Alex

Possible Game Updates Currently Being Tested

165 posts in this topic

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

If you had actually read the posts, you would understand that:

 

1) It makes raiding impossible, unless the opponent willingly caves in and lets you take the loot.

2) You cannot close offensive battles that you are winning like in the past. Remember sitting at 4-5 ground victories and being able to close the war if you get countered by strong people? That's not possible now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had actually read the posts, you would understand that:

 

1) It makes raiding impossible, unless the opponent willingly caves in and lets you take the loot.

2) You cannot close offensive battles that you are winning like in the past. Remember sitting at 4-5 ground victories and being able to close the war if you get countered by strong people? That's not possible now.

 

If you had thought about things, you would understand that:

 

1) Your constant ground attacks would still be taking loot. it would stop bank looting, but banks are already virtually immortal if you're good. There's a decent chance that 5 days of constant ground attacks would net you very similar results than 10 ground attacks and beige bonus depending on their stash. Could actually get you more if they have less money. 

 

2) Helps making countering and coordination more important, I don't see this as a drawback, more of a new dynamic of war. I find it to be a good thing that they can bunker in and take a beating for a little while then try to rally and come back when help arrives. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had thought about things, you would understand that:

 

1) Your constant ground attacks would still be taking loot. it would stop bank looting, but banks are already virtually immortal if you're good. There's a decent chance that 5 days of constant ground attacks would net you very similar results than 10 ground attacks and beige bonus depending on their stash. Could actually get you more if they have less money. 

 

2) Helps making countering and coordination more important, I don't see this as a drawback, more of a new dynamic of war. I find it to be a good thing that they can bunker in and take a beating for a little while then try to rally and come back when help arrives. 

 

That #1 part is really true. I've many times wished my raids didn't end and instead I could have kept going on with GAs. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had thought about things, you would understand that:

 

1) Your constant ground attacks would still be taking loot. it would stop bank looting, but banks are already virtually immortal if you're good. There's a decent chance that 5 days of constant ground attacks would net you very similar results than 10 ground attacks and beige bonus depending on their stash. Could actually get you more if they have less money. 

 

2) Helps making countering and coordination more important, I don't see this as a drawback, more of a new dynamic of war. I find it to be a good thing that they can bunker in and take a beating for a little while then try to rally and come back when help arrives. 

 

1) Let's abstract away from the bank looting -- as you say, it was usually avoidable even in the old system. Focus on the loot from the nation itself. Recall that you loot "10% of each of their resources" if you beige. I don't know about you, but everyone in our alliance has huge stockpiles of stuff. Many competent players do. 10% of that is definitely not insignificant at all, measured in tens of millions in worth at least. If fortify was not as powerful, you could loot that by blockading the enemy, and then proceeding to beige them. I do not think this is insignificant. It is true that you can loot more money with ground attacks, but usually the money runs out fast and you start getting $0 with each attack, or the latest batch of turn's income.

 

2) Yes it makes countering and coordination more important. It is a new dynamic, yes, and one that favors defenders more than attackers IMO. Because the attackers are usually the ones to overextend, and this makes overextension a larger problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give a tangible example to (1), if you beiged my nation right now, you would loot $31,001,218 worth of resources and $9,609,577 as cash. Losing loot worth 40.6m in a single battle is not insignificant. If three attackers cannot loot, that means the attacking alliance loses 121 millions whereas I save 121 millions. The net damage to your side vs mine would be 242 millions in a single round.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give a tangible example to (1), if you beiged my nation right now, you would loot $31,001,218 worth of resources and $9,609,577 as cash. Losing loot worth 40.6m in a single battle is not insignificant. If three attackers cannot loot, that means the attacking alliance loses 121 millions whereas I save 121 millions. The net damage to your side vs mine would be 242 millions in a single round.

