qz said that I should post this up for general review. I had only addressed this to the admins before since I know they don't want to hand out all formulas freely, but I guess this is a small enough change that it isn't a big deal to post up.

pop_killed=k*f(nw)*(pop+500-(.75*land+1.5*res)) (minimum = 0)

This is the same formula as current except minimum is 5 or 10 for GS or BR and instead of (pop+500 ... res) it is just pop.

So what does this change? Basically you can only pop kill countries at low land levels. Roughly a country would have to have 666 or fewer acres to be pop killed with no residences or 333 or fewer acres to be pop killed as 100% residences.

The motivation for this change is that it drives warfare to be more realistic, more economy driven, less acutely against an individual and more skillful.

Right now clan warfare is pretty much two sides lineup and eliminate the other clan one player at a time. The name of the game is attacking fast and the extent of strategy is largely who to kill first. The whole killing mechanic is clearly undesirable as people regularly present means for people to get back in the action quickly. I think the obvious solution is to not remove people entirely. Having warfare that is more based on destroying your opponents economically, through buildings and taking their land, is much more like real warfare, allows for a much more strategic plan across an alliance and has a broader, more gradual impact on an individual. Right now warfare breaks a clan down by 100% destroying a member. A more player-friendly alternative is to break a clan down by chipping away at multiple members at a time.

Due to the way DRs are structured, and the amount of extra expenses required to break a country for a land grab, I find it improbable that warfare would simply revert to landkills instead of pop kills. An active clan will still have an advantage in warchats and getting members together and active will still be very important (but not essential as it is now). This will certainly reduce the over-powered nature of an FS by allowing countries on the receiving end to hit back, even if their economy won't allow them to continue hitting like that for long.

So yeah, very simply formula change but with a lot of very favorable (in my opinion) implications.

so is part of the goal to suggest nuke->kill strats?

or

br+ab+gs -> landkill


it strikes me as interesting raising the commitment to kill someone but more of a halfway solution than i was expecting

The goal is to move away from killing as the be all and end all of warfare. Strategic crippling and grabbing would become much more important. Wars are historically more often fought over conquest than genocide and in this game people are regularly suggesting ways to make killing less severe.

If some alliance really thinks that it is better to completely decimate one country to the point of being able to kill it, rather than crippling several countries, that is their prerogative, but I can't imagine they'd win the war that way.

make it so dr doesnt kick in from gs/br/ab/missile or at least a lot less heavily

then you can encourage both destroying and taking without having to trade off as much

plus could change the turns balance of killing:crippling

your probably able to cripple 4-5 countries in the turns it takes to kill 1 currently, if you move that higher then particularly early on killing becomes stupid (ie should address 7 day wars people are complaining about)


but the change you propose limits kills to low sdi targets with nukes or countries with enough spare nw that you can wear down as much of their defence as you need for cost then hit them at 10% of normal gains, or whatever the min is currently

unless chems arnt limited but i assume everything is, maybe not SR but you cant kill with SR currently

k and f are what in the formula?

f(nw) looks a bit like the networth relation on % killed currently

k and f(nw) are the terms as they currently stand. They are not an alteration from the current formula.

I am not sure why you are so fixated on killing. Why is killing essential? The way I see things is you shouldn't be able to kill a country until it has been completely worn down. I do not see why someone should lose a month of hard work in two minutes anymore.

i dont care im just interested in how practical killing would be with this formula

i was getting the impression killing was being completely taken away in some future plan

I see.

I do not believe there is any intention to completely eliminate killing on the admins part and that is certainly not my intention. My intention is to focus warfare more on attacking economies and have skill play a larger role. Kills are definitely still doable, they just may not be the most practical option most of the time.

This is going to suck if there is some suicider attacking your clan. A quick easy kill isn't going to happen meaning they are an even longer term nuisance than what they presently may be.

Though I do get the point and quite like the reasoning behind it.

I like the idea. As of current killing is too easy and once I was killed I had little to no desire to create another country and start again. And if I feel that way I know other do too...

I think Detmer wants to make it more realistic than it is currently.

I like the idea.

It certainly would be much harder to deal with suiciders. I think you should not give people incentive to suicide on you though. If you grab a country 10 times, be prepared for a long road ahead (not that most countries that get farmed are really in a position to do significant damage). I do not think it is a problem that the playing field is "leveled". Most suiciders only have one-shot potential anyways, after which they are in defense mode. This really doesn't change that a whole lot.

Sounds very interesting Dettiepoo, but if this were to take effect wouldn't there need to be an adjustment to the way DR works?

meh im not a fan

i think if its not broken dont fix it
no rules mean you cant kill quickly now if you cant kill at all
whats the point of the slow DRs

i dont get it people do still benefit economically from war if they pick on clans much smaller look at when laf farmed pdm all set.

and if two same size clans fight each other you almost need a war score or all you get is cripple fight

Why, to make land kills easier so we can go back to the problem of completely killing countries quickly? Or is to enhance farming of untags ;)



trainboy, it is broken. That is why people are continually offering suggestions surrounding this topic. I have no seen a single compelling argument for why we need to kill (or kill quickly). Any resistance to this is clinging to dogma, fear of change, etc, etc, so far. I appreciate concerns like caffeineaddict's but I feel I was able to adequately address him. Furthermore, the point of this change is not economic benefit, so what you mentioned is irrelevant. Recent wars have shown that farming the deceased is an easy way to get a lot of land. That is not surprising. That is another reason why kills should be harder to achieve.

And why do we need to encourage alliances to war for no reason? If you have a gripe, fight someone. Not for kill counts, but for a cause. I think you bring up a good point how this could potentially improve the reasons alliances war since no one wants to cripple fight for no reason.

i like the sentiment behind this change and have been following the discussion from afar :)

it would definitely need to go along with some other changes, but the general theme of reducing kills and making wars more about longer-term strategies instead of "kill top down until we turn the corner and then farm" aligns with what I think would be an improvement over the current system.

Since folks typically think about this change as an Alliance thing, I'll just quickly address the solo servers: this sort of change would make more sense on solo servers where the goal is more often than not maiming someone's production rather than killing them.

as far as "removing killing entirely", I don't think that is necessarily the goal, but I know I'm a big fan of making wars less about destroying entire countries and making it more about how well can you maintain a war effort vs how well your opponent can maintain a war effort.

I love the idea, BUT

A lot of things need to be changed to make this work


Spy DR needs to be weakened (SPAL(0.2*Number of Harmful ops)) "Maxed at (SPAL(6.6?)

Spy DR shouldn't protect countries with low SPAL.



GS needs to steal/destroy Civs+Bushels+Tech (Troops take SLAVES?)
BR blows Buildings and Destroys Cash (blowing BANKs?)
AB blows ++Buildings

and Special Attacks don't put countries past 40% DR?


well is super late so now slwwp

well i mainly play team and in a 5 man tag we would be ruined by one strong commie suicider almost

How would a commie indy ruin your tag? And if that is the case why don't you run a commie indy? I am just not sure how one strong country is an insurmountable obstacle if you can't kill it.

i likey

I like it

except that this change would encourage early wars.. you realize that...

Early wars already seem to be an epidemic. This would only encourage early wars if people thought that killing was better than crippling early in the game. Considering restarts will get land and CS that definitely makes early kills less advantageous. Considering a country can easily jump out of protection at well over 667 acres (the minimum to not be killable) makes it so kills are not exceptionally easy anyways. Country growth is relatively high in the early stages of the game so I just don't see it as being particularly sound war strategy to start early wars. I think the reasons for early wars remain the same as ever - preemption and attrition.

since it takes more effort to kill and does less damage (with the restart change) it decreases early wars effectiveness

wars already tend to start a bit too early to be truly effective killing imo anyway

if you have to farm someone to 666 acres before killing but they come back at 1kish you spend a lot more turns killing for less advantage

i dont really like this formula but it definately doesnt promote early wars

I agree with the proposed changes, also agree a lot with Chaoswind in terms of increased gains through GS, BR and AB.

But IF this happens I think it needs to be easier to effectively steal and/or destroy cash, buildings(through harmful ops only, not PS or SS)

if you're going to limit killing potential imo you need to increase the ability to maim countries.

Another idea would be to cut down on the destruction of CS through AB and BR to stop people from killing their own to get the restart bonus

There'd be no more solo killing on Express I guess

It's not impossible. 4-5 dozen SSes before every KR and the job is done. Those SSes are just a complete fluff to do unless you've got a monster economy.

Without matching nw or having mil strat tech it took me 296 SS to get a 5058 acre country below 667 acres. As long as the country that was just grabbed doesn't start playing turns, there will still be 40k civs left to kill.

And that was of course much easier since the defender here had 0 defense. As you noted an absolute monster economy would be required to break any normal sized country down.

there are mass DR on defence losses to SS too

i have no real fear of change. but it seems like not only going from one extreme to the other, but surpassing the opposite extreme alltogether. may as well create a new game =/

the 666(or whatever) acres should likely be dynamic based on the day of the reset. still keep it low enough to severely discourage kills over maiming, but i still think that a kill shouldn't be pretty much more and more impossible the further you go into the reset.

with the suggested changes, it really would effectively remove killing alltogether from the game. meaning we'd couldn't really call a KR a KR anymore

MR? Maiming run? :D

How about making Clans a requirement in order do damaging attacks.
Then Clan Admin have to declare war in-game to do damaging attacks.
Here we can avoid one man Tag on suiciding by putting some lower returns or put humanitarian.
I dunno if what I'm saying makes sense. lol

I'm going to bump this as I still like it

I do not like this suggested change.

Reasoning:

With this suggested change, at lower land levels, you have 2 ways to kill a country: Popkill or Landkill. At higher land levels, you cannot landkill a country (well, you can, but it is impractical to do so), and must use popkill.

If you remove the popkill option, that means a large acre country cannot be killed.

This basically makes countries _completely unkillable_ as long as they log on to explore. Imagine this, I am a stonewaller. You SS and PS me until I'm down to 666 acres, and you either continue to landkill me or popkill me - At this point exploring is the way to go to increase land AND pop to make yourself unkillable. Not only this, you can even PS your own clan mates (if you can't break enemy restarts with PSes) to generate ghost acres.

Now, you can argue that that is exactly the point - to reduce a country to near-threatless since it has low land and low pop - but it also means your clan needs to constantly maintain 5-10 low NW countries just to keep those unkillable suiciders down.

This change would make wars duller and more boring - in current wars, you have a choice to A) Maim countries B) Kill countries. Removing (B) means you have less overall game choices, if you can only maim countries, it becomes a lot less strategic, you simply always choose to maim the largest country you can break. If you can both kill and maim, killing might be a better choice because you know certain countries might have a large stockpile (both in terms of cash) and large number of stored turns - there is strategic value in killing that maiming does not have. A smaller clan can overcome a slightly larger clan this way.

Not only that, it makes the GS attack worthless - you can't kill OR maim a country with it, we will instead see countries with a low troop count, because jets and tanks is where it is at, both to AB or BR to maim, and to SS/PS to bring land levels down.

I'm not sure if any of you have thought through this proposed change, but I think it will make the game worse.

If you want to make FSes less powerful, this isn't the way to do it - you want to revert the last 2 changes (ramping up of specials, and the stonewalling change) AND also reduce the amount of max turns you can store.

If you don't want to reduce the max amount of turns a player can store (I've read previous posts where qz or pang has said that a country should be able to store 2-3 days of turns in case of irl emergencies or holidays), then make it such that...


For every special attack made, if there are any stored turns, reduce the stored turn count by 1. So for Alliance server, if you have 120(120), the first 120 turns would be about 51 attacks (without using missiles to regain readiness), reducing the remaining 120 stored turns to 0(69) by the end of the first 120 turns (and logging out with 100% readiness).

60 turns later, at next login, you will have 120(9), which will become 0 stored turns after 9 attacks, which means that a total of 60 turns is lost, making FSes less powerful.

This would also force players in a war to login every day to stay active, because accumulating any stored turns during a war is a loss of turns. Activity then counts for a lot more in a war.

In a non-war situation, stored turns are not affected, and would not affect the netting game. This would also directly nerf the 360(360) stored turns problem on Express server, right now, you can pretty much outright kill a country in about 12 hours if the target does not log on.

Another fluffing change that makes suiciders stronger? Fantastic. You realize that will only make them more common too.