Insane change to the war system.

[Buorhann]

Put it on the Test server and let's see how it shakes out.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

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

 

 

That is not completely true, Warchests are part of the equation when it comes to looking to start up a major war.  It was one of the big reasons TC tried to jump on tS and Co, so they could hit them before they could refill thier warchests from the last fight.

 

And FYI, to the poster above you, you need barracks to buy tanks.

[Valakias]

Well, since i guess we won't be getting a total overhaul of the war system, try this on the test server, and see what happens

[Caecus]

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.

 

I think this is a good idea. This allows the focus of military numbers to be directly related to your population, instead of cities. It seems ridiculous that a guy with two cities and 300 infra kicks the crap out of someone who has 1 city with 1500 infra, and has almost three times the population and resources accompanied by it. 

[Hooves]

That is not completely true, Warchests are part of the equation when it comes to looking to start up a major war. It was one of the big reasons TC tried to jump on tS and Co, so they could hit them before they could refill thier warchests from the last fight.

 

And FYI, to the poster above you, you need barracks to buy tanks.

But not to maintain tanks. You can buy barracks, get the tank numbers you want. Then decom the soldiers and replace the barracks with air bases.

 

Put it on the Test server and let's see how it shakes out.

I agree with Bourhann, no matter how much you look at it on paper. Actually seeing the wars on the test server will determine if there will actually be any deviation or not from tanks and planes.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Hooves

[Harrison Richardson]

The best answer ITT is whoever said that increased complexity should come not from the micro, single player level (this kind of discussion) but rather the macro, alliance-wide level (adding a map functionality, making wars be about land ownership so there is an actual POINT to war, etc).

 

The greatest downfall of PW is that war has no point aside from mashing pixels.  Seriously, we shouldn't be patting each other on the back and saying "hey man, good fight" after every war. 

[Rozalia]

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.

 

Not sure how your logic works there. Even if we say coordination is meaningless and it is all about how many people with high amounts of cities your members have, how does this address that exactly? Currently the more cities you have the more military buildings you can have... under yours the same thing, there is no difference (outside the obvious 18 buildings of whatever vs the 18 being split across 4 building types). In fact I'd say your change only makes the numbers game even stronger as say you got tank and plane users on you and your side is outnumbered. Soon enough if you're using tanks they'll be wasted and you then have to buy 1/5th back, 2/5ths back at most which won't be enough and will eat through your WC much quicker than currently... then when your ability to resist is gone completely you'll have (if your opponent has say 10 cities) planes hitting you for 1100 infra damage per hit. Even a top tier nation is getting laid to waste in a single round of war. 

 

If anything this makes war even more expensive, not simply in the amount of units and their resource costs, but also in how much munitions & gasoline you use up and as we know making it more expensive does not promote more of it.

 

It's on you to present evidence counter to that as you're the one putting forward the changes. Simply saying people have no creativity doesn't mean anything. 

 

The best answer ITT is whoever said that increased complexity should come not from the micro, single player level (this kind of discussion) but rather the macro, alliance-wide level (adding a map functionality, making wars be about land ownership so there is an actual POINT to war, etc).

 

The greatest downfall of PW is that war has no point aside from mashing pixels.  Seriously, we shouldn't be patting each other on the back and saying "hey man, good fight" after every war.

 

I agree with this.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

But not to maintain tanks. You can buy barracks, get the tank numbers you want. Then decom the soldiers and replace the barracks with air bases.

 

 But what happens when you are fighting and you lose some tanks?  You are going to need soldiers, so that you can rebuy the destroyed tanks.

[Hooves]

 But what happens when you are fighting and you lose some tanks?  You are going to need soldiers, so that you can rebuy the destroyed tanks.

*shrugs* That one strike gets you a strong possibility for ground control. If your air force is stronger, you can easily blow away their tanks first. Or as I said before, get your higher scores within range to use their numbers advantage.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Hooves

[Rozalia]

 But what happens when you are fighting and you lose some tanks?  You are going to need soldiers, so that you can rebuy the destroyed tanks.

 

Soldiers die quickly in comparison to tanks. Simulating some things based off 10 cities had tanks (who'd win) lose in the 300s while soldiers were in the 200,000s. Additionally simulating it with the assumption the soldier player had air control they did pick up immense triumphs. but their casualties were in the 100,000s while tanks were again in the 300s. 

