Change Beige mechanics so any immense triumph advances the Beige counter

[Ogaden]

I'd expect the new losing tactic to become do nothing and go to beige, don't send missiles as you're hurting yourself more. If they did indeed send missiles, nothing changes as the war will just last the full 5 days and you won't beige them at all, you'll just wait for one of their missiles to land.

I don't know if that's really a winning tactic, I mean missiling someone 6 times takes about 5 days anyways, if I airstrike someone 6 times in a row and they choose not to do anything at all to me, even though they could, I'm not going to think they managed to get away scot free lol

Edited August 27, 2015 by Ogaden

[Phiney]

My airstrikes do more damage than missiles. If they only take 6 of them instead of 16, they definitely got away lightly.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Phiney

[Ogaden]

You could always deliberately lose an offensive ground battle lol

[LordRahl2]

Again, secondary and tertiary effects are not fully explored here I think.  I would have to think on this more but in general it would further increase the tendency to fight a nuke/missile strategy in real wars.  Again, given how OP nukes are, this would further unbalance the conventional vs the missile balance.

 

If you did something like this then incentivize the beige mechanic by rewarding players that beige more than you do.  Maybe a greater $ reward or something.  Say some formula taking into account starting scores and providing scaled $ to the beiger regardless of the amount in the beiged players account.

 

As this recommendation stands it is further unbalancing and I am against it.

[Clarke]

If the argument is that nation should be beiged then yes, however if the argument is that the nation should be beiged and wars end on anything other than immense ground battles then no. Just to be clear.

As for the rest, people may just tactically get themselves beiged without taking any real damage and then bring down a world of hurt without any chance of them being countered and receiving little to no opposition. 

[Ayayay]

I'd literally just launch nukes instead of regular attacks.

[stetonic]

If a nation has for example  10 cities with 1500 infra per city and you hit 6 immense airstrikes with a very large airforce and do on average 300 infra damage per city.That works out at about 21 million to replace.Now if that nation kept zero military 365 days a year.The income he would gain for not having one would pay to replace that infra over 15 times.So unless you plan on attacking him to beige 15 times a year why would he care about you attacking him once or twice during an alliance war

 

 

So this idea is bad.Just leave the war system the way it is.I thought the idea of 6 ground victories added to the role play part of you have occupied there country.

 

 

These figures are approximated dont go picking the exact amounts apart down to the last penny

[Kastor]

I could agree to this, if, nations can have 5 defensive slots instead of 3.

[Valakias]

Please, no. Want to make wars longer? Okay, but don t frustrate attackers into endless beige walls. Otherwise you just encouragw nuke throwing even more

[seabasstion]

here were the complaints i witnessed when joining the game at the end of last year

1) missiles are too damaging and all everybody will do is fling missiles through the entire war. it isn't good for the game

 

the response to this was to nerf missiles and boost iron dome

 

2) war is too costly and doesn't have enough incentive to ever want to go to war

 

the response to this was to increase looting

 

while having good intentions, i feel both of these actually worsened the competitive spirit of the game. now when you get declared on by 2 or 3 people in a blitz which can be 4 to 6 ground attacks instantaneously, you have all of your money stolen (lets be honest - 100k cant buy you much of anything). it will only be a short time until this person is zero military and only has missiles/nukes to fall back on which. missiles being the most accessible since there is no way you'll be buying any nukes while at war since the looting is so high, however they have been nerfed so i guess you sit back and take it unless you have allies that can come in and hopefully 3 v 1 all of the people that are 3 v 1'ing you. this has led to the landscape that i feel we are currently in:

 

3) the only way to win a war is by having more people. you would have to be monumentally mismanaged if you have more than 25% the member count of your enemy's alliance/bloc and 'lose' the war. with the buy limits in place, the looting that can be done, and the damage per attack it is a very easy conclusion to see.

 

 

if we think critically about this suggestion i feel it to address all 3 of these (what i feel are) valid concerns

 

1) if the losing side is given 4-5 days of beige to build back up an army they could actually come out and fight conventional ways again. missile/nuke turtling isn't really that fun to do.

