Jump to content


List of CW changes


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

Thrombozyt #1 Posted 21 July 2015 - 07:43 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21373 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012

I would like to generate a list of changes that - in my view - should be made to CW compared to the current test version in order to have good consistent game mechanics. Even though there is a only a slim anyone from WG will read it and pass it on, we should first discuss, agree on needed changes and then pester WG EU to comment.

 

If you have additional issues you would like to add or want to discuss, please do so.

 

Technical issues:
1) Global map performance

Currently the global map takes rather long to load and build up - and that's on good internet connections. Anything that enhances performance is welcome. This however is nothing crucial.

 

2) Allow information to be displayed on smaller zoom levels
It would be much easier, if you could zoom out more and still be able to select single provinces and issue orders. Currently zooming out to get the bigger picture, then zooming in to do stuff is a pain, especially with the slow performance.

 

General mechanics:

1) Bring back the encounter

The encounter battle was a nice mechanic which allowed clans to directly interact with the moves of their opponents. It just makes much more sense to fight at the border to determine which attack goes through. Removal of the encounter decreases the ability of clans to work against multiple smaller opponents, which in turn increases the dependency on diplomacy and increases the likelihood of unmoving allied blocks.

 

2) Adjust timezones

With the new map the term 'prime time' has been changed in its meaning. On the old map it meant the time up to which orders could be given and there was a 30-90 minute delay until the first battles started. On the new map it means the time the first battle starts, so battles start much earlier than on the old map. If the terminology is kept, I would suggest to introduce a 21:00 prime time zone which should be as big - if not bigger - than the 18:00 zone.

Encounter battles could take part actually 30 mins before the prime time, leaving the prime time as the time where battles for provinces start.

 

3) Bring back the ransack (in modified form)

While I wasn't a fan of the ransack option on the old map, it would be good to be able to ransack a province, resetting its income to lvl 1 and giving a portion of the influence invested into the province to the ransacking clan.

 

4) Allow attacks from multiple divisions

It would greatly increase strategic depth, if you could attack a province from multiple fronts. In-game you would attack with a division then 1 turn later attack with another division which would stay in place but go on a 24h cooldown. For the fight, all modules from both divisions would count.

 

5) Mobilizing for War

While browsing different forums, I often encountered the prediction, that auctions will kill big wars, because off-map clans will simply jump on any aggressor at the first chance. That is a valid fear, that no one who holds significant amounts of land will show aggression as it exposes the clan to auctioning off-map clans. Therefore a mechanism should be introduced, that allows for times of aggression and expansion - Mobilization for War.

Basically a commander can decide to enable mobilization. Upon mobilization the following effects come into play:

1) All provinces acquire small upkeep costs (10-20 influence per province)

2) Stronghold provides no more influence

3) All auctions on provinces held by the clan fail

 

In this state, a clan can aggressively expand its territory without having to fear constant backstabs. However, the clan most likely will run out of influence sooner rather than later (except if the battles go really well) as the only income of influence comes from the map i.e. the destruction of divisions and HQs as well as ransacks.

After expansion, the commander can demobilize. This immediately removes effects 1) and 3) and after 48h effect 2) is also removed. The delay prevents short term mobilization and represents the cost of the action.

 

Adjustment of numbers/mechanics

1) Increase the amount of influence gained on the global map

The influence mechanic - as I see it - is in part meant to negate the peaceful gold farming situations that are so common on the old map. With division upkeep, gold farming clans still need to do stronghold skirmishes to gather the required influence. While it's a good mechanic, it punishes clans actively fighting a war much more, as such a clan not only needs to pay for active divisions, but also replace destroyed division. As such, the influence requirements for actively fighting on the map - something that should be encouraged - are higher than for passive clans and the meager influence points that are gained for destroying divisions will not make up the difference.

As a result, clans fighting on the map spend more time preparing/fighting CWs AND in addition spend even more time farming influence in the stronghold. The natural reaction from clans is to just form stable alliances with all their neighbors and farm gold just like on the old map.