Edited November 23, 2015 by Rozalia

[Molly Emma]

If you opt for something like this, can it be done in conjunction with making defensive military allocations a manual setting? 

 

For example, I send 50% of my planes, and 70% of my tanks against my enemy in an offensive maneuver and 50% of my planes and 30% of my tanks remain in defense.  The disparity in offense vs defense could be what determines the amount of infra damage that can be done in the event that an offensive is successful.  In the event of a first-strike action, the entire defender military is held in defense.

 

Something like that.  There are more details that'd need to be considered, bu that's the general concept.  You get yet another level of complexity and customization.

[Prefontaine]

 

Not sure how your logic works there. Even if we say coordination is meaningless and it is all about how many people with high amounts of cities your members have, how does this address that exactly? Currently the more cities you have the more military buildings you can have... under yours the same thing, there is no difference (outside the obvious 18 buildings of whatever vs the 18 being split across 4 building types). In fact I'd say your change only makes the numbers game even stronger as say you got tank and plane users on you and your side is outnumbered. Soon enough if you're using tanks they'll be wasted and you then have to buy 1/5th back, 2/5ths back at most which won't be enough and will eat through your WC much quicker than currently... then when your ability to resist is gone completely you'll have (if your opponent has say 10 cities) planes hitting you for 1100 infra damage per hit. Even a top tier nation is getting laid to waste in a single round of war. 

 

If anything this makes war even more expensive, not simply in the amount of units and their resource costs, but also in how much munitions & gasoline you use up and as we know making it more expensive does not promote more of it.

 

It's on you to present evidence counter to that as you're the one putting forward the changes. Simply saying people have no creativity doesn't mean anything. 

 

The evidence is there for anyone with a brain to think about it. If they can't see the advantages then they have no creativity. I'm not here with kid gloves on. You can't understand how this addresses the large city advantage? You think that it's the same advantage? Really? Lets look at the 2v1 scenario. I have 10 cities, I'm fighting two players with 8 cities. Name a way that either 8 city nation can max units higher than my 10 city nation in the current system? It is impossible if we're all at max military for either 8 city nation to have more of any military than I do. Now lets use my system. I have a lets say 75% air forces, and 25% ground forces (any percent will really do). The two people I'm fighting go 60% ground and 40% air, and the other lets say 10% ground and 90% air. The guy with 60% ground has more units on the ground than the 10 city nation. The guy at 90% air has basically the same number of planes. Guy with 60% ground rolls through with 2 ground attacks effectively wiping out the 10 city ground units, 10% ground guy rolls in to get ground superiority and then with ground superiority starts wrecking his air force. 

 

Two little guys using tactics and coordination can take down a bigger guy with ease. Currently to take down a bigger guy your best bet is hope they're not online at update, declare war just before update, send attacks that will certainly fail, rebuy units, then start the new day moments later, rebuy any units still needed then attack again hoping to claim a superiority. Old system you can never have more of a single unit type than someone with more cities than you. My system allows for you to have an advantage somewhere. My system allows for dynamic coordination and teamwork. My system also more favors coming back after being beaten down because you can restructive a massive ground double buy for your military if you have the resources and are clever enough. 

 

So yes, there is a difference. A huge difference. 

 

You complain it will cost more resources, technically the cost is the same really. Some people might use less steel, and more aluminum, some might use more steel and less aluminum but the total amount of military improvements is the same. You can simply specialize. You want to go heavy planes? Sell your steel buy aluminum. Want to go heavy ground? Sell your aluminum buy steel. Want to have a balance? Stockpile both at a lesser level than someone who needs to be heavy in one. Complaining about usage of ammo/gas? Both are pretty damn cheap to begin with so increasing their use isn't a bad thing, second off the cost to blow up the infra is effectively the same. 2000 planes will blow up slightly lesser infra amounts as sending 1000 planes twice, and will cost  the same amount of resources. The benefit is saving turns. So you blow up slightly less infra total in terms of how much gas and ammo is spent, but you can do it more frequently. So yes, nations can get blown up quicker. So it might take 1 less round of total war to blow someone up more. Ask the nations who were annihilated last war see if it matters to them if they were at 500 average infra in their cities five days sooner. Once you get 0 military'd and have no help to get you out of that situation you're at your enemies mercy for as long as they want. If they want to 0 infra you they will, timeframe on how quickly it happens doesn't really matter. If anything you're costing them more resources to do it now.

