How to fix the "once you start losing a war, you can't stop" effect.

[Prefontaine]

We have this problem, once you fall behind in an aspect of war, you're basically stuck behind. The reason for this daily production caps. Now we can't just remove the daily caps, there needs to be some measure of militarization so a person can't go from full econ mode to full war mode overnight. Anyway there are a plethora of reasons as to why we can't remove the cap all together and there have been some suggestions on how to better have the cap and such but I don't think this idea has been talked about, outside of how to solve spies. This idea comes off of what Ashland and I discussed a long while ago about how to solve spy unit accumulation. 

 

You have two branches of military, one is your reserve military and the other is your active military. Your active military functions like your current military does. You can send any number of it on an attack, and all of the units defend when attacked. The reserve military cannot be destroyed outside of spy attacks and infra loss (as they're stored in your infra). The reserve military does not add to your attack or defensive values and cannot be destroyed from attacks. All units produced go defaultly into reserve military and you can move any number of reserve into active military any time but you can never move active military into reserve (to avoid "dodging" attacks).

 

The way infra damage would effect units in reserve would be some % based off of infra damage. If an attack did 5% of your cities total infra then perhaps you'd lose around 2.5 of your reserve military in that city. A city can support 15000 soldiers, 1250 tanks, 90 planes, and 5 ships. So if someone has 5/5/5/5 military buildings and max reserve units then they would lose a larger % than someone with less than max buildings in that city, and less that max reserve units. If you only had 25% of your military on reserve and max buildings for instance, you would lose about 90 troops, a handful of tanks, one or two planes and no ships. However if you had full reserve military you'd lose 4 times that number (and a ship) for doing 5% infra to that city. The risk to units would get larger the more infra killed. 

 

Obviously the %'s can be tweaked, capped, and what not. 

 

Just an idea.

[Aksel]

I think this would add a neat dynamic to the game/warfare.

[Prefontaine]

I think this would add a neat dynamic to the game/warfare.

 

And it also promotes beigeing some. If you know someone is about to unleash a massive reserve force on you, you might want to get those ground victories in and beige them to avoid them overtaking you.

[Phiney]

Question, could you have max active military and max reserve military at one time? So for instance I could have double the military I have now (and pay double upkeep) but when my active military is defeated I could just replace it with my reserves.

[Prefontaine]

Question, could you have max active military and max reserve military at one time? So for instance I could have double the military I have now (and pay double upkeep) but when my active military is defeated I could just replace it with my reserves.

 

Your active military+reserve military cannot exceed your max total military. So with 10 cities, you can have 150000 soldiers, if you have 50000 active, you could have at most 100000 reserve.

[Karrde]

Your active military+reserve military cannot exceed your max total military. So with 10 cities, you can have 150000 soldiers, if you have 50000 active, you could have at most 100000 reserve.

I like this a lot.

 

What would the upkeep of reserves be, if any?

[Phiney]

Your active military+reserve military cannot exceed your max total military. So with 10 cities, you can have 150000 soldiers, if you have 50000 active, you could have at most 100000 reserve.

 

Ok I get you, but this still leaves the issue of being able to have 3 days+ worth of build removed in a couple of turns. It would still take another 3 days where you can't do anything and are just building units in your reserves ready to move them out and potentially get a little bit of ground back at the end of that war.

[Prefontaine]

Ok I get you, but this still leaves the issue of being able to have 3 days+ worth of build removed in a couple of turns. It would still take another 3 days where you can't do anything and are just building units in your reserves ready to move them out and potentially get a little bit of ground back at the end of that war.

 

And when you don't get beiged, and get a new round of wars declared on you right away? Might be handy to have reserves ready.

 

EDIT: Or you can keep replenishing 1 unit type if you're winning on a certain front. And what would you do anyway once you've lost? Sit getting beaten on for those 3 days anyway while just launching missiles/nukes?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Conner Temple]

Maybe reserves only do 50% of the usual damage and effectiveness, and after 24 turns, they automatically are decommissioned.

 

Another idea is the addition of Reserve Points. For each soldier you buy, you have a certain percentage

 

For example- Per soldier, there is a 35% chance of receiving a tank reserve point.

                      Per soldier, there is a 12.5% chance of an aircraft reserve point

                      Per soldier, there is a 5% chance of getting a ship reserve point

                      Per soldier, there is a 0.005% chance of a spy reserve point.

 

Cap limit is 1,000 Tank Reserve points.

Cap limit is 204 Aircraft Reserve points.

Cap limit is 25 Ship Reserve points.

Cap limit is 4 Spy Reserve points.

 

Cap limit doesn't have any time expiry date so you can keep a good stock pile of them and use them at your own will.

 

And of course, percentages are up to Sheepy to change to suit a fair game from this idea, if he decides to use it.

[Phiney]

And when you don't get beiged, and get a new round of wars declared on you right away? Might be handy to have reserves ready.

 

EDIT: Or you can keep replenishing 1 unit type if you're winning on a certain front. And what would you do anyway once you've lost? Sit getting beaten on for those 3 days anyway while just launching missiles/nukes?

 

That makes sense. I'm just trying to see if there are any holes. Would this just be for conventional army or missiles and nukes too?

[Prefontaine]

That makes sense. I'm just trying to see if there are any holes. Would this just be for conventional army or missiles and nukes too?

 

Well Missiles/nukes can only be killed by spies, and spies can kill reserve units as well. It's a moot point, unless you count reserve units upkeep as being at "non wartime" levels. But to flat out answer the question just conventional.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Just out of curiosity, why not let people militarize overnight?  If a guy gets hit with no military, he is still behind the 8 ball, because he will have most likely lost some combination of air/ground/navy.  So even with a full military he is probably still losing.  But now, not only is he losing but he was also forced to spend 10-20 million, and tons of resources (assuming he has the foresight to have it in reserve) to build himself up.

[Avruch]

Doesn't seem to fix the problem. If both combatants have a reserve, their total max military is still going to be proportionally whatever it would've been otherwise. Since production caps remain, the most this does is push the problem out a bit. 

 

Plus, the problem itself isn't necessarily a "problem" with the game design; it makes sense that once you are losing and outnumbered, its very difficult to come back from that. Usually the only solution is to add a combatant on your side. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me - it encourages cooperation and contributes to making an alliance a necessity. 

[Ayayay]

tbh, I can't see this fixing much

[Conner Temple]

Does anyone think my idea was good?

[Pfeiffer]

tbh, I can't see this fixing much

[seabasstion]

i think this is an idea in the right direction but i dont think it would fully solve the problem you are addressing. 

 

the problems with your suggestion that i think would make it fall apart is reserve units not counting towards defensive score. if i am understanding your suggestion, this really wouldn't delay the inevitable if purchasing additional reserve units counts towards your daily caps  when talking about a war with a nation that has 1 city more than you. ultimately this would just delay the inevitable by a day if i am understanding everything correctly

 

what would be the benefit to keeping any nations in reserve at all? if they count towards the purchase limit and they apply towards the max, basically all you've done is keep your nation at less than full defensive strength within the same confines of buying power.

 

ultimately we have to ask ourselves is: does having a reserve troop really enhance your odds of making a comeback. in a 11 city nation vs 10 city nation with full soldiers and each with 5k tanks: this would be the opening battle of the 11city attacking the 10city

 

non reserve model (basically how it is now)

 

 

the 11 city would be able to buy back to their original starting amounts. since the war spawns with 6 MAP it is reasonable to suggest they would then immediately attack again after repurchase without retaliation by the 10 city nation 

 

 

 

11 city soldier losses:   50,801

11 city tank losses:        1,563

10 city soldier losses:   57,843

10 city tank losses:        1,782

 

115% of daily soldier purchase limit died in the opening attack

 

proposed reserve model

 

lets assume the 10 city has 50k soldiers on reserve and 1k tanks. here is the opening attack

 

 

11city nation would be able to buy back to full strength similarly to the first model. here is the expected secondary attack

 

 

11 city soldier losses:   37,564

11 city tank losses:        1,185

10 city soldier losses:   57,751

10 city tank losses:        1,773

 

115% of daily soldier purchase limit died in the opening attack

 

COMPARING THE TWO MODELS

 

city 10 lost 92 less soldiers compared to the current state when using the reserve function

city 10 lost 9 less tanks compared to the current state when using the reserve function

city 11 lost 13,237 less soldiers compared to the current state when the defending nation was using the reserve function

city 11 lost 378 less tanks compared to the current state when the defending nation was using the reserve function

 

it seems to me the issue of greater kills than daily purchase limits are still observed and the reserve functions to only help save the aggressive nation more units. i understand the reserve could be coupled with an additional buy for city10 on this first day, but all that would do is even it out for the first day and this scenario could play exactly like this on day 2 since the reserve 'double' buy is the same. but in reality - the observed effect would be no different on city10's observed soldier count since they are starting at a 50k deficit to begin with. all they've essentially done is help the enemy. 

 

tldr: when dealing with decent sized tank armies, all the reserve does is limit your opponents losses and helps them maintain a gap.

 

if i can counter with a suggestion i've suggested before (but have put more thought into it now)

 

when you have a war declared on you, the gov't timer on your nation resets. there is a new gov't option called 'martial law'. martial law allows for conscription at the expense of  50% GDP. conscription allows a nation to double the buy limits for each defensive war they have.

 

defensive war 1 = 2x the buy limit

defensive war 2 = 4x the buy limit

defensive war 3 = 6x the buy limit

 

if they have any offensive wars, the buy limit modifier is set to 100%

 

attacking war 1 = 1x the buy limit

defensive war 1 = 1x the buy limit

defensive war 2 = 1x the buy limit

defensive war 3 = 1x the buy limit

 

leaving the battle system as is, this would allow the defending nation (at the cost of their economy) to potentially launch ground attacks that incur significant losses to their nation. through grit and proper warchest (those tanks will be expensive), the defensive nation could turn the tide of war. if they do turn the war around and inflict any more than n*2 consecutive triumphant victories of any kind, then that nation is at 1x the buy limit where n = number of defensive wars.

 

so say city10 is in 1 defensive war with city 11. if they get 2 consecutive triumphant victories of any kind, their buy limit is set back to normal.

 

as i type this out i realize this would be complicated to implement.

 

ok suggestion #2: put a -log scale damage to your formulas.

 

it seems pretty clear to me that the war formulas are good at lower levels of development, but once we starting getting to 5k+ tanks the logic breaks down and you have nations losing more than they can buy in a day in a short period of time (which is the real crux of the issue). 

 

putting a -log scale of some kind would allow damages to still be high, but not insurmountable. it would keep rebuy costs relatively low, which incentivizes war more, and would still put a premium on warchest preparedness since ground attacks could/would now be a viable option to counter attack

[Phiney]

Quite like suggestion #2, but I think your original points are not what pre is trying to do with this, he is trying to allow a nation to come back and fight later on in the war, rather than do better at the beginning.

[Prefontaine]

Quite like suggestion #2, but I think your original points are not what pre is trying to do with this, he is trying to allow a nation to come back and fight later on in the war, rather than do better at the beginning.

 

Effectively. A "Down but not out" sort of thing.

[seabasstion]

I understand what you are trying to do but when the losses incurred (which are driven from enemy unit strength) is greater than what you can buy in a day it will still converge to zero and be a missile/nuke defense. if having some form of units in reserve limited the amount of units you had killed (and swung the amount killed to less than what you can buy in a day), i would agree with you but with the current mechanics all it does is make you lose the same number of units while killing less of your enemies units. it doesn't matter if it is beginning/near/end of the war that buy limit will always hamper the defensive/behind nation

[Phiney]

I understand what you are trying to do but when the losses incurred (which are driven from enemy unit strength) is greater than what you can buy in a day it will still converge to zero and be a missile/nuke defense. if having some form of units in reserve limited the amount of units you had killed (and swung the amount killed to less than what you can buy in a day), i would agree with you but with the current mechanics all it does is make you lose the same number of units while killing less of your enemies units. it doesn't matter if it is beginning/near/end of the war that buy limit will always hamper the defensive/behind nation

 

 

Well, I think the tactic would be to not have any in reserve at the start, and then when they get killed start massing them in reserve, presume the opponent is in a couple of aggressive wars as they mostly are, and then spring nearly full units on them and use that with other people to overwhelm an opponent from a losing positon.

[seabasstion]

that makes sense. i think it would successfully happen very few times but i like that there is at least an additional option of strategy.

 

i guess i just fundamentally disagree that you would be required to have outside help to effectively defend your nation from 1 nation when you start with max everything and buy as much as you can each and every day, a situation which this suggestion does not fix in a 1v1 situation. if a basic 1v1 battle is broken i dont see the merit in trying to fix that system on the convoluted scale that you mention. 

 

in essence we are trying to fix different issues. you're higher level than i am right now

[Prefontaine]

that makes sense. i think it would successfully happen very few times but i like that there is at least an additional option of strategy.

 

i guess i just fundamentally disagree that you would be required to have outside help to effectively defend your nation from 1 nation when you start with max everything and buy as much as you can each and every day, a situation which this suggestion does not fix in a 1v1 situation. if a basic 1v1 battle is broken i dont see the merit in trying to fix that system on the convoluted scale that you mention. 

 

in essence we are trying to fix different issues. you're higher level than i am right now

 

A 1v1 basically boils down to one thing. Who gets air/ground superiority first and who has more units at the start. This is for alliance warfare. You build up your units in reserve, your ally comes in, hits them, you pop out of reserve and rally back. This adds some depth to coordination and the ability to save your alliance mates who are losing a war. As it stands you typically need to grind someone's military down to almost nothing to save a losing teammate, but this way you can engage if you coordinated a reserve buildup.

[seabasstion]

A 1v1 basically boils down to one thing. Who gets air/ground superiority first and who has more units at the start. 

 

i agree that is how a 1v1 will be decided. basically whoever gets it first will win plain and simple. with the 6map that are spawned, the vast majority of the time it is the aggressor.

 

as the title thread suggests this, once you give up this air/ground superiority there is no coming back

 

i hope i'm not sounding condescending when i say this since this is one of the better ideas i've seen on this topic (and i have great respect for you and your ideas), but i'll say it again i dont see the merit in trying to tweak the current war system to support a balanced global conflict when it can't even handle a 1v1 correctly. it is such a poor foundation to build upon 

[Prefontaine]

but i'll say it again i dont see the merit in trying to tweak the current war system to support a balanced global conflict when it can't even handle a 1v1 correctly. it is such a poor foundation to build upon 

 

I fully disagree. This is a team based game. Just because playing football isn't interesting 1v1, doesn't mean we should throw out the idea and not implement things that make the team aspect of it more successful. The point of this game is establishing allies and making/being apart of alliances, if you try to look at the 1v1 example only you're missing 99% of the game.