Popular Post Prefontaine Posted August 16, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted August 16, 2022 The third and final area of the war system up for rework is the declare ranges, huge down declares have long been an issue. A hard limit on down declares would solve the issue but is widely disliked, thus a modifier will be present for up and down swings in war. This modifier will impact infra damage dealt and unit damage dealt but units (not missiles/nukes). When attacking a nation that has more cities than you, you receive a positive modifier of 50% of the difference in cities from your nation. When attacking a nation that has less cities than you, you receive a negative modifier of 50% of the different in cities from your nation. These modifiers only take place above City 10 Some examples: A C15 attacks a C20, being a 33% difference in cities, the C15 receives a 16.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. A C20 attacks a C15, being a 25% difference in cities, the C20 receives a -12.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. As you can see the percentage calculated is based off of the attacking nations city count. This modifier will be calculated before each attack, thus if someone buys more cities mid war, the modifier will change. More examples: A C20 declares on a C19, 5% difference in cities, -2.5% modifier A C40 declares on a C30, 25% difference, -12.5% modifier A C35 declares on a C50, 43% difference, 21.5% modifier These changes will tie in to a score rework for military units more aligned with the results from this thread. 2 14 68 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venusbutre Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 Its a good idea, but if a c30 with 1k infra downdeclares on a c20 with 2k+ infra, the c20 will still be taking the losses, furthermore, u are going to have a few people who just like the idea of nuking people and imagine a c15 declaring on a c20 with 2.5k infra, 25% difference in cities, 12.5%modifier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted August 16, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted August 16, 2022 If you are going to nullify the advantage of having more cities, why not just remove the city mechanic all together? 2 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canbec Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 1 minute ago, Venusbutre said: Its a good idea, but if a c30 with 1k infra downdeclares on a c20 with 2k+ infra, the c20 will still be taking the losses, furthermore, u are going to have a few people who just like the idea of nuking people and imagine a c15 declaring on a c20 with 2.5k infra, 25% difference in cities, 12.5%modifier. The change does not impact damage done by projectiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 16, 2022 Author Share Posted August 16, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Venusbutre said: Its a good idea, but if a c30 with 1k infra downdeclares on a c20 with 2k+ infra, the c20 will still be taking the losses, furthermore, u are going to have a few people who just like the idea of nuking people and imagine a c15 declaring on a c20 with 2.5k infra, 25% difference in cities, 12.5%modifier. Quote The third and final area of the war system up for rework is the declare ranges, huge down declares have long been an issue. A hard limit on down declares would solve the issue but is widely disliked, thus a modifier will be present for up and down swings in war. This modifier will impact infra damage dealt and unit damage dealt but units (not missiles/nukes). 1 minute ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: If you are going to nullify the advantage of having more cities, why not just remove the city mechanic all together? 50% is not nullifying. It also does not impact the roll success rates. Edited August 16, 2022 by Prefontaine 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canbec Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 Is the intent of the change to nerf the losing side of a war even more than they already get nerfed by being cycled, or is that just a side effect? Conversely if you're on the winning side of a war, at some point you can't do anything but updeclare because no targets your size are in range anymore. Does that really warrant some sort of reward, particularly when updeclaring on a zeroed target? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Holy Decagon Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 So, my impression is that this is to help dampen the effects of someone far larger wiping you out “as easily”, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post WarriorSoul Posted August 16, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted August 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Prefontaine said: huge down declares have long been an issue. [citation needed] Are we just nerfing for the sake of nerfing, then? This seems like an entirely arbitrary change with little justification. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Holy Decagon Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said: [citation needed] Are we just nerfing for the sake of nerfing, then? This seems like an entirely arbitrary change with little justification. You think the current way that a c40 can down declare on c20’s, is okay? (obviously not a 3200+ infra, militarized c40+) Edited August 16, 2022 by His Holy Decagon 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 16, 2022 Author Share Posted August 16, 2022 6 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said: So, my impression is that this is to help dampen the effects of someone far larger wiping you out “as easily”, right? A simplification, but yes. 5 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said: [citation needed] Are we just nerfing for the sake of nerfing, then? This seems like an entirely arbitrary change with little justification. The justification is in the OP. Massive down declares have been a long standing problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Holy Decagon Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 Not sure why people are down voting; the upper tier advantage is still there, it’s just lessened slightly. This should present “more challenges” to those who might’ve solely relied on just down declaring during wars 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 15 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said: You think the current way that a c40 can down declare on c20’s, is okay? (obviously not a 3200+ infra, militarized c40+) Yes, obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t have said anything. The idea that a nation should be subjected to such a disadvantage due only to its larger size is asinine. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 16, 2022 Author Share Posted August 16, 2022 Just now, WarriorSoul said: Yes, obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t have said anything. The idea that a nation should be subjected to such a disadvantage due only to its larger size is asinine. They will still get their overwhelming number of units advantage, still get the same chance for victory rolls in the IT -> UT range, they just kill a percentage less of the units they would kill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Lord Tyrion Posted August 16, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted August 16, 2022 8 minutes ago, Keegoz said: You can also point out flaws. These threads are meant to point out flaws or suggest modifications. Otherwise a downvote will suffice. If the main thing we're trying to prevent is massive downdeclares, then just put in a safety guard for that only. Make it so beyond score range, you can only downdeclare on a nation with X% less than your current city count. Done. But this modification of kills is crazy. Let's say a C30 is in wars with a bunch of people and down to 500 planes, then gets declared on by a c25 who has way more planes AND gets a 15% modifier on top of that advantage. Why? How ridiculously punitive. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadn Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 To me it seems a bit excessive. Giving a defensive modifier to the the smaller nation would make more sense to me 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 4 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said: If the main thing we're trying to prevent is massive downdeclares, then just put in a safety guard for that only. Make it so beyond score range, you can only downdeclare on a nation with X% less than your current city count. Done. But this modification of kills is crazy. Let's say a C30 is in wars with a bunch of people and down to 500 planes, then gets declared on by a c25 who has way more planes AND gets a 15% modifier on top of that advantage. Why? How ridiculously punitive. We floated the idea and there was backlash against hard caps. We therefore explored softer caps. I find it insane that a partially milled c20ish nation can be hit by a fully milled c40 rn. More so than what you are suggesting. 1 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Holy Decagon Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 11 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said: Yes, obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t have said anything. The idea that a nation should be subjected to such a disadvantage due only to its larger size is asinine. I think “disadvantage” and “less of an advantage” aren’t synonymous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Tyrion Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, Keegoz said: We floated the idea and there was backlash against hard caps. We therefore explored softer caps. I find it insane that a partially milled c20ish nation can be hit by a fully milled c40 rn. More so than what you are suggesting. This suggestion doesn't change that at all. The c40 can still hit the c20ish nation in this scenario, they just might lose a few more troops in that process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roman von Sternberg Posted August 16, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted August 16, 2022 30 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said: You think the current way that a c40 can down declare on c20’s, is okay? (obviously not a 3200+ infra, militarized c40+) C28 that got hit by a C40 with mil last war checking in..... yes, it's fine. The losers should be able to leverage down declares to do some conventional damage if they've lost enough infra that they actually reach that far down. And it's the responsibility of the winners to bail out the nation being hit. Don't see why this is a concern, it's just part of fighting a war in this game. As for the suggestion, giving some light bonuses to nations being downdec'd isn't terrible, but giving bonuses to updeclares is genuinely awful. Presumably that'll just make dogpiles worse? 1 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 16, 2022 Author Share Posted August 16, 2022 9 minutes ago, cadn said: To me it seems a bit excessive. Giving a defensive modifier to the the smaller nation would make more sense to me They do get a defensive modifier if they're declared on. Attacker getting a % reduction in damage is the same as the defender getting a % reduction in units lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Charles Bolivar Posted August 16, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted August 16, 2022 This essentially penalises players who optimise their city growth whilst rewarding these who are less efficient in growing their nations. I'd rather you limit people to attacking targets with the exact same amount of cities instead of implementing this idea (which is also a terrible idea I might add). 2 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 7 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: They will still get their overwhelming number of units advantage, still get the same chance for victory rolls in the IT -> UT range, they just kill a percentage less of the units they would kill. So the winning side still wipes the losers relatively easily, and but now losing downdeclares, which are a reliable method for the losing side to scrape back some ground, get nerfed by nature of getting their troops swarmed even more. 5 minutes ago, Keegoz said: We floated the idea and there was backlash against hard caps. We therefore explored softer caps. I find it insane that a partially milled c20ish nation can be hit by a fully milled c40 rn. More so than what you are suggesting. Basically the only circumstance under which something like this happens is when a losing coalition is trying to gain *any* ground on the winning one. It’s not like you have constant 20 city down-declares from the winning side looking to further impose. That sort of reach is nearly impossible after a week or two of fighting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzek Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 (edited) I'm generally in favor of this kind of change. Some things to note: If a coalition is losing, they will typically have less infra (from it being damaged) and units (from being killed). Thus, with current score ranges, the losing side will generally be fighting nations with less cities than them; increasing the advantage for the winning side. Downdeclares are problematic if both nations have military. This affects the war regardless of that. It also affects updeclares. (e.g. a full mill c20 ganking a zeroed c30) In the c1-10 range, buying cities isn't a too uncommon strategy. There would be issues if the modifier is determined upon declaration and the nation buys cities. (incorrect, didn't read) edit: More thoughts Score could be more based on military strength (including possible rebuys) not cities, infra, or projects that are militarily irrelevant 50% seems a bit large, maybe reduce to 25%? It would make more sense to base the modifier on score, not cities, so as not to disadvantage the losing side. Edited August 16, 2022 by Borg 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyx Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 10 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said: Let's say a C30 is in wars with a bunch of people and down to 500 planes, then gets declared on by a c25 who has way more planes AND gets a 15% modifier on top of that advantage. Why? How ridiculously punitive. I would have to agree with this; I am a c10 and not too many nations have actually declared on me because I usually have a fully capped military (not right now lol), but if someone were to declare war on me right now, if they had fewer cities than me and this update applied to nations with fewer than 10 cities, the kills would be way too high for me to be able to win the war. 14 minutes ago, cadn said: To me it seems a bit excessive. Giving a defensive modifier to the the smaller nation would make more sense to me Yes, I think this would be a good idea. 2 Quote Hello. I don't know what to put here right now. I hope you're having a lovely day : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 16, 2022 Author Share Posted August 16, 2022 1 minute ago, WarriorSoul said: So the winning side still wipes the losers relatively easily, and but now losing downdeclares, which are a reliable method for the losing side to scrape back some ground, get nerfed by nature of getting their troops swarmed even more. You need to be more specific than "the winning side", what makes the winning side the winning side is very much important to the core of this change. If the winning side is simply winning because they have more high tiered nations this will impact how easy it is for them to be the winning side. Your "scrape back some ground" reference doesn't really exist in wars as it stands, it becomes a turtle nuke/missile war which this change doesn't really impact. If you're only argument is effectively a scenario that doesn't really happen, you may want to reconsider your view point. 2 minutes ago, Borg said: In the c1-10 range, buying cities isn't a too uncommon strategy. There would be issues if the modifier is determined upon declaration and the nation buys cities. This change doesn't take place until above C10. Additionally the modifier is calculated before each attack. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.