Drastically Reduce Economic Advantages from Generals

[Forward]

Presently each general can offer as much as +2% population, +2% income, and +2 happiness in economic benefits. This is an issue for multiple reasons:

 

1. Intent: Generals become more of an economic advantage than a military one - especially since military strength is directly related to money (but not vice versa), causing generals' economic impacts to subsume any and all military cost reductions and even most battle strength increases;

2. Extent: A pair of max-econ generals is worth more than a top economic wonder, and, as Inst pointed out in [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117246-complaints-about-generals-system/]his thread,[/url] a quartet can provide approximately 25% in additional income - which seems far too high;

3. Expendable XP: With the expected introduction of this feature, any available low-XP economic generals will become even more lucrative than they already are, pushing players to purchase them even more (this would also discourage use of the assassinate generals system);

4. Player Retention: Massive economic benefits encourage massive waves of raids early in the round for XP, as the benefit all but certainly outweighs the risk; this cuts down the TE population significantly, as has been noted elsewhere;

5. Real World: It doesn't seem realistic for a prestigious (or in many cases not-so-prestigious) general to offer substantial population and income benefits - a slight boost in population happiness would be their function at most.

 

Thus the suggestion: The only economic benefit that generals should provide is a +0, +1, or +2 to population happiness. This would rectify all of the above problems without presenting any new ones, and would certainly be a positive for the TE community.

[bombuator]

I don't think it should be changed except for actually losing the XP after you buy them. They are advantages to the people that war more, don't cry because you don't war enough to get the top Generals.

Edited September 15, 2013 by bombuator

[Forward]

Bombuator, your concern does not appear to be very well thought-out.

 

Contrary to the suggestion in your post, generals remain an advantage for those who war under this model, and in fact become even more of an advantage compared to for those who raid (specifically non-warring flagrunners). There is no particular reason to retain the excess economic benefits that I am suggesting be removed, and you failed to address any of the 5 points above as to why they should be removed (or provide any real reason as to why they should stay). Also, regarding your [i]ad hominem[/i] attack, I obtained all the top economic generals with ease last round, and the top military/economic generals shortly thereafter when I so chose - this suggestion has nothing to do with giving myself a personal advantage. I'll stop it there.

[bcortell]

While generals giving economic benefits relates to RL, TE isn't made to just replicate RL.  In SE, generals offer less economic value. 

 

In TE, they help those warring nations rebuild quicker from wars and get more action.  Their XP could be upped and/or XP removed when a general is bought, but otherwise, they are fine. 

 

No big change needed with the generals (besides removing the XP of the cost of the general), IMO. 

[Forward]

Saving a bigger warchest would accomplish the rebuilding effect, too. Again, there's no particular reason for generals to offer such economic bonuses, and offering them harms ever-important player retention with other issues as well; I think most players would agree that huge waves of raids are a negative.

[bombuator]

Bombuator, your concern does not appear to be very well thought-out.

 

Contrary to the suggestion in your post, generals remain an advantage for those who war under this model, and in fact become even more of an advantage compared to for those who raid (specifically non-warring flagrunners). There is no particular reason to retain the excess economic benefits that I am suggesting be removed, and you failed to address any of the 5 points above as to why they should be removed (or provide any real reason as to why they should stay). Also, regarding your ad hominem attack, I obtained all the top economic generals with ease last round, and the top military/economic generals shortly thereafter when I so chose - this suggestion has nothing to do with giving myself a personal advantage. I'll stop it there.

Its not a concern, I'm stating the truth. You especially do not war very much, and you are a flag runner (or have been). You probably just see this as a way that you can't win the flag because you can't get top Generals because you don't war enough or hard enough. 

 

The system was put into the game to cause more wars, and for people to actually war during wars. People can rebuild faster with Generals, causing war faster than ever. Its effects were already shown this round too, look at those casualties King James got and how many 1,000,000 Casualty people this round, that would never happen without Generals. They did what they were supposed to do... why change it?

[Nick GhostWolf]

I don't think the general bonuses are out of line, but having XP retained doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Having it be spendable like money, does.  What could be done would be to emphasize primarily military bonuses at the lower levels (with the possible exception of population boost, seeing as how that directly affects soldier efficiency), while bonuses in income and what not become available at higher XP generals.

 

You could also, instead of it being a "General for Hire" option, automatically include a general for each nation in each area, and XP points can then be spent to sequentially purchase upgrades.  So, if you wanted your Generals to have a high econ bonus, you'd have to spend XP to get them there (at maybe a 0.2 happiness/pop boost/income boost per level) with incremental upgrades costing substantially more XP.  Suddenly, if some coward plans on building a flag-running money pile and avoiding wars whenever possible, they make less money than the people who are involved with wars because war involvement becomes essential for any real econ bonus from generals - balancing the game.

