Change Beige mechanics so any immense triumph advances the Beige counter

[LordRahl2]

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

 

meh, I think it is more important to let us all figure out the rules and mechanics of the game and leave the darn thing alone.  None of the proposed 'fixes' are aimed at something game breaking or at exploits/cheats and none of them meet a very high standard that should be required to fiddle with the game.

[seabasstion]

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.

This is my original thought on the idea you are suggesting. It is in a post near the end of this thread

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6248-thoughts-on-the-current-state-of-the-war-system/

[seabasstion]

meh, I think it is more important to let us all figure out the rules and mechanics of the game and leave the darn thing alone. None of the proposed 'fixes' are aimed at something game breaking or at exploits/cheats and none of them meet a very high standard that should be required to fiddle with the game.

If you don't consider nuke turtling with no military game breaking then you should be happy with the direction the game is going to go for the next big war. I'm not sure if I'm being narcissistic or what but I think my performance this war will serve as a proof of concept

[Callum]

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

this/10

[LordRahl2]

If you don't consider nuke turtling with no military game breaking then you should be happy with the direction the game is going to go for the next big war. I'm not sure if I'm being narcissistic or what but I think my performance this war will serve as a proof of concept

Your opponent(s) at have failed to break you. This may say more about their strategy than the soundness of yours. Bottom line: It is not invincible so no, it is not game breaking.

[Ayayay]

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.

Nah. Then you could keep 2 days worth of units ready, then declare war right before update, then max buy through that.

[Phiney]

Nah. Then you could keep 2 days worth of units ready, then declare war right before update, then max buy through that.

Thn go with seabasstion and make it only defensive wars.

 

Edit: although I don't see the problem with what you suggested. That's still a prepared aggressive tactic. Sheepys issue with this before was that the defender isn't rewarded as much for being prepared, but I don't think he really understands quite how defeated you can be in one turn whilst still being prepared.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Phiney

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

I thought i did a fairly decent job limiting the damage you could do, if i didn't have to move earlier in the week, we could have taken out more of your nukes in spy attacks as well.

 

but i also agree, and have stated this before, the amount of time it takes to build up, is way too long.

[Big Boss]

I ended up nuking you every day this war, with very little damage at all go mysrlf, even though I was down declared on. My small surplus of nukes supports sebass's claims. What also supports his claims is the fact your entire army can be wiped out in a matter of minutes.

There can be a few solutions to this-

1. Decrease the damage that attacks can do to other units

2. Decrease the time it takes to build your military

3. Decrease the cost of units

 

Another solution would be the same I brought up in another thread, by increasing the score for cities, as well as large militaries. If you do that as well as decrease damage the game would be more fluid. Someone with 13-14 cities should face a penalty for attacking someone with 11. They have up to 90,000 extra troops, increased power, tanks, missiles and are superior in almost every regard. If Ronny didn't move id have lost the war a few times over in damage. I had full planes, gone in a matter of 2 days and was 33% blocked in a matter of minutes. And iblost my onfantry within 2 minute s as well. If you decrease damage to lose less troops then the defender isnt just going to nuke away, as people have more options. If you match people with 11 cities to 11 cities or so, you'll have a more strategic battle. People would have different builds for the same city number and it'd be far more interesting than being equivalent to spawncamped.

 

I propose a score increase for cities, but to prevent a large nation losing score to declare on a smaller, a morale system. Simply put, morale should dictate the strength of your troops. If a big nation declares war on a smaller nation(for instance, if Vincent declared on someone -25% his score) there should be a system in place that makes his army less effective. In the same manner, a small nation should get a boost (let's say that base 100% morale is 100% effective) for fighting a losing battle against a giant nation (think ww2 Japan) and the bonus could be 112.5% morale since the person is stronger than them. So in this manner Vincent would get 75% morale meaning his troops are only 75% efficient but the smaller nations troops have that bonus, but also the extra morale on top of it.

 

Besides that, lowering damage would mean less casualties sustained, which means longer wars that aren't dependant on a crazy amount of update gore for the simple fact literally someone can declare on you at 11:59:45 and destroy your full fighting capability at 12:00:35 with their full troop strength back.

 

Nukes would also become the last line of defense in these scenarios, considering someone who has troops and can actually fight back won't need to launch missiles

 

.

Tdlr

Bigger city scores

Morale systems,

And less unit damage to other units

Would lower incidents of nuke and missile spam, more so, it would prevent high tier players smashing lowers.the game would also in the end be more fuild and not be spawnlocked.

[Valakias]

By doing that you d only use low score nations to attack high score ones, considering you can updeclare very high. Simply no

[Hysteria]

>Gets whooped

>cries that its the game and not his crappy skillz

Edited August 29, 2015 by Hysteria

[Boony]

Or you could just increase the effectiveness of VDS.

[LordRahl2]

Or you could just increase the effectiveness of VDS.

 

Probably the second best solution to the Nukes are too OP problem and the one Sheepy will select.

[Phiney]

Probably the second best solution to the Nukes are too OP problem and the one Sheepy will select.

 

Sheepy has said he has no intentions of raising the effectiveness of the VDS im afraid.

[LordRahl2]

mmmm, then he could select the optimal solution and link the conventional and missile sides of battle so they are not stand alone.  Probably not though.

 

Anyway - if you could get him to avoid other major changes we can work around the nukes being too OP issue.

Edited August 29, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Big Boss]

By doing that you d only use low score nations to attack high score ones, considering you can updeclare very high. Simply no

well there's a solution to prevent the crazy updeclares. Remove the bonus when fighting a larger enemy, so both fight at 100%.