Somewhat moderate changes to the war mechanics

[Rosa Cossette dElise]

snip

Edited January 17, 2022 by Rosa Cossette dElise
Clearing out.

[Dr Rush]

tl;dr make war more expensive because using the best units is essentially required.

[Rosa Cossette dElise]

snip

Edited January 17, 2022 by Rosa Cossette dElise
Clearing out.

[Dr Rush]

Max unit count is max unit count. Max units are a requirement for war, otherwise you'll get bum raped. If you create a unit that is garbage and a unit that is good. Everyone will use the good unit because using the bad unit is a waste entirely because it won't do anything other then die.

[Mark76]

I don't think having some kind of training mechanism is a terrible idea.

 

Let's say that the cost of training is $5/100 soldiers per day.  For a 20 city nation with a full suite of barracks that equals $500,000 per day of recruitment (assuming a cold start).  Total over three days of recruitment would, therefore, be around $3m (36 days of training for the first batch of recruits, 24 for the second batch and ~12 for the final batch).  Of course, it takes a lot longer than 12 to 36 days to mould a raw recruit into a professional soldier, and some nations might like to consider maintaining a corps of such to give them an edge in warfare.  So let's say Alex adds a training mechanism in which it costs $5/100 soldiers/day (12 turns) and that for each turn in training each group of 100 receives 2 points.  So, if you were to train a cadre of 80,000 soldiers for the game equivalent of 14 to 26 weeks (about the same as that undertaken by recruits to the British army... With 14 being basic and 26 being more advanced) you'd end up with  80,000 troops with a collective training score of 156,800 to 268,800 points.  Let's further say that your well trained 80K come up against a hastily assembled army of 300,000 with a score of 144,000 (72,000 for the first batch, 48,000 for the second and 24000 for the final) and that the war mechanism is adjusted to take account of this then, obviously the player with the highest score should win (we'll assume he also has a better Officer corps).  The same kind of training bonus mechanism could also apply to the Mechanical, Air and Naval branches (with higher costs to reflect greater complexity). It'd certainly make war in the game more interesting and strategic than the Zerg rush it currently is.  Especially if no one knew how many training bonus points the other guy/girl's forces have

Another related idea is that when soldiers are dismissed they can be put into a reserve force that can be recalled later (with a comcommitant diminuiton of their training bonus during the period they're on Civvy street).  Such demobilised personnel would be added to the citizen count.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

I don't think having some kind of training mechanism is a terrible idea.

 

Let's say that the cost of training is $5/100 soldiers per day.  For a 20 city nation with a full suite of barracks that equals $500,000 per day of recruitment (assuming a cold start).  Total over three days of recruitment would, therefore, be around $3m (36 days of training for the first batch of recruits, 24 for the second batch and ~12 for the final batch).  Of course, it takes a lot longer than 12 to 36 days to mould a raw recruit into a professional soldier, and some nations might like to consider maintaining a corps of such to give them an edge in warfare.  So let's say Alex adds a training mechanism in which it costs $5/100 soldiers/day (12 turns) and that for each turn in training each group of 100 receives 2 points.  So, if you were to train a cadre of 80,000 soldiers for the game equivalent of 14 to 26 weeks (about the same as that undertaken by recruits to the British army... With 14 being basic and 26 being more advanced) you'd end up with  80,000 troops with a collective training score of 156,800 to 268,800 points.  Let's further say that your well trained 80K come up against a hastily assembled army of 300,000 with a score of 144,000 (72,000 for the first batch, 48,000 for the second and 24000 for the final) and that the war mechanism is adjusted to take account of this then, obviously the player with the highest score should win (we'll assume he also has a better Officer corps).  The same kind of training bonus mechanism could also apply to the Mechanical, Air and Naval branches (with higher costs to reflect greater complexity). It'd certainly make war in the game more interesting and strategic than the Zerg rush it currently is.  Especially if no one knew how many training bonus points the other guy/girl's forces have

 

Another related idea is that when soldiers are dismissed they can be put into a reserve force that can be recalled later (with a comcommitant diminuiton of their training bonus during the period they're on Civvy street).  Such demobilised personnel would be added to the citizen count.

 

The issue with this is that the attacker would gain an even bigger edge. Currently, being the attacker is beneficial because you get to deal the first strikes and inflict heavy losses upon your target, given that you would have one or two friendlies declaring on him. Plus, you can establish Air Superiority and/or Ground Control.

 

With the training/experience mechanic factoring in, you would not only be killing units, but also killing trained units. Trained units which would need to be replaced with inexperienced troops. Which would then face off an enemy which more or less still preserves most of it's experience/training advantage.

 

In short, the defender would be in an even shittier place than they are atm, because not only would they have less units (and deal with debuffs), but they would also be less experienced. In a bid to prevent zerg rushes, you'd be, funny enough, encouraging it even further because not only would the attacker be gaining AS/GC/etcetc from carrying out blitzes, but also the experience edge.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Shiho Nishizumi