 

The other thing that could make for a useful option would be to expand on the "enable XP" checkbox by making it a choice between getting XP or tech/land/money, which would lessen the burden of raiding on unaffiliated nations.  IE if you opt for XP, any attacks you run will provide XP, but GA's will result in money/tech/land being destroyed rather than seized - and if you opt to raid for tech or money, no attacks in that war will result in gaining XP.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Nick GhostWolf

[bcortell]

Saving a bigger warchest would accomplish the rebuilding effect, too. Again, there's no particular reason for generals to offer such economic bonuses, and offering them harms ever-important player retention with other issues as well; I think most players would agree that huge waves of raids are a negative.

This is just a terrible excuse and does several things- it would mean fewer wars, people not picking harder wars, and more turtling when losing a war.

 

As someone else said, generals were to reward war.  That's exactly what they have done. Because you choose not to war, don't try to lower those that do war to your level. 

[Forward]

It seems like the dissenters in this topic are attacking me personally, with a major flaw: I attained max economic generals before any of you last round. Oops?

 

Bombuator - while it's my official view that casualties have little to do with war, I happened to have both more than 1 million casualties and, well, more casualties than you last round. Furthermore, bigger numbers does not mean better; if generals gave +5% population each, or if everyone started with $10 million, there would be more casualties, too. So? And, refer to the above when it comes to your "argument" about my not being able to obtain generals...

 

Also, bcortell - You miss that easier wars will grant [i]more[/i] XP next round, which will benefit raiders over fighters, because you'll have to win battles to get XP (and that XP can be disabled in war). And again, your [i]ad hominem[/i] is irrelevant both because it is irrelevant in itself, and because it is wrong.

[bcortell]

It seems like the dissenters in this topic are attacking me personally, with a major flaw: I attained max economic generals before any of you last round. Oops?

You sure about that? If so, can you let me know when I had max economic generals? 

 

 

I know you're just making this up now.. you really need to take a break, man. 

 

 

 

Also, bcortell - You miss that easier wars will grant more XP next round, which will benefit raiders over fighters, because you'll have to win battles to get XP (and that XP can be disabled in war). And again, your ad hominem is irrelevant both because it is irrelevant in itself, and because it is wrong.

Are you really just trying to argue to argue?  You really can't disprove anything I've said while I've shown you exactly why you're suggestion would be mad.  

 

Good luck with this when I'm guessing nearly no one agrees with you. 

[Auctor]

Dumping the economic benefits of generals disincentivizes people to actually play the game. No thank you.

[Forward]

bcortell: Seeing as how my economic generals came perfectly on schedule at the start of the round, I should think that mine came before yours. In the admittedly possible-but-unlikely scenario that they didn't, then congratulations to you, but mine nevertheless were flawless. This attack on me is also still entirely irrelevant to the suggestion.

 

Trying to argue to argue? Sounds like something that applies more to you, although it's hard to tell whether or not what you're doing even qualifies as arguing. Finally, I suppose it could be that nearly no one agrees with me, but it's yet to be determined, and I think that anybody can see that the mass economic benefits destroyed new member retention last round. Either way, we'll see what happens.

 

Also, just as is the case in my other suggestion topic where you take issue, I've said enough; what will be will be, and it's time to move on.

[bcortell]

bcortell: Seeing as how my economic generals came perfectly on schedule at the start of the round, I should think that mine came before yours. In the admittedly possible-but-unlikely scenario that they didn't, then congratulations to you, but mine nevertheless were flawless. This attack on me is also still entirely irrelevant to the suggestion.

 

Trying to argue to argue? Sounds like something that applies more to you, although it's hard to tell whether or not what you're doing even qualifies as arguing. Finally, I suppose it could be that nearly no one agrees with me, but it's yet to be determined, and I think that anybody can see that the mass economic benefits destroyed new member retention last round. Either way, we'll see what happens.

 

Also, just as is the case in my other suggestion topic where you take issue, I've said enough; what will be will be, and it's time to move on.

Glad you're done with this silly idea. 

[Dragonshy]

1. TE is supposed to be a world of blood. Reducing the incentive to do war here seems contrary to its purpose. However, I did note that XP requirements were very easily achieved for army generals (ground troops). I came in the middle of the round, mucked around a bit till the end of the round, and got 3 times the XP required for the best army generals. 
 
 
2. "Expendable XP"
 
Can anyone expand on this?

Edited September 16, 2013 by Dragonshy

[bombuator]

It seems like the dissenters in this topic are attacking me personally, with a major flaw: I attained max economic generals before any of you last round. Oops?

