Insane change to the war system.

[Buorhann]

I don't mind this idea, but it would just make Planes even more atrocious while Navies would be further at a disadvantage.

 

Score per unit would change this ( Like Rahl stated ), or help alleviate some of the balance issues till a more permanent one is found.

[Rozalia]

People will soon find the sweet spot and in six months we'll be looking at fixing the war system again. 

 

I agree with this. Someone will always have an issue and the system will always be "broken" in some manner or other. 

By all means look at rebalancing units be it theirs costs, upkeep or strength, but this on it's on doesn't seem to work to me. Additionally even if you somehow "fix" the plane issue without you know, making planes completely worthless (which is likely) then... why not just do that on it's own and keep the current system? 

[Valakias]

Instead of fiddling with the number of shit you can build, why not add some more into the fighting itself? Like instead of an attack being just an attack, every war between nations is about winning over a battlefield, with positioning strategy etc..

 

Why not improve the war module totally, by adding new features and dept to it?

[Moreau]

Instead of fiddling with the number of shit you can build, why not add some more into the fighting itself? Like instead of an attack being just an attack, every war between nations is about winning over a battlefield, with positioning strategy etc..

 

Why not improve the war module totally, by adding new features and dept to it?

This

[TellUrGrlThx]

Instead of fiddling with the number of shit you can build, why not add some more into the fighting itself? Like instead of an attack being just an attack, every war between nations is about winning over a battlefield, with positioning strategy etc..

 

Why not improve the war module totally, by adding new features and dept to it?

 

This sooo much. Why don't we make the map worth something and not just what resources you get (you can easily change the system to a we pick a set of resources we want or etc). Why not remove color bonus and make the amount of territory you own on the map be your alliance's income or something in that line of thought?

 

Also in terms of the OP, soldiers and ships won't ever be seen again if this change was made.

[Vanek26]

It's a good start. Fixing the prices for ships and tanks would possibly motivate others to get navies and tanks, but otherwise what incentive is there to do anything but max out airplanes?

We don't need to change prices for ships and tanks. 

 

What we need a slight buff to base production rates of a steel mill from 9  a day (.75 a turn) to like 12 (1 a turn), and then the project would boost it maybe 50% to 18 a day or 1.5 a turn. 

 

This would increase the supply of steel a bit but not absurdly and make navies and tanks more reasonable.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

To be honest, in terms of promoting tactics, what is going to happen is the first war is going to be crazy as people figure out what is the best way to set yourself up. Once people figure out the best balance after that, I wouldn't be surprised to see every one with extremely similar city setups afterwards.  You are really just adding one extra step in trying to figure out the best way to set your nation up.

 

That is not to say that I am against this change tho, this sounds fun, and I am down with fun.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Sweeeeet Ronny D

[Hooves]

I agree with Roz and Manthrax. Who would buy tanks as they are affected by air superiority? Who would buy ships as all it does it naval blockade? It'll simply be soldiers and aircraft. Most cost-efficient way to do war there. While your opponent is trying to scavenge for steel for tanks/ships, all you have to worry about is aluminum mostly. As soldiers don't even take much munitions and no gas. 

 

Opponents that have more cities then you will just snowball even harder under this system. It's pretty bad under the current system anyways, but this just makes it harder for less cities to do anything. The down-declare potential at higher score becomes ridiculous that you'll always become stumped from the older players.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Hooves

[Clarke]

It's a bit more complex than that, the two noticeable things are

1) Bills would be higher so it would be easier to run out of steam especially if you lose infra

2) Aircraft and Ships can destroy large quantities of infrastructure, if one nation has ships and the other has aircraft both would do lots of damage

 

Aircraft is the biggest killer of tanks but it wouldn't be any more extreme than it already is where tanks suck after your aircraft fall. Ultimately someone with just aircraft is going to have a hard time maintaining their military when getting bombarded with ships, nukes and missiles. 

The damage done by military needs to be reduced significantly, even in the current setup. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Clarke

[Bollocks]

I love anything that adds more interplaying dynamics and meta to the game, but I don't think this would work as intended without some pretty extensive accompanying changes to the exact balance with the other units.

