To Sum It All Up: Proposed Changes to the War System

[George W. Bush]

So after creating this thread:

 

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6248-thoughts-on-the-current-state-of-the-war-system/

 

 

And participating in/reading these threads:

 

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6280-major-war-changes/

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6324-raise-spy-buying-limit/

 

 

And listening to general thoughts and feedback in those threads, I'd like to organize a list of ideas, some from me, to fix some of the games issues. I appreciate any feedback, or suggestions to add to this list, though these changes are mainly directed at the war system. Also, although I'd like for them to all be added, the ideas are not dependent on the others being added.

 

• Iron dome reduces damage by 50%  instead of a 50% block chance.
• Vital defense system is buffed to a 35% chance
• Having air superiority, ground superiority, and a blockade prevents any missile (or nuke, not sure if that's too extreme) launches
• At the conclusion of war, the winner has the option to loot 50% of every resource the loser had(obviously not including credits), steal 25% of their land to be dispersed to winner's cities, or all infrastructure destroyed by the victor is turned into land to be dispersed to the winner's cities, still including the resources looted from the alliance bank
• Ground attacks loot more money(I'd like to hear what would sound like a reasonable increase before I say an amount)
• The reduction of planes in an air force is determined by how many consecutive immense triumphs(i.e. 1/6 for one, 2/6 for 2, etc.)
• Becoming beige gives a 50% discount on any infrastructure destroyed in any war in the past 30 days
• The amount of spies a person can buy in a day is determined by how many cities they have, which would be 2 for each city
• Spy ranges: 25% down, 75% up.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope Sheepy takes these into consideration as well.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Vlad the Implier

[Kadin]

 

Spy ranges: 25% down, 75% up.

Why? 25% down seems really restrictive.

[Boony]

I don't like the 50% looting of every resource idea. It seems drastic. 

[Crust]

I'd like to add that it's rather annoying and weird that you automatically use munition if you don't untic the box. Wouldn't it be more logically to have that in reverse?

[Kim Jong-Il]

I still think carrying over spy purchases would be more reasonable than 2 per each city. Maybe 1 per each city could be better, hell even .5 for each city

[Shakyr]

Ground attacks loot more money(I'd like to hear what would sound like a reasonable increase before I say an amount)

Something like $2 per soldier that invades and survives the attack (general looting) + $2 per soldier killed by soldiers (looting of body), providing the opponent has at least $100,000 on hand?

 

Attacking with 100,000 soldiers, if you kill 20,000 and lose 5,000 that would work out to (95,000 * 2) + (20,000 * 2) = $230,000

 

EDIT: Formula changed in the latest update.

 

Infrastructure destroyed in war costs 50% less to be rebuilt, stacks with other bonuses

50% less, even if they wait for weeks or months, before rebuilding? I'd say throw in a war recovery screen, where stuff destroyed within a time frame, is listed and where you can "rebuild" stuff destroyed in the war, at a cheaper cost. But if you don't rebuild something within that time frame, it is dropped off the recovery screen and you have to go through the normal screens, at normal prices, to build it back.

 

It would also open up tactics like nuking someone pretty quickly and then keeping them at war, until they can't rebuild within the timeframe. Unless they decide it's worth the risk, to rebuild while still at war.

 

Why? 25% down seems really restrictive.

Probably to try and stop stronger players from going after weaker players, much like the war declaration range.

 

EDIT: Looks like Sheepy agrees.

 

I don't like the 50% looting of every resource idea. It seems drastic.

Agreed, I'd probably drop it to 10%. That way they would lose at most, 30% of resources from 3 defensive wars.

 

I'd like to add that it's rather annoying and weird that you automatically use munition if you don't untic the box. Wouldn't it be more logically to have that in reverse?

Agreed. When raiding on my phone, it's annoying trying to tap that tickbox.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Shakyr

[George W. Bush]

I agree with some of these, would be ok with others if they were altered a bit, and flat-out disagree with a few others. Thanks for your thought into this!

Could you tell me which ones and why?

[George W. Bush]

Something like $2 per soldier that invades and survives the attack (general looting) + $2 per soldier killed by soldiers (looting of body), providing the opponent has at least $100,000 on hand?

 

Attacking with 100,000 soldiers, if you kill 20,000 and lose 5,000 that would work out to (95,000 * 2) + (20,000 * 2) = $230,000

 

50% less, even if they wait for weeks or months, before rebuilding? I'd say throw in a war recovery screen, where stuff destroyed within a time frame, is listed and where you can "rebuild" stuff destroyed in the war, at a cheaper cost. But if you don't rebuild something within that time frame, it is dropped off the recovery screen and you have to go through the normal screens, at normal prices, to build it back.

Edited to say only when beige, does that sound reasonable?

[Shakyr]

Edited to say only when beige, does that sound reasonable?

Only in Beige and only for damages from wars that ended in the last 5 days.