 

But you're not factoring in what all 3 attackers can cost you in infrastructure damage, and if you're using fortify to prevent yourself from being beiged, they're going to be taking little to no damage from you. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're not factoring in what all 3 attackers can cost you in infrastructure damage, and if you're using fortify to prevent yourself from being beiged, they're going to be taking little to no damage from you. 

 

False, I have already discussed this upthread. I can conduct conventional warfare up until my armies are completely gone, then start pressing fortify only when I reach 15 points. So I can both fight, and protect my loot. I lose nothing by doing so.

 

No difference in infrastructure damage either, since in an alliance war, you always lose the expensive portion of your infrastructure regardless of whether you are winning or losing.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I am not making any claim regarding whether the change is good or bad. I'm just looking at what the numbers actually are. In this post: Airstrikes!

 

First, a recap of relevant mechanics:

A nation can use up to 66 MAP over the course of a war. ref

One airstrike uses 4 MAP. ref

One city can produce 90 planes. ref

One plane kills an average of 0.117 opponents per fight, or 0.166 if it's a dogfight. ref

One plane destroys (Attacking Planes - (Defending Planes / 2)) * 0.318181815 infrastructure in a bombing run, or half of that in a dogfight. ref

One air IT reduces resistance by 12 points (new system). ref

Being beiged causes 10% damage to infra in all cities (new system). ref

 

Next, the scenario:

Attacker and defender each have one city, with 5 full hangars. Attacker always rebuys, defender never does. All random rolls return the average value. Attacker wins ties (and therefore always gets ITs). Strategy is dogfights until defender has no planes, then bombing runs. Note: This is very much an idealized situation, simplified for the sake of being able to run the numbers. Actual results may vary.

 

Results:

The attacker destroys the defender's 90 planes after 6 attacks. ‡

The attacker loses 38 planes. ‡

The defender loses 60.85 infrastructure due to dogfights (the first 6 attacks). ‡

After the 6th attack, the defender will have 28 resistance. ‡

After the 6th attack, the attacker will have 42 MAP remaining. ‡

Each subsequent bombing run destroys 28.64 infrastructure. ‡

 

Under the old system, the attacker can run 10 bombing runs, ‡ for a total of 347.25 infrastructure destroyed (including from the dogfights). ‡

Under the new system, the attacker can run 3 bombing runs, ‡ for a total of 146.77 infrastructure destroyed (including from the dogfights). ‡

That is a difference of 200.48 infrastructure. ‡ In order for the damage done in the new system to match that of the old system, the defender must have 2,004.80 total infrastructure. ‡

 

Damage dealt scales proportionally with the number of planes (and therefore number of cities) that the attacker has. In order to close the damage gap between the old system and the new, the defender could theoretically have any number of cities. ‡ But in practice, the defender will most likely have the same number of cities, give or take a few. This means that the average infra per city required to close the damage gap will always be right around 2,000 infra (-200ish infra per city difference if you up-declare, +200ish per city difference if you down-declare).

 

tl;dr In order to destroy an equal amount of infrastructure in the new system as compared to the old one, your opponents must have roughly 2,000 infra per city. If they have more, you'll destroy more than you can now. If they have less, you'll destroy less. Whether that's something to whine about or celebrate is up to you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I am not making any claim regarding whether the change is good or bad. I'm just looking at what the numbers actually are. In this post: Airstrikes!

 

First, a recap of relevant mechanics:

A nation can use up to 66 MAP over the course of a war. ref

One airstrike uses 4 MAP. ref

One city can produce 90 planes. ref

One plane kills an average of 0.117 opponents per fight, or 0.166 if it's a dogfight. ref

One plane destroys (Attacking Planes - (Defending Planes / 2)) * 0.318181815 infrastructure in a bombing run, or half of that in a dogfight. ref

One air IT reduces resistance by 12 points (new system). ref

Being beiged causes 10% damage to infra in all cities (new system). ref

 

Next, the scenario:

Attacker and defender each have one city, with 5 full hangars. Attacker always rebuys, defender never does. All random rolls return the average value. Attacker wins ties (and therefore always gets ITs). Strategy is dogfights until defender has no planes, then bombing runs. Note: This is very much an idealized situation, simplified for the sake of being able to run the numbers. Actual results may vary.

