cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
DABOSS says
#163723 - 02/05/12 06:34 AM (72.77.197.22)
|
|
|
i have an idea that would allow the supposed game killing tents to be gone. hard code into a level by level allowed max of build areas. so put it simple you just wont be allowed to tent period? step 1 would be for SM to disable war for lets say 1-2 months. step 2 offer empires that need builds to be able to get them for free. allow no restrictions, on building,and or burning infra during this time. players will have the time they need to rebuild there empires in a manner thats not fubar. this would be a game wide. everyone on the same page more or less. as far as the evil tents go.
looking at the allowed units i have to say it is not correct and alot of people will lose wars by just losing infra? 1400 units for a lvl 12 allows no real type of defense. it has been said in irc and here that sm wants no high lvl empires. so in order to do this YOU need to do the following. revamp matts to make things. revamp the entire economy system. look at gettting rid of corruption? or allow some kind of police units to offset it. after these things are done we would have no need for high lvl empires to produce things a lvl 9-10 could do this the way it is now its not poss.
to change just one issue in the game and not look at the others well its not planned out very well. i dont really care what randy wants. if the goal is to just drive away players, and or nerf high lvl empires then stop playing around. just delete all the empires right now today? other wise i have suggested a way for the players and the owner SM? to come to a middle ground. you had said on many times players would have input on major changes. as of now this is not the case. you also stated the players would have time to try and adapt to changes you didnt do that either. so while ice heard some thing said in irc were well on the rough side im sitting here talking to you with as much respect as i can but i can tell you im biting my tongue.
to date my empire is still a mess now going on 8 weeks. my empire is still dealing with the org pop-bug in dec. my research dsnt work. im owed billions in nevcash due to omt. and having to repay for tcs when i can start to research again. yet still despite all this disrespect on your part i still donated to gunners pool. i take it to heart that it seems you have an agenda about high lvl empires and yet you know i have one. ive been disrespected by you and all i did was enjoy this game. im sad to say ive had my part of the pool refunded. and it wasnt peanuts either. so ive brought some real solid ideas to light that would make some people happy others not. but with change you cant make everyone happy. but as a player base it would show some respect on your part. as far as the rants and raves and other jerry springer stuff in irc i had no part of it. i called you like a man, treated you as such, and didnt disrespect you in anyway. time will only tell if you understand what im talking about. l8rs DABOSS
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: DABOSS says
[Re: cbtgod]
#163724 - 02/05/12 10:07 AM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
Ok problems that needs answers is how many cities is considered tenting?
What pop per citiy is considered tenting?
As sm himself said, this wont stop tenting, but make it more of an effort do keep up the tents. And with the 100 digit rolls, it is very possible for tents to avoid being hit for a long while. I would like to see a break down of the number of builidings considered for an average size for the levels.
As for the unit caps, how many units are needed to run an empire?
Some people think a lance of mech is ok for anything under level 4, ie lw empires. For others 100 units arent enough. I would like to see a break down in what forces are considered average for empire levels.
Now for the biggie. If large empires are such a problem for the server, why hasnt sm trimmed down his empire yet?
How is unlimited empires of any size supposed to avoid bloating the db?
|
Hythos
Sergeant
Reged: 05/09/10
Posts: 148
Loc: USA
|
Re: DABOSS says
[Re: ghostrider]
#163768 - 02/06/12 05:24 PM (137.78.94.87)
|
|
|
Playing on paper, my friends and I got quite deep into the logistics of Regimental-scale combat (not "Battleforce", but Mechwarrior + Battletech @ 100-150 units each; we had over 500 mini's between 4 of us, and me with 2+2 geohex sets).
That was all back before efficient web-based mech-sheet generators and easy spread-sheet management (~1992-1998).
Those logistics aren't easy to keep up with, considering what (as I'll say "really") is needed to maintain a Mech production or other manufacturing company, or also for planetary raids / defense.
I can add that, having two to three battalions of mechs per planet, plus two to three mobilized battlemech regiments within ONE jump and more within 3 jumps, are about necessary to plan for defense (~2 regiments total for a battlemech manufacturing facility, such as Irian, for example).
(Why does any of this matter? I dunno. It's just the larger scope of CBT/MW that I like to reminisce about).
In relation to NEV - since the technology to produce equipment stays with the Empire and not with the infrastructure, we don't need to worry as much about losing a facility. However, for areas / cities with sufficient manufacturing capability to actually produce components or fully assembled mechs/veh's - an equal garrison *should* be deployable...
Though! To invoke almighty "That being said", Nev seems to come close to it, as far as the time required for paper-pushing. Converting planets to cities of Nev, and the comparison is about average... a LARGE producing Empire SHOULD have 4, 8, 12 Regiments (with a full Reg. deployed at major centers).
** TENT EMPIRES **
There may likely be no easy way to circumvent a game-mechanic that allows for a 'win'... A nation that is more densly populated (IE, those 4x4's and 5x5's) SHOULD logically stand a greater chance than those more isolated (by 1's), in that available resources can be moved around more easily. Consequently, that applies to both defensive measures as well as those in offense. Game-wise, someone defending a 'tented' 1-off city alone should be at some form of disadvantage compared to those which are more central (despite being more vulnerable to nukes  )
If the question is "how would the game prevent tenting" - the answer is simply to make tenting undesirable, or, to create a mechanic that calculates a war "win" based on a distance/radius from the point of attack...
-IE-
Player-A "tented-all-to-hell" had 4 cities within a 10-unit radius, but had their remaining 500 cities 1000 away, and scattered to the wind. Player-B attacks and wins two cities from Player-A, reducing the BV+POP % (in the same terms as the existing game-mechanic) though, calculated ONLY from those 4 cities closest (or within a specific, determined radius) of where the battle took place. This is justified as being "defended", rather than an empires "total worth".
Consider a rogue detatchment that would strike deep into the heart of the Draconis Combine, for example. A raid is far less likely to succeed, because they can 1) detect an in-bound invasion, but 2) mobilize and quickly retaliate (if a 'sneak' invasion is actually successful) or 3) mobilize and defend while the invasion is en-route. This is also why many Success States do NOT retaliate against Periphery pirates, because they're too scattered, and too far to travel. BUT, if they were to attack on the outskirts, they will - and certainly, will "win" the battle.
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
