Jump to content

Alliance Reserve Forces


Recommended Posts

How does this effect pirates? Would an alliance be able to send soldiers and tanks to instantly counter a raid?

Would the upkeep be the same, less or more than normal? 
A lower upkeep would be better in terms of roleplay, but higher upkeep helps balance the mechanic so that alliances arent under constant pressure have max units

Edited by Grandmaster Bee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grandmaster Bee said:

How does this effect pirates? Would an alliance be able to send soldiers and tanks to instantly counter a raid? 

The nation in question can only receive the number of troops according to their improvements. So if they're running 0/2/5/0 the amount of soldiers an alliance can send will still be 0 until that nation switch's their build. Also as I mentioned if you blockade said nation they cannot receive any reinforcements & furthermore as I mentioned I was thinking there should be a 5 day cooldown for individual nations after being sent reinforcements.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If reserve units are cheap, it becomes a requirement for every alliance to have a max stockpile and there isnt a trade-off. If its expensive, each alliance will have to weigh the costs versus benefits of maintaining an expensive reserve army. Not having units will increase profits but will put you in a vulnerable situation if you get leaked. 

Being able to send reserve units to only nations in beige would better address the goal of making globals more dynamic, while not hurting Pirates.

Edited by Grandmaster Bee
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingNinja said:

I'd like to start out with a disclaimer before I get jumped on (rightfully so, since this is only a rough idea) and clarify that I thought my idea itself is good, however I am asking for community help in the case the community finds this interesting enough.

So to start, as the topic title suggests the idea here is to add "Alliance military." What do I mean by this exactly? Well it's actually quite simple. For every city a nation owns that nation can have up to 15000 soldiers, 1250 tanks, 75 planes and 15 ships. It would work largely the same.

So for example TKR has (currently as of writing) 3851 cities total. So 57,765,000 would be the maximum amount of reserve they could hold in soldiers. Now here's where things get tricky because I thought of multiple ways this could obviously create problems, some of you are probably thinking "okay but if an alliance has such resources sitting in reserve they can just continually send out 'reserves' to keep their troop counts maxed" Your right to think that, which is also why I thought of the next step.

Limitations on either how many times per day an alliance can send out their reserve forces and/or limiting how many times per day/week an individual nation may receive these reinforcements. So this is where I need your help, what would be the best way to achieve this in order for this to become a good idea? Do we add a bit of everything limiting an individual nation to say receiving these reserve troops to once every 5 days? Would that be too long? Should we also limit how many times an alliance can send out reserves to their member nations -10 per day as an example, or perhaps a % depending on how many nations are in said alliance or maybe a percentage of the total reserve forces on hand for an alliance?

Next I'd like to just toss a small cherry on top of this suggestion. Similarly to aiding nations with resources in wartime if an alliances nation is blockaded and needs reserve forces you cannot send it to your member nation if they are blockaded which I thought would be a cool little addition that would add immense value to ships that simply weren't there before.

In conclusion the idea I'm presenting is meant to help add a new breath of fresh air to the depth and intensity of a global war, give a new direction to alliance banks that at the moment only exist to give out city/project grants and 'save' up war chests and in rare cases help certain spheres from not getting caught completely with their pants down or rather giving them a fighting chance in what would be a day 1 lost war.

Everything written above should be considered subject to change to fit in better with the communities feelings on if the subject matter in this topic can be of a benefit towards the entire game community or this is just another idiotic idea doomed to be tossed aside a few hours after I post this. Let the dunking commence. Thank you to the people that take the time to read this. I will edit this post with community suggestions if for some odd reason this comes off as appealing to you all. I hope it does, despite my terrible ability to communicate my thoughts and ideas.

P.S just small small QoL clarifications - lets say an alliance has maxed out their reserve forces, if for some reason that alliance disbands without selling off the forces it will automatically sell off all military at the same return of an individual nation selling off military and be dispensed evenly to every member of the alliance, this does not include applicants. Also if you lose members from your alliance at max reserves you don't lose those forces but you cannot buy more until you've fallen under your new maximum. For example if TKR had full reserve and lost 20-30 cities, they would keep the forces those cities provided but could not buy more until they dropped under their new maximum.

Spanky's idea was kinda like this..
Heres a way to fix it i just thought of. Tighten the war ranges and give the ability to send expeditionary troops to an ally. They count towards the units you have fielded, so if I lent lets say pascal 5k tanks itd count it as me fielding those units towards my max military but pascal would pay rss upkeep for them. Snd have them in his nation. You can only send troops in a certain score range. 