 

I still think a "war recovery" page would be useful, if only to summarise the damages and aid in knowing what to rebuild. Players are generally lazy and manually adding stuff up from multiple war screens, is time consuming

[Arthur James]

• Iron dome chance is brought down to 50%, although any missile taken if a nation has an iron dome is reduced by 50%
• Having air superiority, ground superiority, and a blockade prevents any missile (or nuke, not sure if that's too extreme) launches

 

• At the conclusion of war, the winner has the option to loot 50% of every resource the loser had(obviously not including credits), steal 25% of their land to be dispersed to winner's cities, or all infrastructure destroyed by the victor is turned into land to be dispersed to the winner's cities, still including the resources looted from the alliance bank

this is a bad option if I have 2500 land, and in order to prevent the cost from buying more land, I go raiding others.despite this game is kind of point to point diplomacy and warfare instead of territorial control by occupying other nations.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Arthur James

[WISD0MTREE]

• At the conclusion of war, the winner has the option to loot 50% of every resource the loser had(obviously not including credits), steal 25% of their land to be dispersed to winner's cities, or all infrastructure destroyed by the victor is turned into land to be dispersed to the winner's cities, still including the resources looted from the alliance bank

Being 100% serious here, can we round gained land/resources off so you don't end up with a decimal? 

[Prefontaine]

I greatly dislike the randomization of Domes, or anything entirely luck based like that. Simply make Domes a flat reduction of damage. If you want them to block 50% of the missiles, just make them block 50% of the damage. Improvements are already hard enough to blow up, missiles definitely blow up one. This way at least your blowing up more improvements.

[Rozalia]

 

• Iron dome reduces damage by 50%  instead of a 50% block chance.
• Vital defense system is buffed to a 35% chance
• Having air superiority, ground superiority, and a blockade prevents any missile (or nuke, not sure if that's too extreme) launches
• At the conclusion of war, the winner has the option to loot 50% of every resource the loser had(obviously not including credits), steal 25% of their land to be dispersed to winner's cities, or all infrastructure destroyed by the victor is turned into land to be dispersed to the winner's cities, still including the resources looted from the alliance bank
• Ground attacks loot more money(I'd like to hear what would sound like a reasonable increase before I say an amount)
• The reduction of planes in an air force is determined by how many consecutive immense triumphs(i.e. 1/6 for one, 2/6 for 2, etc.)
• Infrastructure destroyed in war costs 50% less to be rebuilt, stacks with other bonuses edit: only when you are beige following the war
• The amount of spies a person can buy in a day is determined by how many cities they have, which would be 2 for each city
• Spy ranges: 25% down, 75% up.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope Sheepy takes these into consideration as well.

 

• I suppose that would take the random element out of it.
• Why would Iron Dome reduce but not Vital defense system?
• Not sure if I'm 100% on it but I can see the sense I suppose.
• Nope that will break the game completely, might as well pack it in if that happens. Mid range is about 10,000 land so you're asking for the looting of 2500 land per each of those nations defeated. Certain individuals will not only use that to become incredibly difficult to damage due to their superior land (and make food/farms mostly irrelevant), but they'll no doubt abuse it by having allies buy land cheaply for them to loot thereby creating a system where people pay others to beat them up to take land. Land deals if you will which would be ridiculous. The 50% resource thing seems way too high too. 
• N/A
• Not sure I follow this one. 
• N/A
• N/A

[George W. Bush]

• Why would Iron Dome reduce but not Vital defense system?
• Nope that will break the game completely, might as well pack it in if that happens. Mid range is about 10,000 land so you're asking for the looting of 2500 land per each of those nations defeated. Certain individuals will not only use that to become incredibly difficult to damage due to their superior land (and make food/farms mostly irrelevant), but they'll no doubt abuse it by having allies buy land cheaply for them to loot thereby creating a system where people pay others to beat them up to take land. Land deals if you will which would be ridiculous. The 50% resource thing seems way too high too. 
• Not sure I follow this one. 

• Nukes should be different from missiles in some regards. In real life, there's no in between for shooting down a nuke or eating a nuke. However, for missiles, they're possible to shoot down but there will still be some debris. Plus, missiles stay together for the most part from launch o impact, where as when a nuke falling down is just the warhead.
• At the time of writing that, I was trying to think of better loot for victors. Looking back it sounds too harsh, though I think if we can find a way to make it balanced it'd be great, because winning a war barely gives anything at this point.
• I'm gonna reword that one a bit. Basically, when someone goes to beige, all infrastructure damage that was from the war that beiged them, costs 50% less to rebuild.

I greatly dislike the randomization of Domes, or anything entirely luck based like that. Simply make Domes a flat reduction of damage. If you want them to block 50% of the missiles, just make them block 50% of the damage. Improvements are already hard enough to blow up, missiles definitely blow up one. This way at least your blowing up more improvements.

Added in the OP.

[Braunsberg]

Iron dome reduces damage by 50%  instead of a 50% block chance.

I like everything except this one. I think the idea of the Iron Dome is to be something like an anti-ballistic missile base; so, just like in real life, you should have a chance of simply shooting down the missile, rather than reducing the damage it causes.

 

Other than that, the suggestions are very intriguing.