So please - drastically increase the amount of influence gained for destroying a division and a good bonus for destroying a head quarters. In addition it would be great, if you could ransack province improvements for influence.

It would be great, if you can keep 6-8 divisions on the map by winning 2-3 CW battles and replenish your divisions by ransacking or killing HQs.

 

2) Modules

Arty and Air strikes have been quite the rage in different forums. Thinking about it, I would actually like to see them stay. BUT - there should be a significant cost of opportunity involved. Currently both arty and air strike modules double with good additional strategic functions, making the easily the best modules to invest into. That should go. The modules should only enable the use of strike in battle. The border closing would be valuable as a separate module (you could even increase the closing time to 4h) as would the influence pillage, if the influence values gained by fighting on the map are increased.

Then you could add additional modules such as:

- Modules to shift battle time by 15 minutes (for clans with only a limited amount of teams)

- Module to reduce the movement cool down to 10h (so you can move twice a day) - attacking a hostile division still imposes a 24h cool down but it could allow for blitzes through empty provinces

- Modules to negate either air strike or arty strike modules

- Module to increase the minimum bid on provinces

- Module to gather information on auctions

- Module to reduce upkeep

- Module to gain information akin to the current spy upon destruction of a division (info lasts 24h)

 

With these suggestions, there would be 14 module choices and selecting air strike or arty support would be a strategic handicap for tactical gain. If you would like to further reduce the value of these modules you can make them one-use-only so you have to repurchase after each use increasing the influence cost of each strike.

 

3) Auction mechanics

Spoiler - old suggestion

3.a) Failed aggressive bids should only be reimbursed for 80% or less

That is pretty self-explanatory. Bidding in an auction is currently risk free, which is a no-brainer and removes a lot of the decision making from the auction mechanic. If you don't care when you land you can simply bid the minimum bid on 2-3 provinces until you succeed.

3.b) Auctions should be resolved 2 turns before 'prime time'

This allows defending clans to react by moving divisions. The current system forces a clan to occupy each province with a division removing choice from the commander. With auctions being resolved while divisions still being able to move, clans can spread resources thinner without auto loss of provinces as soon as there is an auction on an empty province.

3.c) Auction battles should be staggered by 10 minutes

All battles in one time zone between the defender and the auctioning clan should be separated by 10 minutes (e.g. 20:00, 20:10, 20:20 etc.). This allows a clan to hold possibly infinite auctions with only two teams. Auction landings that involve a 3rd party are not subject to this delay. Someone else attacks you - tough luck.

3.d) Optional: Module to enhance defense against auction

With a 'military police' division a clan can cancel an auction incoming onto the province guarded by that division. This is possible by paying the influence bid by the attacker plus the minimum bid in the turn between auctions being resolved and the last possible orders for a province are accepted.

 

Aim of the changes is to allow land holding clans to defend their holdings reliably at the cost of two teams for the night. For many clans this means that they cannot handle other attacks and defenses if they get mass-auctioned. This actually opens up mass-auction as a tool that gives incentives for diplomacy between on-map clans and off-map clans. It still retains the main function of auctions - to force clans to garrison their hinterland.

 

4) Dynamic tank locking

Currently, the duration a tank is locked for is determined by arbitrary tables looking at the tier of a tank and its class. I would like to propose a demand driven system that actually takes the use of a tank into account. Every tank starts out with a lock duration based on its tier:

Tier 6 - 1.5 days

Tier 8 - 3 days

Tier 10 - 6 days

 

Lets look at tier 10 and the IS 7 as an example. There are 36 Tier 10 vehicles (at least I think so). Each day at 12:00pm noon, the system looks at how many tanks of each model were locked in the previous 24h. For each IS7 locked, the lock time for the IS7 goes up by one minute. For every non-IS7 tank locked, the lock time of the IS7 goes down by 1/35th of a minute (so a little less than 2 secs). If in the previous day 2000 tanks were locked and 100 of them were an IS7, the lock time of the IS7 increases by about 45 minutes and change (100 min - 1900/35 min = 45.7 min).

If you attack a province and win, you still get a 50% discount on all tanks locked in the battle for the province.

 

 


Edited by Thrombozyt, 01 August 2015 - 08:11 AM.


andi_b #2 Posted 21 July 2015 - 06:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22876 battles
  • 203
  • Member since:
    02-14-2013

3) Bring back the ransack (in modified form)

While I wasn't a fan of the ransack option on the old map, it would be good to be able to ransack a province, resetting its income to lvl 1 and giving a portion of the influence invested into the province to the ransacking clan.

 +1 for this .



Meista #3 Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:35 PM

    Corporal

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 80681 battles
  • 164
  • [EX-4A] EX-4A
  • Member since:
    03-04-2012

New Problem: Top Clans are tired of getting attacked all the time. So they created a big alliance. Now they just sit on their gold, don't attack each other and defend themselves against Noob-clans that try to land there.

So Tier 10 is only for top 30 Clans???


Edited by Meista, 21 July 2015 - 10:42 PM.


Tarantula_xD #4 Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 19323 battles
  • 1,060
  • [MSGA] MSGA
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View PostMeista, on 21 July 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

New Problem: Top Clans are tired of getting attacked all the time. So they created a big alliance. Now they just sit on their gold, don't attack each other and defend themselves against Noob-clans that try to land there.

 

This is because of the 2 global maps. Currently u can goldfarm like crazy. That is the only reason

Edited by Tarantula_xD, 21 July 2015 - 11:12 PM.


Thrombozyt #5 Posted 22 July 2015 - 07:17 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21373 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012

View PostMeista, on 21 July 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

New Problem: Top Clans are tired of getting attacked all the time. So they created a big alliance. Now they just sit on their gold, don't attack each other and defend themselves against Noob-clans that try to land there.

So Tier 10 is only for top 30 Clans???

 

There are actually 2 mechanics in place to prevent this.

1) The auction mechanic allows smaller clans to pre-plan landings. 8-10 smaller clans each bidding 4k Influence on one province of a big clan that holds 10 provinces means that multiple smaller clans will land. It would be a miracle if the attacked clan can muster more than 4 teams meaning 6 provinces go unchallenged.

 

 

2) The upkeep for divisions means that if clans go with the NAP into all direction plan, they still have to grind stronghold in order to gather enough influence. That is why in my proposal there would be more influence gained from battles on the map and less from strongholds. If a clan has the choice between 1.5h CW or 3h tier 10 stronghold in order to maintain their provinces, I reckon most will go with the CW option and fight with their neighbors.



Thrombozyt #6 Posted 22 July 2015 - 07:33 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21373 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012

--- New addition to the list ---

4) Dynamic tank locking

Currently, the duration a tank is locked for is determined by arbitrary tables looking at the tier of a tank and its class. I would like to propose a demand driven system that actually takes the use of a tank into account. Every tank starts out with a lock duration based on its tier:

Tier 6 - 1.5 days

Tier 8 - 3 days

Tier 10 - 6 days

 

Lets look at tier 10 and the IS 7 as an example. There are 36 Tier 10 vehicles (at least I think so). Each day at 12:00pm noon, the system looks at how many tanks of each model were locked in the previous 24h. For each IS7 locked, the lock time for the IS7 goes up by one minute. For every non-IS7 tank locked, the lock time of the IS7 goes down by 1/35th of a minute (so a little less than 2 secs). If in the previous day 2000 tanks were locked and 100 of them were an IS7, the lock time of the IS7 increases by about 45 minutes and change (100 min - 1900/35 min = 45.7 min).

If you attack a province and win, you still get a 50% discount on all tanks locked in the battle for the province.

 

 

 

 



Fynnegun #7 Posted 22 July 2015 - 11:46 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

Hello,

 

About technical issues, it is known and devs are working on optimization of the map, and with more zoom options.

 

General mechanics 

1) As far as I know there are no plans to bring back encounter battles. I'll pass your feedback nonetheless.

I think they removed it in order to reduce the battle spread, as in having battles for hours before actually battling the province.

