PDA

View Full Version : Balancing the game



socrates
10-06-2005, 09:04 AM
Ideas for balancing the game....

Armies are limited in size... max of 20k troops..

Players can have a limited no. of armies based on cities or value of city held; eg say max army = 10 + ( total city value / 50,000 ).

Well your homebase can support only 10 armies; and your troops have to come from somewhere ! added bonus... Beezer doesn't have to add too many cities...

Now everyone is going to say ... what if I lose some cities... well then...

If your army count is too big, your armies begin to desert. All armies begin to reduce in size at a rate of 5% of individual army size every 12/24 hours.
Sooner or later, some armies are going to disappear, and the max army count is maintained....

all of these numbers seen here are a suggestion... final decision is up to Mickey...

Pros of this suggestion....
new players can get into the game faster.
there is only so much armies going around ( faster processing & less data to process in the game )
players are more likely to want to attack cities... to expand.
existing players still have the advantage of recovering faster from a devastating attack.
the game might start to be more intresting.
there's no need to increase the size of Alliances or ban them...

Cons...
I might get kicked out of the NA for suggesting this... :dead:
existing players with 50k + troops are going to be mad at me... :dead::dead:

blitzkrieg
10-06-2005, 10:23 AM
I would object strongly to anyone being de-NAed for making a suggestion that is for the betterment of the game!

We may have to form a bloc now though...

I made a similar plee a while ago to limit troops sizes, and I like these amendments. You could also go further to limit the total troops instead of the total armies. Troops need to come from somewhere. Where's the realism in having an army of 100,000 troops supported only by a homebase?

I'm not sure what the home base should be able to support though. Maybe a figure like 20 or 30,000 but once you own a city, it's city's recruitment pool vs. home base - which ever is higher so you can always support at least 20 or 30,000.

One problem though would be to get the balance right. A small city (Missoula) would add basically nothing to your recruitment pool so you'd say maybe 1/10 of city size (57,053) is an extra 5,705 troops that can be recruited. But to use the same equation on New York means you can recruit 2,176,673 troops. Maybe it could be set on a sliding scale (tangent). To have New York able to support 217,667 is probably fair (1/100). It's still a lot of troops. The bigger cities would be prime real estate then for more than just tax!

Also, if a player loses a few cities and tries to consolidate himself by pulling back to one city, he may end up decaying his own forces. This will add a lot of strategy I think to conquering a foe. And if they lose all cities, while on a counterstrike (all troops enruite to somewhere) they'd better get there soon or divert to another city because there wouldn't be much left of the army by the time it got there.

One problem with that is that it might take 12 hours for the person to even realise that he's lost all his cities.....


Enough from me - Blitzkriegmj

TheMightySquigglies
10-06-2005, 10:38 AM
One problem with that is that it might take 12 hours for the person to even realise that he's lost all his cities.....


Enough from me - Blitzkriegmj

You could delay the decay for say a 6-12 hour period giving people enough time to react. If they didn't react after 6-12 hours then the forces start depleting?

blitzkrieg
10-06-2005, 10:44 AM
Wicked - all sorted then!


Mickey?

socrates
10-06-2005, 10:58 AM
all we need now is Rasqual to give Mickey a deadline....

I'm too small to do that....

Hey Rasqual... what you think ?

Lukepuuk
10-06-2005, 02:32 PM
I don't think it's a good idea.
What about those working hard to get huge armies at their home base or small cities. You might not like it but it's a tactic.

I think again this would be setting the game to limits and is completely unrealistic.
One should be able to work for great armies and then do a surprise attack at the world.

TheMightySquigglies
10-06-2005, 02:39 PM
I don't think it's a good idea.
What about those working hard to get huge armies at their home base or small cities. You might not like it but it's a tactic.

I think again this would be setting the game to limits and is completely unrealistic.
One should be able to work for great armies and then do a surprise attack at the world.


Then it looks like we are back to Mickey creating two games, one for newbies to build up geos and armies and the other for when they are ready to take on the big boys.

The first has a limit to make it competetive and the second is limitless. Once you reach the limit on the first you are invited to join the second.

Timmetie
10-06-2005, 03:31 PM
I like the idea! a lot!

ive always been one to tie everything to how many cities you have and this fits right in!

Mickey, im pretty sure rasqual would give you 2 days..

socrates
10-07-2005, 06:16 AM
One should be able to work for great armies and then do a surprise attack at the world.

here I would like to disagree with you Lukepuuk... looking back at the postings it was rather disruptive... take bigbug for an example...

so how bout this... if GEWar ends up as a money maker for Mickey; he can make having unlimited armies and troops as a paid option...
that way you can try the game out ... have fun... and if you want more FUN !! you fill Mickey's palms with some dead presidents...

TheMightySquigglies
10-07-2005, 08:07 AM
Do they have to be past presidents or will the current one do?