[Viluin]

After dropping this idea in the defeat alert thread, I've decided to create my own suggestion, because I'd really like to see this in the game.

Right now, people can buy as much infra as they can afford. Growth-wise, this doesn't really create any problems. However, it's changing the nature of warfare. People now have warchests that will by far outlast their infrastructure. As a result, people can easily stay at 1,000 infra nuking their enemies for months, possibly more than a year if they have a big warchest. This is not fun for both sides. Someone with a 1bn+ dollar warchest could last for half a year.. who really wants to fight for half a year? War is fun, but it requires a high level of activity to fight a war properly in CN, and it becomes quite tiresome after a month. You should fear someone because he is strong, not because he'd be extremely annoying for half a year if you attacked him.

So, I propose an infrastructure purchase limit of 200 per day. When someone is ZI'd, they should be out of the game. Numerous short wars (<1 month) are more fun than a few tedious vietFANs. I believe this would add a whole new dimension to war. Infrastructure is limited, and once you run out, you can't fight anymore. The importance of peace mode cycles to rebuild during war would be increased, as would the importance of preventing someone from entering peace mode. Buying infrastructure while fighting, even at higher infra levels, would be a viable tactic. Expensive, but it could allow you to beat your enemies. I also believe it would put less of an emphasis on warchests, which is a good thing. Having to not fight any wars for a year so you can save up enough money for a good one is not fun. I fear that, with the current system, many people will have 5+bn dollar warchests within a year or two, and no one will want to start a war out of fear of being bored to death for 2+ years.

I believe this, combined with uncapped defeat alerts, would do well to simulate a defeated nation, instead of conjuring 1000 infra and 2 nukes out of thin air even though your nation is ruined. You have no infrastructure left, no army, and your enemy is quickly destroying all of your remaining stuff. When you are overrun, it's time to surrender.


EDIT: It's possible to make the cap apply only when you're at war, which makes sense because you won't have as much resources/manpower available to construct infrastructure when you're at war.

This post has been edited by Viluin: 12 October 2009 - 04:09 PM

[Rasputin]

The tsaritsa sends her blessing. Capping infrastructure would influence an enormous change in the way warfare is carried out, as well as the dynamics of alliance growth.

[anenu]

while im not oposed to this suggest the cap you suggested if far to low instead a cap of 400 would be better as it still would take 3 days to grow enough infra to nuke someone but wouldn't significatly slow growth that significantly.


I also think this is only 1 of the problems that needs to be adressed in the war system and that a far bigger problem is that the caps and limits set for wars and wonders are almost all competele outdated. For example how a person needs a mere 1000 infra for a nuke while most nations now don't even consider it until 4-5 thousand infra and the nuke was orignianlly intented for nation in the top 5% which now means most people who would have the nuke that way now have 10,000 infra plus. And of course their is the fact that you can't even deal enough damage to large nations now to make them feel it unless you spend months at war due to the damage caps being so low.

[Seerow]

I agree with the principle of wanting to shorten wars, but I disagree with your methodology.

[Viluin]

anenu, on Oct 12 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

while im not oposed to this suggest the cap you suggested if far to low instead a cap of 400 would be better as it still would take 3 days to grow enough infra to nuke someone but wouldn't significatly slow growth that significantly.

I think a cap of 400 is too high. You probably won't be able to damage them enough to offset the 400 infra they purchase every day, which means they'll still be able to stay at 1k infra for a very long time. I think growth is a moot point, you'd simply have to start purchasing it sooner so you can finish buying your infra right when you want to collect taxes. The only difference is you'd be paying a little higher bills.

Quote

I also think this is only 1 of the problems that needs to be adressed in the war system and that a far bigger problem is that the caps and limits set for wars and wonders are almost all competele outdated. For example how a person needs a mere 1000 infra for a nuke while most nations now don't even consider it until 4-5 thousand infra and the nuke was orignianlly intented for nation in the top 5% which now means most people who would have the nuke that way now have 10,000 infra plus. And of course their is the fact that you can't even deal enough damage to large nations now to make them feel it unless you spend months at war due to the damage caps being so low.

I don't think such a change is necessary if infra purchases are capped. In fact it would be rather annoying to spend $100m on a Manhattan Project that only works for a week or so. I don't mind the ability to nuke while you are going down, it's the inability to go down completely without many months of war that worries me.

This post has been edited by Viluin: 12 October 2009 - 03:12 PM

[Jinnai]

200 is far too low. That can be wiped out with 1 nuke pretty much. At least 300-400 should be there. However, unless you are going to cap all purchases for basic resources (land, infra, tech) i see little point in capping infra.

[Viluin]

Jinnai, on Oct 12 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

200 is far too low. That can be wiped out with 1 nuke pretty much. At least 300-400 should be there. However, unless you are going to cap all purchases for basic resources (land, infra, tech) i see little point in capping infra.

Tech is practically capped, for most people it's very expensive to buy, especially nations that used to be big (they often have quite a lot of tech left). Land disappears faster than anything in war, and doesn't serve much of a purpose.

I don't think 200 is too low. If you are getting nuked daily, then you should be ZI'd. If you're not getting nuked, you still stand a chance against 2-3 players if you're good enough. They would have to coordinate very well to destroy that 200 infra, and if they have weak air forces it'll be nearly impossible.

This post has been edited by Viluin: 12 October 2009 - 03:38 PM

[Pillihp]

I disagree.

Infra jump nation could only buy 200 infra, when going past the jump. 200 infra is not enough to get a benifit from it. 300 is better.

So lets say, put the cap at 300.

[Viluin]

Pillihp, on Oct 12 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

I disagree.

Infra jump nation could only buy 200 infra, when going past the jump. 200 infra is not enough to get a benifit from it. 300 is better.

So lets say, put the cap at 300.

200 infra is often more than enough to make an infra jump, and you can easily perform a jump in 2 days. If you time your infra purchases and tax collections well, a purchase limit of 200 per day shouldn't make much of a difference at all. The only difference is you can no longer avoid paying bills for much higher infra levels while still collecting taxes at that higher infra level (people buying 1000 infra in 1 day and then collecting).

EDIT: A compromise would be to remove the cap when you're not at war. I've added this to my OP.

This post has been edited by Viluin: 12 October 2009 - 04:09 PM

[Ashley Smith]

Rather than make all of the little nations suffer for your bloodlust for ZI, why don't they just have percentage caps on money rather than numerical. That way a 1bil warchest could be whittled away much easier, but at the same time can help an experienced combatant destroy a nonexperienced one.

Any suggestion such as this ought not be biased towards a defending ZI'ed or likewise. Warfare should be fair. Quicker? Sure. Less of a standstill? For sure.
But even so, it always ought to be "let the better ruler win".

[Viluin]

Ashley Smith, on Oct 13 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

Rather than make all of the little nations suffer for your bloodlust for ZI, why don't they just have percentage caps on money rather than numerical. That way a 1bil warchest could be whittled away much easier, but at the same time can help an experienced combatant destroy a nonexperienced one.

Any suggestion such as this ought not be biased towards a defending ZI'ed or likewise. Warfare should be fair. Quicker? Sure. Less of a standstill? For sure.
But even so, it always ought to be "let the better ruler win".

Just increasing the percentages of money stolen/destroyed doesn't work. Defeat alerts are rare, and money stolen in ground attacks works both ways. In fact, if you increase the amount of money that's stolen, curbstomps are more likely to be profitable.

If there is a cap on infra purchases, the better ruler will indeed win, because simply having a ton of money won't save you. Unless the better ruler is outnumbered, then he has a problem, but that's only natural.

This post has been edited by Viluin: 12 October 2009 - 05:14 PM

[Ursarkar E Creed]

Sorry, I'd have to go with a no.

I like buying infra and continually nuking people in wars at 1,000.

[energizer]

of all the suggestions this one gets through?

Lets role play here. Lets assume I am mat miller, and I have me a double digit billion war chest. Now, all of a sudden, im fighting the three strongest gremlin nations. Thankfully, my nukes can do 1,000 infra damage a pop so I can hurl a relatively large boulder on their faces. *yes* this also means that their nukes do roughly about the same as well (give or take a hundred). Within two rounds, I get knocked down do less then 2,000 infra. By the next round, I get slapped to less than 1,000 infra. Now, obviously, I would have to rebuy up to 1,000 infra for me to at least be able to purchase nuclear weapons-but heres a kicker- theres a cap. It doesnt matter my war chest size, my technology (which alone would put me in the 80k NS range), or my military capabilities. Just beacuse I got knocked down from other higher tier nations, I can no longer defend myself properly. Tell me, does that seem fair to you?

Lets try a different scenario. Lets say I'm one of the many reconstruction nations right now looking to regain some of my lost infra. Due to my large amount of wonders, I can collect insane amounts of cash at low levels of infra due to having a major happiness advantage. Because of this, it gives me the ability to jump 1,2, even 3 infra LEVELS at once. I do this so that My improvements can once again have a positive number instead of a negative, so I can be prepared for the next war whenever it may be, I do this so I have more money to spare for my fellow alliance mates, and so that I can work once more on my war chest which by now is beyond drained. But, oh wait, I cant. Theres a cap on infra purchasing so reconstruction will take MONTHS instead of merely one month to get back to my original level. Not because I don't have the cash, but because of the infra cap because someone doesn't like wars being dragged on....

Wars will happen regardless. There are people who will fight to their last pixel just because they can. There are people who dont care about reconstruction. Putting a limit on those who do would in no way aid the situation. All you're doing with a infra cap is stopping large nations to rebuy to 1k infra just so they can purchase a nuke or two in order to fight back. Because heck, chances are, their technology level would require it (I know that mine did, I was still in the 35k NS level despite having less than 1k infra).

[Viluin]

Ursarkar E Creed, on Oct 13 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

Sorry, I'd have to go with a no.

I like buying infra and continually nuking people in wars at 1,000.

