Land Destruction in War

[+Zeke+]

I was all set to start a thread in the suggestion board when I realized I had too many opinions and ideas on this subject to make a well defined suggestion.

I need to hash it through some more.

The recent war had me eating nukes every day. I knew what I was getting into and don't care to get into war reasons or politics in this discussion. When I started the war I had a combined total of over 10K in land. A lot by any standards in this game. At week's end I realized that my loss of 3000 miles rivaled my losses in Infra. I had not expected that kind of land damage, honestly.

Now while there are improvements, wonders, and resources that help mitigate the costs of Infra and Tech there is little done for Land in these regards. A mere 15% discount combined with 2 resources and nothing else I can recall in improvements and wonders. Seems like land gets the short end of the stick. Especially for the weakest, and yet still expensive, of the 3 basic building blocks of a nation.

I think something needs to be done to remedy this disparity. Yet I have too many options in my mind to solve it.

Should we look for way to discount the cost or look for ways to protect what we have? Or both? Should we tweak resources? Change improvements/wonders? Add improvements or wonders?

My first idea was to do something with resources. Increase the discount on the common Growth oriented resource set (Beer/FF) and let Rad Cleanup reduce nuclear land damage for Industrial oriented sets. Most players tend to go for one of the two sides of the resource fence. One group could cheaply buy it while the other group had a way to protect what they had. But even with that idea there's only so much you can do with resource discounts and protections before you throw out what little balance we have in resources.

So my mind wandered to improvements and wonders. Too many options came to mind though. At that point I realized any hope for a concise suggestion was lost.

I figured that a community sponsored suggestion might be better. One with a lot of eyes on it to avoid unbalancing our current system.

So tell me what you would like to see done to allow players to replace land from nuclear attacks that is on par with our current tech and Infra discount methods.

[Viluin]

No one actually buys land past a certain low number, the only reason why some people have so much of it is because they stole it or got it from donations. Making land worth purchasing would be a good start. One of the things that could be done is raising the amount of citizens you get per mile of land or greatly reducing the amount of NS land gives. Right now purchased land gives you 1.5NS per mile, which is half the NS infrastructure gives, but even with all the land modifiers and the ADP wonder it still doesn't give 1/10 of the citizen bonus that infra gives. As a result, land inflates your NS. Sure, land doesn't cost any upkeep, but that's irrelevant during war. During war, having 5k purchased land raises your NS by 7500, putting you in the range of stronger enemies, but the amount of citizens you get is only a couple thousand. By comparison, 2500 infra raises your NS by 7500 as well and provides you with 25000+ citizens.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Viluin

[+Zeke+]

I appreciate the lecture on land, but I already knew that.

Nor does it have anything to do with dealing with losses better than the current system of leaving it very vulnerable and still quite difficult to replace.

[Viluin]

I appreciate the lecture on land, but I already knew that.

Nor does it have anything to do with dealing with losses better than the current system of leaving it very vulnerable and still quite difficult to replace.

I disagree, it's not all that difficult to replace. It's just not worth replacing.

[+Zeke+]

I disagree, it's not all that difficult to replace. It's just not worth replacing.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your latter point, I definitely disagree with the idea that land is easy to replace. It is expensive and hard to protect.

[Viluin]

While I don't necessarily disagree with your latter point, I definitely disagree with the idea that land is easy to replace. It is expensive and hard to protect.

Correct.. but it is also easy to steal.

[+Zeke+]

When? Maybe when you are small and your targets have no nukes.

Once the nukes fly no one gains land. Whatever you grab on the ground is lost in the daily nukings. If both pound each other every days with glow juice the net result is both nations losing land.

Seems to me the only way a nation will ever end up with a large excess of free land is to be a unrepentant raider in their first year and then avoid all wars from then on.

With nations buying MP wonders in their nation's youth these days, the old idea of war profiteering is about dead.

[nc1701]

I gained several hundred land this war despite being nuked 4 times. Losing around 1300 land to nukes and maybe 500 more to ground attacks hurt, but my own ground attacks got it all back plus about 500 more, land is just so easy to steal that it will be possible to profit in war even with nukes.