[Dolphman]

So after creating this thread:

 

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6248-thoughts-on-the-current-state-of-the-war-system/

 

 

And participating in/reading these threads:

 

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6280-major-war-changes/

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6324-raise-spy-buying-limit/

 

 

And listening to general thoughts and feedback in those threads, I'd like to organize a list of ideas, some from me, to fix some of the games issues. I appreciate any feedback, or suggestions to add to this list, though these changes are mainly directed at the war system. Also, although I'd like for them to all be added, the ideas are not dependent on the others being added.

 

• Iron dome reduces damage by 50%  instead of a 50% block chance.
• Vital defense system is buffed to a 35% chance
• Having air superiority, ground superiority, and a blockade prevents any missile (or nuke, not sure if that's too extreme) launches
• At the conclusion of war, the winner has the option to loot 50% of every resource the loser had(obviously not including credits), steal 25% of their land to be dispersed to winner's cities, or all infrastructure destroyed by the victor is turned into land to be dispersed to the winner's cities, still including the resources looted from the alliance bank
• Ground attacks loot more money(I'd like to hear what would sound like a reasonable increase before I say an amount)
• The reduction of planes in an air force is determined by how many consecutive immense triumphs(i.e. 1/6 for one, 2/6 for 2, etc.)
• Becoming beige gives a 50% discount on any infrastructure destroyed in any war in the past 30 days
• The amount of spies a person can buy in a day is determined by how many cities they have, which would be 2 for each city
• Spy ranges: 25% down, 75% up.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope Sheepy takes these into consideration as well.

 

All of their Infra? Anything more than one city would be very harsh. 

 

All of this seemily leads all classes (new nations, moderate nations,  in having a super power. For examples, lets look at the super powers. Lets say the current #1 players raids a #2 players and wins. He either gets 25% of their land, enough to give their cities the next 500-700 infra without issue. Destroy all their infra, so they would never catch up (if they do, they could be easily rolled), or take 50% of their resources. If #1 is able to beat a few other 1-10 players, he/she would never be challenged again. They would be unstoppable.

 

For all the other players, the best strat (in this system) is to keep your infra under 1400, build hospitals and 100% Commerce in all cities while trying to get as many cities as you can. To not even try to fight the main power as he will zero infra you at will.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Dolphman

[Braunsberg]

All of their Infra? Anything more than one city would be very harsh. 

 

All of this seemily leads all classes (new nations, moderate nations,  in having a super power. For examples, lets look at the super powers. Lets say the current #1 players raids a #2 players and wins. He either gets 25% of their land, enough to give their cities the next 500-700 infra without issue. Destroy all their infra, so they would never catch up (if they do, they could be easily rolled), or take 50% of their resources. If #1 is able to beat a few other 1-10 players, he/she would never be challenged again. They would be unstoppable.

 

For all the other players, the best strat (in this system) is to keep your infra under 1400, build hospitals and 100% Commerce in all cities while trying to get as many cities as you can. To not even try to fight the main power as he will zero infra you at will.

It says the winner would take all the infrastructure that was destroyed by the victor. It isn't saying the winner can choose to zero-infra the loser; it just means the winner can take the infrastructure he managed to destroy during the war.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Roma

[Rozalia]

 

• Nukes should be different from missiles in some regards. In real life, there's no in between for shooting down a nuke or eating a nuke. However, for missiles, they're possible to shoot down but there will still be some debris. Plus, missiles stay together for the most part from launch o impact, where as when a nuke falling down is just the warhead.
• At the time of writing that, I was trying to think of better loot for victors. Looking back it sounds too harsh, though I think if we can find a way to make it balanced it'd be great, because winning a war barely gives anything at this point.
• I'm gonna reword that one a bit. Basically, when someone goes to beige, all infrastructure damage that was from the war that beiged them, costs 50% less to rebuild.

Added in the OP.

 

 

• Okay I can see the logic in that.
• No good way around it honestly from the looks of it. Allowing the game to generate money perhaps based on the infra number/infra's worth destroyed as a bonus could work. However you'd need to exclude nukes as otherwise the amount of money even if say 10% would end up being a hell of a lot. 
• I don't recall which exactly but I recall a few games doing that. Will it be static and last forever or will it last a set amount of time? If it lasts a certain amount of time than an "active effects" sort of thing would have to be added so people could see the effect listed and when it ends.

 

It says the winner would take all the infrastructure that was destroyed by the victor. It isn't saying the winner can choose to zero-infra the loser; it just means the winner can take the infrastructure he managed to destroy during the war.

 

Favours nukers heavily. Not only will they be looting huge amount of land with their nukes (which makes zero sense) but by getting increased land they'll become more and more resilient to nukes/missiles themselves. 

Honestly its the main reason I don't want any form of land looting. 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Rozalia

[Malice]

I really hope there's no kind of infra or land looting added.

[George W. Bush]

I'm gonna stop editing this until after the war, mainly because the scale of the war will encompass a lot of people, and thus we will be able to hear lots of different thoughts on what can be improved and what can stay the same.

[George W. Bush]

Even though I'm not updating it tho, feel free to say any suggestions. Also, just thinking to myself(and someone probably already said it) would 2 spies per 5k infra plus the base 2 spies for recruiting a day would work?

[Vincent]

I would think maybe is good to remove auto beige for nation hit with nuke. That offers them too much protection.