Superiority & Damage

[Dwynn]

I've been pondering some of the changes being proposed in the "limit missile firing rate" thread, and an idea came to me.

 

One of the reasons people turtle and lob missiles is that by doing so, they end up out-damaging the opponent who's holding superiority over them on ground/air/sea. So while they're technically losing the war, they can actually end up dealing more damage than they receive.

 

Instead of limiting the amount that can be fired, I think we need to look outside the box for the solution.

 

What if superiority gave an increase in damage that started low and ramped up the longer superiority was held. A damage modifier that started small and got larger the longer you held superiority. Let's face it, from both a realism and a gameplay standpoint, a nation with no trained fighting force to fight back is basically a cakewalk for the trained units attacking them. The longer those units hold superiority the higher the damage modifier becomes.

 

I'm thinking to the point of making it so attacks were akin to the power of missiles, but only if they've held superiority all 5 days. This would accomplish two things. The attacker who's dominating the war actually ends up "winning" said war. And the defender who normally would turtle, has more motivation to try to break the superiority and lessen the damage they receive.

[Dark Specter]

this seems like an interesting idea, but would this "modifier" take effect when you have superiority in all three fields (air,ground,sea) or just one? And what if you have superiority in one field and the enemy has superiority in another field will that cancel out the modifier?

[Dwynn]

Well the damage modifier would only apply to the field that you have superiority over. So if I had ground superiority, and you had air superiority, your air attacks would get stronger as days progressed holding superiority and my ground attacks would.

 

They wouldn't cancel out as air strikes do more than ground on avg, but as the modifier increased it would make it increasingly more important to try to break the superiority.

[naTia]

I think this could be used as a good way to get people to end wars. In this way, I think that the largest multiplier should go to ground battles.

[Dark Specter]

maybe the ground modifier can increase how much loot you get off the nation you beiged along with a bigger loot bonus that you get from their alliance bank?

[Dwynn]

I think this could be used as a good way to get people to end wars. In this way, I think that the largest multiplier should go to ground battles.

 

 

maybe the ground modifier can increase how much loot you get off the nation you beiged along with a bigger loot bonus that you get from their alliance bank?

 

That was kind of my thought process. If loot is tied to damage (I think it is already) and you increase the damage multiplier over time of superiority held, you give them more incentive to attack the opponent with ground and beige them.

[stetonic]

This idea is a lot fairer than taking away someones ability to fire missiles when its the only option left for them.I mean if i am losing on all 3 fronts after 2 days i might aswell not log in for the next 3 days

[Hansarius]

This idea has some merit.

I am currently in the situation where I'm getting my ass kicked but thanks to my missiles I'm able to keep up in damage caused.

I can see how that is a little unfair considering I'm by any definition losing those wars.

Though without missiles, I wouldn't be able to fight back at all, so I don't think restrictions there is the way to go.

I will eventually lose my ability to fight back even with my missiles due to being blockaded and I think that is restriction enough.

 

Maybe a damage modifier that adds x0.25  to the damage cap for each day you've held superiority over your enemy?

[Dwynn]

I really think this is an idea that deserve some serious discussion so I'm bumping it.

[Redrum]

This makes sense because if you have supereirity than you have eyes on targets and can target more damage!

[Shellhound]

When you say it gets larger the longer you hold superiority what do you mean? Do you mean the actual time you hold superiority or by the amount of immense triumphs gained? Because if it was me I'd gain superiority, try to hold it for as long as possible and then just unleash, this might be a bit op. Other than that distinction though I like the idea.

[Hansarius]

When you say it gets larger the longer you hold superiority what do you mean? Do you mean the actual time you hold superiority or by the amount of immense triumphs gained? Because if it was me I'd gain superiority, try to hold it for as long as possible and then just unleash, this might be a bit op. Other than that distinction though I like the idea.

 

Valid point.

 

Maybe add a small modifier pr consecutive immense triumph for ground attacks would be better?

[Prefontaine]

Very good idea. If you hold air superiority the entire war, maybe 2 bombing strikes towards the end of the war would do damage on par with a single missile. To address shellhounds concern make a counter like with ground attacks, this counter however never reaches a cap (except the obvious cap of how many AP there are in a single war).