 

i should know i just nuke turtled 20 times. the big war before this i had a top 10 tank count, top 20 aircraft count, and max soldier count for the cities i could have. once we were countered (by more people than our side had) i had no money and no military to fight back. this was after i woke up from a 6 hour night sleep - it simply vanished by 3 aggressing nations. i could buy 1 missile a day and that was it. very boring existence for the remainder of the war with no chance to ever defend myself after that. 

 

for example, this was the very first battle my alliance mate jim beam faced when he was declared on during this war:

 

 

 

Lord MoonPie of moon of pies ordered a dogfight airstrike upon the nation of Big Whiskey. The attack was an immense triumph. Lord MoonPie's forces lost 34 aircraft, while President Jim Beam's defenders lost 147 aircraft. The attack destroyed 48.69 infrastructure in the city of Whiskey River.

 

he has 11 cities each with a maximum of 5 air force bases. you can manufacture 3 per base per day. this is 165 total. this opening attack represents 89% of what he could be able to replace that day 

 

20 minutes after this first attack there was a second air attack by another nation.

 

 

 

The Great Gregimus of Gregistan ordered a dogfight airstrike upon the nation of Big Whiskey. The attack was an immense triumph. The Great Gregimus's forces lost 19 aircraft, while President Jim Beam's defenders lost 105 aircraft. The attack destroyed 28.76 infrastructure in the city of Knob Creek.

 

so he's now over 250 aircraft lost in 2 attacks when he is not allowed to buy more than 165 a day, even if he has 10billion dollars and 10 million aluminum, he cant do it. coupled with the minimal loses that the aggressor faced, Jim Beam is now under their thumb with aircrafts and can't do anything about it by himself. tanks are now cut in half so he's probably screwed on ground attacks too

 

actually let's look at ground attacks:

1000 soldiers per barracks at 5/barracks per city with 11 cities = 55,000 can be purchased a day

 

 

 

The Sweeeeetest Sweeeeet Ronny D of Jewidia ordered a ground attack upon the nation of Big Whiskey led by President Jim Beam. The attack was an immense triumph. The Sweeeeetest Sweeeeet Ronny D's forces lost 8,017 soldiers and 85 tanks, while President Jim Beam's defenders lost 32,167 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 122.49 infrastructure in the city of Bookers and 1 improvements. The Sweeeeetest Sweeeeet Ronny D stole $0.00 in the attack.

 

32k soldiers is 58% of the daily buy limit jim beam has. remember that 2 ground attacks can be done instantaneously by one member upon declaration. with numbers like this he could be declared upon and immediately not be able to buy back enough soldiers to try and defend himself. what happens when he tries to defend himself against poor odds?

 

 

 

President Jim Beam of Big Whiskey ordered a ground attack upon the nation of Gregistan led by The Great Gregimus. The attack was an utter failure. President Jim Beam's forces lost 33,560 soldiers and 900 tanks, while The Great Gregimus's defenders lost 8,998 soldiers and 148 tanks. The attack destroyed 0.00 infrastructure in the city of Gregopolis and 0 improvements. President Jim Beam stole $0.00 in the attack.

 

crushing defeat and over half a day's purchase. it's simply impossible to come back on your own when you get behind no matter what your resource/stockpile is like.

 

 

now i know these enemies were chosen to go against jim beam for strategic reasons since they matched up well against him but the points are still valid. you could have 2 nations declare at 11:59 game time, each do a ground attack and an air attack at 12:01 and jim beam literally has no other recourse than to missile/nuke turtle until peace is declared or until someone else comes to save him.

 

im starting to go on a tangent here but you have to ask yourself: is this good for the game? is it good for the game as a whole to not be able to play a form of isolationist role? you could have max everything and the biggest warchest in the game but it means exactly squat if you get declared on right before update by 2 nations that are max military that happen to have 1 or 2 more cities than you.

 

opponents of missile/nuke turtling say that it is bad for the game: well what recourse do these nations have? 

