| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 09:54 pm |
"2) Weapons deployed manually seem to be redeployed automatically, even when the autoamtic defense is unchcked. This only happens some of the time, and only after a country is attacked. Some players , when finding defenses deployed in a manner to stop them from penetrating it, will attack a random target once with a 'test unit', and force the defenses to redeploy. the country becomes vulnerable, and they can get their true attacks through."
I've seen this happen even when the country wasn't attacked. I had to deploy two of my countries twice before it stuck. And still yet the defenses , in hymyland went weird. It wasn't exactly auto defense but it wasn't exactly what I had deployed either. hell at one point, there was hiccup that caused about 50000 more MIB to deploy than I actually had, and I had to start all over. I hope your able to figure it out and get it fixed, but frankly I ain't got time to worry about it. I just think of it as random mutiny.
Additionally I don't think there is a bug in small airborne attacks. If the country being attacked has 40k interceptors the damage is negligible no matter how many fighters are used. Additionally I have over the game years attacked with a variety of different sized attacks and it seems to me that the minimum number of fighters needed to destroy a target depends mostly on the number of MIB. I beleive that in the case of a lack of interceptors, more of the attacking aircraft get through. Either way there is a viable defense for it, 30000 interceptors will do the trick.
As for the ratio limit, I simply think it would help if it was taken away. I see no reason why 10000 navy fighters can't kill a certain number of defensive aircraft, no matter how many defenders their are. Of course it may be better is the ratio effect was just attenuated, becaus it's complete absence might make war too easy. If there was no ratio effect then the limits can stay, and major war will be possible. As for the limits I feel they are necessary until there is a viable way to defend against strategic weapons such as subs. Of course they won't be as effective in large numbers without the ratio effect in place.
I just don't understand why nobody addressed the ratio effect, when talking about improving the war model.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 10:06 pm |
understand your POV matt, and i apologise for being a stroppy cow on the previous post.
Grr ive logged in more since quitting than when i was playing ;p
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 10:14 pm |
The flaw exists, hymy. Your attacks on Unitedfools were initially able to destroy corporations and targets with ~200k interceptors in range at the absoulte mininum, and that was before the country was even moved into the main federation.
IF you had used 10000 fighters per attack instead of a few hundred, you would have done 0 damage. Feel free to review other large attacks which were launched and did literally no damage. 30000 interceptors or 1 million interceptors are equally ineffective.
You are right about 'the ratio effect', but this name I invented when I was still new to the war mechanics is deceiving. The "ratio efect" is simply the result of defenders firing first. When 10000 navy fighters attack 100k interceptors, and the interceptors fire first, there simply arent any navy fighters left to do damage. When there are only 15k interceptors, some of the fighters survive to launch an attack before being wiped out by the next barrage of interceptor fire.
defending against strategic weapons is simple in theory (deploying defneses and having a suffieicent airforce), no matter how many are used. However the errors have shown that "theory" is not always the same as "practice"
Making atackers fire first would always permit you to do some damage, but would ignore the realism of fighting less effectively when outnumbered. Youre right though, if attackers did fire first, then large wars would still be possible and perhaps balanced - even with limits. But in that case, why bother with them in the first place, and why not leave the fire order the same, while removing them instead? (your commas are infecting me! )
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 10:29 pm |
Sorry I know you hate my comma usage. I've been trying to limit it, every since you pointed it out. I think I tend to type as I though I'm carrying on a conversation. This results in flow of comma connected phrases.
I've never tried to use more fighters than necessary to destroy a target, I always just assumed if I used 10000 the result would be the same. I wasn't going to try it to find out. Navy fighters are too damned expensive.
I got twenty thousand more drones coming soon, I can test officially. I know your convinced it's a bug, but I'll convince myself one way or another.
But this is why I don't like fighting wars, the war model is less realistic than the economic model. And both aren't great. It shouldn't be that simple, In real life attacking aircraft don't sit around and wait to be attacked, nor is it vice versa. They're should be a way to make the model alittle more robust. Actuallly the one importent concept that is missing is technology discrepancies. That's what really wins or loses wars.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:06 am |
Matt forgot he's supposed to bring me in Singapoor pretty soon.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:24 am |
damn, you pulled one over on me. I didnt realize until just now. cant believe you managed to hide from me, you wiley little wabbit you
"Mystery Man" , this discussion is what I have been trying to create. It might result in what we have been waiting for. Hello!
hymy, your comma usage no longer bugs me. it seems to be less dominannt, and I have an easier time understanding you. Not only that, after reading your posts I tend to start doing the same. Youre right, reading your comments sounds much more natural if I repeat them in my head as though they were a conversation.
