Valdoroth Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 2 per city doesn't help smaller nations any at all, because larger nations have more cities. So they can recruit more. The rate of growth for spies has effectively done the complete opposite of what you were intending. It should have a limit of say +1 per 5000 infra, and CIA wonder increases that to +2 per 5000 infra on top of it's +1 spy ops/day. Base being 2 spies. That way it's not too excessively extreme. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 2 per city doesn't help smaller nations any at all, because larger nations have more cities. So they can recruit more. The rate of growth for spies has effectively done the complete opposite of what you were intending. It should have a limit of say +1 per 5000 infra, and CIA wonder increases that to +2 per 5000 infra on top of it's +1 spy ops/day. Base being 2 spies. That way it's not too excessively extreme. I actually like this compromise. I would only add that the spy range be removed too. It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraggle Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) It should be said that nukes cost about $4m in resources (give or take depending on the markets) and missiles cost about $400,000-$450,000. So a score of 10x is about right for nukes (pre-update nerf). If you thought nukes score was too high you could've made them cost like 500 uranium and more like $8-10m in total cost per missile. I want to jump on this quickly. I will post later on a full detail of how this update has led me to believe that this world is not going to last long term if you change the dynamics of the system on a whim. Please explain how missiles are now considered 1/3 strength of nukes? 05/04/2015 06:34 am Wembly Fraggle of Fraggle Rock detonated a nuclear weapon at the nation of Howell. The attack destroyed 1,600.00 infrastructure in the city of Howell and 2 improvements.. 05/04/2015 09:29 am Sheep Shearer underlordgc of Howell launched a missile upon the nation of Fraggle Rock. The attack destroyed 272.00 infrastructure in the city of Wembly Crossroads and 1 improvement. 1 Nuke Landed 1 Missile Landed. Edited May 18, 2015 by Gobo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belisarius Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I honestly do not know why these changes for spies were needed. As Princess Bubblegum pointed out, there are real problems with spies. But Sheepy's changes do nothing to address these issues, but complicates the situation further. Why did there need to be a change in how many spies we can buy? The prior cap of 2 spies per day was universal. Some large nations had less than smaller nations. Further, alliances had the opportunity to help their members buy spies. In other words, the nature of buying/using spies was applicable to all nations. There was not any inherent advantage to being a "large" nation or "small" nation when it came to spies. It was only a matter of how many you had bought over the intervening months, and probability. While I still think the notion of "large" nations spying on poor little nations (who, I should add, are almost always raiders) is overblown, the needless change to spies made today gave that crappy argument some traction. Why? Because the purchase of spies is now dependent on the cities one owns. So of course larger nations have an inherent advantage, one that did not exist yesterday. So I ask again: what was the point in this particular change? Was it even needed? To put it simply, what problem was this going to fix? Or was the motivation just "this would be neat!"? 2 http://i.imgur.com/K3xCRAP.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belisarius Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I want to jump on this quickly. I will post later on a full detail of how this update has led me to believe that this world is not going to last long term if you change the dynamics of the system on a whim. Please explain how missiles are only considered 1/3 strength of nukes? 05/04/2015 06:34 am Wembly Fraggle of Fraggle Rock detonated a nuclear weapon at the nation of Howell. The attack destroyed 1,600.00 infrastructure in the city of Howell and 2 improvements.. 05/04/2015 09:29 am Sheep Shearer underlordgc of Howell launched a missile upon the nation of Fraggle Rock. The attack destroyed 272.00 infrastructure in the city of Wembly Crossroads and 1 improvement. 1 Nuke Landed 1 Missile Landed. Did both cities affected have the same amount of land and infra before being hit? Because if not, then that will skew the results a bit. 1 http://i.imgur.com/K3xCRAP.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 All this update seems to me, only serve more to punish the bigger nations for being big? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 No one is going to be happy one way or the other. This changes makes spies more of something you build up like some people do with missiles and that is... an okay thing I suppose. The higher tier folk who have nukes for example will want a sizable full time force as they have investments to keep safe. Did both cities affected have the same amount of land and infra before being hit? Because if not, then that will skew the results a bit. I remember looking at them at the time and they were roughly the same, as in there were minor differences, but not enough for it to make a huge difference. I think infra was the same and there was something like a 100 land difference though I don't remember who would be the one with more land there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 @ Rozilla, the nuke definitely have to cause more damage than a missile, since a nuke easily cost 3 times more than a missile, 1.7 M for nuke, 100k for missiles? Not to mention the resources yet you expect them to have similar damage? Then why go for nuke? We might as well all be contended with having missiles alone .and forget about the nuke. Just remove it from the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 @ Rozilla, the nuke definitely have to cause more damage than a missile, since a nuke easily cost 3 times more than a missile, 1.7 M for nuke, 100k for missiles? Not to mention the resources yet you expect them to have similar damage? Then why go for nuke? We might as well all be contended with having missiles alone .and forget about the nuke. Just remove it from the game. I wasn't saying otherwise. Merely stating that the nuke and missile hit similar targets and the nuke was as it should far stronger. Nothing more to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 and there is no need to change it, just leave it nuke damage as it is. Be fair to all, we cant go on nerfing the damage each time people on the receiving end complains about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belisarius Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Another factor regarding nukes and missiles is the vast increase in pollution nukes create after striking a city. I know Abbas had that happen to him after being nuked. That's a lot harder to quantify than infra damages, but still doable. Regardless, I do hope there's consistency between the purchase price, upkeep, and power of nukes in relations to missiles. i.e., if a nuke is 3x the cost of a missile, it should be 3x as damaging, and have 3x the upkeep. How that goes isn't important imo, but some consistency would help ameliorate the complaints here. http://i.imgur.com/K3xCRAP.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 To be able to build nuke, it cost 50 million not to mention the resources. So nuke definitely cost more than 3 times what you need for missiles? 6 million? and to build a missile itself is only 150k whereas nuke 1.75 million, again not mentioning the resources. And even if I go by your reasoning, 3 times, then since missiles destroys one improvement ? Then why is nuke destroying only 2? Shouldn't it be destroying 3? Lets be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Jaehaerys Posted May 18, 2015 Moderators Share Posted May 18, 2015 Important progression from this update - http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6372-5172015-rebalancing/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belisarius Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 To be able to build nuke, it cost 50 million not to mention the resources. So nuke definitely cost more than 3 times what you need for missiles? 6 million? and to build a missile itself is only 150k whereas nuke 1.75 million, again not mentioning the resources. And even if I go by your reasoning, 3 times, then since missiles destroys one improvement ? Then why is nuke destroying only 2? Shouldn't it be destroying 3? Lets be fair. I was using 3 as an example of a ratio between nukes and missiles in terms of costs and power. I was not using 3 as something I advocate. How that is determined does not matter, as long as the consistency is there. http://i.imgur.com/K3xCRAP.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moufassa Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Some much needed changes. Good job, Sheepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I was using 3 as an example of a ratio between nukes and missiles in terms of costs and power. I was not using 3 as something I advocate. How that is determined does not matter, as long as the consistency is there. Regardless, cost is not what influences somethings score worth. Many things such as inf and cities have variable costs which is not at all represented in score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts