Zeyrock

Suggestion #1

33 posts in this topic

Been sifting around the forum, looking around and I decided to make this topic which I've been thinking about for three days now; but I have been too busy with things that involve me not sitting at a computer long enough. 

 

Well anyway, I wanted to bring up size. By a unknowledgable person 'size' would determine strength.. Which most of us know isn't true. But in certain cases having size will win the day. But this means you'd be zerging your enemy. Well now I'm rambling but.. I would like to say perhaps have a system like for example.

 

example: If I have a ground military of 15,000 Infantry, 200 Tanks, 300 APC/IFVs, and 100 Self-Propelled Guns going up against a ground military of 45,000 Infantry, 400 Tanks, 600 APC/IFVs, and 200 Self-Propelled Guns; I'd want to be able to win. Here's why.. For example I plan to spend a large portion of my accessible funds on modernizing my nation, and acquiring military assets. So if I'm spending a vast amount of my economy on essentially training, modernizing, and equipping my forces with the foremost 'best' assets available. I think that I would be able to defeat the larger force.

 

Basically what I'm getting at, is will there be a type of system that allows for better trained, better equipped, or better modernized militaries. But I'd expect some balance to the point where you cannot have a MASSIVE military, thats equipped with the best equipment. I have a suggestion as in, every time you modernize; or equip your units with better things their price to produce should increase; thus limiting the ability to spam well equipped, and modernized units.

 

Also this is a little side thought... What about combat experience? Like nations that constantly fight other nations, and win; should have some type of combat experience over nations that don't exactly fight that much. Just an idea. and by experience I mean actual experience not the experience of having a bad economy after a major chain of wars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A system involving troop funding and training would be nice, but it should in no way be over-powered to allow a smaller nation to defeat a nation with a military 3x larger.
Im sorry, and this was a complaint last time this game was up, but thats just the way things are. Larger nations are more powerful. I understand people from smaller nations wanting to be able to win all the time, because i mean really, who likes losing? But in PvP like this, you cant make the smaller one overpowered so he can beat a larger one.
You can complain "well his nation is larger and more powerful and i cant beat him, i think this is unfair" all you want. But at the end of the day thats how PvP works.
The people that have been here longer will generally have larger nations, there isnt going to be a "shortcut" installed so smaller nations can catch up to larger ones. And the larger nations will be more powerful then smaller ones. I mean, you can pay for better equipment and training then the other guy. But if you dont have as much money as him, you arent going to win. Not with a 3x margin.
tl;rd: The idea of adding training, quality of equipment, and experience into military is a great idea. Making it overpowered to the point that a small nation can beat a nation 3x its size, is neither a good idea nor will it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Law and Research systems are being created with the capability to modify how effective buildings and units are. This will include military, once it is released.

So, you may have laws you can pass that increase/decrease military effectiveness, research that better equips your military to increase their effectiveness, etc.

As for "military experience": That isn't something we've considered, but I wouldn't think it likely. Something like that would give way too much of an advantage to older nations simply by merit of being older (and not necessarily larger, or better developed, or better prepared for war, or whatnot) which I'd like to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Law and Research systems are being created with the capability to modify how effective buildings and units are. This will include military, once it is released.

So, you may have laws you can pass that increase/decrease military effectiveness, research that better equips your military to increase their effectiveness, etc.

As for "military experience": That isn't something we've considered, but I wouldn't think it likely. Something like that would give way too much of an advantage to older nations simply by merit of being older (and not necessarily larger, or better developed, or better prepared for war, or whatnot) which I'd like to avoid.

Jesus, you must be implementing a whole lot of laws. Can't wait to see them. This week, I believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, you must be implementing a whole lot of laws. Can't wait to see them. This week, I believe?

We're hoping to have the law system out within the next week, but we prefer to steer away from hard deadlines as how much we get done depends heavily on how much free time we have to commit.

We will likely start with a smaller selection of laws at first and add more as we go along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just as a note laws will be added over time. Rhyme framework will be coded by the developers but don't expect to immediately see lots of laws to add. They'll be added more slowly.