2) Agreed, a 19:00 UTC Prime Time has been requested to be added for release, especially for players in UTC time zone (UK, Portugal, etc.)

3) No plans to bring back ransack feature, though some other modules acting in the same manner are not excluded (feedback passed).

4) That would be a nice module for a division, feedback passed also.

 

Adjustment of numbers/mechanics

1) Feedback passed.

2) I passed some of the feedback but not all, for example the module to decrease the upkeep would only encourage camping.

I agree though that with a larger choice, it would decrease the combat consumables usage.

3) a) It would also encourage camping.

b) Same as above.

c) Agreed, feedback passed. Altough it currently has no real effect, as in it doesn't change the battle schedule.

d) Also encouraging camping indirectly in my opinion. What's the point of having provinces if you do not (want to) defend them.

4) While a I agree this is a nice system, it looks very complicated to set up in place, leaving a lot of room for technical errors and I think not many players would understand why their tank got locked for 57 hours 12 minutes and 39 seconds exactly (as example).

 

I forward most of your feedback while disagreeing on some points, if you think I am wrong please give me more details so I could understand it better (maybe I just got it wrong :D)

 

Anyway, thanks a lot for your input and effort to express all your thoughts into text.

if you have any more feedback and/or suggestions, feel free to post them I'll check them.

 

Thanks again!

 

Decept1on



Thrombozyt #8 Posted 22 July 2015 - 02:17 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21373 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012

Wow.. I honestly didn't expect that - nice surprise!

 

Lets go over a few points:

Encounter battle:
I understand the streamlining aspect, but there are already tournaments in case of multiple attackers in place, so the province defense time is already a variable. You can even fit the encounter as the first battle during battle time and schedule it as the first round for the province tournament. For example if a province is attacked by 3 clans and the defender counter attacks one province, then you can schedule the first round of the tournament as the encounter battle and the fight between the two remaining attacker (tournament with 4 participants). If the counter-attacked province is attacked by a 5th clan, their province tournament schedule will show the encounter battle with a 1st round free win for the 5th clan.

So you can either have encounter taking place 30 mins before the 'battle for provinces start' time, which is intuitive and easy to explain in the rules, but stretches the CW battle time by 30 mins (which I think is no biggie).

Or you can integrate encounter in the regular battle time frame, but the rules are a bit more complicated.

Either way, the arguments for encounter still exist - especially the ability for a clan commander to influence the battle order and thus give his clans the best odds.

 

Ransack:

Just pass it on as a new feature that is just shares the name. Influence economy will be hugely important for successful clans and the ability to directly gain from beaten opponents will be a strong incentive for fights on the map. In my opinion just an easy way to prod established clans into fighting.

 

Attacks from multiple fronts:

Not sure if we are on the same page here. You could add it as a module, though I was thinking about a general option. Attacking the same provinces from multiple sides should give the attacker a bonus.

 

Module to decrease upkeep:

If the opportunity costs are high enough, it shouldn't matter too much, but it's more of a filler idea and I don't mind it being shot down. What else do you have trouble with?

 

Auction system:  (also contains general design)

Auctions are a way to break into stale NAP systems. However, it sucks from a game design perspective, when the land holding clan is completely at the mercy of clans that are off the map and are thus a) numerous, b) invisible but at the same time c) weaker than the land holding clan. The buffs to defensive bidding make this option at least somewhat viable and you can fortify a core province where you invest heavily. All proposed changes in the auction system and especially 3d) is designed to enable a clan to stretch thin and hold larger portions of land than it can afford upkeep wise.
You think it will lead to 'camping' (I assume you mean NAP stalemates for the purpose of gold farming). I have to disagree. The stack limit was in my view one big - if not the biggest - driver of the stalemates. On the old map, if you had 6-7 provinces you had no more stacks on thus no incentive to gain more territory. You couldn't hold it anyhow, so why conquer additional land? If a clan can potentially hold unlimited amounts of land, there is always the thought of 'lets get one more province' - you are appealing to the greed of the players. There are clans out there, that the vast majority of competitors have no hopes of beating - the skill gap is just too large. But if the best clans profit from stretching thin and they reach out too far, then they are suddenly beatable and suddenly it's a tense battle between a top clan trying to eek out the most from the map and a good clan that is trying to find the cracks in the defense. They suddenly battle on a much more even level because weaker players with more resources fight better players with less resources. 15 tier X tanks vs 15 tier X tanks might be no contest, but if the weak clan in addition has air strike and arty strike while the strong clan may only field 140 tier points (e.g. because there is a module that reduces upkeep but also limits the tier points) you suddenly have an exciting match. In the old CW, it only mattered who was the better clan, but it would be much much cooler if it would also matter by how much you are better.