If I recall correctly you were bill locked pretty quickly during the Karma war.. a month perhaps? I assure you it was quite boring after 3 months. If you have several billion dollars, wow. Full out war for a year is not fun at all, the thought alone depresses me, it feels more like work than a game. There needs to be some peace every once in a while, a break, or you will burn out.

energizer, on Oct 13 2009, 01:34 AM, said:

of all the suggestions this one gets through?

Lets role play here. Lets assume I am mat miller, and I have me a double digit billion war chest. Now, all of a sudden, im fighting the three strongest gremlin nations. Thankfully, my nukes can do 1,000 infra damage a pop so I can hurl a relatively large boulder on their faces. *yes* this also means that their nukes do roughly about the same as well (give or take a hundred). Within two rounds, I get knocked down do less then 2,000 infra. By the next round, I get slapped to less than 1,000 infra. Now, obviously, I would have to rebuy up to 1,000 infra for me to at least be able to purchase nuclear weapons-but heres a kicker- theres a cap. It doesnt matter my war chest size, my technology (which alone would put me in the 80k NS range), or my military capabilities. Just beacuse I got knocked down from other higher tier nations, I can no longer defend myself properly. Tell me, does that seem fair to you?

Yes, it does seem fair to me. Your nation has been overrun, like hell you should be able to continue nuclear warfare. What's not fair is being able to nuke other players for YEARS with your double digit billion dollar warchest. A game is supposed to be fun, and being unbeatable is not fun. Many months of war is also quite boring for both sides, there's only so many times you can show up at the update with excitement. I think many people will change their minds about this when the big guys get into a real war. The war system is not extensive enough to be fun for such a long time, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if people surrendered out of sheer boredom.

Quote

Lets try a different scenario. Lets say I'm one of the many reconstruction nations right now looking to regain some of my lost infra. Due to my large amount of wonders, I can collect insane amounts of cash at low levels of infra due to having a major happiness advantage. Because of this, it gives me the ability to jump 1,2, even 3 infra LEVELS at once. I do this so that My improvements can once again have a positive number instead of a negative, so I can be prepared for the next war whenever it may be, I do this so I have more money to spare for my fellow alliance mates, and so that I can work once more on my war chest which by now is beyond drained. But, oh wait, I cant. Theres a cap on infra purchasing so reconstruction will take MONTHS instead of merely one month to get back to my original level. Not because I don't have the cash, but because of the infra cap because someone doesn't like wars being dragged on....

There doesn't have to be a cap if you're not at war, I edited it into my OP a while ago.

This post has been edited by Viluin: 12 October 2009 - 06:43 PM

[Ursarkar E Creed]

Viluin, on Oct 13 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

If I recall correctly you were bill locked pretty quickly during the Karma war.. a month perhaps? I assure you it was quite boring after 3 months. If you have several billion dollars, wow. Full out war for a year is not fun at all, the thought alone depresses me, it feels more like work than a game. There needs to be some peace every once in a while, a break, or you will burn out.

Yeah, I think by the end of the first month my warchest gave out, but I was below 1K before that due to taking on opponents stronger than me.

[energizer]

Viluin, on Oct 12 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Yes, it does seem fair to me. Your nation has been overrun, like hell you should be able to continue nuclear warfare. What's not fair is being able to nuke other players for YEARS with your double digit billion dollar warchest. A game is supposed to be fun, and being unbeatable is not fun. Many months of war is also quite boring for both sides, there's only so many times you can show up at the update with excitement. I think many people will change their minds about this when the big guys get into a real war. The war system is not extensive enough to be fun for such a long time, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if people surrendered out of sheer boredom.

Just a checkin for here, there is NO way, that's right, NO way to beat the game. Thus everyone is "unbeatable".

I just see this suggestion as someone who cries about losing pixels. What happens when my nation goes down to under 1k infra and my land and tech shove me up to 60k NS? You expect me to just swallow nukes without giving any back? Because thats all your trying to stop doing, to give a fighting chance to higher tier nations during a curb stomp.

If you dont want inflation to the point where you have double digit billion dollar war chest, then Kevin needs to add in a better economic system where you can dumb your cash into for benifits that are worthwhile (and im not talking about wonders). But seeing as how the only economic system we have is technology, well of course there will be inflation. But apparently Kevin likes the inflation level cause otherwise he would change it.

Dont like it? Tough its how the game is and forever will be. You can always go and make your own text based game.

[Craven]

Just wanted to state I'm totally against capping infra purchases. It is bad enough you can only purchase a certain amount at once.. this seems like it'd screw over a lot of people who have actually prepared for wars. I find this a pointless and one-sided suggestion. Yes it sucks to be on that side.. but why punish people who put lots of time into preparing their nations just because you don't like their advantage >_>

[Supreme 142]

Agreed with Craven, I am against such ideas as well.

This post has been edited by Supreme 142: 12 October 2009 - 08:59 PM

[Amos Malachi]

I would have to say that I agree with Energizer. Rulers have worked far to hard and long to have things be turned upside down on them. It would make their efforts pointless. I say no as well.

[keenu]

Dude, No. Just no. If a nation earns the money to buy his infra, let him buy it. This is a nation simulation game, no nation is capped out how much it can buy.