Possible Game Updates Currently Being Tested

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You're right, and that's fine. In that scenario it would be just like the current situation - you get to beat on someone for the full 5 days of war, except in this case they're not even attacking you back. I think most people would be pleased with that outcome, making only using Fortify a terrible strategy in war.

 

Not really. I would definitely take being infrabombed for 5 days over getting looted. I will use fortify in all cases that I can foresee, wars or raids. But if that's what you want to happen, so be it. We can work with that. But you are making raids impossible.

[WISD0MTREE]

Asinine example. Clearly he was referring to when super powers use nuclear weapons. Gl with counter playing nukes if Russia or the USA choose to lob them.

 

Asinine example. Clearly he was referring to when super powers use nuclear weapons. Gl with counter playing nukes if Russia or the USA choose to lob them.

That's 2/9 countries on the planet. More than 9 if you count countries that have tried to obtain weapons and failed due to the options I presented. 

 

No need to say it twice. 

[Auctor]

Inactives are still possible to raid. I'm not particularly sold on fortify as a mechanic, but in concert with raising the loot from beiges as high as he has and some of the unintended effects of making navy attacks lower resistance as quickly as they can in a game where the meta is to not have a navy, some counterbalance is probably needed. An issue I do see is that it's going to become effective for alliances to stash their resources they don't intend to use immediately with someone with low value infra and just have them spam fortify all the way through the war. Honestly though, that wasn't much different than the strategy of converting a large part of the alliance war chest to raw resources and having them be unlootable when stashed in a nation.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Inactives are still possible to raid. I'm not particularly sold on fortify as a mechanic, but in concert with raising the loot from beiges as high as he has and some of the unintended effects of making navy attacks lower resistance as quickly as they can in a game where the meta is to not have a navy, some counterbalance is probably needed. An issue I do see is that it's going to become effective for alliances to stash their resources they don't intend to use immediately with someone with low value infra and just have them spam fortify all the way through the war. Honestly though, that wasn't much different than the strategy of converting a large part of the alliance war chest to raw resources and having them be unlootable when stashed in a nation.

 

With the tiny difference between naval IT and fortify of 0.1666667, there is no need to use another nation that presses fortify. We can duke it out with a proper war. As long as my resistance is not below 15when I accept that I have lost, you cannot loot anything, because I will start pressing fortify from then on, and there is no way that you can loot my stuff after that, because 15/0.1666667 = 90.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[EliteCanada]

That's 2/9 countries on the planet. More than 9 if you count countries that have tried to obtain weapons and failed due to the options I presented. 

 

No need to say it twice. 

 

One of your arguments to Alex was that, quite literally, nukes, irl, have "counter-play" (so to speak), but you excluded two nations that have complete and utter capablity of destroying the entire God damn planet with almost no checks, besides for morality. I have a feeling Britain and possibly other countries, if tactically competent enough, could cause unprecedented scales of damage with their nuclear arsenal as well. Where it counts nukes do obviously not have counter play besides for MAD. As this is a game and nukes are relatively easy to build I obviously believe there should be counter play and they shouldn't be able to completely annihilate someone, but your example is poor, self-serving and it is asinine.

 

Edited the mistake. 

[EliteCanada]

With the tiny difference between naval IT and fortify of 0.1666667, there is no need to use another nation that presses fortify. We can duke it out with a proper war. As long as my resistance is not below 15when I accept that I have lost, you cannot loot anything, because I will start pressing fortify from then on, and there is no way that you can loot my stuff after that, because 15/0.1666667 = 90.

 

His point is that allowing yourself to be repeatedly attacked would through and through keep you at ZI and ZM making it worthwhile for the attackers despite the lack of the ability to "win" the war.

Edited December 10, 2016 by EliteCanada

[WISD0MTREE]

One of your arguments to Alex was that, quite literally, nukes, irl, have "counter-play" (so to speak),

 

but you excluded two nations that have complete and utter capability of destroying the entire God damn planet with almost no checks, besides for morality.