So bottom line:
You want big clans to over reach and through this put themselves in a situation where they are a more even match for weaker clans. If you don't allow clans to cut corners because you enforce that a division is stationed in every province, clans won't stretch for more land.

 

Tank locking system:

Most players (including me as a former commander) don't know the tank locking times in advance. It's already a multitude of table depending on tier, tank class, province that was fought for and if you are attacker/defender. It's easier to understand, that the tanks in highest demand are locked the longest. You can round the lock to the hour without problem and for the players that REALLY want to know, simply make a small API available that provides the current lock time for a given tank and put a corresponding mask on the clan wars page. The system is already working with tables, writing a bot that updates all the values every 24h shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

Additional suggestion - flexible tier point limits:

A long, long time ago, I suggested a modification to clan wars. The suggestion ties into the argument made further up, that clans who are able to fight with weaker tanks should be able to earn more. You could either say that in Tier X the tier point limit is 145 (min. 8 tier points per tank) and then there is a module that increases the limit by 5 points. The better way however would be a module with negative upkeep, that reduces the tier limit of a setup by 3-5 points and this module can be applied multiple times to the same division to result in a dirt cheap but weaker unit to guard the hinterlands.

 

Additional suggestion - flexible premium ammo allowances:

This one is just mentioned because of your comments in the Feedback thread. Limit premium ammunition to 3 shots per tank (or one clip for auto loaders). Then add a module that doubles the allowance and can be applied twice (for three times the allowance) or even thrice to a division.

 

If both suggestions would be implemented, it would allow commanders to find clever setups for specific maps where they can optimally use limited resources.



Gnomus #9 Posted 22 July 2015 - 07:44 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 34484 battles
  • 2,029
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    02-12-2011

View PostThrombozyt, on 22 July 2015 - 02:17 PM, said:

Auction system:  (also contains general design)

Auctions are a way to break into stale NAP systems. However, it sucks from a game design perspective, when the land holding clan is completely at the mercy of clans that are off the map and are thus a) numerous, b) invisible but at the same time c) weaker than the land holding clan. The buffs to defensive bidding make this option at least somewhat viable and you can fortify a core province where you invest heavily. All proposed changes in the auction system and especially 3d) is designed to enable a clan to stretch thin and hold larger portions of land than it can afford upkeep wise.
You think it will lead to 'camping' (I assume you mean NAP stalemates for the purpose of gold farming). I have to disagree. The stack limit was in my view one big - if not the biggest - driver of the stalemates. On the old map, if you had 6-7 provinces you had no more stacks on thus no incentive to gain more territory. You couldn't hold it anyhow, so why conquer additional land? If a clan can potentially hold unlimited amounts of land, there is always the thought of 'lets get one more province' - you are appealing to the greed of the players. There are clans out there, that the vast majority of competitors have no hopes of beating - the skill gap is just too large. But if the best clans profit from stretching thin and they reach out too far, then they are suddenly beatable and suddenly it's a tense battle between a top clan trying to eek out the most from the map and a good clan that is trying to find the cracks in the defense. They suddenly battle on a much more even level because weaker players with more resources fight better players with less resources. 15 tier X tanks vs 15 tier X tanks might be no contest, but if the weak clan in addition has air strike and arty strike while the strong clan may only field 140 tier points (e.g. because there is a module that reduces upkeep but also limits the tier points) you suddenly have an exciting match. In the old CW, it only mattered who was the better clan, but it would be much much cooler if it would also matter by how much you are better.

So bottom line:
You want big clans to over reach and through this put themselves in a situation where they are a more even match for weaker clans. If you don't allow clans to cut corners because you enforce that a division is stationed in every province, clans won't stretch for more land.

 

 

When riots were rampant and even full stack didn't protect area from riots map was chaotic but there weren't many naps. Neighbors were changing pretty fast and you didn't know which areas you would/could hold in coming days. This had it's own problem, but when riot changes were nerfed with really big nerfbat (now you can see as many riots per map than there could have been per clan holding 4-8 areas) many players were saying that it would allow big clans to fight more as they wouldn't need their stacks to hold areas. Do you know what happened? Map become massive nap fest where nobody holding larger areas was willing to fight others. 

 

No matter what changes there will be first think how good clans will exploit system to maximum of farming gold in napfest. There will be some clans who will fight, but there will be lot more of those who rather take away 10-20k gold a day with few battles against bad clans rather than go face to face with their equals.

 

Just for an example. It might be easy to think that this new map in testing would allow clans to just fight for fun, go here, go there, fight old allies now that alliances are no longer as important etc. It could give lot of possibilities to fighting. What we have? Good clans farming on both new and old map, because now they can hold areas on both maps with few simultaneous battles and are no longer restricted as much y number of full teams they can run same time. This is what will happen. Every time. System needs to make farming and napfest as hard and discouraged as possible. No amount of "but then clans MIGHT fight" will work on majority as they rather take the free gold if it is given. Number of stacks didn't prevent clans from fighting on old map. Unwillingness to risk good farm for actual battles did/do. 



Thrombozyt #10 Posted 22 July 2015 - 09:52 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21373 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012

Guess what is the first thing I try to think of: How can a system be exploited.

 

However, in the old system you could only hold so many provinces. There was a hard cap at 6 provinces at the old map, so everyone grabbed the 6 most profitable provinces they could get without contest, form NAP with all neighbors and go snoozing. With the new system, there is no upper limit. If you snooze around with 8 provinces, you need to drive stronghold every day to maintain upkeep. Now some of your weaker neighbors provinces look juicy - you are doing stronghold anyhow, so why not take another province or two - you are not getting attacked anyway. Maybe the commander doesn't see it this way, but the members will notice want more. Things like grabbing an easy 3k gold extra per day seems easy.

Territories will slowly expand until the clan needs to do massive amounts of stronghold each day. Then members will be discontent as well - they could easily crush a weak neighbor and get influence from killing divisions and HQ, while ransacking the provinces for influence. Instead they must do lame stronghold over and over again. At least command could reduce the divisions in the safe zone, or use divisions without modules - or divisions with negative upkeep that reduce tier limit. No one will know those are weaker units and if some noobs land - they can be crushed easily.

At all of these steps, it will be very hard to resist the extra gain - you can get extra gold each day for sure. Influence will be generated too! Off they go down the slippery slope...



Fynnegun #11 Posted 23 July 2015 - 04:35 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

Ok thanks for the details, I'll forward everything :)

Feel free to PM directly if you have good (CW) feature ideas (like your suggestion from 2 years) because I don't really read that section.

 

Decept1on



pbanks3568 #12 Posted 24 July 2015 - 08:38 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 37854 battles
  • 84
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

 

 

All,

I would love to have the option to counter attack in CW.  Once a clan decides to attack you and you half your province you would then be able to attack the province of the aggressor.  Would help prevent clans with one province buying lots of divisions and faking attacks on adjacent clan with multiple provinces.

Pbanks3568



Thrombozyt #13 Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:14 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21373 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012

--- New addition to the list ---

General Mechanics:

5) Mobilizing for War

While browsing different forums, I often encountered the prediction, that auctions will kill big wars, because off-map clans will simply jump on any aggressor at the first chance. That is a valid fear, that no one who holds significant amounts of land will show aggression as it exposes the clan to auctioning off-map clans. Therefore a mechanism should be introduced, that allows for times of aggression and expansion - Mobilization for War.