Also remember that for CN overall land is very hard to destroy, in fact the only ways CN can lose land are nukes, nations selling land, and nations deleting. Otherwise every mile of land purchased stays in CN and just moves between nations during wars. Unlike infrastructure which is always destroyed in war no matter what. I think land inflation is a more serious concern than deflation is to be honest. No doubt land is broken, but the problem lies with it's uselessness not with it being too difficult to obtain or too easily destroyed.

In order to fix land we would need to vastly reduce it's NS contribution and/or increase its population boost and make the cost scale more linearly as the cost of infrastructure does currently. Currently the cost scales the way tech does meaning that to make it an attractive purchase for high level nations it would be hugely overpowered for small nations who can purchase it very cheaply.

[iMatt]

I tend to agree with nc here - I warred and took 7 nukes, and only ended down 400 land, which isn't bad considering a nuke takes out almost 200 land. In a nuclear war, there are many, many methods in-game of stealing that tech back through ground attacks. I like the idea that any land beyond a certain amount has to be warred for, and is simulating the overcrowding of Bob (even if that might not be the intent) in the upper tiers.

I would support making land more reasonable to buy, to an extent.

[Count Rupert]

Land isn't as hard to destroy as you make out. The game's lost over 2.5 million miles of land since the war started so it's hardly all simply being transferred to a new owner. A fair amount of land is lost in ground combats. Most land in the lower ranks is destroyed and not captured. Even up in my ranks I've fought nations who when they did win an occasional ground combat the land was razed, not captured. And with the war lasting as long as it is, you have a lot of nations fighting who are 13 days or more inactive and nothing is captured then, it's all lost. I've fought 3 nations all who had above 5000 miles of land when my war them started. They all ended the wars without any purchased land. That seems to be a bit extreme to have happen in a mtter of a week. A nuke taking out only 200 land is a fairly small one given the base damage is 150. My nukes were doing 450 in damage and I'm by no means near the top. There were nations doing over 700. The problem is in land you have something that gives very little value for the cost to buy and it's something very easy to lose in times of war. Proportionally much more so than infrastructure given nations will continue to buy infrastructure because there are a ton of modifiers you can get to reduce it cost. Land is purchased only out of extreme necessity with few modifiers available.

[Chairman Cao]

I agree that the land system needs a few changes. Unfortunately this idea never has much support since the great majority of people in this game don't really like war and view it as an occasional unfortunate necessity. So land, being something that can only be gained through war, draws the short straw as the majority don't want others to be able to benefit in a way that they cannot, let alone to encourage war.

I still think war must remain the primary method of accruing land otherwise variety will be lost, but it does need to be made more defensible, since at present it is slow or impossible to gain but very quick to lose against a competent opponent.

[Morey 2k7]

One of the more annoying factors is when fighting an opponent who you have a much greater land advantage over, so that when you attack you are gaining a very small percentage (if win GA) of the amount you lose if your opponent is succesful in their GAs. Its because of this that my land has plummeted by over 3000 miles.

There needs to be a way whereby the amount of land you can raze is also limited by the amount of land you currently have, and not the amount your opponent has.

[kswiss2783]

I'm not sure I have an idea on how to improve it, but something should be done. The only wonder that helps is the Agriculture Dev. Program, but you need to have 3k PURCHASED land to buy the wonder. Who honestly buys 3k land, aside from donations?

Edited May 20, 2009 by kswiss2783

[Count Rupert]

I'm not sure I have an idea on how to improve it, but something should be done. The only wonder that helps is the Agriculture Dev. Program, but you need to have 3k PURCHASED land to buy the wonder. Who honestly buys 3k land, aside from donations?

Well, it does include any land captured during wars. Purchased land is just a category to differentiate it from natural growth. Purchased land can be purchased/captured/destroyed/sold, natural growth can not.

[Haflinger]

Count Rupert, land being razed means it's captured.

