Without re-reading every post, I am 99% sure that every incarnation of this suggestion has had it only affecting defense strength...

He's right, Detmer. It was in my original post. I want the readiness formula changed so that there's more of a malus for letting your readiness drop.

The reason for this is simple: Turns spent gaining readiness are an important part of the balance of this game. At present, people keep their readiness up because it effects their defensive strength. I've removed that incentive and needed to introduce a new one.

To not do this would actually lead to a dramatic increase in the power of the FS if my other concepts were implemented. It's a major part of decreasing the effectiveness of the FS.

It also makes my overall changes of neutral effect to the stonewallers/rusher balance. I had some concern that with fewer hits needed to kill a country suffering from WW, it may be unfair to stonewallers. So, increasing the malus suffered from a drop in readiness makes rushers more likely to pause to regain readiness. This may hurt rushers slightly, but only in the sense that it will be much less appealing to launch the 20 attacks per second rushes which already ruin that aspect of the game.

Frankly, this change is important. And Makinso's statement that "attack power gets absoluted[sic] raped" is overstating things dramatically.

It's true that, if you let your readiness drop significantly, the difference is noticeable. However, any attacks made with 100% readiness (like most LGs) will have the exact same attack power as previously. There will be no difference from current attack power. And as long as you keep your readiness relatively high (say, in the mid-80s or higher) like almost all experienced players do now anyway... the effect is negligible.

In the end, if you attack intelligently, it shouldn't matter very much to you.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

This, in its self, is just stupid. You attack an enemy with there pants down (irl as well) to gain an advantage.

FSes are not overpowered, any acceptable alliance can get online to CS in an instant. I dont know what game youve been playing, but Ive always been seeing clans counter FS during an FS, and then take the win away from the alliance that FSed first. Decrease the effect of an FS by having activity.

Adding another factor to attacks would also make things way to complex and intimating for a noob.

Has anyone's opinion on this subject been influenced by LittleItaly's incoherent mutterings?

If so, I can demonstrate the fallacies in what he wrote. But, I'd rather not have to -- and I suspect that the vast majority of people here (even those who disagree with my basic idea) are intelligent enough to dismiss his less-than-compelling statements without any need of help from me.

Let me know :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

HHmmmm

Fooglmog.


With the game in it's current numbers, and IRC/Phone bot tech as it is it's already hurting the ability to kill wallers. Rushing is an important part of that.

Don't get me wrong I like that we all try to think out of the box. But I still think this change would be bad for bussines.

Makinso, it should not be possible for 1 player to make 20 hits in one second during a rush. Right now, it is... and that's stupid.

I really wish someone would introduce changes to make that impossible. Unfortunately, the more I think about this, the more I realize that my changes will almost certainly have zero effect on that.

In my head, I was thinking that I was forcing people to send more military for those finishing attacks (since they ignore readiness drops)... but then I realized that the extra losses from sending 7k instead of 5k are insignificant. Then I also realized that people oversend at that point anyway, and just freeze at 5k (or 10k)... and people would be unlikely to change that behavour.

So, in the end, end of kill rushing won't be impacted at all. :/

If anything, these changes probably alleviate your concerns more than they hurt them Makinso. I'm giving attackers the potential to make kills quicker -- I'm just not letting them do it for free.

With fewer hits needed for a kill, if you keep your readiness up, the overall time for the kill will be about the same as it is now.

Alternately, you could let your readiness drop... but you will need to send more military to break if you do and thus lose more military. This will result in a quicker kill than is currently possible though... so less time for irc/phone bot tech to play a role.

In both cases, you need fewer countries than before (a good change for this game)... but it gives the attacker a way to actually speed up the run. If you're truly concerned about too much stonewalling, how can that be a bad thing?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Thats a good way to get around the sound reasoning of what i said by basically doing a person attack :)

Actually it would make wallers hard to kill.


Normally wars have stock in them so if a waller gets on and breakers can't rebreak due to the WW. All the waller has to do is buy up big again and he's safe no hard work nothing. Adding WW would make walling relatively easy.

As the breakers will have to wait for their WW to recover instead of being able to rebreak the country that walled and bought up massivly.

