Big Boss Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 As it stands, the war system is incredibly broken. I was down declared at 1600 ns by a 2100ns nation. There's literally no way I can win a ga or air battle on him as he has two full cities strength on me. This seriously needs to be fixed. It should really be sorted out. My suggestion, have different percentages of who you can attack in different tiers. At 250 ns it should be as it is now, and decrease as ns gets higher. Like at 1000ns have it +50/-20 out such. Otherwise we'll have later on a 10k point nation declaring on a 7500. 3 Quote "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 #MicroAreWinning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 . Otherwise we'll have later on a 10k point nation declaring on a 7500. What's wrong with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Every war someone ends up crying and trying to change the system. Stop it. Edited August 24, 2015 by Jodo 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) For one thing, you have such a low amount of military improvements... Really, if all parties involved have the same percentage of military improvements on their nation, bigger nations will always have an advantage over smaller nations. Was it so bad that heavily militarized underdog could easily beat up largely under-prepared ones? E: sperged out and mistook the attacker as the defender on the game screen. Disregard this momentous amount of stupidity. Edited August 24, 2015 by Atzuya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Dont worry, I will try to take it easy on you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 With respect to the OP, you can win at that score disparity. Most players will not but that is a choice not a broken system. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 With respect to the OP, you can win at that score disparity. Most players will not but that is a choice not a broken system. how is that not broken? If 9/10 players don't stand a chance, why should it exist in game? There needs to be tighter attack ranges for higher scores. 1 Quote "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 Every war someone ends up crying and trying to change the system. Stop it. when it's the same thing every war perhaps it should change. Besides that, it's incredibly facile to even state this. It adds nothing to the conversation. "Stop it, it isn't broken!!" Isn't a solution, when it obviously is broken. Quote "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 What's wrong with that it should be self explanatory. A person at 7500 Stands even less of a chance than I do at the difference. Quote "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 how is that not broken? If 9/10 players don't stand a chance, why should it exist in game? There needs to be tighter attack ranges for higher scores. Again, its a choice and is not broken. I will explain it to sheepy or malone in PM if they want. I will to you too if you want. I am on Rizon IRC, PM me. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted August 24, 2015 Administrators Share Posted August 24, 2015 Again, its a choice and is not broken. I will explain it to sheepy or malone in PM if they want. I will to you too if you want. I am on Rizon IRC, PM me. Why not just post here for everyone? Quote 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...
LordRahl2 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Why not just post here for everyone? Although it is open source, I am not sure I want to tell people how to be awesome in war =) I note that you dd not PM me. . . so I will reiterate that the OP's post is flawed and I can elaborate desired. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oblige Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Rahl so opsec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Lune Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 In my opinion it is kind of broken, though I'm not high tier, so my opinion may be flawed. In support of the OP, I'd say at higher tier, the declare range should be 50% above and 20% under for maybe nations with over 2000NS. 40% above and 10% under for those nations over 5000NS. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 The downdeclare range isn't broken. If you want to win against a larger opponent, you need friends. Or allies. Do you have any allies that can help you? This game is never about 1v1's as it's a political simulator. I think the updeclare range is what's broken, not the limited downdeclare. 2 Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 The downdeclare range isn't broken. If you want to win against a larger opponent, you need friends. Or allies. Do you have any allies that can help you? This game is never about 1v1's as it's a political simulator. I think the updeclare range is what's broken, not the limited downdeclare. Yeah. I've never understood why the updeclare and downdeclare work on different percentages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerys Targaryen Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Although it is open source, I am not sure I want to tell people how to be awesome in war =) I note that you dd not PM me. . . so I will reiterate that the OP's post is flawed and I can elaborate desired. I guess your answer would be, "don't build too many cities and stay in a score range which is comfortable for you" or may be "Build an alliance with lots of people in the same score range" I agree with the OP, the upper tier score range is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted August 24, 2015 Administrators Share Posted August 24, 2015 I think cities each ought to contribute more score, and it's something I've been considering. A change that will wait until after y'all's war is over, though, to be fair. The reason that the downdeclare is lower than the updeclare is so that bigger nations can be defeated. We don't want to create a scenario where once you're on top you can never be knocked from your spot - having the top nations "recycled" over time creates a more 'fair', fun, and less static game. 2 Quote 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...
Clarke Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 And to think some people wanted to make it even more one sided by making the range larger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 It feels nice to know others think this as well. I've brought it up multiple times since beta, but was always told it would be handled later when score was more of an issue. In my opinion maybe per 1000 points or 500 it can go down 5% or a log scale of which. So at 250 score is 66/25 and at 750 it's 61/20 or 63/22, and so on. That way when we get to 10,000 ns nations they can't declare on someone with 6-7 times less troops than them. Quote "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalev60 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Forget the score range and go by city numbers. Player with 10 cities can only attacks players with 10 cities and so on, would level the playing field somewhat, but i'm sure if it would be implimented at next war someone would be !@#$ing about someone with 5000 infra per each city having absurd amount of slots over him, making it "unfair" and "impossible" for him to win. Quote Charlie Chaplin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Forget the score range and go by city numbers. Player with 10 cities can only attacks players with 10 cities and so on, would level the playing field somewhat, but i'm sure if it would be implimented at next war someone would be !@#$ about someone with 5000 infra per each city having absurd amount of slots over him, making it "unfair" and "impossible" for him to win. This is a terrible solution and makes buying more cities pointless. No thanks. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 As it stands, the war system is incredibly broken. I was down declared at 1600 ns by a 2100ns nation. There's literally no way I can win a ga or air battle on him as he has two full cities strength on me. This seriously needs to be fixed. It should really be sorted out. My suggestion, have different percentages of who you can attack in different tiers. At 250 ns it should be as it is now, and decrease as ns gets higher. Like at 1000ns have it +50/-20 out such. Otherwise we'll have later on a 10k point nation declaring on a 7500. A down-declare in an alliance war is a symptom of being in a weaker alliance. The solution is to call in allies or restructure your alliance so no enemy can afford to downdeclare your entire alliance. When you're outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, every attack can be a down declare. In a long war though, it quickly becomes about who stockpiled enough resources. Think 10K gasoline is enough? Its not. So, the weaker nation who can force his attacker to do dogfights to bring down his airforce is using up the attacker's resources. There's more to winning a war then just obtaining superiority against a single opponent. If you lose your battle, but drain his resources more then expected, that's a win. I don't think its fair to say this system is broken. Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I was wondering out of the 3 guys I am currently fighting, which one of you guys didn't message me back, I guess it doesn't surprise me the person not to respond is the one crying about losing on the OWF. I would prefer that you guys not teach him how to fight, it makes my life much easier. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.