Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Upcoming Improvement Additions II


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 admin

admin

    Game Admin/Owner

  • Admin
  • 5,721 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Nation
  • Alliance Name:CN Staff

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:19 AM

I've gathered up input from the other thread and have decided on defensive and offensive based improvements at this time. If you go the defensive route you can't go offensive unless you delete your defensive improvements and collect taxes. Please provide your feedback. They still need some balancing out, and if you can think of more that would be great.

 

Defensive Based Improvements:

  • Bunker: $200,000. Reduces infrastructure damage from aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes -3%. Requires maintaining a Barracks for each Bunker. Limit 5. Cannot build if Munitions Factory or Forward Operating Base is owned. Collection required to delete.
  • Border Fortifications: $125,000. Raises effectiveness of defending soldiers +2%. Reduces max deployment by 2%. Requires maintaining a Border Wall for each Border Fortification. Limit 3. Cannot own if Forward Operating base is owned. Collection required to delete.
  • Radiation Containment Chamber: $200,000 Lowers global radiation level that affects your nation by 20%. Requires maintaining Radiation Cleanup bonus resource to function. Requires maintaining a Bunker for each Radiation Containment Chamber. Limit 2. Collection required to delete.

Offensive Based Improvements

  • Forward Operating Base: $125,000. Increases ground attack damage 5%, Reduces effectiveness of one’s own defending soldiers -3%. Requires maintaining a Barracks for each Forward Operating Base. Limit 2. Cannot own if Border Fortifications or Bunker is owned. Collection required to delete.
  • Munitions Factory: $200,000. Increases enemy infrastructure damage from your aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes +3%. +0.3 penalty to environment per Munitions Factory. Requires maintaining 3 or more Factories. Requires having Lead as a resource to purchase. Limit 5. Cannot build if Bunkers owned. Collection required to delete.
  • Office of Propaganda: $200,000. Decreases the effectiveness of enemy defending soldiers 3%. Requires maintaining a Forward Operating Base for each Office of Propaganda. Limit 2. Collection required to delete.


#2 Caladin

Caladin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Nation Name:Kaitain
  • Alliance Name:New Pacific Order
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Caladin
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Ordo Paradoxia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:33 AM

Defensive Based Improvements:

  • Border Fortifications: $100,000. Raises effectiveness of defending soldiers +2%. Reduces max deployment by 2%. Lower population decrease from Border Walls 3%. Limit 3. Requires Border Wall. Cannot own if own Forward Operating base. Collection required to delete.
  • Bunker: $200,000. Reduces infra damage from aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes -3%. Limit 5. Cannot build if Munitions Factory owned. Collection required to delete.
  • Radiation Containment Chamber: $200,000 Lowers GLOBAL RADIATION by 5% per Containment chamber (5 max). Requires Radiation Cleanup bonus resource. Requires Bunker. Limit 1. Collection required to delete.

Border Forts - Would negate the negative aspects of Border Walls, making you purchase four of the things and saying sweet, more happiness and environment doesn't matter anymore.
I'd suggest removing the population modifier; their effects are useful enough without it.
RCC - Has a limit both of one and five

 

Offensive Based Improvements

  • Munitions Factory: $200,000. Increases enemy infra damage to aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes +3%. -1.5 stars to environment. Requires having 3 or more Factories. Requires having Lead as a resource. Cannot build if Bunkers owned. Limit 5. Collection required to delete.
  • Forward Operating Base: $125,000. Increases ground attack damage (1 + 0.005% per technology level)% up to 5%, Reduces effectiveness of one’s own defending soldiers -3%. Requires Barracks. Limit 2. Cannot own if owned Border Fortifications. Collection required to delete.
  • Propaganda Machine: $200,000. Decreases the effectiveness of enemy defending soldiers 5%. Requires Forward Operating Base. Limit 1. Collection required to delete.


Seems good :)

Edited by Caladin, 22 May 2014 - 06:38 AM.


#3 eviljak

eviljak

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Nation Name:Shadow Brethren
  • Alliance Name:Dark Templar

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:15 AM

Border Fortifications is perfect as is...however if it appears a bit op, make the population reduction decrease % 1.5, effectively allowing the now primarily defensive nation to have 2 borderwalls with no citizen reduction.

Edited by eviljak, 22 May 2014 - 09:19 AM.


