Let's talk infra damage

[Prefontaine]

If they have 0 planes to start with and you do no other attacks. Its more likely you start by getting ground control, so there's maybe 6 maps down the drain, then use 4 or 5 dogfights getting rid of their airforce, maybe a blockade and all of a sudden you've only got maybe 6 airstrikes left.

 

Thus why I said 4 wars worth of bombing. However many wars it takes to get to 4 wars worth.. *shrugs* But in maximum settings that's what it would be.

[Phiney]

And in the last two of them wars it's likely costing the attackers more to launch the airstrikes than it is costing the defenders in infra.

[Boony]

Remember that you can do up to 9 airstrikes per war. At 400 infrastructure damage, that's 3,600 infra destroyed per war.

 

 

You need to analyze both from the attacking nation, and the receiving nation's perspective.

You need to kill their existing aircraft as well and do lots of other stuff

[Buorhann]

Seriously though, the investment into 1000 Planes is a lot, and the ever fluctuating costs of Fuel and Munitions to keep using them.

 

I'm in the 400-500 Infra damage area after thinking about it.

 

You need 56 improvement slots to build that many Airforce bases to field that many planes.  Which is roughly 11 cities ( To be fair, we should be rounding up, so it'd be 12 cities ).

 

5,600,000 cash

560 Steel

 

That's just the bases alone

 

3,000 Aluminum

4,000,000 cash

 

To build the planes

 

250 Fuel and Munitions each to use them per strike.

 

Granted if you ever get up to 12 cities, the costs of this wouldn't seem large.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Buorhann

[LordRahl2]

voted 400.  Seems reasonable based on AP, build requirements, and length of war.

[Stagger Lee]

What if it reflects a percentage of infra wise? 

 

400 infra won't seem like much to someone who has 10,000... but when they only have a 1000, it's a lot. 

 

Maybe even set it up so it calculates from the total destroyed during the war, so that someone can't just declare and then downsize to bare essentials to prevent it from getting blown up. 

 

Relativity usually makes things more fun and meaningful for everyone.  

 

It also solves problems with needing to scale everything correctly for micro nations and massive nations.  If things are based on fractions or percentages, the same impact is made regardless of the scale.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I don't think planes need to be more powerful then they are now.  Planes destroyed my navy, and my tanks, and of course my own planes.  They have a purpose already, and its to limit your target's options.  They do that now very well.  Why do they need to do more?

[Azaghul]

The problem is people are looking at two different things: how much gas/munitions they take, and how many action points they take.  And the two things are not in line.

 

I think the solution here is to cap how much infra each airstrike can do, to make it line with the action points, but make sure parents are aware of this so that they don't spend excess gas/munitions on planes.

 

Say a limit of 200 planes to calculate infra damage, and put that as a notice when sending airstrikes so people know not to send more if they don't need more to overcome their opponents defense.

[Isolatar]

The problem is people are looking at two different things: how much gas/munitions they take, and how many action points they take.  And the two things are not in line.

 

I think the solution here is to cap how much infra each airstrike can do, to make it line with the action points, but make sure parents are aware of this so that they don't spend excess gas/munitions on planes.

 

Say a limit of 200 planes to calculate infra damage, and put that as a notice when sending airstrikes so people know not to send more if they don't need more to overcome their opponents defense.

 

200 planes is nothing in the upper tier. Capping it at 700/800 would make more sense

[Dr Rush]

I don't like hard caps as a matter of principle. I prefer experientially diminishing returns as a cap.

[Azaghul]

I don't like hard caps as a matter of principle. I prefer experientially diminishing returns as a cap.

Fair point, but just make sure people are aware of it.