide. 100-150, yeah that's going to cut into that overwhelming air power.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2021 at 3:27 AM, MBaku said:

I dislike the superiority of planes in the meta - the war is over once you get air superiority - you can trash ships for a massive net damage advantage, and cutting tank power in half makes it so difficult to regain the advantage in a competitive war. I think AS should not cut tank power in half - it should simply increase the casualties planes can do. That way an opponent can still fight back with surprise attacks and a double ground buy. (This has the added bonus of solving the plane suicide problem that many are complaining about)

 

I think a healthy meta allows you to have the potential to win in the two other spaces if your opponent is winning in one. Right now, the whole game is air dominance - then the loser has to move to guerilla/raider tactics. Once you lose air you can't compete in air, ground, or sea. That's silly and boring.

Sorry... I wasn't aware that it was still 2019?

Planes are not remotely OP. If you actually compare casualty rates from air vs. ground attacks its pretty evident where the balance is:

- ground attacks kill tanks more efficiently then airstriking them (additionally you are also killing soldiers / planes in the process - so both in terms of casualties and cost value, ground attack is significantly more efficient then air)

- a direct air > air dogfight will kill more planes but the flipside of this is ground attacks can be chained for less MAP and create a snowball effect to wipe out planes (with the added bonus of no casualty losses to your own planes)

 

Anyway... back to the OP. Aside from the obvious casualty rates, one of the biggest problems imo is that the current ground control system actively discourages rebuilding where there is a tier imbalance - i.e. why rebuild planes if they are just going to get blown up through ground attacks, and then the logical thought process is why rebuild tanks etc. etc.

The problem is further exacerbated by the current geopolitics - i.e. heavy concentration of lower cities in certain blocs which have generally been aligned in their interests, and the heavy concentration of whale tier elsewhere. Obviously thats not going to be fixed through war mechanics but imo a war system which encourages active fighting when at a disadvantage is preferable to one which encourages people to say **** it forget rebuilding and lets just burn infra instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2021 at 10:27 PM, MBaku said:

They do consistently kill many more ships than naval as long as there isn't any plane resistance on the other side, by about 20%. at c20 300vs 300 naval kills about 35 and you lose 37, 1500 planes will kill about 42 ships and you lose 0. Airstriking ships is the best net damage attack in the game. 

 

I just thinks ships are only useful in specific strategic situations - dropping resistance and maintaining blockade. They also use up so much gas and muni i'll often use naval attacks to simply zero my opponents gas/muni when they're already low so i can blockade and shut them down entirely. 

But the ability to maintain a blockade in a dogpile is what makes the game boring - particularly because it's so cheap to maintain that blockade when you outnumber your opponent. Maybe we need to drastically increase the RNG on navals so a double buy against max ships has a decent chance of breaking free with even a pyrrhic victory. Even this is often too expensive and has little strategic value. 

 

I dislike the superiority of planes in the meta - the war is over once you get air superiority - you can trash ships for a massive net damage advantage, and cutting tank power in half makes it so difficult to regain the advantage in a competitive war. I think AS should not cut tank power in half - it should simply increase the casualties planes can do. That way an opponent can still fight back with surprise attacks and a double ground buy. (This has the added bonus of solving the plane suicide problem that many are complaining about)

 

I think a healthy meta allows you to have the potential to win in the two other spaces if your opponent is winning in one. Right now, the whole game is air dominance - then the loser has to move to guerilla/raider tactics. Once you lose air you can't compete in air, ground, or sea. That's silly and boring. 

 

I also dislike that if you build a single troop - you can no longer decommission anything for the rest of the day. building and decomming troops make for dynamic gameplay for folks that are dogpiled. Tank flashing was popular in gw16 but you only flash a single buy or else you're stuck with all the tanks for the day. Maybe each turn you get a percentage that you can decom based on how many troops you built or something. 

 

Mbaku, dont worry everything you said is correct keep on believing all of this and stick to these strats going forward, they will serve you well.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Mbaku, dont worry everything you said is correct keep on believing all of this and stick to these strats going forward, they will serve you well.