 

getting back on topic: with this new proposal this city could be blitzed and lose all the units they do. afterall it is a devastating strategy and they should be rewarded for it. but then after 4 more attacks each by these 2 aggressive nations, the defeated nation has several days to get some funds back, build up a new army, possibly get some allies and go back for round 2. compared to him being eternally locked with no money and no military - how is this bad for the game?

 

the aggressive nations are still getting their loot and not wasting tons and tons of gas/munitions to get it (addresses concern number 2), the beaten nation gets time to rebuild their army and not resort to missile turtling (addresses concern number 1), and there actually is some additional strategy that can take place now. this nation could wait until an opportune time to strike back or get allies. concern 3 is still a very real concern for me because i personally think unit damage is too high in this game, however it at least gives you another option than just going to treaty partner x, having them wait a couple days while the huge initial bloodshed is over, and then retaliate.

 

isolationism is a death sentence in this game in the current format. you have to be allied with more people than your enemies or you lose (im talking about conventional warfare) plain and simple. isolationism in itself is a form of politics, so why can't it have it's place here.

 

the successful game dynamics right now are far too narrow focused. either align with as many people as possible and form the biggest bloc possible and create a massive treaty web that nobody can untangle, or none at all and never wage war and be a neutral (which some also argue is bad for the game)

 

to the people that are against an idea like this beiging after any 6 consecutive immense triumphs, or at least some form of change to the current damage/looting/buying that would favor the defending nation, i feel you are being shortsighted and are against balancing this game for the better. i would rather see a game with more strategy to it than the simple equation of "more people = more winning" 

 

it's easy to say " well yeah you're only saying this because youre on the losing side" ....well what better time to recognize how imbalanced the war mechanic of this game is and how limited with options you left with when on the losing side of the war.

[seabasstion]

Please, no. Want to make wars longer? Okay, but don t frustrate attackers into endless beige walls. Otherwise you just encouragw nuke throwing even more

 

you are completely wrong here. 

 

i've done nothing but nuke throw this war. i've delivered 29.7k infra damage to VE and received 12.8k infra damage from VE. if i were to try and fight with conventional warfare being in a 2v1 or a 3v1 there is no way i would come out 'ahead' for reasons i've listed in my previous post. 

 

having the option of going to beige and recoup conventional warfare units will encourage people to fight in more conventional wars and less nuke/missile turtling. if this were in place, i could still get 1 nuke off but the attacking nation could get 5 or 6 high damaging aircraft/ship attacks (and then send me to beige) vs 6 ground attacks (and send me to beige).

 

if they get 6 attacks of 300 damage against me and i only get 1 attack of 1500 infra damage (at a cheaper rate too), to me this is LESS incentive to nuke turtle

[Valakias]

I don t see why you should receive magic walls and rebuild your forces, you failed to prepare? You got outmanouvered? Deal with it and prepare better next time. If wars gets longer must be for a deeper war module, not a 48 hourz shield, what is this, clash of clans?

[seabasstion]

I don t see why you should receive magic walls and rebuild your forces, you failed to prepare? You got outmanouvered? Deal with it and prepare better next time. If wars gets longer must be for a deeper war module, not a 48 hourz shield, what is this, clash of clans?

 

im already getting this magic wall though. the strategy used against me by VE was they would attack me with several lower infra/city members (so i cause less monetary damage per attack)

 

for the high infra/city nations i declared on, they rushed 6 ground attack victories on me so they could get out of the war. i was still able to get 1 nuke out and deliver more damage than them because i knew that their ground attacks would cause less damage than my nukes. there was no other option i have to come out ahead. this isn't me getting outmaneuvered, this is simple foresight i had with observations on the last war.

 

what this suggestion would allow is for these high infra/city nations that i declared on to attack me with more damaging attacks like ships and planes. as opposed to the 200 infra damage ground attack x 6 (1200 infra) compared to my 1500-1800 infra nuke where i easily come out ahead, if they get me with 6 x 300 infra attacks (1800 infra) they could and would come out ahead since the infra they damaged is distributed all among the expensive top tier.

 

nuke turtles will already get their beige walls most of the time. your biggest argument/fear against this suggestion is that it will result in nothing but nuke turtling. my friend we are already there, im just one of the first to implement the strategy. based on the private messages i've received in game i have a feeling there will be more to adopt this strategy. this suggestion is a move in the direction against nuke turtling. if i knew i was at risk for more damaging attacks i would consider other options. as it stands now im nuke turtle 100% since it is pretty much a guaranteed victory in a defensive war. i know my units will be destroyed anyway since i only have 10 cities - why should i even waste the time/effort just to see it erased in a short while?

 

edit: and can i also say again that it isn't necessarily due to lack of preparedness. look at some of the opening attacks from this war - you can have max military you possibly can have and in 2 minutes you are left optionless. this isn't being unprepared. i guess it is technically being 'outmaneuvered' - to me it is more taking advantage of the game being imbalanced. an imbalance that is only countered by nuke/missile turtling in it's current state. if that is really your fear than you had better come up with other options to incentivize defending nations to carry a military (reduce damage, implement a home field advantage, force deployed units), or nerf/increase the MAP for nukes and only further the needle to the aggressor's favor

Edited August 28, 2015 by seabasstion

[stetonic]

The only tactic this adds to the game is keep zero military.Take your 6 hits lose the war and rebuild

 

As for you saying you have only used the tactic of chucking nukes.Well you are lucky you still can because i am quite sure guardian where 100% behind the plan to stop you doing that if your enemy had all 3 offensive controls over you but that was during the marionette war when they where winning 

[seabasstion]

The only tactic this adds to the game is keep zero military.Take your 6 hits lose the war and rebuild

 

As for you saying you have only used the tactic of chucking nukes.Well you are lucky you still can because i am quite sure guardian where 100% behind the plan to stop you doing that if your enemy had all 3 offensive controls over you but that was during the marionette war when they where winning 

 

could you please explain how scenario 2 is more conducive to this zero military strategy than scenario 1

 

scenario 1)  a nation can be beiged from 6 triumphant ground attacks only for a total of 1200 infra damage ; the nuke creates 1500 infra damage

scenario 2)  a nation can be beiged from 6 triumphant air attacks for a total of 1800 infra damage ; the nuke creates 1500 infra damage

[stetonic]

If you read the OP it states that if you win an attack against your enemy or hit them with a missile or nuke the beige count restarts.So you would just sit there take your 6 hits and not even fire a nuke so your arguement about infra damage does not come into it.

 

So my tactic of keeping zero military is the only useful tactic to use in a game based on numbers.They can only do a max amount of damage with 6 attacks.So by saving the money from not having military it will pay for reconstruction

[seabasstion]

I do agree with you on your criticism of it resetting the beige timer. I was thinking more defensive oriented. This would also have the effect of making offensive wars nuke based as well.

 

If you find a non nuke nation they either take 2 nukes without retaliation against a zero military nation or face 5 days of nukes.

 

I think there is merit to any triumphant victory advancing beige counter for aforementioned reasons

[LordRahl2]

here were the complaints i witnessed when joining the game at the end of last year

1) missiles are too damaging and all everybody will do is fling missiles through the entire war. it isn't good for the game

 

the response to this was to nerf missiles and boost iron dome

 

2) war is too costly and doesn't have enough incentive to ever want to go to war

 

the response to this was to increase looting

 

while having good intentions, i feel both of these actually worsened the competitive spirit of the game. now when you get declared on by 2 or 3 people in a blitz which can be 4 to 6 ground attacks instantaneously, you have all of your money stolen (lets be honest - 100k cant buy you much of anything). it will only be a short time until this person is zero military and only has missiles/nukes to fall back on which. missiles being the most accessible since there is no way you'll be buying any nukes while at war since the looting is so high, however they have been nerfed so i guess you sit back and take it unless you have allies that can come in and hopefully 3 v 1 all of the people that are 3 v 1'ing you. this has led to the landscape that i feel we are currently in:

 

3) the only way to win a war is by having more people. you would have to be monumentally mismanaged if you have more than 25% the member count of your enemy's alliance/bloc and 'lose' the war. with the buy limits in place, the looting that can be done, and the damage per attack it is a very easy conclusion to see.