Next to that breaking down countries will become harder aswell. Normally organized war alliances will have their breakers break then have their mid breakers jump, whilest the breakers hold and then finish it off with their restarts/finishers/spy countries.

To be effective breakers again they'll have to wait for a chat 5 - 8 hrs to hit again?

To me this change does is have people take more time distributing their turns around the clock during war. The change will do more harm then good.

Makinso, you've misunderstood something very important.

WW has no effect on attacking power. You do not need to wait at all for your breakers to be effective again... they just need to recover readiness by playing turns like they do now.

When you're sitting at 70% WW, you can break just as well as you could sitting at 100%... so long as you bring your readiness up.

*** *** ***

LittleItaly, I made no personal attack. I expressed my scorn for the specific comment you made in this thread. Nothing beyond that.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

So wait, how was he right when all I said was war weariness only affects defensive strength? You seem to be agreeing with what I said in your most recent post...

Detmer: There's several parts to my overall suggestion... and Makinso's addressed them separately. I understand how it could be difficult to follow and your confusion is understandable.

One of the changes I suggested was that the effects suffered from low readiness be increased. Makinso ran some numbers, and pointed out that a country with 70% readiness would have significantly less offensive power than previously.

This is the statement to which I commented "He's right". Of course, I then pointed out why it's a necessary change and not actually a significant issue.

On the other hand, Makinso's last post demonstrated a mis-understanding of my proposal. He seemed to think that a country suffering from War Weariness could not effectively break for several hours (when it recovered from WW). This is not the case. It does take several hours to recover from WW -- but as long as a country keeps their readiness up by using turns (just like they do now) their offensive power is not diminished.

I hope that makes some sense :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Misunderstanding on my part then sorry bout that.

However going by what you posted on defense strength you do realize you are pro-actively promoting coalition warfare like calling in late allies.(5 - 6 days in) or hogging mass FA. Or the direct counter CS of an ally? Making the game of I hit your ally before you a very plausible and strategical option.... Which in case of the netters will not be enjoyed by them?


Next to that although I'm not against change this wouldn't weaken FSes really. Whilest it might give a little more chance to the CSing alliance to win it comes down to turns that makes the FS powerfull. I've alrdy suggested multiple times to cut down the max saved to like 90(90) or something.

Not flaming your post foogl just trying to look at this from every angle atm. Ill give it more thought probably come up with more stuff later :)

I haven't taken anything you've said as flaming Makinso :) You're giving honest criticism, and explaining your reasoning. That can't be a bad thing.

You're entirely right in suggesting that, under this scheme, an alliance jumping into a war after a few days is a tactic with increased effectiveness. But, I won't pretend to be able to predict the political ramifications of that.

This may force alliances to fight more arranged wars. It may force alliances going to war to have an ally "on stand-by" to scare off any would-be joiners. It may force alliances wanting to war to pact out the server. Or it may, as you suggest, make alliances hit allies as part of their FS.

Some of those changes would be loved by netters, others hated. I can think of reasonable reasons why any may come to pass, but I can't say for a certainty which is most likely.

My guess, however, is that we'll see a mix of coping mechanisms from reset to reset. It will vary over time, much like it does now. Of course, in any given reset, there will be someone who doesn't like what's going on. I have no doubts that that person will complain about how whatever it is that they don't like "always happens now". Reasonable people will point out that it hasn't happened that way in several resets (at least). But they'll still complain and curse my name for suggesting these changes. The next reset, of course, something different will happen which a different set of people won't like... so it will be their turn to complain about what "always happens" and curse me. :)

I disagree with your statement that this won't decrease FS effectiveness. I believe it will. However, if you believe the effects are too small, I could suggest another change to make the impact larger. Increasing the readiness loss rate a little is an option, but just adding 1% extra readiness loss to each attack is a little heavy handed.

What about lowering the point at which you lose minimum readiness? So instead of hitting 7% readiness loss at 35% of your military... drop that down to 25% or 20%... and adjust all the brackets accordingly. That would have a palpable impact on the FS... but still be more than countered later in the war by the effects of WW.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

4AM to much to process right now :-P

Read tommorow comment later ;)

The recovery rate needs to be faster if this is being considered (hopefully it isnt). If I'm at 120/120 and I want to stay at 85% (the amount I can do to be back at 100% tomorrow), I can only do 30 attacks. I'll be losing turns before I'm back at 100%. If I launch more and go to 70%, its two full days before I'm back at 100%. This just makes the game more boring because I can't play as much as I want to.

Klown, the point is that there's a consequence for attacking. A vulnerability inherent in it.

If you want to stay at 85% WW, yes you can only make 30 attacks.

On the other hand, if you want to make 120 attacks, you can do that too. It just has a consequence.

Nothing stops you from playing as much as you do now... there's just a cost to attacking someone.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

There usually is thought Fooglmog.


Breaking big, costs oil and many troops even if you have tons of weaps tech and are a dict, in the long run every breaker needs to stop breaking for a while to recover his stock/strength as a breaker. This eats of his def - really. Or if hit at the right time low stocks to wall with if he gets hit.

If with the above reasoning I would say you're stop restarts from being "effective". Consdering most restarts (95%) are based off hit + explore/build for readiness strats.

Ill comment on the rest after I come home

Personally I think this adds an extra layer of complicatedness the game dosn't need. It dosn't really add new functionality and makes existing functions more complicated for new players. But take my opinion FWIW :P

i'm bumping this again because i really like it and need to mull over it more

I like the idea

your making it harder to kill and already made it easier to restart. the cs issue now is having to much cs on restarts.

i think adding anything like this will make to many changes to the game to to short a time will put to many unbalanced items in the game to quick. get the other new things balanced first

You should be able to choose how many turns you use to attack with, the more turns you use the less WW you suffer.

Or better yet make every GS optional to use oil or not, no oil=stealth strike destroys more Troops and civs. The units will not be available for 12 hours.

BR's could kill less civilians and more buildings, Strategic Strike takes down CS's as well but will not be available for 6 hours.

Also, decrease rate of WW after 70% weariness.

Also Standard Strikes should never destroy CS to begin with, save them for last if being land killed.

AB's CS destruction rate should be decreased drastically and a Strategic Strike for AB's could receive a boost to CS destruction and readiness in the defending country.

with the current cs rates for restarts i think the cs kill rates should go up if anything not down

No CS destroyed on SS and PS will only make countries to landtrade more

CS's destroyed on PS, but standard strikes shouldn't that's what bombing runs are for.

I'm bumping this for the 2nd time because i'm thinking about it more seriously

I'm proposing a different solution, and one that is MUCH easier to code. It's very simple, and doesn't require people to track 2 different readiness numbers with different amounts of regen, etc etc:


For every special attack made (Attacks that are not SS/PS), if there are any stored turns, reduce the stored turn count by 1.


So for Alliance server, if you have 120(120), the first 120 turns would be about 51 attacks (without using missiles to regain readiness), reducing the remaining 120 stored turns to 0(69) by the end of the first 120 turns (and logging out with 100% readiness).

60 turns later, at next login, you will have 120(9), which will become 0 stored turns after 9 attacks, which means that a total of 60 turns is lost, making FSes less powerful.

A clan that is on the receiving end of a FS that doesn't have any stored turns would not be penalized in any way. The 60 turn difference would then be almost a full day's difference. Obviously, the FSing clan will still have a small advantage, having 60 more turns to FS with, but this is a lot less significant.

Spyops would not count as special attacks for this purpose, and it could encourage more people to use turns to spy, demo and sabotage missiles, among other things instead of leaving it to the "high SPAL only" countries to do.

Using missiles however, would count towards losing stored turns, so a FS that uses a lot of missiles would result in a loss of a lot more stored turns.


This would also force players in a war to login every day to stay active, because accumulating any stored turns during a war is a loss of turns. Player Activity then counts for a lot more in a war, players can no longer show up once every 2 days and not be penalized for it.

The overall change would reduce the FS advantage significantly since the FSing clan can no longer kill as many countries in the first 48 hours.


In a non-war situation, stored turns are not affected, and would not affect the netting game. This would also directly nerf the 360(360) stored turns problem on Express server, right now, you can pretty much outright kill a country in about 12 hours if the target does not log on.

Wow I like that Xin

that's actually a pretty good idea too... hm

like it!