 

I have a feeling Britain and possibly other countries, if tactically competent enough, could cause unprecedented scales of damage with their nuclear arsenal as well.

 

Where it counts nukes do obviously not have counter play besides for MAD.

 

As this is a game and nukes are relatively easy to build I obviously believe there should be counter play and they shouldn't be able to completely annihilate someone,

 

but your example is poor, self-serving and it is asinine.

Yes. Because they do. 

 

Yes, I excluded two exceptions. The first two nations to obtain nuclear weapons are obviously ahead of the pack and would limit other countries in their quest in obtaining weapons through treaties for allies and espionage for (against) enemies. You can still see this with Israel bombing Syria's suspected reactor. Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, and Syria don't have nuclear weapons. Plus, it was really hard for Pakistan to build their weapons, and they were constantly worried about India and Israel coordinating an airstrike on them. 

 

Britain has a purely naval based arsenal. They're in a relatively good position to do so. However, Pakistan's weapons are land and air based. They are particularly vulnerable to having their silos and air bases bombed. Even if their planes did manage to launch, they are still vulnerable to conventional anti-air systems. 

 

Aside from attacking the submarines (which is hard to do, I'll give you that), airplanes, air bases, silos, storage sites (for nations who could obtain weapons easily, like Japan), fuel sources (centrifuges for U, reactors for Pu), attacking satellites which are used for GPS systems, and jamming GPS systems, you're right. There aren't any. 

 

Ok. 

 

What's with the hostility? 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

His point is that allowing yourself to be repeatedly attacked would through and through keep you at ZI and ZM making it worthwhile for the attackers despite the lack of the ability to "win" the war.

 

No.

[EliteCanada]

Yes. Because they do. 

 

Yes, I excluded two exceptions. The first two nations to obtain nuclear weapons are obviously ahead of the pack and would limit other countries in their quest in obtaining weapons through treaties for allies and espionage for (against) enemies. You can still see this with Israel bombing Syria's suspected reactor. Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, and Syria don't have nuclear weapons. Plus, it was really hard for Pakistan to build their weapons, and they were constantly worried about India and Israel coordinating an airstrike on them. 

 

Britain has a purely naval based arsenal. They're in a relatively good position to do so. However, Pakistan's weapons are land and air based. They are particularly vulnerable to having their silos and air bases bombed. Even if their planes did manage to launch, they are still vulnerable to conventional anti-air systems. 

 

Aside from attacking the submarines (which is hard to do, I'll give you that), airplanes, air bases, silos, storage sites (for nations who could obtain weapons easily, like Japan), fuel sources (centrifuges for U, reactors for Pu), attacking satellites which are used for GPS systems, and jamming GPS systems, you're right. There aren't any. 

 

Ok. 

 

What's with the hostility? 

 

Must be my inner TEst aggression.

[Auctor]

With the tiny difference between naval IT and fortify of 0.1666667, there is no need to use another nation that presses fortify. We can duke it out with a proper war. As long as my resistance is not below 15when I accept that I have lost, you cannot loot anything, because I will start pressing fortify from then on, and there is no way that you can loot my stuff after that, because 15/0.1666667 = 90.

I feel like at this point you're just advocating for a game in which a group of raiders can essentially destroy the rest of the server piecemeal without any real counter. Which is understandable and it'd be funny for a couple months, but it'd be dead afterwards.

[Spooner]

I feel like at this point you're just advocating for a game in which a group of raiders can essentially destroy the rest of the server piecemeal without any real counter. Which is understandable and it'd be funny for a couple months, but it'd be dead afterwards.

 

Apparently "I think that you should be able to beige an opponent, regardless of how he feels about it when you win" is the same as "You should be able to destroy the entire game with no counter"

 

The counter to raiding is being countered, you boob.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I feel like at this point you're just advocating for a game in which a group of raiders can essentially destroy the rest of the server piecemeal without any real counter. Which is understandable and it'd be funny for a couple months, but it'd be dead afterwards.

 

Lol, just lol. I just showed you that someone who does not want to be beiged cannot be beiged, and they do not incur *any* cost whatsoever, since they can start fortifying in the last 15 points and fight properly up until then. At this point, I believe that you are simply arguing with the hope that someone who reads this casually thinks that you have a substantial argument, and that the discussion is not already over. But it is.

[Auctor]

They incur the cost of having their infra destroyed and being open to being attacked in successive rounds until they have no infrastructure left. This is already the meta in wars right now. Is your issue that war in the current system on the live server isn't damaging enough?

[Kemal Ergenekon]

They incur the cost of having their infra destroyed and being open to being attacked in successive rounds until they have no infrastructure left. This is already the meta in wars right now. Is your issue that war in the current system on the live server isn't damaging enough?

 

You are unable to read I guess.

 

1) You fight as you always do, having no penalties. You can freely attack, lob missiles or nukes, whatever.

2) At the very end, when your resistance is 15, you can prevent getting beiged at will.

 

The cost of infrastructure that you mention is laughable, and I should not be surprised since you are from NPO. In an alliance war, you enter the war with the expectation that most of the valuable part of your infra will be destroyed, if not all. The cost of losing a few more infra between 800-1000 infra is much much lower than losing a large fraction of your warchest to your enemy.

 

You also do not understand deeper tactical concerns. Sometimes you want to close some of your existing offensive wars when you get countered. Suppose that I am in an alliance war, winning 5 battles spectacularly. They pose no threat to me. Then suddenly 3 people counter me. Now I know that my armies will be gone in a day or two, so I want to close the 5 offensive wars. In the old system, I could: I would keep them at 5 ground ITs and do the last one immediately, closing the battles. Now this is impossible: The countered person will have to deal with the three attackers as well as the rebuys of the 5 attacked.

[Auctor]

I guess the issue I'm seeing here is that war in the current system is far too heavily geared towards the aggressor. One mechanic that gives a defender a terrible option, but an option nevertheless, could be a good thing. This might not be it and this might not be the right way to do that, but some amount of balance is desirable in this area.

 

And to pretend that's somehow linked to which alliance I am in is silly. We're just as capable of mounting an offensive as anyone is and of course a game that overpowers offense would be a good thing for us. Giving defenders a small way to obstruct our offense stands just as much chance of harming us as anyone else.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I guess the issue I'm seeing here is that war in the current system is far too heavily geared towards the aggressor. One mechanic that gives a defender a terrible option, but an option nevertheless, could be a good thing. This might not be it and this might not be the right way to do that, but some amount of balance is desirable in this area.

 

And to pretend that's somehow linked to which alliance I am in is silly. We're just as capable of mounting an offensive as anyone is and of course a game that overpowers offense would be a good thing for us. Giving defenders a small way to obstruct our offense stands just as much chance of harming us as anyone else.

 

The option given to the defender is not terrible. On the contrary, it is awesome: It means no one can loot any of your stuff. There is a need for balance, and I did give Alex many suggestions that could provide defenders with better options. He liked the ideas at the time, but implemented this strange system that really doesn't give any additional chance to fight back for the defenders.

 

I mentioned your alliance because that informs me on how well you understand the game mechanics. You don't.

[Alex]

You are unable to read I guess.

 

1) You fight as you always do, having no penalties. You can freely attack, lob missiles or nukes, whatever.

2) At the very end, when your resistance is 15, you can prevent getting beiged at will.

 

The cost of infrastructure that you mention is laughable, and I should not be surprised since you are from NPO. In an alliance war, you enter the war with the expectation that most of the valuable part of your infra will be destroyed, if not all. The cost of losing a few more infra between 800-1000 infra is much much lower than losing a large fraction of your warchest to your enemy.