Air strikes are so ridiculous, my opponents keep getting immense triumphs and killing mass amounts of planes even when they have less than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Change Blitzkrieg. Honestly rn it is probably the worst war policy you can be at. After 24 hours of switching its all loss 0 gain. Here is my proposal:

Quote

Blitzkrieg

Do X% more damage in the first 24 hours of any war, con: attackers start with 7 MAP

OR

Quote

 

Blitzkrieg (Anti-Fortress)

Start with 7 MAP when declaring war, con: opponents also start with 7 MAp

 

Reduce Defensive war slots to only 2. In globals rn, all that matters is that you are 3 v 1, even if you loose at the start you have 3x the rebuilding capabilities, so by day 3 you have already turned the tide of the war irreversibly. This is even worse when you have an advantage over an enemy nation, and then his aa hits you with 3 other enemies, and ur going 4 v 1. Reducing the slots to 2 makes it a far more even playing field, so wars are less of 3 v 1 dogpiles, and closer to 2 v 2 multi-war engagements. Would make war based on your skill, and not how effective your aa discord counter bot is.

 

Let Airstrikes hit Resources. irl hitting enemy fuel tanks/storage units can be decisive in war. Feel free to add ideas, but maybe Target Enemy Fuel (Gasoline Stockpiles) and Target Enemy Ammunition Depots (Munition Stockpiles) should be new options.

 

Make Naval Battles more like Airstrikes. As a lot of people already commented, naval is kinda useless rn, unless your enemy has low muni/gas stockpiles. My idea is that Naval Battles work just like Airstrikes, you can target enemy Ships, Units (except Planes), Infa, Money or Resources (see above). Just like Airstrikes, all NB go through enemy ships.

Edited by Mohammad.badawy4
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

Change Blitzkrieg. Honestly rn it is probably the worst war policy you can be at. After 24 hours of switching its all loss 0 gain. Here is my proposal:

OR

Reduce Defensive war slots to only 2. In globals rn, all that matters is that you are 3 v 1, even if you loose at the start you have 3x the rebuilding capabilities, so by day 3 you have already turned the tide of the war irreversibly. This is even worse when you have an advantage over an enemy nation, and then his aa hits you with 3 other enemies, and ur going 4 v 1. Reducing the slots to 2 makes it a far more even playing field, so wars are less of 3 v 1 dogpiles, and closer to 2 v 2 multi-war engagements. Would make war based on your skill, and not how effective your aa discord counter bot is.

This is a horrible idea, but it's super beneficial to me, so I say lets do it! 

Side note, some of us do counters the old fashion way, we pay attention, track nations, and watch war declaration screens, seems to be working pretty well for Grumpy this war.  Maybe a little less bots and a little more hard work could benefit some alliances out there.  As the old are apt to say, "Back in my day..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

This is a horrible idea, but it's super beneficial to me, so I say lets do it! 

Side note, some of us do counters the old fashion way, we pay attention, track nations, and watch war declaration screens, seems to be working pretty well for Grumpy this war.  Maybe a little less bots and a little more hard work could benefit some alliances out there.  As the old are apt to say, "Back in my day..."

What about other 3 proposals? Ideas? Feedback?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

What about other 3 proposals? Ideas? Feedback?

i dont hate the 2nd one, but you would have to balance it out.

the issue with navy in my opinion is the cost of it. Setting a blockade is a very powerful ability with great utility. (check that rhyme boyz!)  The problem i have is how much it costs to run for destroying infra,  it costs me more than twice the resources to launch a naval attack that does around 1300-1400 infra damage.  as an airstrike on infra that does 1000 infra damage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Score changes should be made. That's one of the biggest problem with war system atm.
Other than that, air superiority halving tanks is definitely a big problem, given how ground control is pretty much useless without tanks. Maybe make air superiority base on the number of planes the opponent has?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Prefontaine unpinned and unfeatured this topic

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.