A change to the war range system

[Kim Jong-Il]

So, I was looking at some nations that were low-low-teir, as per usual, and I thought to myself, "Hey, all of these nations are untouchable from my whole alliance, and seeing as they use all of their money for their militairy, those who are in range can't nearly compete." Now, I know what you're thinking, that this has been discussed before, and there's not much you can do besides spy on them. Well I might have a solution. 

 

Why don't we have it so that if you are not in war range with a nation, say you are 1000 and they are 600, you can still declare war on them. However, instead of being able to use your whole army, you will only be able to use 20% of it. This works similar to in real life, with larger nations aiding smaller ones that are being over powered, by sending a small amount of their troops to help. This will only work in certan senarios, such as the person out of your regular range cannot be attacked unless they are attacking a nation in your alliance. As in, your alliance mate must be defending, so you cant just double team on someone. You also can't do this if all 3 of your war slots have been filled. This is so if you're in an alliance wide war, you can't simply dominate a lower leveled teir if you're already fighting your own wars. Any other suggestions to help improve this would be appriciated.

 

This soft range woud be 75% up declare and 50% down declare. These numbers can be changed if need be. 

[Kim Jong-Il]

I also wanna have peole point out any exploits that could be used if this were implemented

[Princess Bubblegum]

The most obvious problem would be the smaller nation's ability to counter attack. Presumably you'd have it so that the smaller nation, when attacking, would attack 20% of whatever force the larger nation has.  That might work, however the larger nation has a larger pool of total troops and can replace them more easily. Here's an example of what happens

 

Larger nation: 100,000 troops

Smaller nation: 30,000 troops

 

30,000 (smaller) vs 20,000 (larger)

 

Larger nation loses 10,000; 

Smaller loses 5,000

 

Now it's:

 

Larger nation: 90,000 troops

Smaller nation: 25,000 troops

 

The next battle becomes:

 

25,000 (smaller) vs 18,000 (larger)

 

Instead of:

 

25,000 (smaller) vs 10,000 (larger)

 

The flip side of this would be that the smaller nation could potentially get ground/control/air control/blockade over the larger nation when fighting only 20% of the military units.

 

Presumably this would also only work when the larger nation is the one doing the declaring, otherwise a small nation can up declare and fight 20% of the military of the larger nation.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[jaguar]

What we need is a spy range

[Desertfalcon]

What if we placed war range penalties on nations above a certain score. For example, for every percentage point after 20% military score their lower limit of war score would move up by 5 percentage points.

 

Meaning that if a nation were to  have 30% of their military score their war range would be bumped up 50 percentage points due to them being 10 percentage points over the limit. This means that rather than being able to attack nations 25% lower than them in score, they weakest nations they could attack would have to be 25% HIGHER than their score.

[Pfeiffer]

Or we take missiles and nukes out of the 'war' mechanic and create a new one, allowing alliances to use them sort of like spies to protect their lower score members.

 

Assuming they took new people, you're not going to willy nilly raid a Guardian initiate if you know it will cost you 300 infra off the bat, cause everyone there has 18 bajillion missiles.

[Fox Fire]

Not fond of this idea. Maybe add the ability to aid other nations with troops similar to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but not this.

[Kim Jong-Il]

The most obvious problem would be the smaller nation's ability to counter attack. Presumably you'd have it so that the smaller nation, when attacking, would attack 20% of whatever force the larger nation has.  That might work, however the larger nation has a larger pool of total troops and can replace them more easily. Here's an example of what happens

 

Larger nation: 100,000 troops

Smaller nation: 30,000 troops

 

30,000 (smaller) vs 20,000 (larger)

 

Larger nation loses 10,000; 

Smaller loses 5,000

 

Now it's:

 

Larger nation: 90,000 troops

Smaller nation: 25,000 troops

 

The next battle becomes:

 

25,000 (smaller) vs 18,000 (larger)

 

Instead of:

 

25,000 (smaller) vs 10,000 (larger)

 

The flip side of this would be that the smaller nation could potentially get ground/control/air control/blockade over the larger nation when fighting only 20% of the military units.