 

You also do not understand deeper tactical concerns. Sometimes you want to close some of your existing offensive wars when you get countered. Suppose that I am in an alliance war, winning 5 battles spectacularly. They pose no threat to me. Then suddenly 3 people counter me. Now I know that my armies will be gone in a day or two, so I want to close the 5 offensive wars. In the old system, I could: I would keep them at 5 ground ITs and do the last one immediately, closing the battles. Now this is impossible: The countered person will have to deal with the three attackers as well as the rebuys of the 5 attacked.

 

If your resistance goes to 25 or less, all it would take is one nuke and you'd be beiged.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

If your resistance goes to 25 or less, all it would take is one nuke and you'd be beiged.

 

You would be able to fortify three times for a gain of 30 points before the opponent has enough MAP to launch a nuke. I am assuming the player is not an idiot and does the necessary accounting and choosing actions accordingly.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Also you still didn't update the erroneous sentence on your OP:

 

• When winning a war and sending an opponent to beige, if they are already beige you will not reset them back to 3 days, you will instead add 3 days to their beige time. This is a buff to players who are losing multiple wars.

You must correct this to 2 days since that's what you decided on.

[Alex]

Also you still didn't update the erroneous sentence on your OP:

 

• When winning a war and sending an opponent to beige, if they are already beige you will not reset them back to 3 days, you will instead add 3 days to their beige time. This is a buff to players who are losing multiple wars.

You must correct this to 2 days since that's what you decided on.

 

My apologies, I had been looking at this sentence and thinking I had already fixed it:

 

• Wars now have a system called 'resistance'. Each sides starts the war with 100 resistance, and resistance is reduced through every attack. When your opponent's resistance reaches 0, you take 20% of their money, 10% of each of their resources, and automatically destroys 10% of the infrastructure in each of their cities. They are sent to Beige, but for only 2 days. This is to add a more visual component to wars, and encourage people to want to win wars.

[Beowulf the Second]

I very much enjoy that wars mean something now: significant money looting, resource looting, and infrastructure damage. I will note that 7 beiges will halve one's infrastructure, which along with nukes will discourage greedy, high infra play.

 

The fortify mechanic giving you beige invulnerability is weird to me not because its a viable tactic to use conventionally against another player, but because it allows an alliance to store its entire resource pool in one nation and protect it through 'legitimate' means. Store up the alliance money by buying resources and putting it in a nation and that stuff becomes unraidable as well. Unraidable stuff sucks

[Beowulf the Second]

Pretty substantial direct/indrect nuke buffs.

1. No more recovery time for nuked nations through the old beige mechanic
2. Cannot snipe nukes anymore after initial nuke stocks are depleted
3. Spies are killed slower, ensuring more nukes are launched from initial nuke stock

Did the damage nerf to nukes go through? I'm kind of worried that the (now guaranteed) two nukes a turret can launch late in a war will outdamage even complete conventional military dominance. 

[Alex]

Pretty substantial direct/indrect nuke buffs.

1. No more recovery time for nuked nations through the old beige mechanic
2. Cannot snipe nukes anymore after initial nuke stocks are depleted
3. Spies are killed slower, ensuring more nukes are launched from initial nuke stock

Did the damage nerf to nukes go through? I'm kind of worried that the (now guaranteed) two nukes a turret can launch late in a war will outdamage even complete conventional military dominance. 

 

Just to answer your technical question, there hasn't been any change to nuclear weapon damage, no.

[Mageofpie]

Time to see if raiding is still viable after this

[Prefontaine]

I'm curious as to why people are so up in arms about the fortify making it impossible to beige. Yes, you could toss a whole spheres wealthy into one nation to avoid losing it, but you can already hide banks exceedingly easily and do this same thing. Also should someone just turtle to avoid beige they don't get to attack while you pound them. It's basically the current system minus them being able to hit you back.

 

There is almost no time extending wars for extra days to avoid beige will be beneficial. The rare case would be at the tippy top of the whale spectrum where you'd get 10% infra in 28 cities. Then it is better to just sit there and take it as you couldn't do 28 air strikes in the war anyway. Don't know if it would be worth it in a 3v1. But I find it weird for this to be such a hang up that people are complaining about.