I have faith that your use of the scientific method will force you to arrive at the truth very soon
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 01:10 am |
There is a lot to read here and it makes it difficult to folow. I will start with some remarks on some of the texts.
Reducing the population of countries is difficult. If we need to define a limit for conversion into a peaceful country than we should decide on a number.
The suggestion to add some more weapons is easy. Adding them is more difficult and we have a huge number already. We do not change these weapons easily. We did not tweak Jeeps for two years and we will try to reduce any tweaking even further as the ballance between weapons improves.
Starting players are free of war for 36 game months unless they themselves start a war. The game remains quite difficult for new players. We are aware of that and we will try to improve. It is a non trivial game and it will remain non trivial by choice. Some more help for beginners might be nice.
When I suggested a possible change in the size of attacks made depended on the index, I meant the complete defense index, not the defensive index. More on limitations later.
Soldiers disappear with their weapons (they die). The number of low level workers and mid level managers is reduced. We have more problems with the wounded. We show the number of wounded and we never "process" them. They should be treated and become active workers, some should die and many should be removed from the labour market. As of now, we just ignore them. We have plans to improve that part.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 01:45 am |
Back to peaceful countries.
Having some players in the world who do not participate in wars will not make the world less stable. It might make the economy a little more stable with fewer product supply and demand fluctuations.
Having even 1500 out of 4500 countries not participating in war will not reduce the war game fun for anyone. It is like this world will be reduced to 3000 countries which is plenty more than are participating now.
If the peaceful players end up taking all the awards, then we do have a problem. This will not be the case. We will make a split in the awards if this may become a problem.
If the number of peaceful players becomes so large that they occupy too many countries, we will throw a big party and move them to a new server.
When I wrote that with peaceful players we can change some of the game logic, I meant that we can then look into the limitations of the attack size. It becomes a little less relevant.
We always had problems with aggressive users in the game. We always had complaints from players who are interested in the economic part and were forced to build a defense to prevent war.
We used to advise them to purchase 200 tanks and 100 to 200 airplains with some MIBs. This is a joke. With current armies you have sleepless nights for months before your defense starts to be meaningful.
We should not force them into buying weapons just to prevent being thrown out of the game.
So once there are peaceful countries, why do we need any limitations on the size of attacks.
What about a new player who does not want to be peaceful. He is free for 36 months which is enough to build a tiny army and understand a little of what is going on.
Such a new player is in fact saying: I am new and small buy I do intend to fight wars. (otherwise he would have chosen to push the "friendly country" button). The next thing that happens after the 36 months: He is swallowed by the huge dinasour next door. He has no chance to make it.
This is why I suggested an attack limitation that will take into account the defense index of the attacked country. Large federations and countries with large defense may bomb each other to smithereens.
This is not "realistic" but I did not find a better solution yet.
The economic game is more complex than the CEO game and we will upgrade some of it in the coming months. We intend to improve the corporations part and make more of the stock market and common markets. We intend to improve education, introduce terrorism and migration, handle wounded and disabled etc.
There will be a lot to do in the game for players who are interested in the economy. I can harly see why these two types of users cannot live in the same world. They will not intefere with the other players and be even less visible than the CEO player who sometimes tries to purchase one of your corporations.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 03:07 am |
I see. I understand your thinking and like it , jozi.
I agree with everything you said. A suggestion for a population limit for peaecful countries might be 20 million, but I think any number from 15-25 million would work fine.
There is only 2 small difficulties I can see with your attack limitation taht takes defeses into account. perhaps both can be solved.
the first is that a small country who has chosen not to be peaceful coudl be a member of a large federation, and moight have a small defense index , but a huge shared federation defense.
perhaps if the size of the attak coul depend on the shared or federation edfense index this would be fixed.
the second is that some countries might choose not to be peaceful, but build only tiny armies so they could win the non-peacful country awards, but so that no one wudl still be able to attack them. This could be fixed by making a certain (relatively small) offensive attack always be able to be launched, even if the defender has a small index.
I will not post here any more since i feel like i am talking too much. But I am very excited about this idea, and I think I have been waiting for it since I started playing the game, and that it might fix the bigegst playing issue in the game. I do not know why I did not think of it before.