Downdeclare is a little crazy

[Spooner]

I'm an 18-city nation who, even when nearly fully milled, have been down-declaring on 10-city nations. That's a bit crazy.

 

War declaration range should be:

 

-2 cities // +3 cities

 

(or -2 cities // +4 cities)

[Auctor]

seems like more of a limitation on the updeclare range than the downdeclare range. Clever slight of hand though.

[The Mad Titan]

This suggestion has no bias at all. Move along.

[durmij]

I'm an 18-city nation who, even when nearly fully milled, have been down-declaring on 10-city nations. That's a bit crazy.

 

War declaration range should be:

 

-2 cities // +3 cities

 

(or -2 cities // +4 cities)

Hard limits don't work because they create edge cases that can be exploited, especially if combined with a competing soft limit (like nation score).

 

That being said, war range is completely borked even after the update and doesn't really reflect capabilities at all.

[Spooner]

seems like more of a limitation on the updeclare range than the downdeclare range. Clever slight of hand though.

 

Shit dude, I'm fine with an unlimited updeclare range.

[Hodor]

Yea declaring on 13-14 city nations was not expected.

[durmij]

Cities should scale up in score every time. Currently it's 50 score per city. But if every city is with more than the last one, ranges will naturally be tighter.

Example: every city is worth 10 times its city number.

At 4 cities you have 100 base score from cities. At 6, 210. 8 is 360. 10 is 570. Probably need to put a sanity check on the system and limit a city to 100 points after that.

So using my system with your example, you would have 1370 base score from cities and they would have 570. Your effective range based on cities alone would be 1027.5, meaning 15 would be your effective limit.

Hmm that's too restrictive. What if the sanity check came in at 90 per city after 9?

They would be 560, you would be 1290. Effective range of 967.5. Still puts you at 15. Hmm.

80 after 8? 520 them, you 1140. effective range 855. Still can't go below 15...

I'm going to experiment with increasing the range to 35% below, as these are pretty close.

Edited April 19, 2017 by durmij

[Ryleh]

Cities should scale up in score every time. Currently it's 50 score per city. But if every city is with more than the last one, ranges will naturally be tighter.

 

Example: every city is worth 10 times its city number.

 

At 4 cities you have 100 base score from cities. At 6, 210. 8 is 360. 10 is 570. Probably need to put a sanity check on the system and limit a city to 100 points after that.

 

So using my system with your example, you would have 1370 base score from cities and they would have 570. Your effective range based on cities alone would be 1027.5, meaning 15 would be your effective limit.

 

Hmm that's too restrictive. What if the sanity check came in at 90 per city after 9?

 

They would be 560, you would be 1290. Effective range of 967.5. Still puts you at 15. Hmm.

 

80 after 8? 520 them, you 1140

 

I like the idea, but still, it means someone who is ZMed and high in city count gets screwed. 

[Spooner]

This suggestion has no bias at all. Move along.

 

I'm doing this to help your side dude. My wars are entirely me declaring on 10-city guys. It's insanely imbalanced.

[durmij]

I like the idea, but still, it means someone who is ZMed and high in city count gets screwed. 

That's going to be a factor until you get beiged for having less resistance when the war expires. Different mechanic, although also in need of tweaking.

[Sailor Jerry]

All I can say is these 10 city nations that have maxed out navies and missiles and nukes at the start of a war will definately fall within the NS of the larger, preped but not mil maxed nations.....therefore inflating their score needlessly. Let this be a lessons learned for those nations, if you wanna roll with the big dawgs, ya gonna get yer tail bit off from time to time.

[Pubstomper]

Rose has a new player at 5 cities who just got declared on by a guy with 15 cities. Balance in all things  

[Azaghul]

Make it a percentage rather than a hard number... the difference between 17 and 20 cities is a lot less than between 3 and 6 cities.

Something like you can only declare on people with at least 75% of your city count (to match the score limit) or who has no more than 2 less cities than you (for the low ranges).

[Ogaden]

Yeah who could have guessed that tieing mil to score so closely would have weird results

[Buorhann]

Personally I don't mind it.  You have to be patient to down declare (Waiting on a reset to double buy with), whereas up declare you can plan easier with others involved.

 

 

On the other hand, I don't see much of a problem with a hard city up/down declare range since military is limited in each city.  So nations with 3k+ Infra will still be in the same military strength bracket as one with 1500 Infra builds.

[Spooner]

I have 19 cities and just declared on a nation with 8 cities.

Jesus christ lol.

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13316

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=55439

[Buorhann]

I have 19 cities and just declared on a nation with 8 cities.

Jesus christ lol.

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13316

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=55439

Perfect example why people shouldn't fear little nations up declaring.

 

He will not be able to beige you in time before you rev up the steamrollers.

[Spooner]

Sheepy -- what are your plans (if any) to address this? The war system is nonfunctional.

 

Remember when you were mad that Arrgh's 15-city nations were using low infra build to declare on 10-city nations? I'm a 19-city nation declaring on 8-city nations.

 

This is broken.

 

Our side is winning a war despite a ~3:1 member disadvantage. Broken downdeclare mechanics are one of the reasons why.

[Shakyr]

Our side is winning a war despite a ~3:1 member disadvantage. Broken downdeclare mechanics are one of the reasons why.

That and the fact that they seem to demonstrate every war, that they have no idea on how to war.

[Senatorius]

Did any word come from the great sheep about this issue? I can see the value in making city count the main focus of determining NS. If a nation that has been ZMd either get help from alliance/coalition members or if they can't maybe your alliance should look at peace of some form?(assuming it isn't an isolated case but a general collapse) The game should encourage is quick decisive wars that allows for fast recovers and then another war relatively quickly.