[Dwynn]

When you say it gets larger the longer you hold superiority what do you mean? Do you mean the actual time you hold superiority or by the amount of immense triumphs gained? Because if it was me I'd gain superiority, try to hold it for as long as possible and then just unleash, this might be a bit op. Other than that distinction though I like the idea.

Yeah I had envisioned it being tied to the length of time you hold superiority. But if you held back to attack, you'd be missing out on the entire time while allowing your opponent the ability to attempt to break the superiority.

 

Perhaps having it tied to triumphs instead would be better. Or a combination of the two.

[Dwynn]

Just a little bumpity bump to this topic so it doesn't get lost in the piles of unresponded to threads.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I was the target of Hans's missiles in that his other attacks could do nothing at all to me.  I'd hate to see his missile rate limited and I wouldn't want to see me gain even MORE advantage over him at sea/air/land.

 

I was winning and he couldn't do shit.  And all I'm seeing are proposals to make it harder for him to fight back.  No way, winners don't need more advantages, being the loser sucks bad enough as it is.

[Saru]

I was the target of Hans's missiles in that his other attacks could do nothing at all to me.  I'd hate to see his missile rate limited and I wouldn't want to see me gain even MORE advantage over him at sea/air/land.

 

I was winning and he couldn't do !@#$.  And all I'm seeing are proposals to make it harder for him to fight back.  No way, winners don't need more advantages, being the loser sucks bad enough as it is.

 

Pretty much this.

 

Just like with us in the UPN - TAC war, it was no fun just beating on an opponent that could not fight back.

[Dwynn]

I was the target of Hans's missiles in that his other attacks could do nothing at all to me.  I'd hate to see his missile rate limited and I wouldn't want to see me gain even MORE advantage over him at sea/air/land.

 

I was winning and he couldn't do !@#$.  And all I'm seeing are proposals to make it harder for him to fight back.  No way, winners don't need more advantages, being the loser sucks bad enough as it is.

 

I'm not asking for limits on the rate of firing or anything. I'm not asking to make it harder to get superiority or to break superiority either.

 

I'm simply suggesting that superiority factor into damage calculations. Otherwise (though not in your case because you had missiles as well), the turtled nation takes far less damage than the nation that is "supposedly" winning. It's not a very good mechanic at that rate.

 

So, my suggestion is to make it that while you hold superiority, those attacks have an increasing damage modifier the longer you hold superiority. This does two things, if damage ramps up to missile-esque damage, it motivates the turlted nation to try to break superiority else the damage taken far outweighs the benefit.

 

As to why it's an unfair tactic is because I'm aiming for balance in a broken system. Otherwise, like other worlds, this game will simply devolve into a "who has the most missiles to launch" type of system. Which honestly, is quite unattractive.

 

As an example: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=25724

 

You'll notice in this war I had with Underlord, he was able to, in one attack, make up more than half the damage I caused to his nation. Had he launched another, he would have been on par with the damage I made, while holding superiority over his nations in all manners.

 

There is literally no point for me to get anything other than navy to blockade my opponent, missles to deal massive amounts of infra, and spies to take out my opponents missiles. Seems like a cheap party-trick for a war system, but the way things are currently built and implemented, that's what this game will devolve to.

[Ayayay]

-snip-

You can only build one missile a day and you can declare against five opponents. Damage can already be minimized simply due to the fact that they cannot missile you every day.

[Dwynn]

You can only build one missile a day and you can declare against five opponents. Damage can already be minimized simply due to the fact that they cannot missile you every day.

 

You're absolutely right. A nation getting demolished in war is going to declare 5 offensive wars instead of turtling and only hitting those who decared on him. What was I thinking?! ... seriously.

[Outburst]

I was the target of Hans's missiles in that his other attacks could do nothing at all to me.  I'd hate to see his missile rate limited and I wouldn't want to see me gain even MORE advantage over him at sea/air/land.

 

I was winning and he couldn't do !@#$.  And all I'm seeing are proposals to make it harder for him to fight back.  No way, winners don't need more advantages, being the loser sucks bad enough as it is.

 

So much this. Even when you aren't in the missle using range, once you have ground and air superiority over your opponent, the damage that they are able to inflict is basically nothing.

[Ayayay]

You're absolutely right. A nation getting demolished in war is going to declare 5 offensive wars instead of turtling and only hitting those who decared on him. What was I thinking?! ... seriously.