 

Results:

The attacker destroys the defender's 90 planes after 6 attacks. ‡

The attacker loses 38 planes. ‡

The defender loses 60.85 infrastructure due to dogfights (the first 6 attacks). ‡

After the 6th attack, the defender will have 28 resistance. ‡

After the 6th attack, the attacker will have 42 MAP remaining. ‡

Each subsequent bombing run destroys 28.64 infrastructure. ‡

 

Under the old system, the attacker can run 10 bombing runs, ‡ for a total of 347.25 infrastructure destroyed (including from the dogfights). ‡

Under the new system, the attacker can run 3 bombing runs, ‡ for a total of 146.77 infrastructure destroyed (including from the dogfights). ‡

That is a difference of 200.48 infrastructure. ‡ In order for the damage done in the new system to match that of the old system, the defender must have 2,004.80 total infrastructure. ‡

 

Damage dealt scales proportionally with the number of planes (and therefore number of cities) that the attacker has. In order to close the damage gap between the old system and the new, the defender could theoretically have any number of cities. ‡ But in practice, the defender will most likely have the same number of cities, give or take a few. This means that the average infra per city required to close the damage gap will always be right around 2,000 infra (-200ish infra per city difference if you up-declare, +200ish per city difference if you down-declare).

 

tl;dr In order to destroy an equal amount of infrastructure in the new system as compared to the old one, your opponents must have roughly 2,000 infra per city. If they have more, you'll destroy more than you can now. If they have less, you'll destroy less. Whether that's something to whine about or celebrate is up to you.

 

I'd just like to point out that under the new system, you'll also win the war quicker - it won't take the full 5 days. So while damage may be less, on average, damage/day or per turn is going to be higher.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying out the new war system on the test server since it went live: I must say I think it's a fresh change. Ships could use a rebalancing, however, as they appear extremely overpowered at the current. It seems that in almost every naval op I've launched, even with a lone ship, under the tactician war policy I destroyed an improvement almost every run. Mostly barracks, but still.

 

Aside from that minor detail I welcome the incoming changes, and can't wait to see how they affect wars in the future on the regular server. Thanks for the continuing advancement of the game Sheepy!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that under the new system, you'll also win the war quicker - it won't take the full 5 days. So while damage may be less, on average, damage/day or per turn is going to be higher.

To continue the scenario cited:

Under the current system, a nation can destroy 347.25 infra over 16 attacks, which corresponds to a 4.8-day war. That's 71.84 infra/day.

Under the new system, a nation can destroy 146.77 infra over 9 attacks, which corresponds to a 2.5-day war. That's 58.71 infra/day.

 

If you change the number of cities that the attacker and defender have in the scenario cited, then you'll find that there are some cases in which the new system deals damage more rapidly than the old, but only for nations with very few cities, and only when they're down-declaring on nations with significantly fewer cities than they have. For example, nations with 3-5 cities, they only do more damage if they declare on a 1-city nation. Nations with 6-9 cities only do so if they declare on nations with only 1 or 2 cities. For nations with more cities, there technically is a corresponding number of defender cities where the new system does more damage, but they're probably not going to be in range. (And if they are, the attacker is probably a raider who doesn't terribly care about infrastructure destroyed.)

 

Silly Sheepy.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheepy, being literally unable to biege someone through airstrikes/groundstrikes is stupid. Maybe make it so fortify action has reduced effectiveness if used consecutively? That way, you can prevent yourself getting beiged but you can't use it indefinitely without reprecussions. 

 

(Hell, doesn't even have to be consecutive, maybe every 3 or x amount of times)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now