I dont want to have to be the negative nancy again, but when changes like this are made someone has to point out the obvious.

This change is completely contradictory to changes you've made earlier, as it significantly reduces the ability of an alliance to eat a fs yet again (a very bad change)...

Stonewalling ability will only go up for people already prepared to war, meaning that your fs will still demolish people, and then you can wall the cs better than before.

So if anything the extent to which a FS is important is disproportionately increased due to the increased difficulty of kr's after the fs.

So essentially it's a good change on the assumption that all wars are equal and pre-arranged, but a terrible change based on how all alliance servers actually operate in this game.

As far as I go its a pretty horrific change.

Hmm that's a pretty good problem you bring up. One I don't think anyone has thought about yet.

Complete boost to the blindside FS.

Not really... unless there is no chance you are going to be FSd you need to carry more military, that's all.

I have to agree with SS. Everyone's been asking for the power of "blindsides" to be nerfed. These changes, if implemented, will only serve to make "blindsides" stronger. I really hope the admins think things through before implementing this.

SS: Where do you see that this boosts FS's?

Pretty simple Qzjul, please tell us how many hits it takes to kill a 8k land (8k land is arbitrarily chosen) country running next to 0 troops with the new formula in the alpha test servers. This would simulate a blindside on a multiple low troop countries in a FS.

About the same as now; against an 8k farmer with 100k troops it took 210 hpk.

Unless it was fixed it took a max tech theo 155 attacks to kill a 76k acre Demo with max tech but no military.

Against an 8k farmer with 0 troops, 208 hpk

It doesn't boost the FS, it nerfs the CS thus making the FS more powerful. Typically when you FS, the opponent is not going to be as prepped as you so their ratio of defense to pop will be substantially lower. When they CS it will be much harder for them to kill your countries that it was for you to kills theirs.

That being said, tags could carry a lot of military like klown said and it would reduce that advantage somewhat.

I get 169 hpk with a max tech tyr. Cheating some as a max tech tyr shouldn't probably exist at the same time as only an 8k farmer but still possible.

So am I missing something? Does it have base on attacker population?

If this is the case, then yes, the FS and CS gap is going to widen, and this will make it more important to get the FS in, causing earlier and earlier wars.

Okay so obviously Attacker population plays a big part of it.

Ahhhhhh.... thnx!

Interesting...

We'll just have to see how this works.. Or doesn't..


We appreciate your work, Qz, pang and company...

You're not directly increasing the strength of a FS, but you're decreasing the strength of cs's and all subsequent kill runs which is the same as boosting the power of the FS.

In fact if anything you'll likely end up decreasing the strength of the cs/all subsequent kill runs on the side fs'd to a slightly greater extent than the side fs'ing since the side fs'ing will have prepared to war and likely ran higher military levels as an average.



#1 The number of defending units does already matter, the more defensive units you have, the more offensive units are required to break you, the more units it takes to break you the more units are needed to keep readiness loss low, high readiness loss = less attacks. The system works, if you want to tweek it, go ahead, but the instrument to do so is in readiness loss.


#2 of that is already in place in that it takes less turns to kill someone when you break outright, leeming runs take more turns. There is a pretty obvious fix for the strength of leeming runs which is to fix the losses on failed hits to match the levels they were in e2025, or at least a level that isnt as ridiculous as it is now.

Im not at all opposed to change, I invite change, but seriously the idea is fine, but the method you propose of implementing it is going to unbalance the server to an even greater extent than it already is unbalanced.

Highly disagree with readiness loss. Find another way, readiness is bad now. If the attack again speed change goes through it will be a chore to make hits as you wait 3 seconds or lose pretty substantial readiness.

Then you want to nerf readiness more to lessen the power of an FS.

I think at that point we can all just play sim country.

readiness used to be 2% a turn, theres a reason FS's became much more of an issue when it went to 3%

number of turns is the biggest problem, imo.

I support 80(80) and have brought it up every round since the game started. that was a good amount.

120(120) is far, far, far too many turns. 120(80) was too many on EC, 120(120) is probably the biggest FS unbalancing factor in the game, IMO.

If we're going to do 120(120) it should be on a server with no special attacks and/or no 1-turn-attack governments.

or we just turn up the number of turns required for an attack so it matches the same relative rate. i.e., 3 turns as default, 2 for tyr, 4 for demo. that would nerf tyr a bit, though.

How about making it such that the closer you are to a countries actual break, the more you can take from them or destroy.

In the case of grabs, if a countries break is 1,000,000 defensive points and and you send 999,999 or a percentage lower that 1,000,000 you fail the grab. If you send exactly 1,000,000 you get max gains, and for each additional unit oversent you get increasingly lower gains. So if you blind hit a country with a 1,000,000 break and sent 2,000,000 offensive points, you get very small gains. This will basically work like the NW matching works but with military.

In the case of special attacks, spamming the attack again will therefore make you take a lot more turns. You could probably skirt this by having 50 pages open with consecutively reduced "sends" but with multiple countries doing the hits your calculations won't be exact.

What's holding it at 120(120)? Wasn't 80(80) used in e2025?

I don't recall back then FSes being as devastating as now.

I don't see what's wrong with 80(80) except for now you have to login more regularly.