I meant the attacker can. I mean, I think you only took a single missile the entire war. Hardly a problem with damage.

[Hereno]

So much this. Even when you aren't in the missle using range, once you have ground and air superiority over your opponent, the damage that they are able to inflict is basically nothing.

i actually came to this forum to complain about the way that ground and air superiority work

 

it would be a lot better if they, in tandem with this suggestion, started out minor and worked their way up over time

 

for example...

 

level 1 ground control: 10% of planes are grounded; 5% more stuff is looted and 8% more damage to cities in next attack

level 2 ground control: 25% of planes are grounded; 15% more stuff is looted and 24% more damage to cities

level 3 ground control: 50% of planes are grounded; 25% more stuff is looted and 40% more damage to cities

 

level 1 air superiority: 10% of tanks are useless; 10% more casualties caused and 20% more damage to cities in next attack

level 2 air superiority: 25% of tanks are useless; 25% more casualties caused and 50% more damage cities

level 3 air superiority: 50% of tanks are useless; 50% more casualties caused and 100% more damage to cities

 

level 1 blockade: nation can no longer trade on the open market

level 2 blockade: nation can no longer receive bank aid either

level 3 blockade: the above two, in addition to gaining a bonus of some sort to your ground attacks

 

because land and air superiority are against each other, this makes it easier for people to break superiority, while people who are just trouncing their opponent all over the place gain some serious bonuses. even if you have missiles, you still won't want your opponent winning elsewhere if you can do anything to stop it.

[Grillick]

i actually came to this forum to complain about the way that ground and air superiority work

 

it would be a lot better if they, in tandem with this suggestion, started out minor and worked their way up over time

 

for example...

 

level 1 ground control: 10% of planes are grounded; 5% more stuff is looted and 8% more damage to cities in next attack

level 2 ground control: 25% of planes are grounded; 15% more stuff is looted and 24% more damage to cities

level 3 ground control: 50% of planes are grounded; 25% more stuff is looted and 40% more damage to cities

 

level 1 air superiority: 10% of tanks are useless; 10% more casualties caused and 20% more damage to cities in next attack

level 2 air superiority: 25% of tanks are useless; 25% more casualties caused and 50% more damage cities

level 3 air superiority: 50% of tanks are useless; 50% more casualties caused and 100% more damage to cities

 

level 1 blockade: nation can no longer trade on the open market

level 2 blockade: nation can no longer receive bank aid either

level 3 blockade: the above two, in addition to gaining a bonus of some sort to your ground attacks

 

because land and air superiority are against each other, this makes it easier for people to break superiority, while people who are just trouncing their opponent all over the place gain some serious bonuses. even if you have missiles, you still won't want your opponent winning elsewhere if you can do anything to stop it.

This is a genuinely solid suggestion.

[Dwynn]

This is a genuinely solid suggestion.

 

So wait a second. Ramping up superiority is ok if hereno suggests it? But not if I suggested it? 

 

WTF is this world coming to.

 

i actually came to this forum to complain about the way that ground and air superiority work

 

it would be a lot better if they, in tandem with this suggestion, started out minor and worked their way up over time

 

for example...

 

level 1 ground control: 10% of planes are grounded; 5% more stuff is looted and 8% more damage to cities in next attack

level 2 ground control: 25% of planes are grounded; 15% more stuff is looted and 24% more damage to cities

level 3 ground control: 50% of planes are grounded; 25% more stuff is looted and 40% more damage to cities

 

level 1 air superiority: 10% of tanks are useless; 10% more casualties caused and 20% more damage to cities in next attack

level 2 air superiority: 25% of tanks are useless; 25% more casualties caused and 50% more damage cities

level 3 air superiority: 50% of tanks are useless; 50% more casualties caused and 100% more damage to cities

 

level 1 blockade: nation can no longer trade on the open market

level 2 blockade: nation can no longer receive bank aid either

level 3 blockade: the above two, in addition to gaining a bonus of some sort to your ground attacks

 

because land and air superiority are against each other, this makes it easier for people to break superiority, while people who are just trouncing their opponent all over the place gain some serious bonuses. even if you have missiles, you still won't want your opponent winning elsewhere if you can do anything to stop it.

 

That's basically what I was suggesting, I like the addition of additional percentage of control added to it, not just damage increase.