[Fox Fire]

Either way, this suggestion obviously encourages people to focus maxing out their militaries into one branch. Which seems lame as !@#$ to me. Say you get one guy maxing out land forces, the other maxing out planes. What you get is that both sides win every time either way, only the one with the superior ground force can obviously beige faster. I've fought wars like this, just recently even, where it was my navy vs their ground force (hi John Cena! Come again!). At the end of the war, I was beiged, but the damage on both sides was virtually the exact same, in 3 different wars at once. So all in all, nobody really won. Or we all won. IDK. I'd say we all just wasted a bunch of money and resources over something that I didn't have anything to do with anyway. 

I still really do not understand the point of this idea.

[Rozalia]

The evidence is there for anyone with a brain to think about it. If they can't see the advantages then they have no creativity. I'm not here with kid gloves on. You can't understand how this addresses the large city advantage? You think that it's the same advantage? Really? Lets look at the 2v1 scenario. I have 10 cities, I'm fighting two players with 8 cities. Name a way that either 8 city nation can max units higher than my 10 city nation in the current system? It is impossible if we're all at max military for either 8 city nation to have more of any military than I do. Now lets use my system. I have a lets say 75% air forces, and 25% ground forces (any percent will really do). The two people I'm fighting go 60% ground and 40% air, and the other lets say 10% ground and 90% air. The guy with 60% ground has more units on the ground than the 10 city nation. The guy at 90% air has basically the same number of planes. Guy with 60% ground rolls through with 2 ground attacks effectively wiping out the 10 city ground units, 10% ground guy rolls in to get ground superiority and then with ground superiority starts wrecking his air force. 

 

Two little guys using tactics and coordination can take down a bigger guy with ease. Currently to take down a bigger guy your best bet is hope they're not online at update, declare war just before update, send attacks that will certainly fail, rebuy units, then start the new day moments later, rebuy any units still needed then attack again hoping to claim a superiority. Old system you can never have more of a single unit type than someone with more cities than you. My system allows for you to have an advantage somewhere. My system allows for dynamic coordination and teamwork. My system also more favors coming back after being beaten down because you can restructive a massive ground double buy for your military if you have the resources and are clever enough. 

 

So yes, there is a difference. A huge difference. 

 

You complain it will cost more resources, technically the cost is the same really. Some people might use less steel, and more aluminum, some might use more steel and less aluminum but the total amount of military improvements is the same. You can simply specialize. You want to go heavy planes? Sell your steel buy aluminum. Want to go heavy ground? Sell your aluminum buy steel. Want to have a balance? Stockpile both at a lesser level than someone who needs to be heavy in one. Complaining about usage of ammo/gas? Both are pretty damn cheap to begin with so increasing their use isn't a bad thing, second off the cost to blow up the infra is effectively the same. 2000 planes will blow up slightly lesser infra amounts as sending 1000 planes twice, and will cost  the same amount of resources. The benefit is saving turns. So you blow up slightly less infra total in terms of how much gas and ammo is spent, but you can do it more frequently. So yes, nations can get blown up quicker. So it might take 1 less round of total war to blow someone up more. Ask the nations who were annihilated last war see if it matters to them if they were at 500 average infra in their cities five days sooner. Once you get 0 military'd and have no help to get you out of that situation you're at your enemies mercy for as long as they want. If they want to 0 infra you they will, timeframe on how quickly it happens doesn't really matter. If anything you're costing them more resources to do it now.

 

Yes they'll do it with coordination, as they do now. It's a bit clearer now, but 1 vs 2 is an isolated example and more data must be put forward as in an alliance war those two 8 city nations ain't simply going to be facing a single 10 city nation.

 

Well that is always the best bet whatever system you use, but alright. It helps people make comebacks better? Please do explain because if you're already on the backfoot and losing then we'll have to presume you're facing 2/3 specialised guys, who may well even be specialised differently. Seems like while possible it'd be a short term comeback at most. 

 

I'll give you that if they are specialising then they hardly need steel/aluminum if they're going tanks/planes. However... looking at some of simulations people are looking at doing/taking x3 damage. People already complain about the amount of damage that is dished out so that can only be amplified if they are taking even more damage. 

 

I also do not agree with the putting all your eggs in one basket approach this will ultimately push even if you assure otherwise. 

[George Clooney]

This seems to be favored by alliances that already do a large degree of customization already. I'm not seeing making it easier for them as a priority.