Its more fun to have more turns though :)

And increasing readiness lost from attacks would have the same effect in terms of number of attacks as reducing turns would.

if you want to leave it 120(120) or raise it even more yet weaken FS why not make additional attacks in 22 hours cost extra attacks

then cap the free attacks at whatever you like

would be interesting to have only 234% readiness regain-able per day, 22 hour rolling or 24 rolling or 24 fixed, or have you get back 3% a turn, heck make it 216% and force people to do something else with login/bonus turns

(when i say get back here i mean get the opportunity to regain it when you run a turn, not actually regain readiness simply through time)

would create an interesting demo effect on readiness

but yes the 2% to 3% readiness was 50% extra, the 54 a day to 78 a day was 44% extra so that's pretty close

but turns also changed from something like 75(47) to 80(80) and then 120(120) maybe 120(80) in between as well

either way first strikes became way too much of a decisive factor to allow many wars to be even

also wars used to equalise at 3:1 networth ratio because killing down took way more turns, and killing up was always max % killed, same as hitting up was always max % grabbed, but i think that had an extra bracket at 140% and killing didn't

Hmm, There's a question on FFAT, Will this be implemented there?

Yes, hence ALL servers.

It's not more fun to literally have to grind to spend your turns attacking during war.

I would much rather have less turn storage than having to grind my life away to do war hits. It's not less turns it's just giving up some storage of them.

Pretty soon readiness loss will be jacked up to the point every three attacks you have to spend several dozen turns to hit again.

Readiness loss is already grueling, why make it more so.

It's really not that gruelling heh; you'd just change how you attacked a bit; and maybe think about spying more?

yuuuuuuuup.

idk.

sounds like an interesting change. can't wait to see how it works.
Despite all the immediate naysayers in here, I hope it works well over the course of a long war.

That would be fine except for the current SpyDR is ridiculous and any change that would request more pressure on spying is just counter-productive to the current mechanics.

You could create a stronger version of the special attacks that require more turns.

For example, a 4-turn BR would have more power (breaking power and damage dealt) than a normal 2-turn BR.

This means a designated "breaker" could carry lower military/oil but would burn through turns faster and have to plan accordingly. It might also increase flexibility in who could be a breaker as someone could switch between being a normal 2-turn hitter and a 4-turn breaker, for example.

good work qz!

Great idea.

This would have to weighed in such a way that it did not affect smaller tags out of proportion to larger tags. This could make it nearly impossible to kill a walling suicider on the team server.

sounds like fun

Earth 2025 used to be less than 80(80) at one point, resets were 3 months (I think) and turns took longer to accumulate.

FFA was 3 months on its last incarnation, others were ~1 month to ~2 months based on wayback machine (although it refuses to open Solarias or Eesites Earth-pages).

Also FFA had 1 turn every 40/50 mins while others were 20/30 mins per turn

Alliance was 80(80) and 40 minute turns for quite a while; with reset lengths >2 mo but < 3 mo; probably about 2.5 mo i'd say

I have forgotten Solaria and Echelon times and wayback refuses to show those pages.

This really makes it hard for people to fight back in solo servers.

In Tournament I farmed a guy, and he worked hard and got a bunch of tanks and came at me. He probably had 100 turns, and he did 26 ABs along with 20 missiles, and it took me all of ten turns to rebuild...

In Express this set I was on the other end of it, and wanted to take down a guy who RORed on me. Even though I had over 200 turns, jeez, it's really not that effective anymore if the person has a base of tanks.

He had 165k tanks, and because I wanted to kill a lot of buildings, you know, I started off sending 300k tanks and even tried 400k tanks. I was taking huge losses and still only killing ~70 buildings. The losses were too high (losing about 15x more than I killed) so I lowered the amount I was sending and started taking out ~60 buildings. It took about 60 ABs before his tanks were worn out and I started really wrecking his fluff and finally getting 100+ buildings per hit.

So, since it was Express, I still managed to do a decent job creating a parking lot, but I can't really imagine being able to get good results on Primary where you can only have 80 turns. It seems this change is designed for the coordinated attacks with breakers and etc. on Alliance, but may unintentionally nerf the effectiveness of the attack as a whole in solo servers.

1. You didn't need to send that much to break him with the ABes.
2. I totally agree that it somewhat nerfs the effectiveness to do much on a none Express solo server. However, I must say that warfare tech will be a premium if people get any smarts. I find that missiles do such a lovely job :-)

I didn't need to send that much to break him, but was oversending to take out more buildings. It turns out that's not practical unless they have next to no tanks, so I adjusted quickly.

Instead though, you have to send out just enough to break, which means you just gotta suck it up and do weak damages until all their tanks are worn down. That can take a LOT of turns. Enough to make it so ABs really aren't that deadly anymore.

I'm not sure over sending get you more bang for our buck is what I meant to say. I don't war much so I'll let someone with war experience pitch in.

This is not unintentional; that's the idea.

Oh, you wanted to weaken AB on solo server? Why? I feel that farming people hard is now much more risk free.

I'm ABing a guy with 4k tanks and I'm sending 50k tanks and I only get 30 buildings per hit... how is damage calculated? these attacks actually feel almost pointless.

do more hits and they go up

ok, ill keep trying... but as a solo player i only have so many turns to work with

right;

the point was that you shouldn't be able to cripple somebody with merely half a dozen or a dozen hits