Btw, players should feel free to suggest laws to be added, and what type of effects they think they should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remembered this game application in Facebook called "World Domination: Total War" (nope, not a Total War series) where you can conquer the world with your military by gaining territories of it or attacking other players, only by means of upgrading the numbers of your military and their capabilities. And all you need is money. The game's military units ranged basic infantrymen to all modern sorts of military stuff, but not including satellites, just your commonly-known military thingies.

 

I'm not advertising the game intently here, but I can see it as an idea the developers can use for players to enjoy building their military through research and money. But, if a player has a lot of money, then he can research many techs and improve his military capabilities, BUT he must reach a certain level (like he needs to reach 1m population count to research this stuff and needs $1.9 billion) so that he may not overpower other larger nations over him.

 

But there is a flaw in that game app: it has no structured military organization, just numbers you need to increase as you buy and buy more units, research and research stuff for them, and while you do, your money goes dry and empty. So, as suggestion, I think the developers might also add a tab in the "Military" wherein the players can organize a division or regiment of ground troops or an air wing, or a naval battle fleet, according to their fit customization, and launch them to war. In that way, players can enjoy more things in PT, aside from economics, trade, and diplomacy PT currently develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Law and Research systems are being created with the capability to modify how effective buildings and units are. This will include military, once it is released.

So, you may have laws you can pass that increase/decrease military effectiveness, research that better equips your military to increase their effectiveness, etc.

As for "military experience": That isn't something we've considered, but I wouldn't think it likely. Something like that would give way too much of an advantage to older nations simply by merit of being older (and not necessarily larger, or better developed, or better prepared for war, or whatnot) which I'd like to avoid.

 

I beg you to reconsider. Military experience, when capped, can add a whole new dimension to the game. Just like the OP said, it would allow for a smaller but more experienced army to beat a larger army. I can understand your point about older nations having an advantage of newer ones but that isn't necessarily true. Only a nation that has entered combat and won will have gained experience, so at least they were doing something and their armies weren't stronger just because they were older.

 

If you limit the experience to a 5% offensive and/or defensive benefit at max, it can add a new dimension to the game without completely unhinging it.

 

No offense, but don't you think there should be a difference between younger and older nations? Older nations that are completely unattended will fall apart by themselves and won't ever get to benefit from military experience. However, I do think that if I have been playing for a month and tended to my nation with some care, I should be significantly stronger than a starting the nation. As long as younger nations can catch up by joining the right alliance, selling the right resources and passing the right laws, I don't really see a problem here.

 

So again, please reconsider. A slight advantage would make warfare much more interesting and I don't think it will unhinge the game at all. Also, perhaps new nations can start out with a basic military defense force that has some experience but is minor in size? That way, no new nation could get steamrolled by older ones right off the bat (which can happen whether experience is implemented or not).

 

Edited by Macaberz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I think the developers might also add a tab in the "Military" wherein the players can organize a division or regiment of ground troops or an air wing, or a naval battle fleet, according to their fit customization, and launch them to war. In that way, players can enjoy more things in PT, aside from economics, trade, and diplomacy PT currently develops.

I support this Idea, it would add something that if done right, no other Online game that i have played will have, the ability to organize army's and divisions sounds great, you could also have generals that increase the ability of your army/division in battle,

 

P.S this game is the best online game for nation simulation i have ever played , keep up the great work Admins  :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quirina, and @cheekyread We used to have a system like that on PT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to add that, it should be possible for a weaker nation to defeated a more powerful nations, if they uses the right Stratagem. In the Vietnam war the Vietcong army were less equipped and had no training however the used tactics that defeated the US a number of time. However, saying this it will still take numbers. therefor new nation would not be able to beat old nation, due to military size and economy. I would also like to say that the economy should affected soldiers ability in battle, like if they haven't had there pay or something due to the economy crashing then soldiers surrender or fight less effectively, this means that a new nation would be able to beat an older nation, if that older nation is a poor leader and has lead his economy into ruin. This removes that veteran advantage that most online games have. (that is, this guy was here before me so i can never beat him)

 

What do people think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. How about factors -- I think it's called psychological warfare or a part of it -- such as adding government satisfaction in how well the military can fight, go to war or in some other way affect the nation's military actions. People's support for the war has been proved to be an important part of military strategy. For example in the 60's there were mass protests against the war in Vietnam. I don't think it's very difficult to add it, or what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows about a "rock paper scissors" type of strategy?
This strategy beats that one, that strategy beats this one, etc. Each battle strategy can give advantages to certain types of units and have increased effectiveness against other strategies but be weaker against other things aswell to balance it out.
"guerrilla warfare"
-infantry +25% combat effectiveness
-air power -10% effectiveness
- +20% land loss incase of defeat
+35% overall effectiveness against "strategic defense" strategy
"strategic defense"
-armor +10% (15% when defending) effectiveness

- artillery +20% effectiveness
-air power +25% effectiveness

-infantry 25% effectiveness when defending
- -10% land loss in case of defeat
- -20% land gains incase of victory
+35% overall effectiveness against "frontal push" strategy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to open a whole new can of worms, but there's a significant difference between an offensive and defensive war. Evenly matched, the defender wins most of the time. Even overmatched, the defender can win. It's all about political support at home for the offensive front (I'm not sure if warring increases/decreases population happiness?) and the "nothing to lose" belief for the defender.

 

I should hope that everyone here knows enough not to need examples, but here we go:

-American Revolution: British were superior in practically every way. Washington just avoided total defeat pretty much the entire time and got them to give up. Some French aid didn't go awry either, I suppose.

 

-Vietnam War/Korean War: America didn't actually lose the Vietnam war, they just left before they could. Morale was the key factor - the Vietnamese were fighting to defend their homes while the Americans kind of were fighting just to up the Russians. Even if you live by the theory that it originally ended up like the Korean War for a brief period (N/S Vietnam), America didn't go back to intervene after the North decided that they actually wanted the South after all. The Korean War itself was a stalemate as well. Note that a stalemate in these cases really results in a defensive win.

 

-Napoleonic Wars: Napoleon stretched his offense too far, and there was a united defense against him. He wanted land, they didn't want him to have it. European powers were so overrun at one point (as Napoleon pushed into Russia) that it was essentially just another "What have we got to lose?" moment.

 

-Crimean War: Russia loses to an alliance of European powers after (once again) trying to get a warm water sea port. Will they ever learn? Oh wait, it's 2014 and they haven't.

 

Typing this out signals another point - often it's not about Nation X attacking and Nation Y defending, it's about Nation X attacking and Nations Y, Z, A, B, and C defending because they see a disturbance in the balance of power. This is what alliances are for obviously - helping out your fellow nations on defense or offense, but I still feel that the defending nation (with aid or without it) should have some inherent advantage.

 

Edit: Added a phrase, "Because they see a disturbance in the balance of power."

Edit2: Yes, I realize many of these are American wars. I'm American and however hard I try there's always going to be a bias. In any case, I feel they make for decent examples. :)

Edited by SirWinkler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking is easier then defending. And either way you are going, to depends on the situation. Usually whoever has more strength (the larger nation) gets its way, and has the advantage.
Please note that:
During the revolutionary war, the British where on the defensive quite often. There was just too much land, distance, and the minutemen where based out of too many different locations. The british would attack a location, then on the march home they would get destroyed by Americans using guerrilla tactics. ie. the British where defending, and doing it very poorly.
-Also, Vietnam. Look at the Tet offensive. The Americans where on the defensive most of the time, not offense. They where outnumbered and forced to defend key locations, and where eventually overran. They where losing ground when they pulled out. Had it continued, it would have been a defeat.
-Napoleon: He was on the offensive, and was victorious(nearly) every time he attacked. He just couldnt go through Asia when he punched it, and had to go home. Winter killed most of his troops, not the enemy.
The point is, an evenly matched defender will ONLY have the advantage if he is defending properly. It depends on how he is defending, and what is attacking him.
Contrary to popular belief held by people that love to play RTS games against AIs all the time, you DO NOT win a war by defending all the time.
And nation x attacking nation y a and b isnt "an even fight" as you said earlier. That has literally nothing to do with the tactics of war.
Also please note, historian =/= battle tactician.
*Edited with more facts
The point is, in gaming, defending is over powered and usually wins. And i have to say this because thats probably where your experience comes from. In real life, attacking is not only much easier, but usually holds the advantage in a battle.