 

Presumably this would also only work when the larger nation is the one doing the declaring, otherwise a small nation can up declare and fight 20% of the military of the larger nation.

 

The ground control/air control/blockades would still be available, but perhaps not to the small nation

[Kim Jong-Il]

What we need is a spy range

 

That would make the raiders litterally invincible

[SoS]

No. The war ranges are good. Even if if there were a handicap this would be bad.

 

The near impossibility of growing out of the shark tank does need to be fixed, tho. It should be a solution that doesn't require upper level assistance, tho.

[Desertfalcon]

What we need are penalties to players who over militarize.

[Clarke]

What we need are penalties to players who over militarize.

Bills are already the penalty, that and the loss of being able to use more economic improvements.

[SoS]

It's not much of a penalty if they have fun raiding.

[Fox Fire]

Bills are already the penalty, that and the loss of being able to use more economic improvements.

That means nothing when you have daddies credit card and an alliance bank to constantly drain.

[Kim Jong-Il]

That means nothing when you have daddies credit card and an alliance bank to constantly drain.

That's why I'm trying to fix it 

[SoS]

That means nothing when you have daddies credit card and an alliance bank to constantly drain.

How many monsters are really out there? Are invincible raiders prevalent? I'd guess they're rare and more commonly there's just highly militarized raiders (aka raiders).

[Desertfalcon]

Bills are already the penalty, that and the loss of being able to use more economic improvements.

 

That's not an effective penalty since one, you can make a lot of money off of raiding, and two armies aren't expensive enough for this to be a deterrent to begin with. Especially if you're receiving other sources of income from raiding and other alliance members.

 

It may slow down growth, but that's a small price to pay for being invincible.

[Desertfalcon]

How many monsters are really out there? Are invincible raiders prevalent? I'd guess they're rare and more commonly there's just highly militarized raiders (aka raiders).

 

They are growing in number. The thing is they tend to grow slow due to them sacrificing economic development for military strength. It won't be much of a problem for more established players who joined earlier since they were able to build out of range before the raiders grew to be enough of a threat. However, now that they are getting established in the 100-200 range it's going to be much more difficult for new players to avoid being targets.

[Vincent]

Why penalise the larger nation or nation that over militarised.

[vonnorman]

Basically the best solution to the raiding issue may be a un style system. the option to tax members military units when they are produced, such as: each barracks can have 3k soldiers but an alliance can tax them say 10% so 900 soldiers goes to the alliance. The alliance can then give these "taxed" soldiers to any nation as long as they have the barracks to house them. A raided nation can have a full army immediately in a time of need but it comes at a cost to the other nations in the alliance

In addition it is hard to take advantage of in times of alliance war because for troops to be given to needing nations, those troops are taken from others who will also need them

Edited April 10, 2015 by vonnorman

[Kim Jong-Il]

Basically the best solution to the raiding issue may be a un style system. the option to tax members military units when they are produced, such as: each barracks can have 3k soldiers but an alliance can tax them say 10% so 900 soldiers goes to the alliance. The alliance can then give these "taxed" soldiers to any nation as long as they have the barracks to house them. A raided nation can have a full army immediately in a time of need but it comes at a cost to the other nations in the alliance

In addition it is hard to take advantage of in times of alliance war because for troops to be given to needing nations, those troops are taken from others who will also need them

 

You should have a separarte thread for that

[Placentica]

The downdeclare doesn't need changing.  25% is prefect.  It's the updeclare that is insane.  50%/25% would be better imo.

 

Spy ranges as well would be good, but so much about the spy system needs changing - like remove these easy to get 99% odds that we all have so easily exploited in a pre-war phase.

[George W. Bush]

The downdeclare doesn't need changing.  25% is prefect.  It's the updeclare that is insane.  50%/25% would be better imo.

This