Sgtsammac
Ruler of the United Kingdom
Admin Acc
Posts: 3,288
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 5:34:35 GMT
Post by Sgtsammac on Apr 25, 2012 5:34:35 GMT
Well I knew it'd be an issue at some point, and I'm pretty sure France proved it was. I understand people like massively huge armies, but when the sky is blotted out because there's too many jets in it, there's a problem with the game mechanics.
And I like higher prices atm anyway because it's makes each vehicle feel more important. You're not just tossing them into a fight, you're judging how much you're willing to spend on a single fight.
So, from my standpoint, I'd like to keep these prices here, AND find a way for fluidic unit caps to work. Even if they were only per battle.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 6:11:40 GMT
Post by IcyNudibranch on Apr 25, 2012 6:11:40 GMT
That could work rather well. Just have a maximum number of units that you can use in a battle space.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 13:08:29 GMT
Post by number4 on Apr 25, 2012 13:08:29 GMT
I can come up with an idea for the limits.
Also: Ammunition. We going to implement it?
|
|
shark
Battle Mod
You can't always do what's right. You can always do what's left.
Posts: 1,167
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 13:12:43 GMT
Post by shark on Apr 25, 2012 13:12:43 GMT
I'm still not a fan of unit caps, I tend to think that if you want to spend and risk a whole bunch of money, you should be allowed to do that.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 14:15:56 GMT
Post by number4 on Apr 25, 2012 14:15:56 GMT
Hm...
Per Battle caps, in my own opinion, are below. Up to 100% of the original force in reinforcements is able to be implemented per battle.
Navy (Note: "Super" ships take up the spot of 2 regular ships; E.g. 1 Supercarrier = 2 Regular carriers): 2 Carriers 3 Battleships 12 Submarines 12 Cruisers 18 Destroyers 20 Frigates 50 Small naval craft
Army: 7500 Standard rifles 2000 Marksmen rifles 1000 CQB rifles 500 AM rifles 2000 LMGs 2000 HMGs 500 Man-portable mortars
Armoured: 1000 Jeeps 500 Heavy jeeps 500 APCs/AA guns 300 SAM's 750 Light tanks 300 MBTs (Heavy and Medium combined) 250 Missile tanks "Tank hunters" 200 AT guns 200 Artillery guns
Airforce (Note: Seaplanes are to be mixed in with regular units): 150 Scouts 100 Light fighters 70 Heavy fighters 50 Groundattack fighters "Light bombers" 20 Dedicated bombers 2 Airships 10 Ground effect vehicles "WiGs" 20 Micro UAVs 10 Dedicated UAVs
Helicopters: 100 Scouts 50 Light helicopters 40 Medium helicopters 20 Heavy helicopters 10 Transport choppers 10 Tilt-rotors 20 Light gunships 10 Medium gunships 4 Heavy gunships
Suggestions?
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 14:43:33 GMT
Post by IcyNudibranch on Apr 25, 2012 14:43:33 GMT
Ships definitely looks good, but I'm not so sure about the rest. People have much bigger armies. It really depends on how big the battle area is and what the scale of these battles are. Are they small skirmishes between battalions and regiments (about 1000-5000 soldiers) or huge battles between divisions (about 10000-20000 soldiers)?
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 14:46:52 GMT
Post by number4 on Apr 25, 2012 14:46:52 GMT
I was thinking along the lines of medium-sized battles, but the troop count can be upped.
EDIT: Upped the Army and Armoured a touch.
|
|
skull132
Not a Noob
Shah of the Israeli Hierarchy
Shah Ananiah Levi
Posts: 158
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 14:50:27 GMT
Post by skull132 on Apr 25, 2012 14:50:27 GMT
I am opposed to the system that Ember suggested.
In real life, the amount of troops that you can deploy is dependant on your army's logistical capabilities. So why not have some kind of a research tree which would allow you to field more the troops in certain situations the more you progress through the tree?
However, I see two problems with this system: it needs to be scalable and countries that have pumped ENORMOUS amounts of money into the economy (basically a broken economy system) would still be able to acquire those techs easily.
If done right though, it would enable us to still have large battles, but make their size more realistic, and less "AMYGODIAMHURLINGMYEVERYTHINGATYOU!"
Any ideas?
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 15:09:38 GMT
Post by number4 on Apr 25, 2012 15:09:38 GMT
Sure, Skull. A quarter of my military against a quarter of yours. Point proven, this is why I want FAIR battles.
In any case; I'm going to leave it at that, and move on. My next point: Ammunition. I feel kind of odd posting attack wave after attack wave without taking ammunition into consideration. Planes only carry so many bombs; tanks only carry so many shells.
|
|
skull132
Not a Noob
Shah of the Israeli Hierarchy
Shah Ananiah Levi
Posts: 158
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 15:28:48 GMT
Post by skull132 on Apr 25, 2012 15:28:48 GMT
Ember, that's what I meant under the scaling problem.
Also, a logistic system would technically also take ammunition into consideration. Whether or not the RPers want to have their planes go on infinite bombing runs or not, is up to them and the battlemod.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 16:10:01 GMT
Post by asrodrig on Apr 25, 2012 16:10:01 GMT
Also: Ammunition. We going to implement it? Let's not.
|
|
shark
Battle Mod
You can't always do what's right. You can always do what's left.
Posts: 1,167
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 16:48:09 GMT
Post by shark on Apr 25, 2012 16:48:09 GMT
ammunition limitations could bring in an interesting interdiction element to our battles, maybe make interceptors more important.
I am REALLY opposed to limits if we are specifying how much of each unit we are allowed. Since a bunch of us are multimillionaires, that means that we just fill in the template, which puts a battle up to the battlemod. If we are dead set on unit limits, how about if we put it in a broad $ value, that way the attacking and defending parties can choose what proportions best fit their strategy and armies.
Another problem comes with the specific limit is special units, some nations have units that don't match up with the price list but have been ok'd by mods.
Overall I'm sad to see the potential for asymmetrical warfare go out the window.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 16:50:01 GMT
Post by ProkAdama on Apr 25, 2012 16:50:01 GMT
I vote no for ammo limitation. Makes it too confusing.
|
|
sgtsammac
Ruler of the United Kingdom
Death to the kingdoms enemies.
Posts: 2,988
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 17:03:21 GMT
Post by sgtsammac on Apr 25, 2012 17:03:21 GMT
I vote no for ammo limitation. Makes it too confusing. I sorta agree with prok, However maybe impose limitations on heavier things, e.g. SLBM's and ICBM's ?
|
|
AgentFawkes
Leader of the DPR
Operative Anton Kyznetsov
Posts: 1,057
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 17:32:13 GMT
Post by AgentFawkes on Apr 25, 2012 17:32:13 GMT
I vote no for ammo limitation. Makes it too confusing. I sorta agree with prok, However maybe impose limitations on heavier things, e.g. SLBM's and ICBM's ? TBH, I thought it was a given that large missile launchers only fired a single time.
|
|
Sgtsammac
Ruler of the United Kingdom
Admin Acc
Posts: 3,288
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 21:11:44 GMT
Post by Sgtsammac on Apr 25, 2012 21:11:44 GMT
Ok, logistics based caps on a per battle basis. Every battle you pay x amount y number of times in order to raise your cap y times. The fact that it's per battle puts more of a strain on those trying to push it compared to a set cap boost. It could also be broken down into boosting the cap to Air, Land, or Sea units, further increasing the cost to do it to everything across the board, every battle. Making the usage of this ability more strategic and less "well duh".
Also what if unit prices increased on a scale of how many you already own? That would also take logistics into account.
I do agree that Ember's given caps are far too specific. I was thinking at most, limiting the number of troops, the number of ground vehicles, air vehicles, and sea vehicles. Or the cost value of each grouping.
For ammunition, I'm not sure we should include it just on a complexity reason. If this weren't text based I'd be all for it, increased ammo cap would be a great upgrade. But it'd be really hard to keep track of without a program doing it for us. Extra big things like ICBMs and what not, you have to buy per missile anyway, which reminds me, there's no pricing on those, how do you people even have them o.0
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 21:17:14 GMT
Post by ProkAdama on Apr 25, 2012 21:17:14 GMT
Caps are bad, as Mr.10milcap will show soon. When everyone hits 10mil, well...
and when there's a battle cap, we'll have equal battles... too equal.
(Also, for the 10 mil cap. I have an idea. How about any territory over the original ten that are earning you 10 mil will earn you only 250k max? Maybe less, up to you. For me my sea territories are just rotting.)
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 21:27:14 GMT
Post by number4 on Apr 25, 2012 21:27:14 GMT
Alright, fine, I give, the set unit caps are a bad idea.
Moving on.
Prok, that's the thing, if it's not equal someone is going to win every time, and that someone is the person who has the highest income (IE you.)
I have a better idea for the 10 mil cap. Next reset...
Lower it, but keep the unit prices the same. This lends value to the decreased cost, and it gives each unit more value. Yeah, it'll lower the size of the armies, but we won't have multiple ultra-hectic battles breaking out in the course of hours, we'll be spending time planning our assaults; thinking of ways we can defend ourselves if we are randomly attacked. Seriously though, I'm just as guilty of this, but most of us can build a sizable military in the span of 24 hours when it takes most nations years, hell, decades. I'm not saying make it ultra low, but maybe removing a digit from the income caps would be beneficial, that way we can still afford to arm ourselves but we aren't causing uber-inflation.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 21:40:08 GMT
Post by ProkAdama on Apr 25, 2012 21:40:08 GMT
NO.