#4 Caladin

Caladin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Nation Name:Kaitain
  • Alliance Name:New Pacific Order
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Caladin
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Ordo Paradoxia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:26 AM

Except that still is more border walls than most nations require, and it gives an extra four points happiness; any population increase will result in a decreased impact of environment on gameplay and additional happiness for any nation that can afford the six improvement slots.

Furthermore, it will mean that this otherwise military focused improvement set will give a significant economic boost should you choose defensive, which would cause every nation to do so during peace time which would probably also cause most nations to end up using it during wartime rather than deciding between offensive and defensive.

No, I believe that it should give no effect to citizen count.

Edited by Caladin, 22 May 2014 - 09:29 AM.


#5 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Pancakes!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 951 posts
  • Nation Name:Blues Paradise

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:43 AM

Most people are going to sit on their defensive ones during peace time. Especially if they bring economic benefits as well. There isn't really a decision to make as the upkeep on improvements is generally negligible. Switching out before a war isn't too tricky either, especially as most people collect taxes before attacking already.

 

When going to war, it seems like the aggressor is going to have to switch out for offensive improvements beforehand in order to counter the defensive improvements of their target. Both nations sitting on defensive ones will make it more of a stalemate. So the added cost of switching out is going to make war even less profitable for the aggressive nation. I'm not sure discouraging war is necessarily a good thing as it seems to be the most interesting part of the game (nothing like a good war to get people active again). And it is already a fairly high-risk endeavour.

 

One big issue with powerful military improvements like this is that when a large nation sheds it's NS in war, it ends up being in the range of smaller, less well equipped nations who end up taking a beating. It is already common for high tech nuclear nations to burn their infra in the first couple of rounds of war, only to find themselves in the range of much smaller, less well prepared nations. Adding more improvements will give even more advantage to the larger nations who have the required improvement slots.

 

One way to mitigate this would be to make these defenses destroyable in war in some way. Maybe a new naval attack could be used to target military improvements?



#6 Caladin

Caladin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Nation Name:Kaitain
  • Alliance Name:New Pacific Order
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Caladin
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Ordo Paradoxia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:51 AM

Most people are going to sit on their defensive ones during peace time. Especially if they bring economic benefits as well. There isn't really a decision to make as the upkeep on improvements is generally negligible. Switching out before a war isn't too tricky either, especially as most people collect taxes before attacking already.
 
When going to war, it seems like the aggressor is going to have to switch out for offensive improvements beforehand in order to counter the defensive improvements of their target. Both nations sitting on defensive ones will make it more of a stalemate. So the added cost of switching out is going to make war even less profitable for the aggressive nation. I'm not sure discouraging war is necessarily a good thing as it seems to be the most interesting part of the game (nothing like a good war to get people active again). And it is already a fairly high-risk endeavour.
 
One big issue with powerful military improvements like this is that when a large nation sheds it's NS in war, it ends up being in the range of smaller, less well equipped nations who end up taking a beating. It is already common for high tech nuclear nations to burn their infra in the first couple of rounds of war, only to find themselves in the range of much smaller, less well prepared nations. Adding more improvements will give even more advantage to the larger nations who have the required improvement slots.
 
One way to mitigate this would be to make these defenses destroyable in war in some way. Maybe a new naval attack could be used to target military improvements?


I don't see an issue with the cost of switching around; its minor enough that it will only be noticeable in the lowest tiers, and they won't have the improvement slots for it anyway.

As for the larger nations beating up smaller nations with them - I don't think it would work that way. Most nations will be able to, abet at the expense of economic improvements, purchase every military improvement and as that raises the military ability of all nations equally the percentage difference between a fallen mega nation will all relevant wonders and a lower middle tier nations without the relevant wonders will be decreased, therefore giving the weaker nation a better chance against the stronger nation, even if it remains a low chance.

#7 eviljak

eviljak

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Nation Name:Shadow Brethren
  • Alliance Name:Dark Templar

Posted 22 May 2014 - 11:15 AM

I disagree...u could couple one defensive BF with one offensive MF and retain them indefinitely....the BF would cancel the MF enviro reduction and a nation like mine could keep these two permanently and forego the other improvements. ...there by creating a tactical choice. Why does it have to be all defense or all offense?....these improvements created exactly the way they are will allow
a nation to ride the fence so to speak if that is their choice and give up the other improvements.

Edited by eviljak, 22 May 2014 - 11:22 AM.


#8 Caladin

Caladin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Nation Name:Kaitain
  • Alliance Name:New Pacific Order
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Caladin
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Ordo Paradoxia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 11:26 AM

Not quite; maintaining the 3% modifier would only allow you to offset four (and a half, but w/e) enviroment points, while the munitions plants would cause 7.5 points of damage.
Regardless, I don't believe that that presents a valid reason to keep the population bonus, for the points outlined above.

As a side note, you still get to make the strategic choice of mixing defensive and offensive; however, you would take penalties for this confused doctrine, as seems reasonable.
(I use strategic to refer to what you referred to as tactically, for calling it a strategic choice is more accurate than calling it a tactical choice)

Edited by Caladin, 22 May 2014 - 11:41 AM.


#9 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 22 May 2014 - 11:38 AM

Thank you for making them exclusive and less prone to swapping!

 

I think the numbers are good, except that the 3% reduction in the border walls seems a bit high...



#10 Hereno

Hereno

    For Services Rendered

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,016 posts
  • Nation Name:Lancashire
  • Alliance Name:NSO

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:14 PM

FOB is objectively not as good as the Bunkers. Change it to something like "drone technology program" and give nukes 2-10% (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 based on 1-5 improvements) more likelihood to hit when up against an SDI. That would kick ass, and is on par with the Barracks in terms of usefulness.

Other than that though I thought they were a huge improvement (pun intended) over the last batch.

Edited by Hereno, 22 May 2014 - 12:14 PM.


#11 admin

admin

    Game Admin/Owner

  • Admin
  • 5,721 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Nation
  • Alliance Name:CN Staff

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:32 PM

I've updated the OP per the feedback thus far.



#12 Lord Hershey

Lord Hershey

    The Messenger

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 478 posts
  • Nation Name:Lord Hershey
  • Alliance Name:Doom Squad

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:36 PM

Defensive Based Improvements:[list]
[*]Border Fortifications: $125,000. Raises effectiveness of defending soldiers +2%. Reduces max deployment by 2%. Lower population decrease from Border Walls 3%. Limit 3. Requires Border Wall. Cannot own if own Forward Operating base. Collection required to delete.

I'm not sure about this, are you saying that I need three border walls to have three border fortications? Or just one border wall to unlock the ability to buy three border fortications?

If the latter is the case then I'm okay with this because I would imagine that this would increase the defending soldier efficiency by 6% total while the border wall negates that by reducing the population by 3%. Though, personally, I think the population reduction from border fortications should be removed since the reduction in deployment is an appropriate way (just enough) to equally counteract the increased defending soldiers' efficiency.

Edit: Whoops, didn't see your recent post, admin! My bad.

Edited by Lord Hershey, 22 May 2014 - 12:38 PM.


#13 CubaQuerida

CubaQuerida

    Angel of Death

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Nation Name:ThePromisedLand
  • Alliance Name:DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Methax War Dodger
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Misfits

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:48 PM

Border walls already only reduce pop by 2% and they improve the environment. The adverse effect here is it would allow the nations that for some reason need 4-5 border walls for a max collect a really nice advantage. I currently collect with 0-1 BWs.

More importantly since all of these ideas are centered around war and infra damage, the focus should be on their effect during wartime. The peacetime economic benefit should probably be minimal.

If you want to really give the defensive-minded nation advantage, allow more of his/her military to survive nuclear blasts, perhaps even a way to ignore nuclear anarchy penalties altogether if you go completely defensive. Obviously this could be countered by a nation that goes completely offensive, but looking at these improvements as they stand now I would go completely offensive, as very little in the defense category appeals to my personal play style.

Individual suggestions:


Defensive Based Improvements:

  • Border Fortifications: $125,000. Raises effectiveness of defending soldiers +5%. Reduces max deployment by 5%. Lower population decrease from Border Walls 1%. Limit 1 per Border Wall. Cannot own if own Forward Operating base. Collection required to delete.
  • Bunker: $200,000. Reduces infra damage from aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes -3%. Limit 1 per Missile Defense. Cannot build if Munitions Factory owned. Collection required to delete.

  • Radiation Containment Chamber: $200,000 Lowers global radiation level that affects your nation by 20%. Requires Bunker. Limit 2. Collection required to delete.

Offensive Based Improvements


  • Munitions Factory: $200,000. Increases infra damage for aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes +3%. Cannot build if Bunkers owned. Limit 1 per Satellite. Collection required to delete.
  • Forward Operating Base: $125,000. Increases ground attack damage by 3%, Reduces defending soldier efficiency by 2%. Limit 1 per Barracks. Cannot own if owned Border Fortifications. Collection required to delete.
  • Office of Propaganda: $200,000. Increases the spoils of victory during successful ground attacks by 5%. Requires Forward Operating Base. Limit 2. Collection required to delete.

Edited by CubaQuerida, 22 May 2014 - 01:48 PM.


#14 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:25 PM

 

Offensive Based Improvements

  • Munitions Factory: $200,000. Increases enemy infra damage to aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes +3%. -1.5 stars to environment. Requires having 3 or more Factories. Requires having Lead as a resource. Cannot build if Bunkers owned. Limit 5. Collection required to delete.

 

 

Should this say "Increases attacker's infra damage..."?



#15 Auctor

Auctor

    Gone Crabbin.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,746 posts
  • Nation Name:Wyrdgar
  • Alliance Name:sudoku
  • CN:TE Nation Name:By popular demand
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Auctormobiles

Posted 22 May 2014 - 03:22 PM

I actually prefer it to increase all damage. Not sure which one to tweak, but amplifying the damage tech takes in wars would be a positive thing given that we're able to stack it up twice as fast now.

#16 Darklink7748

Darklink7748

    XII King of Sparta

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Nation Name:Midgard
  • Alliance Name:Sparta

Posted 22 May 2014 - 04:23 PM

I'm much more keen on seeing something that increases damage done to tech rather than infrastructure. Infrastructure already sheds incredibly fast at a moderate tech level, so I see no need to amplify that damage. If the offensive one is changed to amping damage done to tech, I would see it being equally desirable as the bunker, whereas right now I'd argue the bunker beats out the munitions factory. Though I guess you could argue it'd be unfair that one would not be able to mitigate its damage, I see no issues with it due to the doubling of aid limits not too long ago.

 

What are your thoughts on coupling the bunker with the FSS? The suggestion Stewie brought up in the last thread seemed like an excellent idea to make the FSS more than just a niche wonder or a noob trap. You could honestly tie the munitions factory into the WRC as well, which would create an interesting dynamic on which improvement set to build depending on what your war front is looking like.

 

I haven't a clue on what the hard numbers should be for balance sake, but I think the above concepts are sound. Please let me know what your thoughts are on these suggestions.



#17 Gopherbashi

Gopherbashi

    Sanction Race Updater

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,468 posts
  • Nation Name:Crisconia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:25 PM

I likey



#18 Azaghul

Azaghul

    Baruk Khazd! Khazd ai-mnu!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,173 posts
  • Nation Name:Belegost
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Wienerville
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:TE Police

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:36 PM

First off, thanks for listening to player feedback in the other thread!  Having to choose between which group of improvements to buy will make gameplay more dynamic.

 

These improvements look pretty good.

 

I actually prefer it to increase all damage. Not sure which one to tweak, but amplifying the damage tech takes in wars would be a positive thing given that we're able to stack it up twice as fast now.

This.  Wars drag on for so long because tech and money take so long to destroy.  Most active fighters loose most their infra within 1-2 rounds and are just rebuying for the rest of their war.

 

Maybe this would involve too many choices, but maybe offer another choice in purchasing improvements that destroy more infra vs. ones that destroy more tech.

 

I'd love to see an improvement, or maybe a wonder, that did this:

- Changes the base damage of a nuclear weapon from 150 infra and 50 tech to 100 infra and 100 tech.


Edited by Azaghul, 22 May 2014 - 08:40 PM.


#19 ChairmanHal

ChairmanHal

    The Richard Dent of Cyber Nations

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,133 posts
  • Nation Name:Haleenstar Republic
  • Alliance Name:Valhalla

Posted 22 May 2014 - 10:29 PM

 

I've gathered up input from the other thread and have decided on defensive and offensive based improvements at this time. If you go the defensive route you can't go offensive unless you delete your defensive improvements and collect taxes. Please provide your feedback. They still need some balancing out, and if you can think of more that would be great.

 

Defensive Based Improvements:

  • Bunker: $200,000. Reduces infra damage from aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes -3%. Limit 5. Cannot build if Munitions Factory or Forward Operating Base is owned. Collection required to delete.
  • Border Fortifications: $125,000. Raises effectiveness of defending soldiers +2%. Reduces max deployment by 2%. Limit 3. Requires Border Wall. Cannot own if own Forward Operating base. Collection required to delete.
  • Radiation Containment Chamber: $200,000 Lowers global radiation level that affects your nation by 20%. Requires Radiation Cleanup bonus resource. Requires Bunker. Limit 2. Collection required to delete.

