Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Expendable Generals, Consumable XP: Input Requested By Admin


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 Instr

Instr

    User Requested Ban

  • Banned - Appeal Denied
  • PipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Nation Name:Grahf
  • Alliance Name:Ryan R PZI Committee
  • CN:TE Nation Name:A faint purple light
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Les Fleurs du Mal

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:11 AM

Under the present system, and all projected future systems it seems as though it's likely that players will end up getting far more XP than they could possibly use. One way to deal with this would be to make purchase of generals consume XP, while enabling the assassination of generals through a spy op. This means that, especially under conditions of prolonged warfare, nations would have to economize on the usage of generals; much like small nations currently do with regards to warchest.

I would suggest that there be three tiers of generals:


The first is the training tier; the rate at which normal generals can be expended is such that most people simply choose not to bother with assassinate generals spy ops.

The second is the boost tier; if you use them constantly and the opponent constantly spies them, you will surely run through your XP over time.

The third are the uber tier; who grant significant military or economic bonuses, and whose loss would be extremely difficult to replace due to their extremely high cost.

Players should also gain the ability to terminate their generals to recover half the XP expended on buying the general in the first place; this would allow some players to save their uber econ generals if they want to swap generals for military efficiency.



#2 admin

admin

    Game Admin/Owner

  • Admin
  • 5,750 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Nation
  • Alliance Name:CN Staff

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:45 AM

I like this suggestion a lot. Not so crazy about the different tiers but everything else is simple and doable. Given this, what would you suggest the XP costs and salary of generals be in SE? I'm thinking quite a bit lower than what's being suggested in the other thread given that hiring a general would cost XP points, and they could be assassinated.



#3 admin

admin

    Game Admin/Owner

  • Admin
  • 5,750 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Nation
  • Alliance Name:CN Staff

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:50 PM

For EEjack and anyone else, this thread is for suggestions on modifying generals, as they currently appear in TE, in order to suit SE. If you don't know what generals are, or if you have a suggestion for something far beyond the concept of generals, then do not post in this thread.



#4 JoshuaR

JoshuaR

    Philosopher King

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts
  • Nation Name:Chana
  • Alliance Name:Umbrella

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:10 PM

To me it would be like Shogun: Total War, in that the general gains experience in each battle, but in every defeat has some percentage chance of getting killed.

 

If generals grant solely military bonuses, then a nation could choose whether to use a general in any particular battle (or for simplicity sake, you might even choose whether to use the general in any particular declared war or not). They would be deciding between gaining the military bonuses for their battles and also gaining XP for the general versus losing a general entirely in battle. If one determined that these generals were tied to a declared war, then you could also face the decision of having to choose to send your Air Force commander to one war and your army general to another, rather than have the ability to use both generals in both declared wars.

 

So if, say, there is a 1% chance of losing a general in each battle that you lose, one could give a rough estimate that for every seven day war, if you lose 50% of the time, then you will, on average, see your general die after about 12-13 declared wars.



#5 Hereno

Hereno

    For Services Rendered

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,346 posts
  • Nation Name:Lancashire
  • Alliance Name:NSO

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:41 AM

To me it would be like Shogun: Total War, in that the general gains experience in each battle, but in every defeat has some percentage chance of getting killed.

 

If generals grant solely military bonuses, then a nation could choose whether to use a general in any particular battle (or for simplicity sake, you might even choose whether to use the general in any particular declared war or not). They would be deciding between gaining the military bonuses for their battles and also gaining XP for the general versus losing a general entirely in battle. If one determined that these generals were tied to a declared war, then you could also face the decision of having to choose to send your Air Force commander to one war and your army general to another, rather than have the ability to use both generals in both declared wars.

 

So if, say, there is a 1% chance of losing a general in each battle that you lose, one could give a rough estimate that for every seven day war, if you lose 50% of the time, then you will, on average, see your general die after about 12-13 declared wars.

 

If this happens, tech level ought to impact the chance that a general is killed. For example: a general in medieval Japan is more likely to die than a US army general who might not even be in the same country as the war going on. But I think it would be easier to just give each general a % chance of retiring after any given war ends.



#6 kuive

kuive

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Nation Name:Demonweb
  • Alliance Name:Sovereign League of Armed Powers

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:35 AM

I'd suggest having both a consumable XP cost and keeping the XP minimum threshholds, so that for example, a general could require 48XP but cost 6XP. This blunts the losses somewhat if one gets assassinated, but still represents a chance to replace lost generals with less experienced ones.

 



#7 Forward

Forward

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Nation Name:Pristine Shores
  • Alliance Name:Argent
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Just Cause
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:The Flying Kiwis

Posted 27 June 2013 - 11:12 AM

In the event of consumable XP taking over, there needs to be a cap on total XP or another feature with similar effects so that people won't build up a basically infinite supply.

 

Also, I think the economic benefits should be dropped to happiness-only or something, to make generals less desirable as primarily a military asset and not a basic necessity to keep up economically.



#8 JoshuaR

JoshuaR

    Philosopher King

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts
  • Nation Name:Chana
  • Alliance Name:Umbrella

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:27 PM

Can someone explain to me what XP is? I assumed it was experience points gained by a general over time after fighting battles. How can one buy a general with XP? I was assuming that generals would be free or cost cash, and they'd become stronger through time by fighting, and eventually they might die and you would have to start over again with a random fresh general.



#9 Auctor

Auctor

    Gone Crabbin.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Nation Name:Wyrdgar
  • Alliance Name:sudoku
  • CN:TE Nation Name:By popular demand
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Auctormobiles

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:38 PM

you get 1 XP per attack you do and they're divided into four categories. You purchase the Generals for money but you gotta have the XP to be able to unlock them.



#10 Instr

Instr

    User Requested Ban

  • Banned - Appeal Denied
  • PipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Nation Name:Grahf
  • Alliance Name:Ryan R PZI Committee
  • CN:TE Nation Name:A faint purple light
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Les Fleurs du Mal

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:12 PM

delete; these projections are too poor in quality


Edited by Instr, 27 June 2013 - 10:28 PM.


#11 Instr

Instr

    User Requested Ban

  • Banned - Appeal Denied
  • PipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Nation Name:Grahf
  • Alliance Name:Ryan R PZI Committee
  • CN:TE Nation Name:A faint purple light
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Les Fleurs du Mal

Posted 29 June 2013 - 11:06 AM

The following is a proposal for generals max XP without making generals have a partial cost.

As far as XP goes for max generals:

TE: 15 days worth of war with 3 opponents

SE: 21 days worth of war with 3 opponents

 

Ground: 6 XP per day Air: 17 per day (including 1 nuke). Naval: 3 per day Spy: 4 per day (higher figure, since it can be quite feasible to build up spy levels without being at war; perhaps limit spy XP to spy attacks versus people you are at war with?

 

TE: Ground: 90, Air: 255, Naval: 45, Spy: 60

SE: Ground: 126, Air: 357, Naval: 63, Spy: 84

 

I'm not sure if the generals cost is too high or too low; if the opponent chooses to spy generals every day, instead of defcon or nukes, on average 1 general will die every day, and at 90 XP for ground (max generals) that's the loss of 90 XP per day. That may seem high, if you consider that that's about equivalent to 12 days worth of XP, but there's only a 25% chance to kill the general, as there are 4 generals to target, so it's only equivalent to 4 days when fully considered. It will probably also encourage drama as people will tend to get attached to their generals and become enraged when the generals get sniped off.

One other concern is that players will tend to terminate their generals quite often as they level up or switch from military to economic generals and vice versa, and the present generals costs are rather restrictive, since they're focused on making sure players don't get max generals early on. I originally suggested 50%, but with the higher generals termination cost, I think a 70% XP return on termination will encourage players to use lower level generals, instead of just saving up for higher level generals.



#12 Azaghul

Azaghul

    Baruk Khazd! Khazd ai-mnu!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Nation Name:Belegost
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Wienerville
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:TE Police

Posted 29 June 2013 - 03:10 PM

I definitely agree that generals should cost XP to purchase, and have the ability to regularly be killed.  As it's done in TE now, even if you increased the requirements, everyone would eventually max out on XP after a certain number of wars, and then be able to buy the best general for/in perpetuity.  Except for switching between an economic and military general for war/peace, it'd end up being a feature that's generally ignored after someone reached the cap.

 

If you just base it off of an XP cap, the choice to spy op kill would only be weighed against the cost for your opponent to rebuy the general.  The decision to kill generals would come down to trying to kill the opponents warchest and used like the destroy money op.  It would go unused if the destroy money op was more effective, and would just replace the destroy money op if killing generals was more effective.

 

A system where generals cost XP to buy and die (and have to be rebought) on a semi-regular basis would create a more fluid and active system, one that would be regularly used.  It'd also offer more opportunities for tweaking and balance.  If some generals prove to be too powerful and admin nerfs that general, rather than having to chose between allowing those who have that general to permanently keep the general or arbitrarily killing or nerfing a general someone has already purchased, the problem would eventually self correct as the overly powerful generals are killed in battle.

 

I also think that the benefits should primarily be military, rather than economic.  The economic benefits of maxing out generals are very high.  As it's applied in TE right now, generals are primarily a way to boost your economy, rather than your military.



#13 admin

admin

    Game Admin/Owner

  • Admin
  • 5,750 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Nation
  • Alliance Name:CN Staff

Posted 29 June 2013 - 03:10 PM

The following is a proposal for generals max XP without making generals have a partial cost.

As far as XP goes for max generals:

TE: 15 days worth of war with 3 opponents

SE: 21 days worth of war with 3 opponents

 

Ground: 6 XP per day Air: 17 per day (including 1 nuke). Naval: 3 per day Spy: 4 per day (higher figure, since it can be quite feasible to build up spy levels without being at war; perhaps limit spy XP to spy attacks versus people you are at war with?

 

TE: Ground: 90, Air: 255, Naval: 45, Spy: 60

SE: Ground: 126, Air: 357, Naval: 63, Spy: 84

 

I'm not sure if the generals cost is too high or too low; if the opponent chooses to spy generals every day, instead of defcon or nukes, on average 1 general will die every day, and at 90 XP for ground (max generals) that's the loss of 90 XP per day. That may seem high, if you consider that that's about equivalent to 12 days worth of XP, but there's only a 25% chance to kill the general, as there are 4 generals to target, so it's only equivalent to 4 days when fully considered. It will probably also encourage drama as people will tend to get attached to their generals and become enraged when the generals get sniped off.

One other concern is that players will tend to terminate their generals quite often as they level up or switch from military to economic generals and vice versa, and the present generals costs are rather restrictive, since they're focused on making sure players don't get max generals early on. I originally suggested 50%, but with the higher generals termination cost, I think a 70% XP return on termination will encourage players to use lower level generals, instead of just saving up for higher level generals.

Thanks for the post Instr, I was awaiting your input. Suggestions for hiring / salary costs in SE? Or should they stay the same as in TE.



#14 Azaghul

Azaghul

    Baruk Khazd! Khazd ai-mnu!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Nation Name:Belegost
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Wienerville
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:TE Police

Posted 29 June 2013 - 03:37 PM

The following is a proposal for generals max XP without making generals have a partial cost.

As far as XP goes for max generals:

TE: 15 days worth of war with 3 opponents

SE: 21 days worth of war with 3 opponents

 

Ground: 6 XP per day Air: 17 per day (including 1 nuke). Naval: 3 per day Spy: 4 per day (higher figure, since it can be quite feasible to build up spy levels without being at war; perhaps limit spy XP to spy attacks versus people you are at war with?

 

TE: Ground: 90, Air: 255, Naval: 45, Spy: 60

SE: Ground: 126, Air: 357, Naval: 63, Spy: 84

 

I'm not sure if the generals cost is too high or too low; if the opponent chooses to spy generals every day, instead of defcon or nukes, on average 1 general will die every day, and at 90 XP for ground (max generals) that's the loss of 90 XP per day. That may seem high, if you consider that that's about equivalent to 12 days worth of XP, but there's only a 25% chance to kill the general, as there are 4 generals to target, so it's only equivalent to 4 days when fully considered. It will probably also encourage drama as people will tend to get attached to their generals and become enraged when the generals get sniped off.

One other concern is that players will tend to terminate their generals quite often as they level up or switch from military to economic generals and vice versa, and the present generals costs are rather restrictive, since they're focused on making sure players don't get max generals early on. I originally suggested 50%, but with the higher generals termination cost, I think a 70% XP return on termination will encourage players to use lower level generals, instead of just saving up for higher level generals.

Something to keep in mind is if a "kill general" spy op would be a general one, or split into separate spy ops for different categories "kill army general", "kill air force general", etc.

 

If you can pick a specific general, than your 4 days would hold true.  If not, and the spy op kills a random general, the random nature of it would make it take longer.  For example, I kill my opponents high level army general on day 1.  He rebuys a cheap one.  On the 2nd day, I might kill one of the other 3, or I might kill the cheaper army one.  I only have a 25% chance (assuming 50% spy odds) of killing any specific general on any specific day.  4 successful spy ops only has a 9.375% of killing one general in each category.  You'd only have a 58% chance of killing any specific general in those 4 days.  It takes 8 successful spy ops to have a 90% chance of getting any one general.

 

 

I'd suggest some kind of exponential cost.  Maybe have a "general level" from 1-10?  The level of general in each category could easily be included in gather intel spy ops that way and be easy to track.  Each general's XP cost is their level squared.  Level 1 costs 1 XP, level 5 25 XP, level 10 100 XP.  Use a multiplier for different general types (like x3 for aircraft, for example).  Add an experience cap of 150*multiplier so people don't just accumulate insane amounts of experience in a long war if their generals aren't assassinated.  This would also add a definite cost to swapping generals between war and peace.  If you end a war with 150 XP, you don't have enough to buy both a level 10 for peace and a level 10 at the start of the next war.

 

The reason for exponential increases is to create a balance between constant spy ops making it impossible to do anything worthwhile generals, while still making it difficult and time consuming to get the best generals.  Going from level 1 to 5 should be much easier than going from 5 to 10.  It's also more likely to lead to players having to balance out different factors and costs to decide what to do.  It'll be more interesting if trying to assasinate generals is a "sometimes" option rather than a "never" or "always" option.


Edited by Azaghul, 29 June 2013 - 03:42 PM.


#15 Instr

Instr

    User Requested Ban

  • Banned - Appeal Denied
  • PipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Nation Name:Grahf
  • Alliance Name:Ryan R PZI Committee
  • CN:TE Nation Name:A faint purple light
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Les Fleurs du Mal

Posted 29 June 2013 - 06:01 PM

Azaghul; I'm busy, you can guess why, so I can't give you a full response, but one of the reasons for having TE generals provide higher economic bonuses is because many alliances, when they're flag running, prefer to dodge wars or just plain turtle when attacked. Economic bonuses mean that alliances that fight heavily, that go to war, are rewarded for fighting instead of just sitting in a corner and trying to make sure no one hits them.

I do agree that the military effects of generals should probably be increased to at least twice their current effects, however, and I share your concerns about the generals assassination spy op; I feel that my proposals are probably bad because I don't understand how generals assassination is likely going to work.



#16 Azaghul

Azaghul

    Baruk Khazd! Khazd ai-mnu!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Nation Name:Belegost
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Wienerville
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:TE Police

Posted 29 June 2013 - 08:52 PM

Azaghul; I'm busy, you can guess why, so I can't give you a full response, but one of the reasons for having TE generals provide higher economic bonuses is because many alliances, when they're flag running, prefer to dodge wars or just plain turtle when attacked. Economic bonuses mean that alliances that fight heavily, that go to war, are rewarded for fighting instead of just sitting in a corner and trying to make sure no one hits them.
.