NO MORE RESETS. I've built my economy the first time, was the richest, lost it, rebuilt it. Now I'm rich again.
LOWER the income cap? Are you * kidding me? That's exactly what we don't want. Don't you forget about the future, when we mine asteroids, go to other planets; we'll prob have to buy spacers too.
|
|
Sgtsammac
Ruler of the United Kingdom
Admin Acc
Posts: 3,288
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 22:04:20 GMT
Post by Sgtsammac on Apr 25, 2012 22:04:20 GMT
What about, initially lowering the cap, and then adding logistics to incrementally raise the cap? And Prok, bare in mind, you rebuilt your income from still having the countries you used to have. In a true reset that included territories, you probably wouldn't be where you are now. And I was going to make the first reset a total game reset, but chose not to because I was afraid you'd rage quit. Someone has to demonstrate how to properly break the income system of the game, and you're good at it.
And I've never seen games that have fluid battle caps that suffer from games being too equal. I've seen games with no battle cap that turn into blob warfare and is absolutely no fun because it's just "I throw my blob at your blob and whoever has the bigger blob wins". I'm desperately trying to avoid blob warfare and you're very good at getting around my attempts lol
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 22:16:20 GMT
Post by ProkAdama on Apr 25, 2012 22:16:20 GMT
But, have you noticed that Sam has enough territory to max out 10 mil? Shark already has.
I got those countries from somewhere...didn't I...
Blob warfare is quite fun as my blob will always kill your blob.
|
|
Sgtsammac
Ruler of the United Kingdom
Admin Acc
Posts: 3,288
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 22:21:52 GMT
Post by Sgtsammac on Apr 25, 2012 22:21:52 GMT
You got them from buying them with your op wallet before the income cap. And I've said several times that the caps will be raised, it not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and how. I know perfectly well that by endgame we can't be running around star systems on a 10mil budget.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 22:23:59 GMT
Post by ProkAdama on Apr 25, 2012 22:23:59 GMT
For 20k each? They were extremely cheap and still are.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 22:45:06 GMT
Post by number4 on Apr 25, 2012 22:45:06 GMT
Seriously for the moment though, I suggest we either reset and lower income cap (even if total reset IE territories too) FOR THE MOMENT (because a 10mil a day budget is overkill 9000 in our current timeframe), and raise it every fifty or so years, OR we up the prices again on everything and let it slowly lose value. Seriously, Prok, we can't keep playing the game like we have. I am willing to eliminate most of my income for the greater good of the game. As such, I am willing to reduce my daily income to 500k daily (as opposed to 4m), completely decommission my entire military with no recompense, empty out my wallet, and start over, and I'm the one who started the daily epic economy dumps with no other expenditures. I can accept upgrading the budget caps as we go on, or even some sort of inflation effect that lowers the value of each unit, but we can't continue with our blob warfare, as Malachi called it. There's no thought in it. As far as I know, the entire purpose of this game was STRATEGY, not posting once a day and saying that you have enough troops to swarm your opponents regardless of how well planned they are.
EDIT: Hell, I'll throw my extra territories in as well.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 22:55:57 GMT
Post by ProkAdama on Apr 25, 2012 22:55:57 GMT
Not if the enemy is equally as rich as you.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 23:03:57 GMT
Post by ProkAdama on Apr 25, 2012 23:03:57 GMT
YOU WENT FOR IT?!
Now Mal is going to force us to do it too.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 23:07:26 GMT
Post by number4 on Apr 25, 2012 23:07:26 GMT
Noone's forcing you to do anything. I felt like I had become too big too fast, so I did a personal reset; I don't care if you do or not.
|
|
shark
Battle Mod
You can't always do what's right. You can always do what's left.
Posts: 1,167
|
Prices
Apr 25, 2012 23:30:26 GMT
Post by shark on Apr 25, 2012 23:30:26 GMT
I think that the problem with incomes was/is the exponential growth. Once you make it over 100,000 per day, it's trivial to max out your income because you get more and more money for the same price.
As somebody who recently climbed to the top, and after fighting it out for the territory, I'm naturally adverse to another reset.
|
|
|
Prices
Apr 26, 2012 1:43:55 GMT
Post by IcyNudibranch on Apr 26, 2012 1:43:55 GMT
Same here. And to Ember: Go read my battle with Malachi and Sam. It was not two blobs of armies smacking into each other; there were coordinated defenses, maneuvers, etc.
|
|
Sgtsammac
Ruler of the United Kingdom
Admin Acc
Posts: 3,288
|
Prices
Apr 26, 2012 1:47:54 GMT
Post by Sgtsammac on Apr 26, 2012 1:47:54 GMT
I think Shark should be the one to decide how blobby that fight was. I felt it was blobby.
|
|