Nation Wars Redemption V2.0

[Top12Gun]

agreed.. the maryland DNR app is just a mobile sized site, and so is some of my other fishing apps. we just need to strip down some of the options in game to make it a little easier to navigate.

Drop down menus would simplify things a ton for the app.

[Mr President]

After reviewing some of the suggestions I have made a couple of changes.

GA will take more land than the current BR attack did.

AA (Air Assault) Will now destroy Inf and Tanks (along with buildings) at a higher rate than the NA (Naval Assault) will, however, it will not lower readiness at all. You will still use ships to lower readiness and also kill inf / tanks at a lower %.

I will make the changes in the original post.

[Mr President]

Also, I have decided to keep the bots in this set so we have some practice targets and not risk war by trying out the new attacks. However, Bots are monitored and any abuse to them will result in bad bad things for you

[MAGGIO]

Drop down menus would simplify things a ton for the app.

http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/mobile/v2/index.asp

this site works REAL well on my phone. Its not an app but a stripped down mobile version of the full site. It could still be "Sold" at the app store for FREE, but as you see it is not technically an app.

[Scav]

are the GA gains and inf/tank losses on BR a fixed % like the land loss on BR (1,4% with a min of 20~25)?

[Scav]

I would urge mr. P. to enforce GDN protection for new players, makeing it opt out instead of the old opt in. As i see things, with SA gone and land comeing from GA/spy/expanding, small nations (1-5 members) or non nation states will be farmed into non existance with near constant declarations on them in order to provide cheaper land (2 turn hits instead of 5 turn hits). There is a real danger here to kill of new members before they manage to get in a nation that offers some protection.

[ukurasmus]

I'm quite neutral about the v2.0. The distinction between n0lifers and n00bz has been removed and NW gaining probably is slower than what it used to be.

Another thing is how to get this concept to work well. You need to consider some things here. When will people go for attacks:

1. conquest is better than expansion
2. desire to eliminate competition
3. retaliation

For the first I see following requirements:

• land per turn in conquest > land per turn for expanding
• land gain compensates army(NW!) losses suffered in war

These requirements are both actually satisfied at some point in the game if you declare war.
Example: target is 20k land state and one GA takes 1.4% of land, with a minimum of 25
This takes all together 243 attacks meaning 486 turns to get a kill and all the land. This leaves the attackers with an average of 41.2 land per turn. Considering all the losses I personally wouldn't try attacks any before the 25 land per turn average has come in expanding. You just lose too much army compared to the land gained and make yourself a target for those who didn't start warring so early on.

I tend to assume that the principality seen in the example will determine how the game will be played. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But it is important to make sure this attack advantage starts as soon as desired. Mr President, have you done the math here? If not then I think you should calculate on current setup, for how long will it take before states get to that point and adjust the settings so that it would make sense to start a war before the last day of set, preferrably to as early in the set as possible to let the players shape out the mechanics

Ok, I wanted to cover some more ground regarding the update, but I've run out of time now. Anyway, I'm glad to see some changes here and hope that it will work out well for the game.

[MAGGIO]

I dont think even Mr. P knows what exactly is going to happen. There is a lot of unanswered questions but now that theses comments are coming out because THIS IS going to happen. I think that expanding after a certain amount of land should be next to worthless for that very point you just made about military losses vs. expanding.

[Mr President]

Maggio is right, I have no idea what is going to happen. I could have everything perfectly panned out and ti completely flop.. Who knows... The change has been made, the next will start with the above changes and we will tweak as needed. That is why I am doing this in december. It will give us a month to try and then tweak.

The point that I really don't think most of you are getting is, without drastic changes, the game will go down. Yes the old way was pretty challenging, but it didn't attract new people or keep many existing. It's the same people playing, the same people winning and the same people warring. How long do you seriously think it was going to last. My schedule is 150% full and I am losing interest in keeping the game around with the low member count we have. It's not really worth the time or money that goes into the game when nothing changes.

I'm hoping the change will spark interest with everyone again. Those of you who are against this, I really don't know what to tell you other than, might as well give this change a fair shake cause we really really really need more people and activity to increase.

[grumpy]

Personally I like the new change. especially the " no land grabbing" part without starting a war. so all of you land mongrels out there better rethink your strategy on just EXPLORING.