 

You'd generally be a fool to build tanks instead of soldiers (slower to buy up, cost is exponentially higher, only tanks are subject to the effects of air superiority), and planes would continue being the best way to cause damage, only under this system they could easily cause far more.

 

Pretty much this. There would need to be a better rock/paper/scissors system in place.

 

Maybe throw in an anti-aircraft (AA) ground unit?

 

AA unit > planes

 

troops/tanks > AA unit

 

planes > troops/tanks

 

Keep ships as blockading units. Scrap the ground/air superiority system. Equalize the infra damage output from different units.

 

I dunno, there's probably many holes in my idea but in general a RPS system would make the gameplay much more dynamic.

[Hooves]

Instead of fiddling with the number of shit you can build, why not add some more into the fighting itself? Like instead of an attack being just an attack, every war between nations is about winning over a battlefield, with positioning strategy etc..

 

Why not improve the war module totally, by adding new features and dept to it?

this

[James II]

There is no mention to the ratios. I.E. Soldier to tank ratio requirement.

Scarcity of resources adds a very real and interesting dynamic to the war feature. Increasing production rates of a resource, or making things cheaper makes it even easier to "mass" units and just click away.

Increasing the cost of planes and tanks would probably be the best addition to the game. If people can't afford to mass, they have to start being more strategic and tactical in their unit choices and attacks.

[Greatnate]

There is no mention to the ratios. I.E. Soldier to tank ratio requirement.

 

Scarcity of resources adds a very real and interesting dynamic to the war feature. Increasing production rates of a resource, or making things cheaper makes it even easier to "mass" units and just click away.

 

Increasing the cost of planes and tanks would probably be the best addition to the game. If people can't afford to mass, they have to start being more strategic and tactical in their unit choices and attacks.

 

Not only that, but the damage caps as well. What seems like a simple change leads to some very complex play, but i'm not sure that that's sustainable or desirable.

[Caecus]

Well, only one way to find out if this works. TO THE TEST SERVER! Make me op af. 

[Memph]

For everyone saying this will make tanks useless, a factory worth of tanks is still significantly stronger than 1 barracks worth of soldiers. The main thing is that planes seem to be better at destroying tanks than soldiers. That's why you'd still want a lot of planes. Lots of planes and a few tanks would likely still beat lots of planes and a few soldiers though.

[Caecus]

For everyone saying this will make tanks useless, a factory worth of tanks is still significantly stronger than 1 barracks worth of soldiers. The main thing is that planes seem to be better at destroying tanks than soldiers. That's why you'd still want a lot of planes. Lots of planes and a few tanks would likely still beat lots of planes and a few soldiers though.

But the equivalent amount of tanks is more expensive than the same monetary amount of soldiers. 

[Fox Fire]

Why don't we just make it a !@#$ing dice roll? Better yet, let's make a whole new game!!!

That's how stupid some of you sound...

[Memph]

But the equivalent amount of tanks is more expensive than the same monetary amount of soldiers.

They are but the tanks still punch a lot more so high infra nations that can afford to max out their military will be willing to pay the extra millions to make sure they win. Edited November 23, 2015 by Memph

[Azaghul]

I don't like this as it would just push people to replace nearly all their improvements with military ones, making militarizing way more expensive.

 

If you want to encourage different military improvement builds, I'd prefer doing something like limiting the total number of military improvements in a city so you can't max every military type.

 

Implement a limit of 30% of your improvement slots + 3 can be military improvements.  500 infra = 6, 1000 infra = 9, 1500 infra = 12, 2000 infra = 15, 2500 infra = 18, 2850 = 20.

 

Reduce efficiency of military improvements if infra levels fall significantly on a nation (less than 75 infra per 1 improvement.) to give nations more of a reason to rebuy infra and prevent excessive down declares.

[Phiney]

I don't like this as it would just push people to replace nearly all their improvements with military ones, making militarizing way more expensive.

 

If you want to encourage different military improvement builds, I'd prefer doing something like limiting the total number of military improvements in a city so you can't max every military type.

 

Implement a limit of 30% of your improvement slots + 3 can be military improvements. 500 infra = 6, 1000 infra = 9, 1500 infra = 12, 2000 infra = 15, 2500 infra = 18, 2850 = 20.

