PERKS!

[Fox Fire]

These are massively overpowered and will only further give the attacker an even bigger advantage (as if they already don't have one). This is a terrible idea. If we're going to add perks, make them something that applies to the nation as a whole. Like something that forces a nation to choose between economy and military or a slight combo of both. The more I read, the more I hate this idea. It's like all Sheepy has tried to do in this game is consistently try to incentivise war. How about incentivising something else for a change?

Edited December 5, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Dimitri Valko]

These are massively overpowered and will only further give the attacker an even bigger advantage (as if they already don't have one). This is a terrible idea. If we're going to add perks, make them something that applies to the nation as a whole. Like something that forces a nation to choose between economy and military or a slight combo of both. The more I read, the more I hate this idea. It's like all Sheepy has tried to do in this game is consistently try to incentivise war. How about incentivising something else for a change?

 

Yeah, there should be more variety in perks, and less of a basis on offense in the military perks, especially the infantry.

[Hooves]

So let's do some testing.

 

Raiders:

Soldiers = Grenades + Radio Comms

Tanks = Advanced Chassis + Radio Comms + Flamethrowers

Aircraft = whatever perk is useful

 

That's the 8 necessary perks that raiders will be using to get the advantage against you. Making the defender even weaker because raiders are always on the offensive. This in itself wants to promote people to deal with those raiders. Although whatever outcome entirely depends on the alliance. I just wish there were nation perks along with military perks to make the suffering of losing your hard work not be as bad.

 

I'm having some trouble seeing how this will benefit defenders into a more equal fight. Even if it's a 1 on 1, the attacker will get the advantage because of Grenades. Based on the current war mechanics, if you get control in either ground or air it's all over. I personally think 0.50 steel for Advanced Chassis is better because of how even moderate successes in airstrikes can effectively wipe out your opponent's tanks. Enough that your ground attacks take so little damage because of the overwhelming numbers, and that slight boost from offensive Grenades.

 

Of course we should never expect a fair fight in the first place. It just seems that this only ramps up offensive wars much more. Unless your planning to make ships do damage to soldiers/tanks/aircraft/etc like how airstrikes work. Even then the current war mechanics and having ground/air control is devastating to recover from. While naval victory only just gives you a blockade.

 

There's so little you can do to mitigate offensive attacks when you're offline. I was hoping a little bit that these perks would help the defender. Yet it just focuses on the offensive, especially with that grenade perk only working on offensive. Also, everything else is just balanced around both offensive and defensive. So there's really no difference to the defender in this occasion.

 

I think something along the lines of getting your aircraft + ships to help you in ground attacks, or even have ground troops provide cover for air. Will help the defender do more with perks like the following below.

 

Cover Fire: Aircraft will reduce the effectiveness of offensive ground attacks by 20%. 5-10% will be reduced upon losing air superiority.

Bombardment: Ships will reduce the effectiveness of offensive ground attacks by 20%. 5-10% will be reduced upon losing naval superiority.

Anti-Air: Soldiers will reduce the effectiveness of offensive airstrikes by 20%. 5-10% will be reduced upon losing ground superiority.

 

These are of course just thoughts, not my actual, thought out suggestions.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Hooves

[Spooner]

These are massively overpowered and will only further give the attacker an even bigger advantage (as if they already don't have one). This is a terrible idea. If we're going to add perks, make them something that applies to the nation as a whole. Like something that forces a nation to choose between economy and military or a slight combo of both. The more I read, the more I hate this idea. It's like all Sheepy has tried to do in this game is consistently try to incentivise war. How about incentivising something else for a change?

 

You could not be more wrong, as per usual.

 

War needs to be incentivized. At the higher score ranges there is literally no reason to fight in the game mechanics.

[Fox Fire]

You could not be more wrong, as per usual.

 

War needs to be incentivized. At the higher score ranges there is literally no reason to fight in the game mechanics.

There is literally no reason to fight in the absolute bottom tiers either.... Point?

[WISD0MTREE]

There is literally no reason to fight in the absolute bottom tiers either.... Point?

Raids can get you a pretty decent amount of money at lower tiers. 

[Fox Fire]

Raids can get you a pretty decent amount of money at lower tiers. 

Not raiding and maxing out your economy does much better. Especially since military costs money and most nations in the lower tiers are too broke to profitably raid. Sure, you can make a profit by raiding at lower tiers, but it's a total gamble, really. It's actually smarter to simply focus on making your own money the whole way through. 

