Popular Post Prefontaine Posted September 12, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted September 12, 2022 With the feedback from this thread where the vote is currently 50% in favor of some change and 50 in favor of no change, that's enough to try and more detailed flesh out some of the concepts: Partial Superiorities: Two IT's are required to gain superiority over an opponent. This does not require consecutive, you can get a Pyrrhic, Moderate, etc... in-between the ITs. If the opponent get's a Pyrrhic Victory or better in that arena (ground v ground, air v air) then it breaks the partial or full superiority in that arena. Getting a partial superiority gives you half the benefit. The second IT ground attack only destroys 50% of what it would for planes. The third IT kills the full amount. The first IT air attack reduces tank effectiveness by 50% of the full superiority Additional ideas: To improve Naval use, an IT with naval units could reduce an Air Superiority by 1 step. If they only had a partial superiority it resets to zero, if they had a full superiority it reduces to partial. This only impacts air or ground separately, not both at once. 1 12 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinok Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 Stop making it complicated. KISS! If you want to make a change remove the plane underdog damage. It's ridiculous that the underdog can kill more planes even when they loose. If you want this in, set it so it only happens 5-10% of the time. 1 2 Quote Legal Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily reflect of the opinions of my alliance, allies, enemies or neutrals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 13 minutes ago, Malinok said: Stop making it complicated. KISS! If you want to make a change remove the plane underdog damage. It's ridiculous that the underdog can kill more planes even when they loose. If you want this in, set it so it only happens 5-10% of the time. It really isn't that complicated imo. 2 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...
J Kell Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 (edited) This seems like a good starting point, I'm sure I'm missing something here that would need to be changed. From what I am reading, though, this seems to be at least a partial solution to making individual war outcomes more uncertain with some back and forth. Would Naval blockade still be after one IT? As there is no way to partially block trading.... Unless, one IT with a naval attack stops the ability of the losing country to trade with nations, but not their ability to receive id directly from their alliance. The second IT would fully blockade them. What about that? Edited September 15, 2022 by J Kell Quote Listen to J Kell's new single: About The Author An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KindaEpicMoah Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 On 9/12/2022 at 11:48 AM, Prefontaine said: To improve Naval use, an IT with naval units could reduce an Air Superiority by 1 step. If they only had a partial superiority it resets to zero, if they had a full superiority it reduces to partial. Does a IT naval attack from one war decrease Air Superiority across all wars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkblade Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 I'm in favor of this. These changes will reward alliances who coordinate over just throwing bodies at the opponent and expecting a win. It also gives the losing team more breathing room to potentially break out of IT's and turn their war's around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Puns Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 On 9/12/2022 at 11:48 AM, Prefontaine said: To improve Naval use, an IT with naval units could reduce an Air Superiority by 1 step. If they only had a partial superiority it resets to zero, if they had a full superiority it reduces to partial. This only impacts air or ground separately, not both at once. This is probably the best suggestion on war change so far. So long as this only impacts the war it occurs in, and not all of the opponent’s other wars. AND it applies to ground control as well in an either/or - pick/choose fashion. Otherwise you’re inadvertently nerfing air Quote 22:26 +Kadin: too far man 22:26 +Kadin: too far 22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: that's the point of incest Kadin 22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: to go farther 22:27 Bet: or father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted September 15, 2022 Author Share Posted September 15, 2022 2 hours ago, KindaEpicMoah said: Does a IT naval attack from one war decrease Air Superiority across all wars? I didn't picture it as doing so, but it's open for discussion of course. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwan Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 (edited) So we've come full circle from "let's encourage starting wars" to "blitz strong, pls nerf"? This would make it nigh impossible for an underdog to gain any meaningful advantage! If you want to get an advantage as a defender you have counters at your disposal, you shouldn't be supposed to win your defensive wars outright over a party who put in the effort to organize a blitz. Additionally, it would make it even more of a numbers slogfest if IT's are basically impossible to gain within a reasonable timeframe. Edited September 15, 2022 by Hwan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted September 15, 2022 Author Share Posted September 15, 2022 1 hour ago, Lord of Puns said: This is probably the best suggestion on war change so far. So long as this only impacts the war it occurs in, and not all of the opponent’s other wars. AND it applies to ground control as well in an either/or - pick/choose fashion. Otherwise you’re inadvertently nerfing air That was the idea, lets say your enemy wants to run a no ships build on a blitz, then they're exposed to losing their sups in that war if the enemy has ships. Just now, Hwan said: you shouldn't be supposed to win your defensive wars outright over a party who put in the effort to organize a blitz. Why not? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwan Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 8 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: Why not? No brain involved and you just use your numbers advantage? And it heavily discourages starting wars? This update would basically mean that to get a proper IT you need to do like 5 airstrikes and if they get anything other than an UF in the meanwhile it resets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted September 15, 2022 Author Share Posted September 15, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Hwan said: No brain involved and you just use your numbers advantage? And it heavily discourages starting wars? This update would basically mean that to get a proper IT you need to do like 5 airstrikes and if they get anything other than an UF in the meanwhile it resets. Just because you attack someone while while you have more people online than them you should win a war? How is that not still a numbers advantage? You get to line up your targets in a way that suits you, you get to strike first, you get to get the first chance at building superiorities. There's still plenty of advantage. If an enemy got anything other than an UF in the current system it would reset you 1 step, the 1 step to get back your sup. If that's your major issue we can talk about it doing the same, removing one step so a full goes to a partial and a partial goes to a none. Edited September 15, 2022 by Prefontaine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwan Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 6 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: Just because you attack someone while while you have more people online than them you should win a war? How is that not still a numbers advantage? You get to line up your targets in a way that suits you, you get to strike first, you get to get the first chance at building superiorities. There's still plenty of advantage. If an enemy got anything other than an UF in the current system it would reset you 1 step, the 1 step to get back your sup. If that's your major issue we can talk about it doing the same, removing one step so a full goes to a partial and a partial goes to a none. First off, yes, being active should be an advantage. And i repeat, this would heavily discourage close wars and encourages dogpiles. Since it's already a big numbers game and this would make it even moreso. Because a 200 man sphere gets rolled by 40 guys that doesn't mean we should immediately rework war. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcyr Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 (edited) On 9/12/2022 at 11:48 AM, Prefontaine said: If the opponent get's a Pyrrhic Victory or better in that arena (ground v ground, air v air) then it breaks the partial or full superiority in that arena. If someone gets a Pyrrhic or Moderate vs a full superiority, does that break it entirely (i.e. to no superiority) or just reduce it one step (to partial superiority)? Not asking about immense triumph since it makes sense for that to do more. Personal preference would be for Pyrrhic/Moderate to reduce it by one step rather than breaking it fully. Edited September 15, 2022 by Alcyr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiWilliam Posted September 16, 2022 Share Posted September 16, 2022 (edited) Without thinking about it more, I'm not sure what if any combination I would want to see. I do like the idea to add more back & forth in wars. I like the idea that ships could be used to help supplement either ground or air (if the player could choose which to try and free up with an attack). Effectively giving ships a fleshed out utility in a broader war vs. how they're used now. I hope this wouldn't be a single change by itself though. 9 hours ago, J Kell said: This seems like a good starting point, I'm sure I'm missing something here that would need to be changed. From what I am reading, though, this seems to be at least a partial solution to making individual war outcomes more uncertain with some back and forth. Would Naval blockade still be after one IT? As there is no way to partially block trading.... Unless, one IT with a naval attack stops the ability of the losing country to trade with nations, but not their ability to receive id directly from their alliance. The second IT would fully blockade them. What about that? To add some more ideas, blockades could be done on a partial basis by blocking either cash or resources from alliances. For nation to nation trades you could block either selling resources or buying resources. If you're stuck in a position where you can still receive resources to fight, still receive cash, or are sending it away to effectively deny a raiding party. Edited September 16, 2022 by KiWilliam my first post was bad. so I changed it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Zene Posted September 16, 2022 Share Posted September 16, 2022 I like this idea. One side effect that hasn't been discussed is that this change will make beige cycles much harder to run, since the winning nation will be able to destroy less military units on average. This means that either the winning nation has to sit on a partially militarised nation who is capable of dealing significant damage, or beige them to allow time to rebuild. I think this would make wars more competitive than currently. With this change there might not be a need for beige rework anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zevari Posted September 16, 2022 Share Posted September 16, 2022 On 9/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, Prefontaine said: With the feedback from this thread where the vote is currently 50% in favor of some change and 50 in favor of no change, that's enough to try and more detailed flesh out some of the concepts: Partial Superiorities: Two IT's are required to gain superiority over an opponent. This does not require consecutive, you can get a Pyrrhic, Moderate, etc... in-between the ITs. If the opponent get's a Pyrrhic Victory or better in that arena (ground v ground, air v air) then it breaks the partial or full superiority in that arena. Getting a partial superiority gives you half the benefit. The second IT ground attack only destroys 50% of what it would for planes. The third IT kills the full amount. The first IT air attack reduces tank effectiveness by 50% of the full superiority Additional ideas: To improve Naval use, an IT with naval units could reduce an Air Superiority by 1 step. If they only had a partial superiority it resets to zero, if they had a full superiority it reduces to partial. This only impacts air or ground separately, not both at once. My initial reaction to this was quite positive, but after thinking about it for a while I am having a lot of doubt on viability of this change, the two main factors for this are as follows; 1. Limited maps and resistance - I went over this in the previous thread so I'll keep it brief, but to obtain the full benefit of an IT I require 3 attacks, that's anything from 30-36 resistance (9-12 maps). This is nearly 1/3 of the entire war, and if they manage to break that IT? You need to do it all over again and waste even more maps. While this doesn't sound too bad it leads into my second issue. 