 

Bombuator - while it's my official view that casualties have little to do with war, I happened to have both more than 1 million casualties and, well, more casualties than you last round. Furthermore, bigger numbers does not mean better; if generals gave +5% population each, or if everyone started with $10 million, there would be more casualties, too. So? And, refer to the above when it comes to your "argument" about my not being able to obtain generals....

 

I disagree, casualties usually have a lot to do with war. So you got a lot of casualties? You want to prove that you got that many casualties? I don't see you on any of the top 5 Defensive or Offensive Awards and to be not in each and be 9th-6th Place overall would be tough. If Generals gave more bonuses there would be more war, but that's a Mod decision to add it to the game or not. 10M would destroy everyone's Building Guides that have been around for rounds upon rounds, too many people would bitch about that if it happened. 

Onto Generals, I am fairly certain I was the first to obtain Army Generals with fighting 3 rogues day 1, but its nice of you to assume that you know when everyone got Generals!

[Nick GhostWolf]

Dragonshy - expendable XP means it's basically a currency.  If you have 100 XP and buy a general that costs 80 XP, then you only have 20 XP left and once it's gone, it's gone.  Go kill stuff and get more :)

[Samwise]

The econ bonuses were too much when people are running around with insane warchests. The econ bonuses only mildly help people rebuild in war. What still counts is being able to hold onto cash during war for rebuilding. I should know. I spent the entire round a micro with a "I have max econ/military generals and no one's in my range. >:|" t-shirt.

 

I don't think it should be changed except for actually losing the XP after you buy them. They are advantages to the people that war more, don't cry because you don't war enough to get the top Generals.

 

bomb, I'm pretty sure most everybody who were bothered to play around with generals had max econ/military generals last round. I can assure you that potential NS flagrunners who dodged war and didn't gain max econ generals early didn't gain a NS flag. All admin did was widen the gap between the top earners and everyone else.

 

Saving a bigger warchest would accomplish the rebuilding effect, too. Again, there's no particular reason for generals to offer such economic bonuses, and offering them harms ever-important player retention with other issues as well; I think most players would agree that huge waves of raids are a negative.

 

I always chuckled at the fact that generals make your people have a lot of unprotected sex. :ehm:

 

Its not a concern, I'm stating the truth. You especially do not war very much, and you are a flag runner (or have been). You probably just see this as a way that you can't win the flag because you can't get top Generals because you don't war enough or hard enough. 

 

The system was put into the game to cause more wars, and for people to actually war during wars. People can rebuild faster with Generals, causing war faster than ever. Its effects were already shown this round too, look at those casualties King James got and how many 1,000,000 Casualty people this round, that would never happen without Generals. They did what they were supposed to do... why change it?

 

If you lessen the econ bonuses, you also take them away from the flagrunners, and they already get enough.

 

This is just a terrible excuse and does several things- it would mean fewer wars, people not picking harder wars, and more turtling when losing a war.

 

As someone else said, generals were to reward war.  That's exactly what they have done. Because you choose not to war, don't try to lower those that do war to your level. 

 

You're still rewarding people for warring with the military bonuses by increasing their battle strength. Keep some econ bonuses, but why not throw some infra cost reductions in there for rebuilding purposes? And make sure you don't throw the infra cost reduction bonuses in with the income bonuses. Pesky flagrunners...

 

I disagree, casualties usually have a lot to do with war. So you got a lot of casualties? You want to prove that you got that many casualties? I don't see you on any of the top 5 Defensive or Offensive Awards and to be not in each and be 9th-6th Place overall would be tough. If Generals gave more bonuses there would be more war, but that's a Mod decision to add it to the game or not. 10M would destroy everyone's Building Guides that have been around for rounds upon rounds, too many people would bitch about that if it happened. Onto Generals, I am fairly certain I was the first to obtain Army Generals with fighting 3 rogues day 1, but its nice of you to assume that you know when everyone got Generals!

 

I know I'll get hanged for saying this, but casualties mean nothing. As I stated in that other thread, casualties don't come from warring hard, or warring often. They come from infrastructure and people nuking you. They're not difficult to garner.

 

1. TE is supposed to be a world of blood. Reducing the incentive to do war here seems contrary to its purpose. However, I did note that XP requirements were very easily achieved for army generals (ground troops). I came in the middle of the round, mucked around a bit till the end of the round, and got 3 times the XP required for the best army generals. 
 
 
2. "Expendable XP"
 
Can anyone expand on this?

Dragonshy - expendable XP means it's basically a currency.  If you have 100 XP and buy a general that costs 80 XP, then you only have 20 XP left and once it's gone, it's gone.  Go kill stuff and get more :)

 

I believe the consumable XP system will be what we have in SE now. Basically:

-You have 120 XP

-You buy a general that costs 100 XP

-All of your XP goes away, including the XP not spent

-You decom your general and you get 70 XP in return

-rinse and repeat

 

While it'll make it harder for flagrunners to garner the necessary XP for max econ generals, they would still be easily obtainable under the current system as you stated in your post. Although, we can still attempt to spy the generals when they'll be coming up on a big collection. :D I'm not sure if flagrunners would DoW if their spy attackers were caught. I know I didn't hesitate to DoW Inst when he got caught spying me. :awesome:

[Dragonshy]

The econ bonuses were too much when people are running around with insane warchests. The econ bonuses only mildly help people rebuild in war. What still counts is being able to hold onto cash during war for rebuilding. I should know. I spent the entire round a micro with a "I have max econ/military generals and no one's in my range. >:|" t-shirt.

 

Was I that forgettable? :(

 

 

I believe the consumable XP system will be what we have in SE now. Basically:

-You have 120 XP

-You buy a general that costs 100 XP

-All of your XP goes away, including the XP not spent

-You decom your general and you get 70 XP in return

-rinse and repeat

 

While it'll make it harder for flagrunners to garner the necessary XP for max econ generals, they would still be easily obtainable under the current system as you stated in your post. Although, we can still attempt to spy the generals when they'll be coming up on a big collection. :D I'm not sure if flagrunners would DoW if their spy attackers were caught. I know I didn't hesitate to DoW Inst when he got caught spying me. :awesome:

 

I would say that NGW's suggestion above about having "permanent" generals is better than the current system. Also the Generals can then be given permanent avatars, rather than using the current random image generator, which produces faces that look like they belong in a suburban neighborhood with no good-looking people, rather than in the army.

 

Something like:

 

would be great.

[Freddy]

IMO, anything that adds more to the game is good. Generals can be used to equal advantage by anyone/everyone. The idea that it drives people away is naive...there were much more nations at the start of the round because of generals. After the hustlers got their early xp the number of nations dropped to normal level. There was no gain or loss. Like I said, I like anything that adds more to the game. More money, not less. Port the SE style where xp is expended and generals can be assassinated. That adds more depth to the generals system. The only thing I wouldn't add from SE is the intel only gains xp when at war with the target.

[Nick GhostWolf]

The current general face system appears to be based off Facegen which was used in TES IV Oblivion.

 

Also known as the "ugly generator" :v

[Konata Izumi]

I would be for this idea if generals were not so easily assassinated. Can I tell my generals not to meet some lady named "Desert Rose" for a "fun time" in that dark alley?

 

Personally, I think generals should not be assassinatable, but instead require an appropriate amount of strength in that specific branch of the military (depending on nation size) for that rank of general. The lesser generals require little to no military, whereas the top generals require near-full military, all the time, but are NOT dismissed should you drop below the requirement, instead they remain "inactive", providing no bonus, until you are at the required levels, or higher a different general.

[StevieG]

Generals are perfect as they are, with one exception.

 

It seems that on a successful "Assasinate Enemy Generals" OP, that automatically the highest General is killed. Maybe it was just luck, but this past round I always killed the highest, then on down.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

The max economic generals are far to cheap, they need to be increased so nations are continuously rewarded for participating in wars. At the moment you only need one war or a few XP raids and you have the best economic generals and then everyone either turtles during war or they just don't start any. I'd also like to be able to trade in all your economic XP of your current general but can only be used for the purchase towards a general in their same field such as a army generals XP can only be used for another army general.

[StevieG]

The max economic generals are far to cheap, they need to be increased so nations are continuously rewarded for participating in wars. At the moment you only need one war or a few XP raids and you have the best economic generals and then everyone either turtles during war or they just don't start any. I'd also like to be able to trade in all your economic XP of your current general but can only be used for the purchase towards a general in their same field such as a army generals XP can only be used for another army general.

Everyone should be making use of these cheap generals then. As to then turteling, on the acquisition of the basic generals. What a load of rubbish! 

 

You must also fail to see the point my post above yours contained. Its pretty damn easy to assassinate those generals.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

Everyone should be making use of these cheap generals then. As to then turteling, on the acquisition of the basic generals. What a load of rubbish! 

 

You must also fail to see the point my post above yours contained. Its pretty damn easy to assassinate those generals.

Your missing my point which was you don't need to go to war to earn more XP after you have the best economic generals which can easily be accomplished after a single round of war. Not all nations and alliances do it, but its easy to see alliances do it and then avoid war for an entire month while they bank maximum profits and avoid war for weeks on end.

 

To address your point about it being easy to assassinate generals. They can be easy and hard to assassinate, it all depends on the odds of your spy strength. If you have generals without enough spies to protect them and they get assassinated then you can only blame yourself for letting that happen. Maybe next time you might want to buy more spies.