Also, raiding and actual war are two whole different things.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Tenshibo]

There is literally no reason to fight in the absolute bottom tiers either.... Point?

 

The game is politics and war, if there's no reason to do one of those two things, then mechanics need to change. If you want to play pixel protection, switch to Civ 5 and go the diplomacy route.

[Fox Fire]

The game is politics and war, if there's no reason to do one of those two things, then mechanics need to change. If you want to play pixel protection, switch to Civ 5 and go the diplomacy route.

I knew someone was going to throw down that stupid !@#$ argument. To that I say, this game is called Politics and War. Not "War". 

War is already incentivized enough. Politics drive war. If we don't want to partake in politics to have war then lets just remove the economic aspect and make this a war game.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Dimitri Valko]

I knew someone was going to throw down that stupid !@#$ argument. To that I say, this game is called Politics and War. Not "War". 

 

Yeah, there should at least be some element of economic perks. There are some people that play this game by just raiding everything in sight, why can't there be the opposite?

[WISD0MTREE]

Especially since military costs money and most nations in the lower tiers are too broke to profitably raid.  

Also, raiding and actual war are two whole different things.

Dude, soldiers cost $2. They will be fighting other nations with limited military. It's not like a nation with 3,000 men non-gender specific troops will be attacking a nation with nukes. 

Raiding is "fighting." I have no idea what you are talking about. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Tenshibo]

I knew someone was going to throw down that stupid !@#$ argument. To that I say, this game is called Politics and War. Not "War". 

War is already incentivized enough. Politics drive war. If we don't want to partake in politics to have war then lets just remove the economic aspect and make this a war game.

 

How is war incentivised if, in your own words, there's no reason to fight in the higher or lower brackets?

[Fox Fire]

Dude, soldiers cost $2. They will be fighting other nations with limited military. It's not like a nation with 3,000 men non-gender specific troops will be attacking a nation with nukes. 

Raiding is "fighting." I have no idea what you are talking about. 

Raiding is not the same thing as a full blown alliance war. It can turn into one, but 99% of the time does not. I don't even need to explain that.

 

 

How is war incentivised if, in your own words, there's no reason to fight in the higher or lower brackets?

Well for starters, the attacker has the advantage 90% of the time simply because in this game, you cannot max our your military in one day, unlike say, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Thus, the side that is prepared is the side that wins. That side is almost always the attacker. That right there is a !@#$ ton of incentive. Up until nowish, there is also the color stock bonus and treasures. Basically everything Sheepy has added to the game the last year or more has been to incentivise war, minus maybe baseball. 

Further more, war shouldn't exactly be profitable. For the most part, especially for large nations, war should be destructive. The purpose of war should be to destroy your opponent, not make profit. War is perfectly incentivised in this game. It couldn't be more incentivised. Even if we added this, it would not create more war. Perhaps for a brief moment we would see some raids and maybe even a war to test things out. However, in the long term, this will simply become another mechanic that really doesn't do anything other than maybe !@#$ things up and give an even much larger advantage to the attacking nations that already have the advantage. 

 

If people want more alliance wars, then stimulate politics. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Tenshibo]

I'm still confused as to how you can say there's literally no reason to fight, and then on the same page say there's huge reasons to fight. Attacker advantage doesn't encourage war, it encourages preparedness. And color stock bonus encourages politics, you know "Get off our color stock or we'll destroy you."

 

So try again, or just admit you don't know shit. Tyvm #swag

[Fox Fire]

I'm still confused as to how you can say there's literally no reason to fight, and then on the same page say there's huge reasons to fight. Attacker advantage doesn't encourage war, it encourages preparedness. And color stock bonus encourages politics, you know "Get off our color stock or we'll destroy you."

 

So try again, or just admit you don't know shit. Tyvm #swag

No, I'm simply using your own statement against you. If there is no reason to fight in the upper tier, there is equally no reason to fight in the lower tier. However the act of war itself is about as incetivised as it can be. This poorly thought out line of perks will change nothing except giving the attacker another advantage they don't need.

[Tenshibo]

Incentives give reasons to do things. My incentive to work is to get paid; my incentive to get paid is to get laid; my incentive to get laid is that booty doe, god dayum.

 

See how that works? Incentives give reasons. So, war can't be incentivised if there's no reason to engage in war.

[Fox Fire]

Incentives give reasons to do things. My incentive to work is to get paid; my incentive to get paid is to get laid; my incentive to get laid is that booty doe, god dayum.