Basically a commander can decide to enable mobilization. Upon mobilization the following effects come into play:

1) All provinces acquire small upkeep costs (10-20 influence per province)

2) Stronghold provides no more influence

3) All auctions on provinces held by the clan fail

 

In this state, a clan can aggressively expand its territory without having to fear constant backstabs. However, the clan most likely will run out of influence sooner rather than later (except if the battles go really well) as the only income of influence comes from the map i.e. the destruction of divisions and HQs as well as ransacks.

After expansion, the commander can demobilize. This immediately removes effects 1) and 3) and after 48h effect 2) is also removed. The delay prevents short term mobilization and represents the cost of the action.

 

With this features, clans can go through cycles of aggression and consolidation each with their own advantages.



Fynnegun #14 Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:12 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

This seems a reasonable addition, since as you said due to the restrictions, the clan would run out of Influence and this balances it out.

Added into the suggestions.

Thanks!

 

Decept1on



Thrombozyt #15 Posted 01 August 2015 - 08:11 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21373 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012

After some discussion on other boards, I have come to revise the auction suggestions:\

3.a) Failed aggressive bids should only be reimbursed for 80% or less

That is pretty self-explanatory. Bidding in an auction is currently risk free, which is a no-brainer and removes a lot of the decision making from the auction mechanic. If you don't care when you land you can simply bid the minimum bid on 2-3 provinces until you succeed.

3.b) Auctions should be resolved 2 turns before 'prime time'

This allows defending clans to react by moving divisions. The current system forces a clan to occupy each province with a division removing choice from the commander. With auctions being resolved while divisions still being able to move, clans can spread resources thinner without auto loss of provinces as soon as there is an auction on an empty province.

3.c) Auction battles should be staggered by 10 minutes

All battles in one time zone between the defender and the auctioning clan should be separated by 10 minutes (e.g. 20:00, 20:10, 20:20 etc.). This allows a clan to hold possibly infinite auctions with only two teams. Auction landings that involve a 3rd party are not subject to this delay. Someone else attacks you - tough luck.

3.d) Optional: Module to enhance defense against auction

With a 'military police' division a clan can cancel an auction incoming onto the province guarded by that division. This is possible by paying the influence bid by the attacker plus the minimum bid in the turn between auctions being resolved and the last possible orders for a province are accepted.

 

Aim of the changes is to allow land holding clans to defend their holdings reliably at the cost of two teams for the night. For many clans this means that they cannot handle other attacks and defenses if they get mass-auctioned. This actually opens up mass-auction as a tool that gives incentives for diplomacy between on-map clans and off-map clans. It still retains the main function of auctions - to force clans to garrison their hinterland.



Fynnegun #16 Posted 13 August 2015 - 04:40 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

Hey,

Sorry I wasn't here for some time due to Gamescom notably.

 

3.a) and 3.b) forwarded.

3.c) I've asked about that already but unfortunately we are limited technically by the engine for now, this is the same issue if we wanted to reduce the time between battles.

3.d) Actually we will remove defense bids with the release, having this module could somehow compensate, I'll forward it.

 

Thanks again for your input :)

 

Decept1on



pmakins #17 Posted 15 August 2015 - 05:21 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 46063 battles
  • 454
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    10-17-2010
Today we got attakced by below average clans on every single territory (all together 7), now I am really in for dynamic fighting, there is no point in Clan Wars if there are going to be no wars, but I strongly believe that you should put a restriction for max 3 provinces that can get attacked by landing at the same time (I don't count the actual landings), because this way, you work the hell for 7 days to actually accomplish something just for you to get attacked on every single territory at the same time. Needless to say we had only 2 teams at 6:00, and defeated 2 of our enemies 15:0 and 15:2 (that is the amount of skill and quality play we got from them). Decreasing the maximum number of provinces to 3 is going to make a lot more fair for bigger clans that actually have the skills to mantain themselves and we all know that even 3 teams per night at the same time is extremely rare even for top clans in Europe! 
Feel free to tell your opinion if this is right or wrong, and of course why for each :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users