[Prefontaine]

Yes they'll do it with coordination, as they do now. It's a bit clearer now, but 1 vs 2 is an isolated example and more data must be put forward as in an alliance war those two 8 city nations ain't simply going to be facing a single 10 city nation.

 

Well that is always the best bet whatever system you use, but alright. It helps people make comebacks better? Please do explain because if you're already on the backfoot and losing then we'll have to presume you're facing 2/3 specialised guys, who may well even be specialised differently. Seems like while possible it'd be a short term comeback at most. 

 

I'll give you that if they are specialising then they hardly need steel/aluminum if they're going tanks/planes. However... looking at some of simulations people are looking at doing/taking x3 damage. People already complain about the amount of damage that is dished out so that can only be amplified if they are taking even more damage. 

 

I also do not agree with the putting all your eggs in one basket approach this will ultimately push even if you assure otherwise. 

 

You're right it won't be isolated to a 1v2, it will be much, much more dynamic which is the point. If a simple case is more interesting, larger cases will result in more dynamic wars. Not just max units vs the same max units (with different city caps). 

 

Doing 3x the damage with over 3x the troops is something to be expected. But typically someone isn't going to be using just max units. Think about someone with almost no ground units they're open to hits from other participants or even the nation their fighting. A 10 city nation can double buy 360000 units in 1 night. That's a big ground force, and a cheap one. And if you're smart (saved up turns) that could be 4 ground victories, and in 12 hours times that's the other two victories to end the war, unless the nation your fighting wants to drop a bunch of planes and get a big enough ground force within that 12 hours. Cus you're not going to kill many soldiers with air strikes.

 

Anyone who puts all of their eggs into a basket will be steamrolled hard. 

 

There are some things this does not fix, like the power of first striking. Being able to pick and choose who fights who based on customized militaries does exacerbate that. Also someone with max ships will likely doing more damage than nukes every 4 turns, granted at a freaking huge cost. You're not going to come up with a single change that magically fixes the whole war module. These changes let things shift to a more customization war system where there isn't 1 strategy: More Cities with max military 5/5/5/3(maybe the 3).  

[Prefontaine]

This seems to be favored by alliances that already do a large degree of customization already. I'm not seeing making it easier for them as a priority.

 

How does an alliance customize when each building has a separate cap?

[Fox Fire]

Anyone who puts all of their eggs into a basket will be steamrolled hard.

 

Then is there a point?

[Prefontaine]

Then is there a point?

 

Serious? So someone with 18 airfields and only planes shouldn't be able to be easily beaten on the ground? Someone with only ground units shouldn't be able to be easily beaten in the air?

[Odin]

Btw:

18 x 3000 soldier = 27 score

18 x 250 tank = 90 score*

18 x 18 aircraft = 64,80 score

18 x 5 ships = 135 score

(* unreachable, since you need some soldiers)

 

Aircraft has currently a heavy score advantage, especially to ships, in this system.

[Prefontaine]

That is not completely true, Warchests are part of the equation when it comes to looking to start up a major war.  It was one of the big reasons TC tried to jump on tS and Co, so they could hit them before they could refill thier warchests from the last fight.

 

 

And they fared so well focusing their worry about Warchests.

 

Obviously few alliances will go to war with no preparedness. But few alliances will go to war without political reasons, even if that reason is as simple as "I don't like you". You need a political reason to go to war typically.

[Caecus]

OMFG! Just put it in the test server so I can smack people with it and I'll tell you (or whoever I am giving it to) if it DOESN"T WORK. 

[Fox Fire]

Serious? So someone with 18 airfields and only planes shouldn't be able to be easily beaten on the ground? Someone with only ground units shouldn't be able to be easily beaten in the air?

Well of course, but that's why it's kind of pointless. Like I said, it encourages people to focus on one branch. Whether they do or not, the suggestion itself encourages it. 

But as others have said, try it on the test server I guess.

[Buorhann]

This change will get me on the test server to check it out.

[Prefontaine]

Well of course, but that's why it's kind of pointless. Like I said, it encourages people to focus on one branch. Whether they do or not, the suggestion itself encourages it. 

But as others have said, try it on the test server I guess.

 

I think you're missing the point.

 

This isn't about 1v1's. This is largely about multi nation, multi alliance warfare. it won't change 1v1's drastically, though I think it would still improve them some. This way two people can specialize in different units and work together to take a larger person down. City count isn't the end all be all.