Improve war mechanics

[----]

First, I would like to ask the administrators to forgive me if I am repeating an already addressed topic.

 

I have played Politics & War for over a year. I love the game and I would not change much about it.

However, a fundamental flaw has recently became apparent to me after an interesting experience on the test server. I was raided by a nation that while within my war range, possessed 9 cities. Test Server Poland possessed only 7 cities during the conflict.

 

I am not complaining about being raided, defeated or any other mere gameplay dissatisfactions. War is part of the game and one must face the various outcomes.

 

However, I am stating is that I have observed what appears to be a fundamental flaw with the war mechanism. Even if militarised at the maximum possibility, Poland would not be able to successfully defend itself from this opponent simply because of the law of numbers. The cap on military improvements in each city results in the number of cities determining the winner. 

 

I did not earlier take notice of its problem, simply because I never encountered it before. Likewise, I am certain that the many intelligent players of this game will have made the same observation.

 

Therefore, I propose that the war range mechanics should be altered. 

The first option would be removal of the war improvement cap, thereby allowing cities to construct as many war improvements as materially possible. However, I believe that this would require a significant overhaul of the general game mechanics. 

The second option would be the introduction of new criteria to the war-range. Apart from score-range, I believe that the number of cities should likewise act as a qualification for the war range. This would prevent conflicts where nations with differing numbers of cities are capable of declaring war on each other. Maybe this would take away some of the 'fun' of the game. However, if Politics & War already enacted war 'limitations' to prevent unequal nations from fighting, my proposal is but a logical extension of this philosophy. In other words, this game already has mechanics to ensure 'war fairness'. I simply believe that a city count should likewise contribute to the 'fair war' mechanism.

 

Some might argue against any limitations regarding war declarations. This thread is not meant to discuss the merits of the existing limitations vs a free-for-all.

 

If this question has already been addressed or my understanding of the war mechanics is simply deficient, both of which are highly possible, please either ignore or criticise this proposal. I am simply vocalising some of my concerns. 

Edited October 28, 2015 by Klemens Hawicki

[Alex]

It's been brought up before, and the general consensus is that players like having two different building strategies. You can build many cities with lower infra, or less cities with higher infra. Less cities with higher infra is arguably cheaper, and potentially more profitable, but certainly a big disadvantage when it comes to war time. Building extra cities and less infra is definitely difficult because of how expensive it is, but has a nice reward.

 

Ultimately, it's up to you to choose how you want to play, and I think that's the most important thing.

[Croc]

You have been playing for over a year and just figured out that having more cities is a military advantage?

[----]

You have been playing for over a year and just figured out that having more cities is a military advantage?

I realised long ago that more cities gives you the military advantage. What perhaps I failed to notice was the possibility of being declared by somebody with a significantly higher number of cities. When you are not in a certain situation, you do not think about certain things. Perhaps a flaw, but nevertheless a reality. 

 

Also, I have not fought many wars. Furthermore, although I have played since October 2014, I went into inactivity from December to April 2015. Not exactly a year's worth of experience.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Klemens Hawicki

[----]

It's been brought up before, and the general consensus is that players like having two different building strategies. You can build many cities with lower infra, or less cities with higher infra. Less cities with higher infra is arguably cheaper, and potentially more profitable, but certainly a big disadvantage when it comes to war time. Building extra cities and less infra is definitely difficult because of how expensive it is, but has a nice reward.

 

Ultimately, it's up to you to choose how you want to play, and I think that's the most important thing.

True, although by that logic we should do away with the war-range, since it protects nations that choose not to grow larger for a variety of reasons. 

 

I simply believe that the number of cities should be weighted into the war-range separately from score. In other words, score and number of cities should determine the ability of a nation to declare against another. 

[Valakias]

The score range mitigates the unfairness greatly, and while it sucks to be downdeclared, you might do it one day yourself. Everyone plays with the same system. War is not fair in this game, just like RL, its brutal and cruel. Just like dropping a 10 city nation into 800 score ranges because it got rolled. It's going to smack everything in sight, but everyone can do it. Its about optimizing whatr you have and being ready for it.