| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 03:27 pm |
In the past few game years a lot of uis haev had some time to etest things estenseively. Most everything works the way it should, and I think w3dc has done an excellent job of balancing things (with the exception of the limits, as everyone knows )
A few things arent so well balanced, however. Im only posthing the ones that are easy to change.
In the distant past, fortifications were uselss. They did not server their intended purpose. This has changed , and most countries need to lose all of the their fortifcations before being conquered. They are also very difficult targets to destroy.
These are both good thigns!
However, with the current prices and manpower costs, they are very easy to acquie in large numbers.
In a single month, a country may purchase 500 of them. They only use 18 men pwer location.
Staffing a ten thousand fortifications requires an army of 180 thousand men. this is very small considering the fact that 2500 attack rounds would be requieed to destroy them all, taking many many many real days of constant attacking, 24/7. Thisd is clearly impossible.
Stocking up hundreds of these locations is desireable in my eye, but only at great cost and at a much slower rate. MUCH slower. Newly conquered ocuntris should not be able to be made impregnable immediately.
I suggest a cost of 1 billion per fortification and a staffing cost of 1000 people each. They will of course be expected to add more to the defensive index. At this rate, havbing 100-500 fortifications si still possible, but only after great time an expense. Having thousands is not feasible, and building them faster than it is theoretically possible to destroy them also is not feasible.
2. defenseive Land units
I think that the new units offer a perrect role for defnesive land units (jeeps, artilelry, tanks). These units are very rarely usedd in the game due to their limits role. Increasing the hit and damage rate on Rapid deploy,ent units and special forces by a factor of 10-30 would make them effective in defending aginst these unitrs...but only in large numbers.
Defenders would need to choose locations to defnd with them carefully, or predict locations of attack and deploy them dynamically. This would add a lot of strategy and thinking into defense, while making it easier to defend against these units. both are good, and the change is very easy to implement.
3. Tactical weapons launchers
these weapons are almost uselss. Anything that theyc an do is more easily and cheaply completeled using other weapons.
If they were much harder to hit by defensive aircraft, while remaingin as expensive as they are, they would have some use.
4. Rapid deployment units.
These weapons are fine as things stand in my opinion..but only with current rules.
If the attakc limits are lifted, they will need to use more manpower to operate. If and when the limits are lifted, I think the manpower costs needs to be tripled. This will make using them in large numbers extremely difficult and impossible. Given their very short range, large numbers will be used in very few cases (stocking 1000 of these units would then require approximately 1 million men in the army!), and in those cases, the defender(s) will avhe a very long time to react.
hope this isnt too long. cheers.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 04:45 pm |
Totally agree on the land defensive units.
Id suggest mechanised infantry.
They could require lots of officers like RDU do...maybee 120 officers.
but as a unit designed to counter rdu they wuld be effective.
One of the problems of course as mentioned is chosing where to defend...may add to tactics,
Forts: well yes they are cheap, perhaps add some officer requirement.
One thing i still dont like is large CEO stockpiles being sent on 2 monthers. And ive used it myself to replace 10k of a unit in a month or so, so im not innocent.
Hard to say who is upto it or how much of course
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 07:54 pm |
I think invincible fleets is something that's easy to change as well. It doesn't make sense and just sounds like cheap coding.
| Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 01:51 am |
Yup, yup! All of the above!
| Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 01:24 pm |
elle, why bother adding another unit when they have perfectly good ones already that arent very useful?
I think ratinonalizing a few of the existing units that are pretty much useless is a much better idea.
Pretty much every other unit has at least some tactical use. ALl in all, the system really works very well and is balanced in many ways (again, ignoring limits )
erehwons war-index modifications would be even better..but i like to stick with one set of ideas at a time.
Youve obviously never seen an a country with several thousand fortifications, taking up less than 100k people in a tiny army. Id love to see you try to conquer a country like that :P , and then ask you what you thought. Even better, id love to see you destroy them all, and damage the corporations...and in the 1 month interval before you could finish the country off, watch 500 more pop up. You dont even need defensive bases to buy them, so it cant be stopped.
The new war index rules make even large countries VERY durable. Nothing wrong with that, but massive durability should not be immediate, cheap, or easy.
invincible fleets, definitely. Forgot to mention them
| Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 01:30 pm |
id like to see them as real focus points for war, after all they are forts!!
make them "Hold" a lot of the WI points, but also make them ..oh i dunno 500 officers and 500 men.
ATM as mentioned throwing up hundreds of forts isnt a problem.
| Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 01:52 pm |
me too. I posted an idea about them ages ago, with the intent that fortifications would make Existing locations harder to hit and damage. Perhaps requiring several times the ammo to destroy, while making defending units more efefctive. Obviously that kind of fortification would cost loads more and use loads more units (fortifying a city of several million inhabitants would cost billions and thousands of men) Someone else posted an even better idea. I cant for the life of me remember what it was.
If forts were expensive and hard(er) to get relative to the ways things are now, it would be much more imoprtant to hold them. They already make units stationed in them about 4 times as hard to kill, and 4 times as effective at fighting (I wonder how many people know that...).
My title for this thread was "a few simple war suggestions":, though
Changing the manpower requiremnts,costs, hit, and damage rates entails nothing more than changing a single number in a table. Adding new features is a lot harder!
Again, all of tehse suggestison would be obvious to jozi and the other admins...if they actually fought wars
Im willing to be their guinea pig! I am not afraid of the fiery wrath of the admins!!
| Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 10:15 pm |
It be nice I think, if the forts were actually where you stationed defensive weapons.
If the forts were lined up along the borders and all the defensive weapons were stationed there, then defense would make more sense.
The weapons could defend the border. Clearly every attack on a country has to cross the border, why is the defense not focused there?
| Monday, December 15, 2003 - 05:56 pm |
Right on, Matts!
Hymy, there isn't really any geography in the game. The colors and lines on the map are meaningless. Shame, but creating a war system based on location and movement is way beyond this game (and you know I dream about a game like that so I don't give up lightly on such an idea for this game). Locations have coordinates and that is as close to geography as anything comes in the game.