enderland Posted March 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) The problem is that even with a +20% strength bonus, you are still changing your effective odds only by 4-5%-- hardly enough to warrant buying a wonder that ONLY is useful in wartime. For comparison, the National Research Lab allows you to increase your military strength +5% essentially but also provides a large economic benefit. Even with the 20% bonus I doubt very many people will want to purchase the Pentagon. My recommended change: Cost is 20 million plus (infrastructure*3500). May not be destroyed. One additional deployment per day. Requires 5 Satellites and 5 Missile Defense, increases your attack odds 15% and these improvements may not be destroyed. This means that for military minded nations, they can start their country going towards the military route but are forced into it by getting the 10 improvements FIRST, and they cannot be deleted once this wonder is purchased. The cost could either be fixed or differential. For smaller nations wishing to go a military route however, they are going to have to sacrifice growth in favor of the 10 improvements and this will cause them financial hardship, so by making it somewhat cheaper for smaller nations it encourages more people to choose this wonder. Edited March 6, 2008 by alden peterson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) I disagree with the post above me; +20% battle strength is far superior to +5% tanks (which is what +5% pop boils down to). Edited March 6, 2008 by Brotherington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted March 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I disagree with the post above me; +20% battle strength is far superior to +5% tanks (which is what +5% pop boils down to). Please actually address the content of my post as a whole instead of one statement I made specifically for the purposes of comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosola Posted March 9, 2008 Report Share Posted March 9, 2008 That 20% is way too little. If it would be 50% I could consider buying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Please actually address the content of my post as a whole instead of one statement I made specifically for the purposes of comparison. I'd but barracks instead of MD's and satellites and increase odds by 25% + one deployment, i like your concept a lot And Pentagon isn't nearly as useless as people think. I mean take my nation for example. With 5 GC's and Barracks and max tanks PLUS the bonus from tech (which i'm surprised many have forgotten) an applied bonus does have quite an effect. I do agree that 10% was way too little but i also think for the cash it costs adding an extra deployment's worth it too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 I really think that adding an additional deployment to it would be really OP. The whole reason Admin made the change to dismissing troops/tanks is because people were quading their enemy, and then dismissing all their troops so they had 100% on defense, therefore making it impossible to counterattack them. I don't think he wants to change this and I think it is a good thing. MAYBE if the 2nd deployment only allowed you to increase your deployed troops level...I could see that. But allowing someone to 99% deploy and then bring everyone home in 1 day, every day, is really overpowered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 (edited) I really think that adding an additional deployment to it would be really OP. The whole reason Admin made the change to dismissing troops/tanks is because people were quading their enemy, and then dismissing all their troops so they had 100% on defense, therefore making it impossible to counterattack them. I don't think he wants to change this and I think it is a good thing. MAYBE if the 2nd deployment only allowed you to increase your deployed troops level...I could see that. But allowing someone to 99% deploy and then bring everyone home in 1 day, every day, is really overpowered. It's more dynamical than that imho. I mean in a war i doubt i'd be using the second deployment to call back my troops back home. Your aim is to always hit your enemy as hard as possible for them to hit anarchy, and most times in a war you'll be fighting more than one guy, so it's main use would be to replenish your deployment after the first 3-4 GA's so you can go at it again; if you're fighting more than 2 guys and hit them aggressive you usually destroy pretty much all your deployment and can rebuy pretty much everything back. Another idea: can Pentagon increase the casualty count an attack makes directly? As in each attack kills 30% more enemy troops or something? Edit: One thing that people can't remember is that military wonders don't pay for themselves like the economical ones do. I've been talking with Guido and he told me that once you're at the infra you can buy wonders at it really doesn't mean much. Well you're giving up buying an economical wonder which is made to pay for itself and more, thus growing your nation faster, whereas the military ones don't give any tangible bonuses, not till you're at war at least. The fact that i'm buying a 30 mil wonder that improves my ground attack effectiveness should be seen even if i'm fighting someone twice my size without that wonder imho. I mean i'm not saying it should be a determinating factor, if the guy's 2 times as powerful as me he should kick my $@! in offensive wars, but a nation half his size would pentagon should really be able to score a lot of damage. Think of the Pentagon as turning your nation into a katana which cuts through enemy's armor much better (lame comparison i know ) Edited March 11, 2008 by uaciaut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 How about one extra deployment that must be of at least 25% soldiers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.