enderland Posted November 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 If the base was 10, then the rest of my numbers work. 50% improvement in damages w/o MD would be 15 damage, 50% reduction in damages w/o Satellite would be 5 damage. So indeed the base was 10.I need more Ginko. I'm also going to have to be candid here and say that the change makes absolutely no sense. I think if this had been announced as a proposed change before being implemented, people would have been up in arms about it to the point of angry emails and a lengthy OWF thread. As is...it simply needs to be base 10 again. Beyond that, if we're looking to make some tweaks to the combat system, there's been a number of descent proposals made in the Suggestion Box that could use a good test drive in TE. Well, there is a percentage increase, not a "+1 for each Satellite" which is how you worded it, I guess you might have meant that the same? idl Thinking back I believe that this was changed because CMs were overpowered at a base of 10. I don't know why I didn't put the change in the update log. Regardless, a base of 5 damage puts CMs in a better balance given all the modifiers that are added on top of that. This actually unbalances CN a lot since CMs are the only real tool an outnumbered defender has to do any meaningful damage to his attackers (especially if they have no nukes). Almost.You got a tech bonus of 1.5 instead of 1.3 or 1.6 with WRC. So it would be 5*1.5*0.5*1.3=4.875 Count Rupert is right. The tech modifier is (1 + WRC_VARIABLE * TECH/10000) Where if you have a WRC, the variable is 2, if not it is 1. (Base)*(Satellite Modifier)*(Missile Defense Modifier)*(Tech Modifier) = (Damage) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenon Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Oh, I couldn't find it in the informatian index but I thought that the max tech to inflict a tech bonus was 3000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperator G4G Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Oh, I couldn't find it in the informatian index but I thought that the max tech to inflict a tech bonus was 3000 That cap was removed a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Oh, I couldn't find it in the informatian index but I thought that the max tech to inflict a tech bonus was 3000 There is this of course: Great University - $35,000,000 - The great university is a central location for scholars within your nation. Decreases technology costs -10% and increases population happiness +.2% (+2 for every 1000) of your nation's technology level over 200 up to 3,000 tech. But yeah, with WRC and not including the additional pluses/minuses at 4650 tech my CMs do 9.65 points of infra damage if I did the calculations correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 But yeah, with WRC and not including the additional pluses/minuses at 4650 tech my CMs do 9.65 points of infra damage if I did the calculations correctly. That's pretty feeble. I think that perhaps changing the base damage back to 10 could prove better for balance. When a nation is overwhelmed, Cruise Missiles are their only sure-fire way of hitting back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Thinking back I believe that this was changed because CMs were overpowered at a base of 10. I don't know why I didn't put the change in the update log. Regardless, a base of 5 damage puts CMs in a better balance given all the modifiers that are added on top of that. I really disagree with this, Cruise Missiles are the only thing that 75% of players have to fight back when they're being beaten. Nerfing them makes it so you can attack smaller nations almost with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 I really disagree with this, Cruise Missiles are the only thing that 75% of players have to fight back when they're being beaten. Nerfing them makes it so you can attack smaller nations almost with impunity. Uhm, that does work both ways though, they get hit by 10dmg cruise missiles too. Besides, if you're not bill locked you have a whole lot more to fight with, not just cruise missiles. However, I'd like to see it back at 10 anyway because 5 makes even clicking the mouse button feel like a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Uhm, that does work both ways though, they get hit by 10dmg cruise missiles too. Besides, if you're not bill locked you have a whole lot more to fight with, not just cruise missiles. However, I'd like to see it back at 10 anyway because 5 makes even clicking the mouse button feel like a waste of time. If you're seriously outmatched at a lower level, your air and ground attacks will be worse than useless, leaving you with only cruise missiles. And while it's true that you'll take a bit more damage, it's definitely worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Shepard Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 I also believe that CMs should go back to causing 10infra damage... I can't rememeber seeing anyone complain that they were overpowered at any time during the games history and that was when there was alot more infra on planet bob than now... Even with base 10 damage, Aircraft can do double that and are reusable... So something you can only buy and fire once, which now only causes 1/4 the damage of your planes... = Pls admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 If you're seriously outmatched at a lower level, your air and ground attacks will be worse than useless There are always strategies to perform successful attacks. Unless you didn't buy guerrilla camps and your enemy did, in that case you deserve to lose really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Admin, it really is some peoples only way to fight back, I strongly think it should be changed back, anyway, the maximum damage that could be done is only 27.2 Infra. That's per CM. 27.2 x 2 CMs per day x 6 war opponents = 326.4 infras lost daily. That really is a lot more damage than CMs were intended to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenon Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 That's per CM.27.2 x 2 CMs per day x 6 war opponents = 326.4 infras lost daily. That really is a lot more damage than CMs were intended to do. While Missile defenses can half that. Right now, with them and those calculations it would be only 81.6 And the navy support can be destroyed, lowering it 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Everything possible is being done to ensure the weaker side is easily beaten and the smaller nations have little chance against the bigger ones. A prime example of why the game is dying from the ground up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Pls admin Ok, since you said please. I still don't remember exactly why the change was made and although I tried to make a case for it and defend the change you all outnumber me. I changed the base infras back to 10 in CN standard and CN:TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Ok, since you said please. I still don't remember exactly why the change was made and although I tried to make a case for it and defend the change you all outnumber me. I changed the base infras back to 10 in CN standard and CN:TE. I like it as 5 in CN:TE though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 I like it as 5 in CN:TE though. Why would you want the damage lower in the more aggressive version of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Why would you want the damage lower in the more aggressive version of the game? It makes it more aggressive when your opponents don't lose all their infrastructure in two days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 It makes it more aggressive when your opponents don't lose all their infrastructure in two days. This pretty much. The infra doesn't get as high, so you don't need to do as much damage to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 This pretty much. The infra doesn't get as high, so you don't need to do as much damage to it. I see. I've put the CN:TE base damage at 5 and CN standard base damage at 10 and everyone is happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 I see. I've put the CN:TE base damage at 5 and CN standard base damage at 10 and everyone is happy. Wait I wanted it at 7.8 in Standard and 5.3 in TE! Good show admin. That should work good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I see. I've put the CN:TE base damage at 5 and CN standard base damage at 10 and everyone is happy. Actually while you're playing with numbers, any chance of juggling infra damage numbers for other attack types on TE? I don't play it so I don't particularly care, but if you buy into the logic that less damage means the war draws out and makes people more aggressive, then lowering infra damage from nukes and planes couldn't hurt either. Just a thought that struck me while reading this topic. I am glad however that you changed things back to normal for SE, the average CM doing less than 10 per hit with full satelites just seemed wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I see. I've put the CN:TE base damage at 5 and CN standard base damage at 10 and everyone is happy. Actually...we are, or we better be. Too often people whine about things they don't like, but don't thank you when you fix them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Actually while you're playing with numbers, any chance of juggling infra damage numbers for other attack types on TE? I don't play it so I don't particularly care, but if you buy into the logic that less damage means the war draws out and makes people more aggressive, then lowering infra damage from nukes and planes couldn't hurt either. I honestly see opportunities there to test some of the military unit suggestions that have been made in the Suggestion Box for things like Field Artillery, different types of aircraft, soldiers and tanks, etc. Added shore bombardment capability for battleships and other current unit modifications as well. Those that work out as a nice addition get to graduate to CN standard, those that don't either get re-tuned for the next round or go into the scrap heap of discarded suggestions...which also should be some place players can find it so that they can stop asking for additions to the game that will never be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Thank you Admin, you have certainly made a Happy Pansy today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Thanks for the fix, Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts