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

[seabasstion]

I agree I think that just part of what makes this game great. I just don't like that the war formula is reduced to: which side has more people, OK they win.

 

I know you are a high level strategist but every war I've seen it has always come down to that. Politics should be the driving force of success I just don't feel it should be the only yardstick.

 

You can call it strategy if you want but the war mechanic is simply a popularity contest in its current state with missile/nuke turtling as the only viable response. Rose/ve could have had 100 prefontaines on then but when all the additional alliances came in and countered them they still would have fallen, and it is my position that takes away from the game.

 

I'd rather work the mechanics into something more challenging and dynamic than x » y .

[Rob Semloh]

Definitely thought about the need for reserves in this game myself. Even if it doesn't work exactly how you describe, I definitely back the notion of reserve forces and appreciate/endorse this suggestion.

[LordRahl2]

I don't hate the idea pre.  But I do not see how this really fixes the 'problem', if there is a problem.  Basically, your system requires alliances to work together actively to break the disadvantage that comes with being a defender.  However, the current system does the same thing.  An defender who loses the first round must have help to come back.  If someone is attacked and they can get three other folks to counter attack then the initial attacker can be beaten down.

 

Not sure at the end of the day how this improves gameplay as it exists today.

[Prefontaine]

I don't hate the idea pre.  But I do not see how this really fixes the 'problem', if there is a problem.  Basically, your system requires alliances to work together actively to break the disadvantage that comes with being a defender.  However, the current system does the same thing.  An defender who loses the first round must have help to come back.  If someone is attacked and they can get three other folks to counter attack then the initial attacker can be beaten down.

 

Not sure at the end of the day how this improves gameplay as it exists today.

 

The current system doesn't allow for someone to be ready for the "next wave" currently once your ground down and the wars expire, new wars get started on you and you're already at virtually no military. This allows for players to not be forced out of the war for a long time. I don't know if you haven't read my previous comments on the topic but I'll say it again, this way also allows for the person that started losing to help the person fighting along side them quicker. Instead of having to wait to build up until after the enemy has been knocked down below your levels they can be building up while getting beaten down. This way they're ready to get back into action a day or two sooner, which can make a big difference in a 5 day war. Lets paint this common scenario: You wake up to 2 wars having been declared on you, 8 hours has passed and your military has been beaten bloody while theirs is nearly max'd. Now you can build your units and have them immediately overrun, go for a double buy while still falling short, or you can stockpile units for 2 days then double buy with the reserve move come out nearly max'd and actually put up a bit more of a fight especially if you have a solid warchest and can out-tank them. Do that with adding coordinating an ally coming in? Way the !@#$ more effective than spitting out a double buy at them.

[LordRahl2]

Don't get me wrong.  a) I read and understand all above here.  I am still not favoring it.

 

You can throw numerous scenarios up but at the end of the day the attackers who are prepared should be beating defenders who are not.  Even given your scenario - Run the numbers, worst case scenario, someone with full or near full military build generally survives the first 8 hours and with few friends can recover.  This requires gaming and activity at the Meta level.

 

I do get it that if you are hit with three players and at least 4 hours after they DoW then you are probably toast.  Again, meta play need to come into the picture but maybe the change you seek lies somewhere in that scenario.

 

Lastly, having given it more thought, I disagree with the OP even more because the change can and may encourage the turtle/nuke option.  Given that you tied these reserves to infra Nukes become even more OP.  They are already game imbalancing so anything that makes their use better is a loss in my book.

Edited September 3, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Prefontaine]

Don't get me wrong.  a) I read and understand all above here.  I am still not favoring it.

 

You can throw numerous scenarios up but at the end of the day the attackers who are prepared should be beating defenders who are not.  Even given your scenario - Run the numbers, worst case scenario, someone with full or near full military build generally survives the first 8 hours and with few friends can recover.  This requires gaming and activity at the Meta level.

 

I do get it that if you are hit with three players and at least 4 hours after they DoW then you are probably toast.  Again, meta play need to come into the picture but maybe the change you seek lies somewhere in that scenario.

 

Lastly, having given it more thought, I disagree with the OP even more because the change can and may encourage the turtle/nuke option.  Given that you tied these reserves to infra Nukes become even more OP.  They are already game imbalancing so anything that makes their use better is a loss in my book.

 

If you think Nukes are OP, you've no clue about optimized damage. Nukes are nearly the most inefficient form of damage. There's no point debating war tweaks with someone who doesn't understand the war system.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Prefontaine

[LordRahl2]

Mkay. Show me how they are not using maths. Do include the start up price of what you think is more OP be it ships or planes and the cost of maintaining those strikes. You will, I suspect, either miss a variable or see that what I said was true.

[Kastor]

Mkay. Show me how they are not using maths. Do include the start up price of what you think is more OP be it ships or planes and the cost of maintaining those strikes. You will, I suspect, either miss a variable or see that what I said was true.

Nukes are good as a last resort sort of thing, when you can't win but want to take me down with you.

 

Nukes do a good amount of damage, but you can only firse 5 a war, and it auto beiges an opponent. If I blockade you, and tear down your military, you're going to be wide open for round 2, and thats when the real pain would be put on you.

 

Now you've dropped me down at least 200 in score from your nukes. Thats a good 2 city advantage on the guys who actually won their first round of war. Now they've lost this one.

 

Nukes aren't good.

[Phiney]

I agree I think that just part of what makes this game great. I just don't like that the war formula is reduced to: which side has more people, OK they win.

 

I know you are a high level strategist but every war I've seen it has always come down to that. Politics should be the driving force of success I just don't feel it should be the only yardstick.

 

You can call it strategy if you want but the war mechanic is simply a popularity contest in its current state with missile/nuke turtling as the only viable response. Rose/ve could have had 100 prefontaines on then but when all the additional alliances came in and countered them they still would have fallen, and it is my position that takes away from the game.

 

I'd rather work the mechanics into something more challenging and dynamic than x » y .

Sorry seabasstion I completely disagree. Had rose fought more effectively they could have easily beaten tS, they had both score and numbers on their side. In a 1v1 tS simply won through tactics, not through having more units. Had mensa fought worse, ve could have done much better vs their adversaries too. You didn't see the level of planning going on because you just sat behind tons of nukes and !@#$ed everyone else over for it (cheers for that), but tactics were incredibly important this war before the reset.

[Buorhann]

If you think Nukes are OP, you've no clue about optimized damage. Nukes are nearly the most inefficient form of damage. There's no point debating war tweaks with someone who doesn't understand the war system.

 

Given the cost/efficiency, you're partially right.  They are expensive, but they still knock out up to 10 improvement slots per battle ( If you have the nukes and resources ), while also spending the rest of your AP on another 2 Ground Attacks ( Which gives you a chance of knocking out a total of 12 improvement slots total, if you're lucky ).  Missiles, being the most cost efficient way of doing infra damage, can only achieve 8 max, but you're dealing with Iron Domes.  Nukes also have a far more devastating effect on one's revenue too.

 

 

 

Nukes do a good amount of damage, but you can only firse 5 a war, and it auto beiges an opponent. If I blockade you, and tear down your military, you're going to be wide open for round 2, and thats when the real pain would be put on you.

 

 

Nukes are terrible as a last resort thing.  Even far more worse if you use it towards the end of the battle ( I know you didn't say that, just felt like including it ).

 

However, if you take 5 nukes in a battle, you're going to need longer than 5 days in beige to rebuild.  You better have a real good warchest stockpiled up since your revenue will be screwed up.

 

You are right though, your score will drop and you'll have better targets for your military improvement slots to overtake - if you managed to rebuild enough to take advantage of that.  It all depends on what was nuked too though, if your military buildings got rekt'd, you can end up pretty screwed.

 

Keep in mind, this is only considering a 1v1 situation.  We know in war, that is most likely not the case.

[seabasstion]

Sorry seabasstion I completely disagree. Had rose fought more effectively they could have easily beaten tS, they had both score and numbers on their side. In a 1v1 tS simply won through tactics, not through having more units. Had mensa fought worse, ve could have done much better vs their adversaries too. You didn't see the level of planning going on because you just sat behind tons of nukes and !@#$ed everyone else over for it (cheers for that), but tactics were incredibly important this war before the reset.

 

you're right i stand corrected. i thought syndicate had more outside help. perhaps i am reducing this down too much

[vonnorman]

Ive fought back from a disadvantage and it works, it takes swift interferance from friends to flip the tides of war but as it is now the tides can be turned.

[Prefontaine]

Ive fought back from a disadvantage and it works, it takes swift interferance from friends to flip the tides of war but as it is now the tides can be turned.

 

Indeed. It is possible. I've done it personally. I think this is a way that can encourage further tactics and coordination. Methods that improve skill based results are a good thing in war IMO. 

 

Nukes.

 

Nukes !@#$ you over tactically in a war that lasts more than 1 war. Nukes also only destroy a single cities infra instead of splashing it around multiple targets. I've done more infra cost damage from 4 ground attacks than a single nuke has done by a fair bit. Sure you can only get 6 of those before a war ends if it's going that way, but those are the weakest option compared to planes/navy. Also when you start taking into account the cost of their units you're killing as well because nukes don't kill much in the way of units. Your best hope is blowing up 2 filled factories for 500 steel worth of tanks. Once you get a player below 1200 infra the cost of damage your doing becomes very low. It's better to do 1000 infra damage by far spread to 3-4 cities top infra marks than kill 1500 infra in a single city. The other part to account for in that is you're only really killing infra. Anyone who has managed an alliance bank during a war knows that one of the last things to run out is money. No one's really asking for it, everyone wants steel, uranium, food, and other war resources for the most part. So blowing up something that only costs money isn't a big deal at all. 

 

Sure there are times where nukes -can- do more damage. But what spurned this conversation was someone calling nukes "OP" and my suggestion making them "More OP". It gives them a slight buff as you can do a big bit of damage in 1 go to a reserve army, but you could still do similar numbers with other means. And the numbers really can be not that big depending on the %s. The point is that nukes are not OP, people get the impression they are, but they are not. Since speed round I've talked with many about about the inefficiency of nukes. Missiles used to be the gold standard, prior to dome buffing. I wouldn't be surprised to see the anti nuke project get a buff at some point too. Nukes are not OP. Nukes are only "(not over) powered" when losing the war to inflict damage upon them on your way out, or if you desperately need to beige someone to keep them from declaring more wars for a few days.

[PigInZen]

I've become disenchanted with the allure of the MLP and Nuke projects.

[Prefontaine]

I've become disenchanted with the allure of the MLP and Nuke projects.

 

As you should. They make war less interesting and should be outside the MAP system like spies. But that's a whole nother thread and conversation which I've had many times.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Nukes that kill power plants are awesome, since they stop you from using the military that the city supports, and for something that feels like it should only happen once every 15 or so nukes sent, it seems like it happens all the time.

[Buorhann]

 

Nukes !@#$ you over tactically in a war that lasts more than 1 war. Nukes also only destroy a single cities infra instead of splashing it around multiple targets. I've done more infra cost damage from 4 ground attacks than a single nuke has done by a fair bit. Sure you can only get 6 of those before a war ends if it's going that way, but those are the weakest option compared to planes/navy. Also when you start taking into account the cost of their units you're killing as well because nukes don't kill much in the way of units. Your best hope is blowing up 2 filled factories for 500 steel worth of tanks. Once you get a player below 1200 infra the cost of damage your doing becomes very low. It's better to do 1000 infra damage by far spread to 3-4 cities top infra marks than kill 1500 infra in a single city. The other part to account for in that is you're only really killing infra. Anyone who has managed an alliance bank during a war knows that one of the last things to run out is money. No one's really asking for it, everyone wants steel, uranium, food, and other war resources for the most part. So blowing up something that only costs money isn't a big deal at all. 

 

Sure there are times where nukes -can- do more damage. But what spurned this conversation was someone calling nukes "OP" and my suggestion making them "More OP". It gives them a slight buff as you can do a big bit of damage in 1 go to a reserve army, but you could still do similar numbers with other means. And the numbers really can be not that big depending on the %s. The point is that nukes are not OP, people get the impression they are, but they are not. Since speed round I've talked with many about about the inefficiency of nukes. Missiles used to be the gold standard, prior to dome buffing. I wouldn't be surprised to see the anti nuke project get a buff at some point too. Nukes are not OP. Nukes are only "(not over) powered" when losing the war to inflict damage upon them on your way out, or if you desperately need to beige someone to keep them from declaring more wars for a few days.

 

I do mostly agree with you on this, but you're not including the value of losing Improvement slots ( And the inability to rebuild them with the Infra loss attached to it ) in regards to nukes ( And missiles ).

 

Those lost improvement slots can really make or break a nation during battle.

 

I speculate what Rahl was getting at, if you're turtling with a military and using nukes, you can slowly wittle down an opponent's improvement slots then overtake them easily - regardless of reserves.

 

----------

 

I do recognize that we're looking at this differently though. You're looking at it as cost efficiency, I'm looking at it as a means of guaranteed ways to destroy Improvement slots. Neither way is a wrong way to go about it, and what you say is the reason why I personally won't get into nukes any time soon since there's all sorts of other ways of dealing with any situation. Like using Spy Ops to knock out a nation's nukes, for example.

[PigInZen]

Nukes that kill power plants are awesome, since they stop you from using the military that the city supports, and for something that feels like it should only happen once every 15 or so nukes sent, it seems like it happens all the time.

 

So an EMP effect.  Specialization in nukes could be interesting, with neutron bombs that target population & soldiers, thermonukes that target infra + improvements, an EMP bomb that fries power, etc.

[Ogaden]

The current system doesn't allow for someone to be ready for the "next wave" currently once your ground down and the wars expire, new wars get started on you and you're already at virtually no military. This allows for players to not be forced out of the war for a long time. I don't know if you haven't read my previous comments on the topic but I'll say it again, this way also allows for the person that started losing to help the person fighting along side them quicker. Instead of having to wait to build up until after the enemy has been knocked down below your levels they can be building up while getting beaten down. This way they're ready to get back into action a day or two sooner, which can make a big difference in a 5 day war. Lets paint this common scenario: You wake up to 2 wars having been declared on you, 8 hours has passed and your military has been beaten bloody while theirs is nearly max'd. Now you can build your units and have them immediately overrun, go for a double buy while still falling short, or you can stockpile units for 2 days then double buy with the reserve move come out nearly max'd and actually put up a bit more of a fight especially if you have a solid warchest and can out-tank them. Do that with adding coordinating an ally coming in? Way the !@#$ more effective than spitting out a double buy at them.

I agree, my beige suggestion was made to solve this problem in that a country that has been defeated needs at least 3 or 4 days to rebuild their military strength before they can really do anything, which is why I suggested that all types of immense triumph attacks should advance the "beiging clock" so a nation that has been completely defeated has a couple days to try again.

[George Clooney]

The immediate problem I can see with holding back units in reserve would be that odds are if you are taking enough of a beating that not immediately deploying them makes sense, you are probably also losing infra at a pretty rapid clip.  If your units in reserve are being depleted along with that infra, then you wouldn't be able to leave them in reserve for very long before enough of them are evaporated away that you wasted your time (and money and resources) for nothing.

 

That said, I like the idea of being able to create reserve units.  Instead of making them go away with your infra however, I would do things differently.  

 

1. Reserve units can be built at the normal unit cost/time associated with building active units and are counted toward the limit you have for a particular unit type.

2. They do not contribute to your attack or defense strength while in reserve or while they are being mobilized. However they are counted toward your nation score.

3. They have a lower maintenance fee associated with them (less wear and tear on the equipment over time).  Numbers to be worked out be Sheepy & Co.

4. You can activate a reserve unit at any time, however, you must pay an activation fee to do so, and the units activated don't become become available until the next game turn (this simulates the cost/time needed of activating RL reserve units, which often need additional equipment, training, etc. to be brought up to speed with their active duty counterparts).  

 

There are multiple trade offs here.  It becomes possible to maintain a much larger military for the same amount of money you would have to spend for a smaller force were they all active, however, if you are attacked, those units don't just magically spring into action.  This would allow for the creation of a counter force as is being suggested by the OP that would be activated when help arrives.

 

Alternative proposal...

 

1. Reserve units are constructed at Reserve Barracks, Reserve Factories, Reserve Air Force Bases, and Reserve Drydocks.  These would be additional improvements that a player could purchase, and would only be good for producing and housing reserve units, not active ones.  Conversely, regular Barracks, etc. would only be good for producing active units, not reserve units.

2. Everything else is as above, except that the limit of reserve units is determined by the number of reserve military improvements you have, not by a cap on all units of a particular type.  So for example, if you had 2 regular barracks, and 1 reserve barracks, you could have 6,000 active soldiers and 3,000 reserve soldiers.  This also means if you have 1 regular barracks, and 2 reserve barracks, you could have 3,000 active soldiers and 6,000 reserve soldiers, HOWEVER, you could only active up to 3,000 reserve soldiers at a time, since you only have 1 regular barracks.

3. If a Reserve Barracks, Reserve Factories, Reserve Air Force Bases, or Reserve Drydocks is destroyed, the reserve units housed there are destroyed with it, as with regular military improvements and active forces.

 

Including new improvement types might actually be easier to code as far as keeping the unit limits straight, in either case though, it would be not a code tweak, it'd be a project, but it would I think create a whole of of opportunities additional strategy and tactics to enter the game.  

[LordRahl2]

I do mostly agree with you on this, but you're not including the value of losing Improvement slots ( And the inability to rebuild them with the Infra loss attached to it ) in regards to nukes ( And missiles ).

 

Those lost improvement slots can really make or break a nation during battle.

 

I speculate what Rahl was getting at, if you're turtling with a military and using nukes, you can slowly wittle down an opponent's improvement slots then overtake them easily - regardless of reserves.

 

----------

 

I do recognize that we're looking at this differently though. You're looking at it as cost efficiency, I'm looking at it as a means of guaranteed ways to destroy Improvement slots. Neither way is a wrong way to go about it, and what you say is the reason why I personally won't get into nukes any time soon since there's all sorts of other ways of dealing with any situation. Like using Spy Ops to knock out a nation's nukes, for example.

 

This mostly.  The cost differential between say max airstrike damage and a nuke is really pretty slim.  The problem is that it takes no strategy to use nukes.  Three attackers turtle up so their targets have little chance of breaking our conventional defense.  Then the attackers nuke the targets 15 times (assuming they have 15 cities) and they are done.  No income, no army, just empty cities.  This also negates the OP's concept of reserves tied to infra since all that will be gone as well.

[Phiney]

or if you desperately need to beige someone to keep them from declaring more wars for a few days.

 

I know not important to the discussion, but I thought i'd clarify that being beiged from nukes DOES NOT stop you declaring on someone else immediately and leaving beige straight away. You can't change colour for 2 days but you can certainly declare war whenever you want.