This is a good point for TE.

 

TE is also different in that there's a set end to each round, so economic bonuses will only apply for so long.  In SE the economic benefit to a bonus to income can be permanent.  If something will take 4 months to pay for itself in SE, it is very worthwhile, but no in TE.

 

It's OK if the economic incentives are very large (20-25% collection bonus!) in TE, but not in SE.



#17 dev0win

dev0win

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 370 posts
  • Nation Name:infinity otriad
  • Alliance Name:NATO

Posted 30 June 2013 - 09:28 PM

I would like to suggest that the XP from cruise missiles be moved from Air Force to Navy.

 

1) Cruise Missiles are often launched from destroyers

 

2) There are currently 3 attack types adding to Air Force including nukes which would add over 5 points daily per nuke(seeing as failed attacks generate XP you can easily see someone racking up 70+ XP a day). I fear that the number of points being added to this general would be far greater than needed. Granted this seems to have been, in the meanwhile, remedied with huge costs for Air Force generals I am not sure this is productive.

 

3) Navy is under utilized as it is and making modifiers via generals that increase naval effectiveness could remedy the situation

 

 

Potential air points daily:

CM - 1XP x 2 launch X 6 opponents = 12

NM - 5XP x 6 opponents = 30 + (5XP x ??? Failed nukes)

Air Attack - 1XP x 2 launch x 6 opponents = 12

 

So we are easily looking at 54 XP daily if all nukes land without thwarts unless I am missing rules somewhere. There was mention of a 21 day cap which would be 1134 XP and the top AF general is 490 XP.

 

 

Thanks for consideration



#18 Instr

Instr

    User Requested Ban

  • Banned - Appeal Denied
  • PipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Nation Name:Grahf
  • Alliance Name:Ryan R PZI Committee
  • CN:TE Nation Name:A faint purple light
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Les Fleurs du Mal

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:02 AM

I think one big topic was brought up in this post, but we haven't addressed it yet:

 

http://forums.cybern...n/#entry3143231

What are we going to do about XP gaming? Is XP gaming even going to be a problem; since, I see air force generals are going to cost at peak around 600 XP, so it might be too much trouble for players to bother to go through XP gaming their friends and allies, and since generals can be sniped easily with an assassinate general spy op it might not actually be worth the trouble.



#19 EEjack

EEjack

    viaduct? vhy not a goose?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • Nation Name:Third Base
  • Alliance Name:Old Guard

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:13 AM

I think one big topic was brought up in this post, but we haven't addressed it yet:

 

http://forums.cybern...n/#entry3143231

What are we going to do about XP gaming? Is XP gaming even going to be a problem; since, I see air force generals are going to cost at peak around 600 XP, so it might be too much trouble for players to bother to go through XP gaming their friends and allies, and since generals can be sniped easily with an assassinate general spy op it might not actually be worth the trouble.

 

Do nothing about XP gaming since it i cannot be proved - war games are a legitimate training tool which though seldom used, should not be restricted.



#20 lonewolfe2015

lonewolfe2015

    Tyr of Asgaard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,421 posts
  • Nation Name:Nosce Te Ipsum
  • Alliance Name:sgarr
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Manhattan Project

Posted 01 July 2013 - 07:12 AM

I would like to see the use of Generals help level the warfare field a little bit more. If you hold a General regularly, that is you don't purchase them after a declaration, you should be offered a defensive advantage compared to their offensive perks. So instead of 10% battle, make it 10% offense and 15% defense. There's a huge problem in TE with down declares and always has been, especially with this Generals system now making it even worse. Perhaps part of the advantage could be to make them survive defensive wars until the other nations bring you below 1% soldiers, nuke you or assassinate them. Fallout Shelters could then be useful and save your General from a nuke 75% of the time.

 

But with an addition to war needs to come some balancing somewhere, these things presently just make the powerful more powerful and the weak weaker.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users