Edited by Strigon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking is easier then defending. And either way you are going, to depends on the situation. Usually whoever has more strength (the larger nation) gets its way, and has the advantage.

Please note that:

During the revolutionary war, the British where on the defensive quite often. There was just too much land, distance, and the minutemen where based out of too many different locations. The british would attack a location, then on the march home they would get destroyed by Americans using guerrilla tactics. ie. the British where defending, and doing it very poorly.

The point is, an evenly matched defender will ONLY have the advantage if he is defending properly. It depends on how he is defending, and what is attacking him.

Contrary to popular belief held by people that love to play RTS games against AIs all the time, you DO NOT win a war by defending all the time.

And nation x attacking nation y a and b isnt "an even fight" as you said earlier. That has literally nothing to do with the tactics of war.

Also please note, historian =/= battle tactician.

 

My "inherent advantage" idea isn't so massive as to swing the tide of a war of which the outcome is obvious. If Russia goes to war with Ukraine mainland and nobody steps in to help, that "inherent advantage" isn't going to help. Likewise, if the armies are mismatched by a certain degree then it wouldn't make a difference. Obviously that's an extreme example.

 

Even if you want to completely discount that idea, the defender still has the support of its citizens more than the nation on the offensive would (Edit: in most cases - there are instances of "justified wars" to which the public gives its support to the offensive nation). I'm unsure as to how that could be accounted for in-game though. Then again, I'm not sure if population happiness has an effect on the military.

 

As for the American Revolution example, I hold that the war as a whole was defensive from the American side and that the war as a whole was offensive from the British side - even as the British were surrendering. So perhaps that's where the disagreement stems from? I don't know. In any case, the example you give (from my perspective) would be the British attack of a base, and the American defense of that base as the British picked up and began to leave. Are the Americans attacking back? Yes, but it's as much a defensive move as it is offensive in that the defender wants his property back.

 

I don't recall naming the combined defense of more than one nation against a single nation a "fair fight". If I did, it's a typo and I apologize for giving you that impression. That's one aspect that I'm not sure we'll be able to match here on PT though - nations here aren't concerned about a balance of power like they are in real life. So a one-on-one war here may or may not entail a certain inherent defensive advantage. I was simply attempting to make amends for the fact that it's unlikely the defense will get aid from many more nations than are attacking it (and this takes alliances into account ).

Edited by SirWinkler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "inherent advantage" idea isn't so massive as to swing the tide of a war of which the outcome is obvious. If Russia goes to war with Ukraine mainland and nobody steps in to help, that "inherent advantage" isn't going to help. Likewise, if the armies are mismatched by a certain degree then it wouldn't make a difference. Obviously that's an extreme example.

 

Even if you want to completely discount that idea, the defender still has the support of its citizens more than the nation on the offensive would. I'm unsure as to how that could be accounted for in-game though. Then again, I'm not sure if population happiness has an effect on the military.

 

As for the American Revolution example, I hold that the war as a whole was defensive from the American side and that the war as a whole was offensive from the British side - even as the British were surrendering. So perhaps that's where the disagreement stems from? I don't know. In any case, the example you give (from my perspective) would be the British attack of a base, and the American defense of that base as the British picked up and began to leave. Are the Americans attacking back? Yes, but it's as much a defensive move as it is offensive in that the defender wants his property back.