Offensive Based Improvements

  • Forward Operating Base: $125,000. Increases ground attack damage (1 + 0.005% per technology level)% up to 5%, Reduces effectiveness of one’s own defending soldiers -3%. Requires Barracks. Limit 2. Cannot own if Border Fortifications or Bunker is owned. Collection required to delete.
  • Munitions Factory: $200,000. Increases enemy infrastructure damage from your aircraft, cruise missiles, and nukes +3%. -1.5 stars to environment. Requires having 3 or more Factories. Requires having Lead as a resource. Cannot build if Bunkers owned. Limit 5. Collection required to delete.
  • Office of Propaganda: $200,000. Decreases the effectiveness of enemy defending soldiers 3%. Requires Forward Operating Base. Limit 2. Collection required to delete.

 

 

Modern warfare (meaning from 1940 on) pretty much rendered fixed fortifications such as bunkers obsolete (indeed, often they ended up getting used for storage), as did the introduction of precision laser-guided bunker busting bombs in the late 1980s.  I do like the Border Fortifications improvement however, though I would rename it 'Strong Point', as those have continued to be used effectively beyond 1940, and drop the Border Wall requirement.  As for the Radiation Containment Chamber, the name is a bit confusing.  How is something associated with a bunker supposed to provide enhanced radiation cleanup for an entire nation?  Should it be mobile?

 

As for the offensive improvements, eliminating the Bunker improvement would mean the Munitions Factory improvement would have to go, though I would actually make it available to everyone instead.  Office of Propaganda should be called 'Psychological Warfare Center', since Psy Ops units exist IRL.

 

I had in my notes a wonder that modifies nukes but I like your idea better.

 

Nuclear EMP Warheads  – Allows nations to launch Nuclear EMP tipped missiles which changes the base damage of a nuclear weapon from 150 infra and 50 tech to 100 infra and 100 tech.

 

This makes sense given that a high altitude EMP attack in real life would be less devastating to actual infrastructure yet more devastating to technology (devices with microchips).

No changes suggested here, though it is worth noting that EMP blasts kill electronic infrastructure very effectively.

 

Also, from the archives if you are looking for suggestions...

 

 

Field Artillery - Field Artillery consist of howitzers, cannons, and rocket/missile launchers that provide indirect fire support to other ground units. Provides 0.5% ground battle damage (both attacking and defending) increase up to 24 units. You can purchase a number of field artillery units equal to your current infrastructure level divided by 500 (rounding fractions down). Purchase cost is $50,000 per Field Artillery unit. Base upkeep is $750.00 per unit.

Rationale: I went back and looked at the existing units in the game. The one that came closest in function to artillery was not a ground or air unit but a naval unit--the Landing Ship. In the real world, Landing Ships provide fire support to the troops they carry. In modern navies, this includes a number of tactical aircraft (VTOL fighters and helicopters). In a sense therefore, Landing Ships are floating artillery platforms.

It should be noted that a "Field Artillery" unit is more than just the guns and crew. It includes fire direction centers, target acquisition, etc. that support the guns/launchers.

I contemplated making field artillery vulnerable to cruise missile attacks. While this is realistic, given how wimpy the performance of cruise missiles is against tanks, it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to give the person firing guaranteed field artillery kills. Some random result from CM strikes that includes the possibility that a field artillery unit could be killed however would make sense as an include, but would be more difficult to program.

Also note that air defense artillery is not included. The Anti-Air Defense Network seems to cover this well enough for now, though if tactical/strategic aircraft were to be incorporated into the game, ADA units would be a natural include. 



#20 Syracuse

Syracuse

    Advanced Member

  • Tournament Game Mod
  • 332 posts
  • Nation Name:Bessemer

Posted 22 May 2014 - 10:36 PM

Modern warfare (meaning from 1940 on) pretty much rendered fixed fortifications such as bunkers obsolete (indeed, often they ended up getting used for storage), as did the introduction of precision laser-guided bunker busting bombs in the late 1980s.  I do like the Border Fortifications improvement however, though I would rename it 'Strong Point', as those have continued to be used effectively beyond 1940, and drop the Border Wall requirement.  As for the Radiation Containment Chamber, the name is a bit confusing.  How is something associated with a bunker supposed to provide enhanced radiation cleanup for an entire nation?  Should it be mobile?


It's a game, and therefore not based on reality; as such, please remember that arguments based on reality are, under suggestion box rules, considered invalid.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users