Don Juan Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Thanks for adding the support for accented Latin characters; I was wondering if that could please be extended to nation titles as well as city names? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TellUrGrlThx Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I'm glad the airstrike on ships was nerfed. Everything else that was changed is wonderful as well. ☾☆ Priest of Dio º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 These guys are talking sense, having superiority really needs to offset the ability to land missiles and nukes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) I do not really know why brother Kemal got into action points at all tbh. The optimal strategy is now to sit behind your Soldiers and Spies (maybe tanks - I have not optimized that yet) with zero planes and zero ships then churn out missiles before going into a war. Bottom line: Action points are irrelevant because of the cost of conducting airstrikes. The cost of a MLP and ID are required, fixed, and sunk costs. They must be built. You can save your shekels by not building airports but I ignored this. The relevant number is the cost in gas and munitions per airstrike. I calculated somewhere around 1700$ required per 1 point of infra destroyed for planes. This was uncontested. I also used current peacetime gas and munitions costs. Realizing that planes are more expensive to build and then more expensive to upkeep compared to missiles the logic favors building a large reserve of missiles and basically ignoring planes. When you go to war you simply sit back with your spies and missiles and chuck them at everyone you are at war with while absorbing conventional attacks. Your enemy is fighting sub optimally because he is eating up his gas and munitions to do a bit more infra damage relative to you. By the way I gave every advantage I could to planes. I used peacetime cost of planes and wartime for missiles when looking at upkeep. I used current peacetime costs for munitions and gas. I used the highest result out of 10 tests for plane infra damage. The bottom line is that, unless sheepy fiddles with the economy, attacking with planes is now ALWAYS a worse option relative to missiles. Lastly, this analysis was also run with ships. I desire my opponents to be retarded so please build lots of ships. The are so cost effective it isn't even funny, I promise. Please build tons of ships if you are not allied with me. There was another way of approaching the 'planes are OP' problem. Making the other two branches MORE damaging. Because, you know, the name of the game is politics and war. You should prob now change it to politics and missile chucking. I disagree with where you think the strategy of the game lies. Sure, there may be an economic advantage on an individual level at certain ranges to sit back, soak attacks, and just lob missiles. That doesn't mean that it is a viable strategy for winning a war, or minimizing losses. Your analysis only takes into account the cost to you, and the damage done to you, or dished out by you. But wars are not fought in a vacuum, one nation against one nation. Each person fights many different nations of varying strengths, and those people fight more of your allies and friends, and they fight more of the opponent's allies and friends. One nation choosing to sit back and lob missiles until they run out, while ignoring every other form of attack or defense, will cause a ripple effect that is far more damaging as a whole to alliance-mates and allies than your analysis takes into account. If you and two other allies are fighting the same 3 nations combined, and you choose to pursue your strategy of 'effectiveness', you will be helping the 3 nations you are fighting spend far less to destroy your nation, and the nations of your two allies. It's simple really. If 3 prepared nations are fighting 2 equally prepared nations and 1 nation who has no military, the 3 prepared nations will be able to overwhelm the 2 prepared nations easily, not to mention the free loot they will be able to collect from your nation to help mitigate their costs. Those three opponents will have to spend far less on rebuying their military, because you will be destroying infrastructure that only hurts their capabilities to rebuild post-war, and doesn't have any real effect on their current military success, and once they have your two allies overwhelmed, they can then turn to using attacks and missiles to cripple the three of you as much as possible. It won't end there, as you'll continue to drag down any allies you find yourself fighting alongside. Again, wars are not fought in a vacuum, but your analysis is counting on that. War isn't only about maintaining economic efficiency in how you spend your resources. It's about doing enough damage to the enemy for them to decide that enough is enough. It's about breaking their willingness and ability to fight. It's about using your resources to do as much damage as possible to the opponent. A nation gets 66 MAP's in a war. That's 8 missiles. Assuming Iron Domes, 4 will get through on average. At roughly 300 infra per hit, your 1200 damage done total will pale in comparison to the damage you take, and your allies take. I'm fine with spending $50 million to make sure you take $30 million in damage. I can afford the $50 million, can you afford the $30 million, and then whatever else you take in subsequent rounds? You'll run out of missiles, but if you aren't challenging my military, I won't run out of military. Edited June 24, 2015 by Goldie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Here is why people should not complain about spies: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/7102-spy-discussion-why-the-system-is-good/ Edited June 24, 2015 by Caecus 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...
LordRahl2 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I disagree with where you think the strategy of the game lies. Sure, there may be an economic advantage on an individual level at certain ranges to sit back, soak attacks, and just lob missiles. That doesn't mean that it is a viable strategy for winning a war, or minimizing losses. Your analysis only takes into account the cost to you, and the damage done to you, or dished out by you. But wars are not fought in a vacuum, one nation against one nation. Each person fights many different nations of varying strengths, and those people fight more of your allies and friends, and they fight more of the opponent's allies and friends. One nation choosing to sit back and lob missiles until they run out, while ignoring every other form of attack or defense, will cause a ripple effect that is far more damaging as a whole to alliance-mates and allies than your analysis takes into account. If you and two other allies are fighting the same 3 nations combined, and you choose to pursue your strategy of 'effectiveness', you will be helping the 3 nations you are fighting spend far less to destroy your nation, and the nations of your two allies. It's simple really. If 3 prepared nations are fighting 2 equally prepared nations and 1 nation who has no military, the 3 prepared nations will be able to overwhelm the 2 prepared nations easily, not to mention the free loot they will be able to collect from your nation to help mitigate their costs. Those three opponents will have to spend far less on rebuying their military, because you will be destroying infrastructure that only hurts their capabilities to rebuild post-war, and doesn't have any real effect on their current military success, and once they have your two allies overwhelmed, they can then turn to using attacks and missiles to cripple the three of you as much as possible. It won't end there, as you'll continue to drag down any allies you find yourself fighting alongside. Again, wars are not fought in a vacuum, but your analysis is counting on that. War isn't only about maintaining economic efficiency in how you spend your resources. It's about doing enough damage to the enemy for them to decide that enough is enough. It's about breaking their willingness and ability to fight. It's about using your resources to do as much damage as possible to the opponent. A nation gets 66 MAP's in a war. That's 8 missiles. Assuming Iron Domes, 4 will get through on average. At roughly 300 infra per hit, your 1200 damage done total will pale in comparison to the damage you take, and your allies take. I'm fine with spending $50 million to make sure you take $30 million in damage. I can afford the $50 million, can you afford the $30 million, and then whatever else you take in subsequent rounds? You'll run out of missiles, but if you aren't challenging my military, I won't run out of military. The analysis does not change with additional countries or allies. Nor is there a knock on effect. What you will run out of is money. The assumption that I cannot sit back with adequate defenses and allow you to throw your money away is false. And I may have lots of missiles going into a conflict. Since you bring it up, alliances should not surrender now. Just sit there and fight on until the attacker is exhausted. No more reps or dissarm sillyness. So that is good. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 So then how many missiles do you plan on carrying to pull this off? Once you run out, your entire strat is screwed. In a war, you are now launching 1 missile against 1-5 opponents a day. Say you are fighting 3 guys at once, you are looking at 24 missiles every 5 days after 3 rounds of fighting 3 guys, you have gone thru 72 missiles, so are you going to hold over 60 missiles in peace time? That is over 1.25 million dollars a day in upkeep in peace, and 1.8 million in war. If that is the case, then yes please do this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 So then how many missiles do you plan on carrying to pull this off? Once you run out, your entire strat is screwed. In a war, you are now launching 1 missile against 1-5 opponents a day. Say you are fighting 3 guys at once, you are looking at 24 missiles every 5 days after 3 rounds of fighting 3 guys, you have gone thru 72 missiles, so are you going to hold over 60 missiles in peace time? That is over 1.25 million dollars a day in upkeep in peace, and 1.8 million in war. If that is the case, then yes please do this. Run the numbers for planes, munitions, and gas. Get back to me. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Run the numbers for planes, munitions, and gas. Get back to me. Nations don't spend close to that amount on military upkeep until they're mobilized for war. Sure, then there is a high cost to it, but you'll be paying hundreds of millions of dollars to stockpile that many missiles, and you'll still only do an average of 1200 infra damage in a 5 day war to me. You claim this to be an overpowered strategy, but its not even close to as cost effective as you make it out to be. War is expensive, no matter how you fight it. The object is to do the most damage, ideally for as little cost as possible if you can. If you're going to spend that much money on upkeep and missiles, might as well just get nukes, and actually do what you're claiming missiles will do. You can launch 8 missiles in a war, an average of 4 will be blocked. You can run 18 air strikes against a nation, and none will be blocked. Your missiles will do ~1200 infra damage, the air strikes, say with 500 planes, will do ~3000 infra damage. Sure, those air strikes will cost munitions and gas, and a good amount of them. Maybe that cost should be looked at. But you won't lose a single plane, and you'll be able to have your way with the nation, as will everyone else fighting you. Fighting 3 people? Hope you have 24 missiles lined up, and are ready to lose the better part of 10000 infra just because you thought it was smarter to just sit on no military and lob missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 25, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted June 25, 2015 Thanks for adding the support for accented Latin characters; I was wondering if that could please be extended to nation titles as well as city names? It has already been extended to city names, Nation Titles wasn't something I had considered but I'll go ahead and add support for them there (as well as Leader Titles). 1 Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Sheepy, I haven't done enough missile sabotage ops to notice this, but did you also nerf the success rates for sabotaging missiles? If so, by how much? And I'm also assuming the same for nuclear weapons if you did. 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...
Administrators Alex Posted June 30, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted June 30, 2015 Sheepy, I haven't done enough missile sabotage ops to notice this, but did you also nerf the success rates for sabotaging missiles? If so, by how much? And I'm also assuming the same for nuclear weapons if you did. I didn't nerf or change either of these. 1 Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Is there any chance we can get the exact formulas for war? Winning probabilities, infra damage, kills, etc. I would like to code up some simulations, and I would greatly appreciate exact formulas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted July 2, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted July 2, 2015 Is there any chance we can get the exact formulas for war? Winning probabilities, infra damage, kills, etc. I would like to code up some simulations, and I would greatly appreciate exact formulas. Simulations, you say? I've got you covered. https://politicsandw...m/groundbattle/ https://politicsandw...esim/airstrike/ https://politicsandw...battlesim/navy/ https://politicsandw...tlesim/missile/ https://politicsandw...battlesim/nuke/ https://politicsandw...esim/espionage/ As for actual formulas, yes I will release them when I get around to it (soon). Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Simulations, you say? I've got you covered. https://politicsandw...m/groundbattle/ https://politicsandw...esim/airstrike/ https://politicsandw...battlesim/navy/ https://politicsandw...tlesim/missile/ https://politicsandw...battlesim/nuke/ https://politicsandw...esim/espionage/ As for actual formulas, yes I will release them when I get around to it (soon). I meant the actual formulas, so that I could make complete war simulations in Matlab or Fortran (two nations are simulated with several battles as they get more action points, using preset strategies). Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilal the Great Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 We have a battlesim? Of wow this is awesome, why I only know about this now. King Bilal the Great Mediocre The Average monarch of Billonesia Wikia page (if you're into roleplay things). We Tvtropes now. (down the rabbit hole!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Simulations, you say? I've got you covered. https://politicsandw...m/groundbattle/ https://politicsandw...esim/airstrike/ https://politicsandw...battlesim/navy/ https://politicsandw...tlesim/missile/ https://politicsandw...battlesim/nuke/ https://politicsandw...esim/espionage/ As for actual formulas, yes I will release them when I get around to it (soon). Can we get an update on the formulas please? Thank you very much in advance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhen Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Can we get an update on the formulas please? Thank you very much in advance. ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TERRORPLAYER Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Wow great info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts