Destroying Improvements/Military Losses

[Beowulf the Second]

Whereas currently, it is theoretically possible for someone with a 200K+ soldier cap to fall into a much lower tier and destroy everything (someone from super-tier gets infra bombed to mid-tier, gets beiged in the process, rebuilds his army and starts wrecking everything), I propose that the chances of city improvements being destroyed, especially military improvements, become much, much higher. It is currently extremely hard to lose any sort of improvements at all, even though one being destroyed doesn't really have too much of an effect.
 

[2015-08-30 08:57:58] <martiy> High Commander Ganos Lal of Taoth Vaclarush launched a missile upon your nation of Exodus. The attack destroyed 321.00 infrastructure in the city of EXODUS IV as well as one air force base plus 18 aircraft inside.

[2015-08-30 08:58:10] <BeowulftheSecond> lel 18 airplanes

(this proposed change would not only be for missile attacks, but for regular ground/air/ship attacks as well)

 

HOWEVER, this change would further increase the power of offensive war declarations, which is already an issue. Therefore, I also propose that losses during battle in the form of soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships are reduced, or possibly even halved. This would be a defensive buff as it would make rebuilding army value easier (up to the cap, of course). I believe that these two changes combined would improve war mechanics significantly.
 

Cheers!

Edited October 28, 2015 by Beowulf the Second

[Alex]

There is already a 10% chance to destroy an improvement in an IT ground battle attack. Missiles & Nukes destroy 2 improvements each.

 

Overall, though, keeping improvements is important in rebuilding.

[Beowulf the Second]

Hi Sheepy! Was already aware of the 10% chance, and was suggesting this percentage be increased (and perhaps have the odds be slightly skewed in favor of destroying military improvements). I'll just reiterate here:

 

 I propose that the chances of city improvements being destroyed, especially military improvements, become much, much higher.

 

 

As for rebuilding. If the odds are weighted towards military improvements, this change won't make much of an impact because people who are rebuilding post-war will be replacing their military improvements anyways to free up slots for economic improvements. Of course, DURING wars, they have to build their infra back up if they want to replace all their military buildings, which is great because then they can't destroy low-tier with their 200k soldiers. It seems incredibly unbalanced to have somebody with an NRF + 40 improvements per city + quite a few cities lurking around in mid-tier because their infra got destroyed, but not their capability to rebuild their massive militaries.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Beowulf the Second

[Valakias]

That is why you 0 someone military before lobbying those nukes

[Beowulf the Second]

Edited earlier post to clarify that super-tier person is free to rebuild their military to max, and does not have to undergo the specific procedure of being nuked while retaining his full military. Just with his full military improvements.

[Filthy Fifths]

If you don't want to have to deal with nations with x amount of improvements then don't carpet bomb them so low. It's only fair that they get to rape your lower tier since you raped them. Gotta spread the love man.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

If you don't want to have to deal with nations with x amount of improvements then don't carpet bomb them so low. It's only fair that they get to rape your lower tier since you raped them. Gotta spread the love man.

and what is to stop them from dropping thier other improvements and rebuying military ones to continue to tear apart the lower tiers.  If you dont want things like this to happen, you should work with your Government to not drag out wars past 1-2 rounds.

[Peace and War]

This gave me an idea, you know how spies are mostly used to destroy missles or nukes? What if spies could also be used to sabatoge improvements as well? Of course at a higher cost and a lower chance of success.

 

This is just me shooting off the cuff but this could actually be pretty interesting, would also make people actually want to buy spies.

[Beowulf the Second]

If you don't want to have to deal with nations with x amount of improvements then don't carpet bomb them so low. It's only fair that they get to rape your lower tier since you raped them. Gotta spread the love man.

 

I think we're missing the point here (although I still disagree with your issue of fairness. in what world would that be 'fair' lmao?). Is it good for the game to have low-tier/mid-tier wrecked against insurmountable odds? No. I only see it as potentially discouraging newer players from playing, and reducing Sheepy's profit lol.

[Beowulf the Second]

and what is to stop them from dropping thier other improvements and rebuying military ones to continue to tear apart the lower tiers.  If you dont want things like this to happen, you should work with your Government to not drag out wars past 1-2 rounds.

 

What stops them from dropping their other improvements is that they can't sustain doing that after a certain point. Say you want to restructure your entire city in order to wreck low-tier. Power plant + their full military + the smallest amount of commerce and infra possible to keep themselves at 0 revenue while upkeeping their giant military is still a decent amount of score. Only by having 40 improvements jammed into enough space for 10 improvements is someone able to keep making enough revenue to sustain this low-tier wrecking.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Beowulf the Second

[vonnorman]

Not to mention the score increase with all of that military.. main thing should be preventing raiding somehow of our beloved new players so they dont meet the wrath of princess bubblegum...

[Prefontaine]

This has been a long standing issue. Lets throw some numbers. First, 66 turns in a war, so that's a max of 22 ground attacks (assuming you don't get 6 consecutive victorys), or 8 missiles, or 5 nukes. Lets take an nation, 10 cities, with 1500 infra in each. That's 30 improvements, or 300 overall. If 1 in 10 ground attacks blow up an improvement, and you somehow were able to get 22 ground attacks in that would mean you blew up 2.2 improvements in a war, Lets make that 3 defensive wars, so in 5 days you blow up 6.6 improvements. I would take 45 blocks of 3 wars, or 225 days of war (at 3 wars constantly) to blow up all of that nations improvements.

 

Missile time. 8 Per war, 3x defensive wars, so 24 improvements every 3 wars of 5 days. or 12.5 sets of wars with only shooting missiles in all 3 wars all the time, or 62.5 days of war. 

Nukes time. 5 per war, 3x defensive wars, so 30 improvements every 3 wars of 5 days . or 10 sets of wars with only shooting nukes in all 3 wars all the time, or 50 days of war.

 

Those are your absolute best case scenarios. 225 days, 62 days, or 50 days. And mind you there's no way you're getting 22 ground attacks in, you're not going to only be shooting missiles (and half of them will likely be blocked so you can double that time frame to 124 days) and once they're beaten they're not going to be in range of nukes for more than 1 or 2 rounds of war. So consider those numbers are a dream state ideal world that will never be reached  

 

Now lets look at reality. You're telling me bombing runs can never blow up a barracks? Your telling me naval shellings of infra never blow up a bank? Improvements should be able to be destroyed based on the amount of infra you blow up, not some arbitrary % all the time.

 

If your attack does 10 infra damage, you run 10% to blow up an improvement. You blow up 50 infra, you get 50% chance. If you blow up 100 infra you get a 100% chance to take out an improvement. You blow 200 infra, you get a 100% + 50% chance to get a second. 300 infra 100% + 100% to get 2 improvements. And so on.

 

It's not hard to fix this. It's actually a very easy thing to address. You just have to convince Sheepy it's an actual problem because he doesn't believe it is. Rebuilding post war cost-wise is 90% infra rebuilding. Improvement rebuilding is a very tiny splash in the bucket. 

[Beowulf the Second]

Thanks for putting numbers to it, Pre. +1, especially because I was way too lazy xD

Seriously though, it's ridiculous to have so many improvements in so little infra, and I don't know why we decided to do that at all. Certainly not to help with rebuilding- the costs of replacing the infra are many times what the costs of replacing the improvements are. If you really want to help with rebuilding, decrease the cost of infra, not make destroying improvements almost impossible.

[Spooner]

Honestly, you make so much with your improvements that rebuilding goes much quicker than it should.

 

I think Pre's suggestiong of 1 improvement destroyed for every 100 infrastructure is fair. It leaves the enemy with half of their improvements if they are bombed down, but minimizes the slingshot effect of low score & slows down rebuild times.

[Dan77]

Missiles & Nukes destroy 2 improvements each.

 

No they don't.  Missiles destroy one.

[Spite]

Most people with decent planes do three hundred infra damage per AS. Imagine if every time some bugger did an AS there was a significant risk a dry dock or stadium would get blown up. It would be terrifying.

 

I like it!

[Vosunda]

Not only that, but the average nuke would destroy many more improvements than they do right now, sounds great to me.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Vosunda

[Clarke]

The game is fine as it is.
There hasn't being any major situations yet with this because it is better to grow your nation than to hang around the low tier.
 

I think we're missing the point here (although I still disagree with your issue of fairness. in what world would that be 'fair' lmao?). Is it good for the game to have low-tier/mid-tier wrecked against insurmountable odds? No. I only see it as potentially discouraging newer players from playing, and reducing Sheepy's profit lol.

Yeah I think that is along the lines of what I said regarding no one is going to sit in the low tier and chase people from the game like that as it is stupid.

 

 

 

It's not hard to fix this. It's actually a very easy thing to address. You just have to convince Sheepy it's an actual problem because he doesn't believe it is. Rebuilding post war cost-wise is 90% infra rebuilding. Improvement rebuilding is a very tiny splash in the bucket. 

You mentioned this before, it might have being more aimed at projects though. 

Improvements are even more vital to war than projects. But yeah it won't make a difference because people will just buy up to 500 infra or whatever and buy all the improvements they need to fight.

Wasn't a good idea then and isn't a good idea now. 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Clarke

[Prefontaine]

You mentioned this before, it might have being more aimed at projects though. 

Improvements are even more vital to war than projects. But yeah it won't make a difference because people will just buy up to 500 infra or whatever and buy all the improvements they need to fight.

Wasn't a good idea then and isn't a good idea now. 

 

 

Oh, so they'll sell ALL of their improvements just to buy the military ones? Sounds like a big deal.

 

EDIT: I've also never made this suggestion before. So good job on being extra wrong.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Prefontaine

[stetonic]

 

Oh, so they'll sell ALL of their improvements just to buy the military ones? Sounds like a big deal.

Not sure that's what he means.Many nations including you only build upto 1500 infra per city as this is all that you require to run a full military and enough rss production to keep your nation ticking over.So only building enough improvements to run a military nation is not to far from fact

[Prefontaine]

Not sure that's what he means.Many nations including you only build upto 1500 infra per city as this is all that you require to run a full military and enough rss production to keep your nation ticking over.So only building enough improvements to run a military nation is not to far from fact

 

Let me make it simple. DEIC's claim is that they'll just build all their cities back up to 500 infra to get military, so 500 infra is 10 war slots, that's max of 2 buildings (or a splash of ships.) Which to get they had to sell -all- of their improvements (including power, gonna be hard to make those units) and do what you can do now (see: also wrong because you still have all your econ buildings too). 

 

Stay away from that DEIC water, it's bad for your intelligence. 

[stetonic]

No the 500 infra statement was more than likely a number just thrown out there but 800 infra is enough for full power and full military(not ships,ships are crap)

[Prefontaine]

No the 500 infra statement was more than likely a number just thrown out there but 800 infra is enough for full power and full military(not ships,ships are crap)

 

And have crap income, and no resources coming in thus draining you much faster than otherwise making a nation with a 4-6 city advantage from hitting people with more military than his infra should be able to support for such a long period of time.

[stetonic]

It's not a strategy based on a long period.It's based on a lower score range damage dynamic

 

If i can hit nation's with 4 or 5 less cities than me at my full military.Two things will happen they will either put pressure on there alliance to end the war or they quit said alliance and force the alliance to come to the peace table

As for the income many raiders survive dong this same thing but on a more even scale

[Phiney]

It's not a strategy based on a long period.It's based on a lower score range damage dynamic

 

If i can hit nation's with 4 or 5 less cities than me at my full military.Two things will happen they will either put pressure on there alliance to end the war or they quit said alliance and force the alliance to come to the peace table

As for the income many raiders survive dong this same thing but on a more even scale

 

But if you have less than 1000 inf per city there's no chance you're getting full military... You just don't have the population. Your argument is flawed.