 

 

if we think critically about this suggestion i feel it to address all 3 of these (what i feel are) valid concerns

 

1) if the losing side is given 4-5 days of beige to build back up an army they could actually come out and fight conventional ways again. missile/nuke turtling isn't really that fun to do.

 

i should know i just nuke turtled 20 times. the big war before this i had a top 10 tank count, top 20 aircraft count, and max soldier count for the cities i could have. once we were countered (by more people than our side had) i had no money and no military to fight back. this was after i woke up from a 6 hour night sleep - it simply vanished by 3 aggressing nations. i could buy 1 missile a day and that was it. very boring existence for the remainder of the war with no chance to ever defend myself after that.

 

for example, this was the very first battle my alliance mate jim beam faced when he was declared on during this war:

 

 

he has 11 cities each with a maximum of 5 air force bases. you can manufacture 3 per base per day. this is 165 total. this opening attack represents 89% of what he could be able to replace that day

 

20 minutes after this first attack there was a second air attack by another nation.

 

 

so he's now over 250 aircraft lost in 2 attacks when he is not allowed to buy more than 165 a day, even if he has 10billion dollars and 10 million aluminum, he cant do it. coupled with the minimal loses that the aggressor faced, Jim Beam is now under their thumb with aircrafts and can't do anything about it by himself. tanks are now cut in half so he's probably screwed on ground attacks too

 

actually let's look at ground attacks:

1000 soldiers per barracks at 5/barracks per city with 11 cities = 55,000 can be purchased a day

 

 

32k soldiers is 58% of the daily buy limit jim beam has. remember that 2 ground attacks can be done instantaneously by one member upon declaration. with numbers like this he could be declared upon and immediately not be able to buy back enough soldiers to try and defend himself. what happens when he tries to defend himself against poor odds?

 

 

crushing defeat and over half a day's purchase. it's simply impossible to come back on your own when you get behind no matter what your resource/stockpile is like.

 

 

now i know these enemies were chosen to go against jim beam for strategic reasons since they matched up well against him but the points are still valid. you could have 2 nations declare at 11:59 game time, each do a ground attack and an air attack at 12:01 and jim beam literally has no other recourse than to missile/nuke turtle until peace is declared or until someone else comes to save him.

 

im starting to go on a tangent here but you have to ask yourself: is this good for the game? is it good for the game as a whole to not be able to play a form of isolationist role? you could have max everything and the biggest warchest in the game but it means exactly squat if you get declared on right before update by 2 nations that are max military that happen to have 1 or 2 more cities than you.

 

opponents of missile/nuke turtling say that it is bad for the game: well what recourse do these nations have?

 

getting back on topic: with this new proposal this city could be blitzed and lose all the units they do. afterall it is a devastating strategy and they should be rewarded for it. but then after 4 more attacks each by these 2 aggressive nations, the defeated nation has several days to get some funds back, build up a new army, possibly get some allies and go back for round 2. compared to him being eternally locked with no money and no military - how is this bad for the game?

 

the aggressive nations are still getting their loot and not wasting tons and tons of gas/munitions to get it (addresses concern number 2), the beaten nation gets time to rebuild their army and not resort to missile turtling (addresses concern number 1), and there actually is some additional strategy that can take place now. this nation could wait until an opportune time to strike back or get allies. concern 3 is still a very real concern for me because i personally think unit damage is too high in this game, however it at least gives you another option than just going to treaty partner x, having them wait a couple days while the huge initial bloodshed is over, and then retaliate.

 

isolationism is a death sentence in this game in the current format. you have to be allied with more people than your enemies or you lose (im talking about conventional warfare) plain and simple. isolationism in itself is a form of politics, so why can't it have it's place here.

 

the successful game dynamics right now are far too narrow focused. either align with as many people as possible and form the biggest bloc possible and create a massive treaty web that nobody can untangle, or none at all and never wage war and be a neutral (which some also argue is bad for the game)

 

to the people that are against an idea like this beiging after any 6 consecutive immense triumphs, or at least some form of change to the current damage/looting/buying that would favor the defending nation, i feel you are being shortsighted and are against balancing this game for the better. i would rather see a game with more strategy to it than the simple equation of "more people = more winning"

 

it's easy to say " well yeah you're only saying this because youre on the losing side" ....well what better time to recognize how imbalanced the war mechanic of this game is and how limited with options you left with when on the losing side of the war.

Sounds like Mr Bean should have been in an alliance that coordinates more effectivly. Which is precisely the hoe it should happen. His opponents were clearly organized and effective. Why do you want to nerf that level of gameplay.

 

Getting beaten is part of the game, it sucks to lose...as it should.

Edited August 28, 2015 by LordRahl2

[seabasstion]

that wasn't the point at all - it was to address earlier stated criticisms (and supposed fixes) of missile/nuke turtling.

 

If the game as a whole wants to move away from missile/nuke turtles than a change will need to be made in the mechanics as it basically leaves no other option. A vote for no change is a vote for turtles. I don't think turtles are good for the game but I recognize it is my best option and I bet others will come around to it as well.

 

That was my point of that post.

 

Edit: and I actually went through and calculated total infra damage between Guardian and ve though this morning. Guardian has inflicted 2200 more damage to ve than ve has done to guardian. I don't know what metric you use to Gauge what an effective alliance is but I think being outnumbered 4 to 1 and still delivering more damage through the majority of the first round is pretty telling of the potential success for this strategy in the current mechanism.

 

I know I skewed the results but I'm the only one to truly nuke turtle so take that for what it is worth.

Edited August 28, 2015 by seabasstion

[LordRahl2]

Ahhh, lost it in the tldr. There are other valid strategies at that tier.

 

I am not entirely clear on why there are missiles and nukes in general. As a game mechanic isolated from conventional war they do not seem to contribute to fun gameplay. But whatever.

[seabasstion]

Sorry brevity is not a strong skill of mine. If you disagree with nukes you should be for a change then. I hope you reconsider and read my post again as I feel it outlines a good justification for what will be a heavily nuke oriented game in the future

[Sir Scarfalot]

I for one agree with the implementation of the 'beige counter'; lacking that, it's too easy to completely and inevitably destroy someone, to the point that they have literally nothing but their land and baseball team. That's not good for any of these games, since it forces an unstable equilibrium.

 

For a game like TF2 or Modern Warfare, an unstable equilibrium is good since it prevents stalemates, and the rounds can actually end in a reasonable timeframe. In longterm politics games, though, an unstable equilibrium causes anyone that starts winning to keep winning, barring a massive !@#$up. Someone that loses cannot ever hope to catch up, and they might as well quit since there is no hope for victory or (non-masochistic) fun.

 

You gotta give the underdogs a chance, or they'll leave, and then noobs will come in... and still be underdogs, who therefore have the same lack of a chance. Unless there will be consistent resets, and nobody wants THAT, then a stable equilibrium is vitally important for long term fun for everyone.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Sir_Scarfalot

[Phiney]

Sounds to me seabasstion, that the real solution here is none of the above, and to just half the time you can build units back when you are at war. I.e. 2 days for Max soldiers, 3 for tanks, 3 for AF, 3 for ships.

[seabasstion]

Sounds to me seabasstion, that the real solution here is none of the above, and to just half the time you can build units back when you are at war. I.e. 2 days for Max soldiers, 3 for tanks, 3 for AF, 3 for ships.

I would agree with that much more than the proposed suggestion. It would at least allow the Option for battle capable nations to battle, but I believe this has been suggested before

[Phiney]

As long as you limit it to whilst being at war it shouldn't hinder 'being prepared' which I believe is sheepies normal argument. I mean I killed more than a days rebuild of soldiers in a single ground attack.