 

Reduce efficiency of military improvements if infra levels fall significantly on a nation (less than 75 infra per 1 improvement.) to give nations more of a reason to rebuy infra and prevent excessive down declares.

Sigh. The limit would still be 18 as it is currently, the cap isn't being removed completely. You havnt read the suggestion properly or simply don't understand. Try again.

[Spooner]

Sigh. The limit would still be 18 as it is currently, the cap isn't being removed completely. You havnt read the suggestion properly or simply don't understand. Try again.

 

Cap should be 15 imo, but I like the idea. Nobody seriously uses ships anymore so the current cap isn't really effectively 18 slots, but 15.

 

Also, if you're fixing the war module, ships are way more of a problem (in that they suck) than planes are overpowered.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Syrup

[Prefontaine]

Cap should be 15 imo, but I like the idea. Nobody seriously uses ships anymore so the current cap isn't really effectively 18 slots, but 15.

 

Also, if you're fixing the war module, ships are way more of a problem (in that they suck) than planes are overpowered.

 

Ships did basically the same amount of damage to me as missiles last war by the by.

[Hooves]

Doing some more testing with tanks. It becomes obvious what type of builds people will go with this system. Therefore I take back my previous comment in regards to only soldiers and aircraft. It'll simply be tanks and aircraft only. Something like 12+ air bases with 3+ factories each. Sure ships can deal a good amount of damage. But with the amount of planes flying under this system, they will get blown up within seconds.

 

Another problem lies in the wait time between wars. To house this insane amount of planes, you'll need a lot of alum/gas and munitions. Which means the warchests will be even higher for those 3. Therefore it just means more waiting before anyone is ready for an actual war. That might even be shorter then current ones with how expensive planes are to build, and rebuilding the full 12+ air base is impossible before you're out of beige.

 

That's simply how I think it'll work though.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Hooves

[Prefontaine]

Doing some more testing with tanks. It becomes obvious what type of builds people will go with this system. Therefore I take back my previous comment in regards to only soldiers and aircraft. It'll simply be tanks and aircraft only. Something like 12+ air bases with 3+ factories each. Sure ships can deal a good amount of damage. But with the amount of planes flying under this system, they will get blown up within seconds.

 

Another problem lies in the wait time between wars. To house this insane amount of planes, you'll need a lot of alum/gas and munitions. Which means the warchests will be even higher for those 3. Therefore it just means more waiting before anyone is ready for an actual war. That might even be shorter then current ones with how expensive planes are to build, and rebuilding the full 12+ air base is impossible before you're out of beige.

 

That's simply how I think it'll work though.

See, no matter what way you build, there is a counter to your build with the same city count. You go heavier ground, someone with heavier air can take you down. Flip it and the same result. Say you're fighting a larger opponent and you can go massive ground or air to take out that aspect of them while working with an ally to keep him off of having ground or air superiority. There is no 1 build, and every build has a weakness. And to your argument that it will simply cause longer down times for wars, this is a bullshit excuse that has little merit. Wars will happen when they happen. Some alliances may take an extra week to make sure everyone's ready but that really happens in the current system as well. If anything gas/ammo/aluminum are very cheap. Even if I went 5000 planes that's only 15000 aluminum which only costs 22.5M ish, which is less than maxing tanks at the current level but over 10M. Gas and ammo should be more expensive. And as they become more expensive more people will produce them thus keeping the price at reasonable levels. Supply and demand.

 

Now mind you this idea comes from the idea that we remove caps on a type of improvement and simply cap the improvement branch at a number. So you could go really heavy into gas/ammo if you need for a bit. Or make a deal with someone going heavy in a resource while trading with you.

 

Removing caps allows for a better supply/demand curve allowing for a more interesting, accurate market. War caps being removed allows for the same think, a more fluid, interesting dynamic to war. Currently once you get big enough (8 cities or so) the tactic becomes max everything except maybe not ships, and bash into each other with minimal coordination needed. it's all about who has more people with more cities. This system allows for cities to be an advantage, obviously, but not the end all be all.

 

Warchests do not determine when wars happen. Politics and player driven activity determine when wars happen.

 

Edit: Also if you think only tanks and planes will be used, you have no creativity.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Prefontaine

[James II]

Edit: Also if you think only tanks and planes will be used, you have no creativity.

So much truth in this statement.