Delayed Superiorities

[Joe Schmo]

so superiority is wayyy more fragile now that a mod is enough to break a full stack if this gets implemented? yeah, no way i'm supporting that.

[Kyubnyan]

1 hour ago, Zevari said:

Honestly the main reason I voted against this is purely because I feel like we have way to little resistance/maps to afford a change like this.

If getting a superiority cost several attacks, then you wouldn't realise the benefits until a certain number of attacks have passed. I feel like you would need to rework how much damage a single attack does or how long a war lasts to make this work well. I would certainly like to need a more dynamic superiority but the balance wire we stand on here is very thin.

Also would this affect naval superiorities? Ships are already in a bad spot, nerfing the ability to blockading by effectively delaying how long it takes to set up one would be quite bad.

This is a good point. I also feel that how superiority is broken especially by ITs from other opponents will need to be reevaluated. This won't just make a pyrrhic victory nullify 2 attacks used to get an IT but another IT by another nation would really set back the attacker a lot. The tempo of wars will be way too slow based on how easy it is to make your opponent waste resistance to get anything useful done.

[Alcyr]

2 hours ago, Zevari said:

Honestly the main reason I voted against this is purely because I feel like we have way to little resistance/maps to afford a change like this.

If getting a superiority cost several attacks, then you wouldn't realise the benefits until a certain number of attacks have passed. I feel like you would need to rework how much damage a single attack does or how long a war lasts to make this work well. I would certainly like to need a more dynamic superiority but the balance wire we stand on here is very thin.

Also would this affect naval superiorities? Ships are already in a bad spot, nerfing the ability to blockading by effectively delaying how long it takes to set up one would be quite bad.

I think it is important to note that details beyond what are explicitly mentioned in the OP are subject to change as well, so I think it's better to consider whether any of the ideas proposed could be made to work after some additional details are worked out. They aren't full proposals, just general approaches.

The resistance/maps issue is a valid point, especially if saving MAPs because of beige cycling. Ignoring the beige cycling issue for a moment (since that should be addressed by beige changes ideally), I think the partial superiority idea would somewhat offsets that since rather than all or nothing, if you got the initial success you'd have half the bonus for example - so weaker, but still there. Anything more than two steps seems like it could start being a much bigger issue, though, even with that offset.

Naval is an issue too, as it is already rather secondary in wars, with blockades being fairly easy to plan around. And blockading isn't really something that can be halved. Either the benefit would need to be entirely reworked to something that could be variable (something that affects other units like ground/air already do?), or getting naval superiority can progressively unlock abilities. What specifically would be up for debate, but there was a naval bombardment idea that was floated around (which would allow ships to target city improvements in exchange for decreased infra damage and taking more damage from defending ships), so just as an example it could be that half superiority causes a blockade as it behaves currently, then full superiority allows for bombardments. Or something along those lines, that's really just an example to explain how it could work.

So personally with some fleshing out of details, I think it could result in something decent.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Alcyr

[Zevari]

2 hours ago, Alcyr said:

(edited to condense post)

So personally with some fleshing out of details, I think it could result in something decent.

This is actually what I want, I'm just worried we will experience a situation similar to baseball or beige where (at least for me) public feedback wasn't well received. I would certainly love to have a rework, but the dev team should hold any coding until a fully fleshed out idea has been made with the general playerbase. That's what always make me quite conservative to many changes that get presented, it doesn't feel like there is much transparency. 

Maybe that's just my personal selfish desire who knows.

[Witch-King Of Angmar]

I'm in favour of keeping things the same but that naval idea sounds interesting. 

[hidude45454]

There are a few reasons I am hesitant to make such a change, although I can probably be talked out of them with the right logic.

First, obviously this is a huge hit to an opening blitz. I think a blitzed side should have more options to fight back, but not sure if nerfing a blitz directly is the right way to go about it.

Second, this is a nerf to underdogs and smaller numbers. The smaller you are, the more decisive of a hit you have to land in order to get an advantage in war, or to do damage in a war, and this hurts the prospects of that somewhat.

Third, and I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think this also shifts the meta too strongly back towards planes being king. My feeling is it will be easier to try and go for plane ITs in a blitz, since ground ITs already don't kill planes until after ground control is achieved. Plus, that's an important extra period where planes are able to kill tanks, but tanks go back to not being able to kill planes again, and I don't like that a great deal.

[Keegoz]

1 hour ago, hidude45454 said:

There are a few reasons I am hesitant to make such a change, although I can probably be talked out of them with the right logic.

First, obviously this is a huge hit to an opening blitz. I think a blitzed side should have more options to fight back, but not sure if nerfing a blitz directly is the right way to go about it.

Second, this is a nerf to underdogs and smaller numbers. The smaller you are, the more decisive of a hit you have to land in order to get an advantage in war, or to do damage in a war, and this hurts the prospects of that somewhat.

Third, and I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think this also shifts the meta too strongly back towards planes being king. My feeling is it will be easier to try and go for plane ITs in a blitz, since ground ITs already don't kill planes until after ground control is achieved. Plus, that's an important extra period where planes are able to kill tanks, but tanks go back to not being able to kill planes again, and I don't like that a great deal.

Could potentially rework how ground ITs interact to balance that out? I personally feel that the progressive bonus for each IT is the more ideal way to handle it atm. That you slowly build towards getting the full AS or GC amount. Doesn't nerf the blitz completely as it is feasible to get some sort of advantage.

[Prefontaine]

We're about 50/50 at the moment on wanting a change and not. If that remains somewhat accurate by Monday next week I'll put together some more concise versions of what this change could look like.

[Arln]

I doubt that would have too much of an impact on war outcomes or how fast their decided.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Arln

[zigbigadorlou]

11 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

We're about 50/50 at the moment on wanting a change and not. If that remains somewhat accurate by Monday next week I'll put together some more concise versions of what this change could look like.

Whether people like it or not, is there a mechanism whereby we could code and test it to get a real feel for it? Lots of good points in the thread, but I'd love to see your past idea of having a rolling supply of tweaks getting used on the test server. 

[Ketya]

I like the aspect of making it more difficult for the winning side to get superiorities; but not a fan with making it very difficult for the losing side.

What about you get the superiority just like today if you have less planes/ship/soldiers (so no change). But, you need to ITs in a row two get the superiority if you have more ships or planes or soldiers. In short, the suggestion applies to the side that is overpowered.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Ketya

[Grave]

why not make all wars start with 0 MAP by default?

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

On 10/29/2022 at 4:00 AM, Grave said:

why not make all wars start with 0 MAP by default?

yeah!  lets declare war, and not actually be able to attack for another 6-8 hours!