 

See how that works? Incentives give reasons. So, war can't be incentivised if there's no reason to engage in war.

Hence my earlier statement, yo.

 

Stimulate politics. You see, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) has this same exact problem. And it doesn't matter how you change the game mechanics. It won't fix a god damn thing in that regard.

[Fox Fire]

Or Is suppose we could simply make it so people actually make more money while at war. That would likely do the trick.....

[Tenshibo]

Politics prevents war; politics working together to reach a mutual agreement. Since most of you are pixel huggers, that mutual agreement would be no wars because "herp muh herd rnd paxels" so stimulating politics is pointless.

 

War in this game needs to have a real incentive, especially on the alliance level. When you win an alliance war, something tangible needs to be gained, as opposed to simply the (albeit delicious) satisfaction of pixel stomping. If such a system were to be implemented, it would encourage the aggressive alliances to wage smart wars, and the more passive ones to play a game of active diplomacy, leading to a far more interesting and dynamic game.

[Fox Fire]

So give people twice the income while at war. I'd be at war 24/7. Far more than with these perks.

Oh wait, the reason people don't have twice the income while at war already is...... Because war is supposed to be destructive.....

Edited December 5, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Fox Fire]

Politics prevents war; politics working together to reach a mutual agreement. Since most of you are pixel huggers, that mutual agreement would be no wars because "herp muh herd rnd paxels" so stimulating politics is pointless.

 

War in this game needs to have a real incentive, especially on the alliance level. When you win an alliance war, something tangible needs to be gained, as opposed to simply the (albeit delicious) satisfaction of pixel stomping. If such a system were to be implemented, it would encourage the aggressive alliances to wage smart wars, and the more passive ones to play a game of active diplomacy, leading to a far more interesting and dynamic game.

Yes, a far more interesting and dynamic game of the same exact thing we are doing as we speak..... I can see it now..... 

[Buorhann]

This is exactly true.

 

And the numbers will likely be changed during testing, but Atzuya is absolutely correct, it's "self-balancing" in the sense that if anything is OP, everyone will have it.

 

"If everybody has it, it balances out"

 

That doesn't make sense, nor is it a good way to balance things.  Do you honestly want to have auto-pick perks?  That's exactly what Radio Comms is at it's current state.

[Azaghul]

These are massively overpowered and will only further give the attacker an even bigger advantage (as if they already don't have one). This is a terrible idea. If we're going to add perks, make them something that applies to the nation as a whole. Like something that forces a nation to choose between economy and military or a slight combo of both. The more I read, the more I hate this idea. It's like all Sheepy has tried to do in this game is consistently try to incentivise war. How about incentivising something else for a change?

Having econ vs military perks would give an attacker more of an advantage because they could prepare ahead of time switching their econ perks to military for the war.

[Rozalia]

Cover Fire: Aircraft will reduce the effectiveness of offensive ground attacks by 20%. 5-10% will be reduced upon losing air superiority.

Bombardment: Ships will reduce the effectiveness of offensive ground attacks by 20%. 5-10% will be reduced upon losing naval superiority.

Anti-Air: Soldiers will reduce the effectiveness of offensive airstrikes by 20%. 5-10% will be reduced upon losing ground superiority.

 

These are of course just thoughts, not my actual, thought out suggestions.

 

There is no defensive/offensive specification in your ideas there. Beyond that I don't think they'd do what you want so here are some of my ideas.

 

Trench System: Halves the strength of attacking soldiers and tanks. Disabled when the attacker makes a ground attack (that will likely fail) or the defender launches a ground attack themselves.

Aerial Defense: When the attacker declares, the game simulates the defender's airforce attacking the attacker's soldiers, tanks, and ships (ignoring their defending planes).

No Fly Zone: If the declarer has less planes than the defender's + 180 (two cities airbases full) then they cannot launch air attacks for 6 turns (12 hours)

Mechanized Defense: If the declarer has less tanks than the defender's + 2500 (two cities factories full) then they cannot launch ground attacks for 6 turns (12 hours)

Blockade Breakers: If the declarer has less ships than the defender's + 30 (two cities shipyards full) then they cannot launch naval attacks for 6 turns (12 hours)

 

Having econ vs military perks would give an attacker more of an advantage because they could prepare ahead of time switching their econ perks to military for the war.

 

Just make the two perks sets separate then.

[Atzuya]

If anything, the amount of perks a nation can take should be very limited compared to all available perks. Maybe 4 out of possible 20