The only way to destroy land is by firing nukes. And, honestly, nc is right - the problem with land is its uselessness. Compared to infra and tech, land is much less useful in war, and yet it's worth half as much as infra.

I'd much rather have 1K infra than 2K land when fighting. Invicta went up against some raider nations in the war, and generally speaking we came out on top, despite being less experienced in war, mainly because a much greater percentage of our nation strengths came from infra and tech, so we generally held the advantage in one or both of those two.

[SyndicatedINC]

One of the more annoying factors is when fighting an opponent who you have a much greater land advantage over, so that when you attack you are gaining a very small percentage (if win GA) of the amount you lose if your opponent is succesful in their GAs. Its because of this that my land has plummeted by over 3000 miles.

There needs to be a way whereby the amount of land you can raze is also limited by the amount of land you currently have, and not the amount your opponent has.

Agreed, this would be a vast improvement in many respects. Land stolen is proportional to your existing land unrelated to defending land.

Although it does not directly address the OP question of how to make it easier to buy, only how to protect it.

[Seerow]

Count Rupert, land being razed means it's captured.

The only way to destroy land is by firing nukes. And, honestly, nc is right - the problem with land is its uselessness. Compared to infra and tech, land is much less useful in war, and yet it's worth half as much as infra.

I'd much rather have 1K infra than 2K land when fighting. Invicta went up against some raider nations in the war, and generally speaking we came out on top, despite being less experienced in war, mainly because a much greater percentage of our nation strengths came from infra and tech, so we generally held the advantage in one or both of those two.

No, land being razed is not captured. When attacking a nation that is X days innactive (forget the exact number but it's like 13 days or something), all land is destroyed rather than captured.

This was implemented to discourage raiders from hitting innactive targets.

[Viluin]

No, land being razed is not captured. When attacking a nation that is X days innactive (forget the exact number but it's like 13 days or something), all land is destroyed rather than captured.

This was implemented to discourage raiders from hitting innactive targets.

I've never seen a battle report say anything other than "razed".

[Seerow]

I've never seen a battle report say anything other than "razed".

It may be the razing is stealing and there's a different wording for destroying it after the 13 days. Either way the point stands that land isn't always stolen.

[Chairman Cao]

I haven't noticed it say razed at all tbh. I keep battle logs and this is the difference between the two situations.

Many of your soldiers lives were lost in this battle, even more than your enemy, but at the end of the battle your army was victorious. In your victory your forces destroyed 13.235 miles of land of Ganalhis. They also destroyed 24.241 infrastructure within Ganalhis. They also destroyed 6.060 technology of Ganalhis. The value of your equipment abandoned in the battle was $0.00. Your forces destroyed $1,000,000.00 of the nation of Ganalhis.

Your soldiers triumphantly and decisively defeated your enemy in this battle. Your soldiers owe their lives to your hard work as their leader. In your victory your forces captured 4.755 miles of land from Nufunia. They also destroyed 24.241 infrastructure within Nufunia. They also stole 6.060 technology from Nufunia. The value of your equipment abandoned in the battle was $0.00. Your forces looted $1,000,000.00 from the nation of Nufunia.

[enderland]

It is in the message that gets sent to your opponent that says the same thing for either situation.

[King Irwin]

I'm not sure that anything needs to be changed too much. There are several ways to make infrastructure cheap to buy, but relatively few for tech and land. The difference between tech and land is that tech can be acquired via aid.

From a realism point of view, it actually makes sense that land isn't drastically increasing. I consider that a simulation of the overcrowding...at this point, most nations are very well developed, and there is little land left to be cultivated and populated. The overall destruction of land makes sense as well, as the crazy number of nukes flying reduces useable land.

Eventually nations reach a point where infrastructure is no longer profitable (or barely profitable), and it is actually more beneficial to your economy to purchase land. Not many nations have reached this level yet though.

I'd be willing to support a slight increase in the population benefits of land in order to make the decision between purchasing infrastructure and land at least a little more dififcult/interesting for more nations. I don't think any drastic measures are needed though.

[enderland]

The base amount of land for GAs should be reduced to 25, and nukes to 50.