Doing this would force more cooperation amongst allies. It would also force the big boys to do more proxy like wars by gifting countries units and such. There could be a cap on the units based on your own military. So if pascal is lets say c15 with max mmr he can only get maybe 5 cities of max mmr units from me.

Doing this would allow 3rd parties to intervene more in wars by gifting nations units without directly participating in wars. 

It would be a good mechanic because then in wars where lets say the prots are left out they could donate troops to their struggle allies without directly going to war. Or if lets say clock wanted to donate rose troops they could to a degree to help turn the tide. 

Tis a random thought I had lmk what yall think (taken from Ron)

It would be a good idea If its done right. 

Edited by Monti
  • Upvote 1

3 years on this stupid game :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought of something else. I think all alliances should start at a fixed cap on military and allow them to upgrade the cap. That would allow alliances out of top 10 to have a say in this. 

Example: Fixed Cap: 10m Soldiers - upgrade for random amount - Upgraded Cap: 20m Soldiers 

  • Upvote 2

3 years on this stupid game :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Codename V said:

If you can't send to inactive or blockaded people this may be a decent suggestion.

Yes that's sorta the idea by way of the nation builds needing the military improvements to receive soldiers and yeah, blockading + 5 day cooldowns on anyone that did receive reserve troops, even if it's only 1 soldier or ship. I'm sure we could also add in a required log-in like if someone is red or purple diamond they cannot receive troops until they log in even if they meet the improvements required. So nation X is inactive for 5 days but is running 5/5/5/3 however nation X's military on hand is only 0/2/5/0, because nation X has a red diamond nation X cannot receive reserves until he logs in and the diamond changes.👍

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something like this is a much needed mechanic to make globals wars more dynamic and opens the possibilities for exciting counter-blitzes in the second or third rounds where alliances rebuild the military of tiered members over a couple days while in beige. Functionally, this could contribute to breaking the cyclical nature of large wars. 

In my opinion, for this mechanic to be balanced:

Nations that receive units need to be on beige. To prevent cringe down-declares in wars and to protect piracy so that alliance counters can not instantly max out their military

The number of allowed unit transfers per day needs to correlate with the size of the alliance (whether it be score, nations, cities, average score, etc)

Alliance Reserve unit rebuys need to be very slow. 30-40 days to hit the max 

Unit upkeep should be similar to normal unit upkeep and the cost should be spread across all the alliance members

Units shouldn't be sent to inactive nations that happen to have 5/5/5/3 military builds

Edited by Grandmaster Bee
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be like taxes, the alliance takes a certain percent of the nations military. Then the nation cant access it so that it forces alliances to be more cohesive and act quicker.

imo you shouldn't put a limit on the amount you can send or the time that you can send them so that we can have huge proxy wars start between two tiny nations with like 1mil troops (but still require the nations to foot most of the bill for these troops or make a limit where it costs more to keep them). This would also add an element to the early parts of wars where an alliance can stockpile troops to counter a blitz.

Then you could put a troop trading system, where large nations could sell their military on the market for a quick buck. Or alliances could support eachother in proxy wars through massive trades like the trade system we have now (like the rss trade but with soldiers, imagine the amount of meta gaming and stuff we could do with that).
(and allow alliances to send these troops to anyone willing to accept the trade for them)
And even if you've sold your troops on a lease you still have them taking up your capacity. 

And instead of the troops being stored in an alliance bank sort of thing, they could be stored in a nation where the alliance chooses to send them (where that nation could not send them out if blockaded). 

sorry if none of this makes any sense, I'm really really tired

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 11:51 AM, SleepingNinja said:

So for example TKR has (currently as of writing) 3851 cities total. So 57,765,000 would be the maximum amount of reserve they could hold in soldiers.

So you want to buff TKR? If I'm reading your suggestion right (which I probably am not), this idea preferentially buffs the top 3 who have a ton of cities. Having a communal military preferentially benefits the small nations that share an alliance with many big ones. Especially when opponents are poorly tier matched, the one with out-of-range whales would have a distinct advantage over the micro and mid-tier alliances. Right?

Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

So you want to buff TKR? If I'm reading your suggestion right (which I probably am not), this idea preferentially buffs the top 3 who have a ton of cities. Having a communal military preferentially benefits the small nations that share an alliance with many big ones. Especially when opponents are poorly tier matched, the one with out-of-range whales would have a distinct advantage over the micro and mid-tier alliances. Right?

TKR was used an an example because they were at the top, nothing more. Individual timers per nation as well as blockading should keep things from getting too out of control. I don't think the numbers I used are something that should be set in stone either as Monti pointed out we can adjust how much an alliance can hold on them in terms of balance as needed.

Lets say for example these past 2 globals (yes yes, GW24 is not real, not big enough blah blah) of Hw vs Celestial and Clock vs BR as examples and assume each alliance was full up on their reserves. The HW-Celestial war would be going down way different for a few reasons ; 1st would be that Celestial could have saved their first round since they weren't running 5/5/5/3 however if this were actually a thing HW would also know that they could/would do it and than initiate blockades to prevent it. This would also have a slowing effect on the blitz since they'd have to allocate MAPs that would initially be used for GAs / Airstrikes into Naval's that would prevent reinforcements and fighting them at full military which would give Celestial more time to decide a course of action and members to login & rebuy. At the same time if they ignored blockading then Celestial would get free reign to re-up at their leisure. Now would this change the outcome of the HW-Celestial war? Maybe, maybe not. It'd be a hell of a lot more interesting to see.

On the flip side if BR tried to do it against Clock in that war it simply wouldn't have worked out and it would turn into a waste of resources, that said I'm probably overlooking some fun new strategies that could have come with having the options. But it would have been wasteful for the most part for BR to try using it. Basically Tiering and numbers still matter. It's up to the individual alliances to decide if it's worth using them or not. These reserve forces are protected so nothing can actually destroy them, which the point being is it wouldn't really change anything from the now of turtling after the 1st round in a lost war. But in cases like this HW-Celestial war where Celestial actually outnumbers HW in some of the higher tiers it gives unique opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

@SleepingNinja while it's a good idea, there is a major problem which Zig was getting at, and the larger side already has the advantage of being the larger side. You've effectively just doubled that advantage. You've also made it so a single player just starts their own one man AA and holds full reserve units, declares a raid on a small nation and then sudden has full mil and insurmountable strength without outside help. 

Some ideas to help address the above issues:

3 tiers of alliance, small, medium and large. Lets say small alliances are 10-25 members. Medium alliances are 26-75 members. Larger are 76+. You would likely need an activity counter on this which risks board alliances from being misrepresented.  Each tier has it's own pool of alliance based units that it can deploy. Small alliances can have 500k soldiers, 50k tanks, etc... things like that at their reinforcement disposal. While it's not perfect it helps from one group really running away with things. It also stops the 1 man alliance issue I mentioned.

Upkeep for these units would have to get paid from the alliance bank as well. If that was said somewhere I missed it. 

 

Again this would be extremely powerful for whales. If they could regularly get a refresh on the unit that is trying to be ground down, then whales can only be countered by more whales. DM me on discord if you want to talk more about it. 

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2022 at 1:14 PM, Prefontaine said:

@SleepingNinja while it's a good idea, there is a major problem which Zig was getting at, and the larger side already has the advantage of being the larger side. You've effectively just doubled that advantage. You've also made it so a single player just starts their own one man AA and holds full reserve units, declares a raid on a small nation and then sudden has full mil and insurmountable strength without outside help. 

Some ideas to help address the above issues:

3 tiers of alliance, small, medium and large. Lets say small alliances are 10-25 members. Medium alliances are 26-75 members. Larger are 76+. You would likely need an activity counter on this which risks board alliances from being misrepresented.  Each tier has it's own pool of alliance based units that it can deploy. Small alliances can have 500k soldiers, 50k tanks, etc... things like that at their reinforcement disposal. While it's not perfect it helps from one group really running away with things. It also stops the 1 man alliance issue I mentioned.

Upkeep for these units would have to get paid from the alliance bank as well. If that was said somewhere I missed it. 

 

Again this would be extremely powerful for whales. If they could regularly get a refresh on the unit that is trying to be ground down, then whales can only be countered by more whales. DM me on discord if you want to talk more about it. 

Thanks for taking the time to read my thread and I appreciate the response. I'd love to DM you and discuss this further however it seems I am not allowed to DM you nor add your account as a friend. Please feel free to DM me whenever you get a chance as I don't have restrictions on who can DM me. Have a good day friend.🙂

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.