2. Updeclares are extremely nerfed - The core part of an updeclare is quickly blitzing down their air so you can remove 50% of their tanks combat ability and not lose through GA spam (which would also destroy your planes). By delaying how long it takes to get that 50% tank reduction you are effectively limiting how high you can updeclare while buffing the ability to down declare. Updeclares are already quite difficult and expensive to commit to, and it also puts the nations at extreme risk of being countered and flipped. This part here NEEDS to be taken into heavy consideration by the devs. Especially since there is a possibility for slight bias (conscious or not) from the player feedback team who are largely high city count. Overall I actually like the idea, but the two points I mentioned could turn this from being a great change into quite a bad one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted September 16, 2022 Author Share Posted September 16, 2022 4 hours ago, Zevari said: My initial reaction to this was quite positive, but after thinking about it for a while I am having a lot of doubt on viability of this change, the two main factors for this are as follows; 1. Limited maps and resistance - I went over this in the previous thread so I'll keep it brief, but to obtain the full benefit of an IT I require 3 attacks, that's anything from 30-36 resistance (9-12 maps). This is nearly 1/3 of the entire war, and if they manage to break that IT? You need to do it all over again and waste even more maps. While this doesn't sound too bad it leads into my second issue. 2. Updeclares are extremely nerfed - The core part of an updeclare is quickly blitzing down their air so you can remove 50% of their tanks combat ability and not lose through GA spam (which would also destroy your planes). By delaying how long it takes to get that 50% tank reduction you are effectively limiting how high you can updeclare while buffing the ability to down declare. Updeclares are already quite difficult and expensive to commit to, and it also puts the nations at extreme risk of being countered and flipped. This part here NEEDS to be taken into heavy consideration by the devs. Especially since there is a possibility for slight bias (conscious or not) from the player feedback team who are largely high city count. Overall I actually like the idea, but the two points I mentioned could turn this from being a great change into quite a bad one. Lets talk about up declares a bit. A common strat is to have the two smaller nations in the up declare smash into the bigger nation to clear the path enough for the largest of the players on the up declare to get the superiority. If this doesn't work due to unlucky rolls, then it's about grinding down the units/rebuy for the day so that you have a better chance at securing the superiority before rebuys refresh. If they can secure a 25% tank reduction through a partial superiority then that means unless the up declare is larger than 25% by the largest up declarer, they'll still have the tank advantage at that point. Basically the up declare strats are about trying to get at least one person to secure sup's but are also about having 3 players being able to rebuy units versus 1 and exhausting those rebuys. If the 1 goes offensive, they're also going to lose units which further helps the rebuy imbalance. The main area this for undeclares is something you didn't touch on, if the naval element is included, naval units are often the last to get dealt with. This could give an area for up declares to lose sups through the sea. 18 hours ago, Alcyr said: If someone gets a Pyrrhic or Moderate vs a full superiority, does that break it entirely (i.e. to no superiority) or just reduce it one step (to partial superiority)? Not asking about immense triumph since it makes sense for that to do more. Personal preference would be for Pyrrhic/Moderate to reduce it by one step rather than breaking it fully. In the OP it fully breaks it, but I'm definitely open to the idea of having it simply reduce it one level. Full Sup -> Partial and Partial -> None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zevari Posted September 16, 2022 Share Posted September 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Prefontaine said: Lets talk about up declares a bit. A common strat is to have the two smaller nations in the up declare smash into the bigger nation to clear the path enough for the largest of the players on the up declare to get the superiority. If this doesn't work due to unlucky rolls, then it's about grinding down the units/rebuy for the day so that you have a better chance at securing the superiority before rebuys refresh. If they can secure a 25% tank reduction through a partial superiority then that means unless the up declare is larger than 25% by the largest up declarer, they'll still have the tank advantage at that point. Basically the up declare strats are about trying to get at least one person to secure sup's but are also about having 3 players being able to rebuy units versus 1 and exhausting those rebuys. If the 1 goes offensive, they're also going to lose units which further helps the rebuy imbalance. True, but updeclares also typically try to flip a war the larger target is in. For example you want to updeclare on the guys fighting your whales to try flip those wars, delaying the superiority makes it take longer to flip the war which is really the last thing you want. Also due to the way tiering works you normally do end up hitting around the 25% mark, which means you might end up with an equal tank value but become outnumber in troops still losing ground control. Also updeclares puts the nation at risk of being flipped themselves. 3 equal nations with half mil hitting them is more than enough to drag them down and ruin the updeclare, hence why it is such a time sensitive endeavor. Granted the points you make are entirely true. 2 hours ago, Prefontaine said: The main area this for undeclares is something you didn't touch on, if the naval element is included, naval units are often the last to get dealt with. This could give an area for up declares to lose sups through the sea. Yeah I choose to ignore the naval element since it was an additional idea that made up-declares even harder, I wanted to try point out the flaws with the core idea. (also I do agree exploring partial removals like Alzyr suggested it would help alleviate some of the pain) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 This is all fine and good but how about you guys stop messing around with stuff that works and fix things that don't work? How abut you fix ships? Ships cost too much to build, too much to keep and way too much to use. They have no defense against planes. I think that if you check, during wars most people keep very few to 0 ships. 1 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.