 

I don't recall naming the combined defense of more than one nation against a single nation a "fair fight". If I did, it's a typo and I apologize for giving you that impression. That's one aspect that I'm not sure we'll be able to match here on PT though - nations here aren't concerned about a balance of power like they are in real life. So a one-on-one war here may or may not entail a certain inherent defensive advantage. I was simply attempting to make amends for the fact that it's unlikely the defense will get aid from many more nations than are attacking it (and this takes alliances into account ).

 

I live and grew up in New England. If you would please observe the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Mainly the battle of Concord, and the British withdrawal afterwards.

The British marched all the way from Boston, en rout to Concord to search and destroy supplies of the colonial militia. There was a small fight on the way there (in Lexington) in which the colonial militia suffered very light losses and basically moved out of the way of the British. The British then moved on to Concord, and found no militia supplies.

Now, on the march back, they where harassed by militia and lost a good chunk of troops. When they made it back to Boston, they where essentially trapped in the town. After a siege of the town, the British forces extracted via ships.

The point of the war and of guerrilla tactics is that you avoid letting the enemy attack you, and force him to fight on your terms. This results in the enemy defending more then he attacks, and when he does attack the guerrilla forces take minor losses.

tl;dr: I live in New England and know more about the Revolutionary war then you do. The British where defending more then they where attacking. They where forced to fight a defensive war and where pushed out of New England.

The French sent guns, some ships, and a big statue(among other things)

Though i think you are confused. I am talking about war and battles between two nations, which has nothing to do with politics/help from friends.

The defender isnt guaranteed more support. Actually, a victorious attacker is more likely to gain support of its citizens then the one defending. Look at WWII (comparing Germans and Americans, and also plummeting morale of Japanese citizens)

ALSO

Look into the "Battle Of Yorktown"

Its when the Bitish surrendered. We essentially pushed them across the 13, and into Yorktown. They where sieged until they where forced to call it quits.

Edited by Strigon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they should add lots of things into the War and military side of this game, although it is a Nation Simulation, they have added lots of stuff into the Civilian side of it, therefor to even it out (due to the fact that War is the next biggest thing after Politics that changers a Nation.) they should try to make the Military side of it as realistic as possible.

 

It could involve taking Cites of that country, the territory they own and so on. I think however the biggest question is, isn't how the battles should happen but what happens to the nations that losses, does he start again (i don't think that is a good idea) or does he give a proportion of his money to the conquering nation. i believe this is the biggest question that must be answered before we sort out battles and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question... and please excuse my ignorance on the matter as I am a newcomer to PT.

 

Will certain types of units have special attributes such as offence and defence? Could a traditionally peaceful nation arm themselves with SAMs, mech infantry and bunkers to render themselves a fortress without the need for a viable offence? Basically could a nation bankrupt an invader with fierce defence?

 

Tanks, (pun intended)

 

-K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well how long till the war system is done i can't wait :laugh:  if it is like what people have been saying its going to be awesome. CAN NOT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :laugh:


Mechanized Infantry.

thx thought you meant walking tanks and stuff  :laugh: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well how long till the war system is done i can't wait :laugh:  if it is like what people have been saying its going to be awesome. CAN NOT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :laugh:

thx thought you meant walking tanks and stuff  :laugh: .

Uhhhm, the war system was turn based and all text based and stuff man. It's not like you're turning on some FPS and blowing ******** up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Law and Research systems are being created with the capability to modify how effective buildings and units are. This will include military, once it is released.

So, you may have laws you can pass that increase/decrease military effectiveness, research that better equips your military to increase their effectiveness, etc.

As for "military experience": That isn't something we've considered, but I wouldn't think it likely. Something like that would give way too much of an advantage to older nations simply by merit of being older (and not necessarily larger, or better developed, or better prepared for war, or whatnot) which I'd like to avoid.

 

Won't those laws goes against the ideal to keep things less standard in terms of which nations pass what laws? I mean, if you make laws that impact military effectiveness, won't everyone pass those laws? You'll have laws designed for militaristic armies on every nations regardless of foreign policy. Seems like that would be counter productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now