Non-Core -75% penalty

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • CNiper wrote:

      Coming from Supremacy 1914 this core province stuff is hard to accept. I understand why it was implemented but its extremely frustrating as it is very hard to expand and after all this is a war game.

      I think that the penalty should be reduced to 33% if you capture all core provinces of the person you are attacking. After 7 days of occupation it should be reduced further to 40%. This will make early game expansion a must and will actually have it rewarded in the long run.

      What do you guys think?
      That's the point. Bytro wants to limit snowballing and force players to use diplomacy instead.

    • Butter Ball Bill wrote:

      No. I disagree. I am playing a game where all I have are core provinces. I was pretty formidable right up until the point where I was attacked by 12 rouge DD and 12 subs. I am rebuilding my army though and have massive stockpiles of everything except RM. I nearly have nuclear subs by the way.

      So, the developers want their game, titled "Call of War" to basically be people turtleing up for 20+ days until they get Nuclear Technology? That does not sound nearly as fun as I though it would be.

      salbalkus wrote:

      CNiper wrote:

      Coming from Supremacy 1914 this core province stuff is hard to accept. I understand why it was implemented but its extremely frustrating as it is very hard to expand and after all this is a war game.

      I think that the penalty should be reduced to 33% if you capture all core provinces of the person you are attacking. After 7 days of occupation it should be reduced further to 40%. This will make early game expansion a must and will actually have it rewarded in the long run.

      What do you guys think?
      That's the point. Bytro wants to limit snowballing and force players to use diplomacy instead.

      You can prevent snowballing in other ways, through a combination of corruption and making sure larger Empires pay more for upgrades for example. This is going further than preventing snowballing, its rewarding those that use a turtle strategy to play.

      At the moment its very unbalanced, and I would like to see steps in a balanced direction. As previously mentioned a 66% handicap on production is still a large amount, and every day it increasing by a 1% allows the player to be rewarded on his investments of taking all core provinces. If France invades Germany for example, and takes all his cores except for 1, the production will still be 25%. However if all of Germany's cores are taken, production will be amped up to 33%.

      I'm really dumbfounded by how far the handicap is to people sitting around for 20+ days. By the way, Diplomacy was heavily used in Supremacy 1914. You didn't win a game without it.

    • CNiper wrote:

      So, the developers want their game, titled "Call of War" to basically be people turtleing up for 20+ days until they get Nuclear Technology? That does not sound nearly as fun as I though it would be.
      No. Obviously you have little to no game experience if you think that is a viable strategy. How did you even get that from what I said? I said that the -75% for non-cores has little to no effect on me, I didn't even mention turtling. Get your head checked(joke).

      CNiper wrote:

      its rewarding those that use a turtle strategy to play.
      It isn't. They are quickly killed. Usually.

      CNiper wrote:

      As previously mentioned a 66% handicap on production is still a large amount, and every day it increasing by a 1% allows the player to be rewarded on his investments of taking all core provinces. If France invades Germany for example, and takes all his cores except for 1, the production will still be 25%. However if all of Germany's cores are taken, production will be amped up to 33%.
      Terrible idea! All people would do is complain!

      CNiper wrote:

      I'm really dumbfounded by how far the handicap is to people sitting around for 20+ days. By the way, Diplomacy was heavily used in Supremacy 1914. You didn't win a game without it.
      Lies.

      Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

      Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

    • I do think the penalty for Grain production is a bit off. After about day 5 I turn off my barracks and stop making Infantry units. It is silly when having one only level 2 barracks making Motor Infantry will put you in a deficit for grain production. All the other resources are fine at 25% IMO. All my longer games end with me only having one or two Infantry units and tons of AT guns since they produce faster and use less grain.

    • The Garbone wrote:

      I do think the penalty for Grain production is a bit off. After about day 5 I turn off my barracks and stop making Infantry units. It is silly when having one only level 2 barracks making Motor Infantry will put you in a deficit for grain production. All the other resources are fine at 25% IMO. All my longer games end with me only having one or two Infantry units and tons of AT guns since they produce faster and use less grain.
      ya the 22 player is unbalanced for the resources imo. Way too many goods and not enough food.

    • CNiper wrote:

      Butter Ball Bill wrote:

      No. I disagree. I am playing a game where all I have are core provinces. I was pretty formidable right up until the point where I was attacked by 12 rouge DD and 12 subs. I am rebuilding my army though and have massive stockpiles of everything except RM. I nearly have nuclear subs by the way.
      So, the developers want their game, titled "Call of War" to basically be people turtleing up for 20+ days until they get Nuclear Technology? That does not sound nearly as fun as I though it would be.

      salbalkus wrote:

      CNiper wrote:

      Coming from Supremacy 1914 this core province stuff is hard to accept. I understand why it was implemented but its extremely frustrating as it is very hard to expand and after all this is a war game.

      I think that the penalty should be reduced to 33% if you capture all core provinces of the person you are attacking. After 7 days of occupation it should be reduced further to 40%. This will make early game expansion a must and will actually have it rewarded in the long run.

      What do you guys think?
      That's the point. Bytro wants to limit snowballing and force players to use diplomacy instead.
      You can prevent snowballing in other ways, through a combination of corruption and making sure larger Empires pay more for upgrades for example. This is going further than preventing snowballing, its rewarding those that use a turtle strategy to play.

      At the moment its very unbalanced, and I would like to see steps in a balanced direction. As previously mentioned a 66% handicap on production is still a large amount, and every day it increasing by a 1% allows the player to be rewarded on his investments of taking all core provinces. If France invades Germany for example, and takes all his cores except for 1, the production will still be 25%. However if all of Germany's cores are taken, production will be amped up to 33%.

      I'm really dumbfounded by how far the handicap is to people sitting around for 20+ days. By the way, Diplomacy was heavily used in Supremacy 1914. You didn't win a game without it.
      You forgot that you literally cannot win by turtling unless you happen to be one of the last players AND allowed to surrender, which is very unlikely considering that there are many more benefits to warmongering. And, even if you do place, the payout will be very low.

      Also...

      This isn't Supremacy 1914.

    • BrutalArt1st wrote:

      I am not sure that I follow the Turtles die a quick death analogy. I have played 5 public games thus far and have turtled in all of them. I won 4, winning the 5th, and I am in a close 2nd on the 6th. So explain to me how being a Turtle isn't a viable strategy.
      I meant that you can't get first by solely building up your own country and not attacking anyone; you have to expand and attack others to get Victory Points in order to win. Whether you wait to do that and turtle in the meantime is up to you, and the non-core penalty allows players like you to do that and be successful.

    • Adm Togo wrote:

      I am not sure anyone can state the -75% rule is valid for the World War Game (100) as I don't think its been played out.

      I do feel the WWII timeline will not allow for an expansive game when there is such poor resourcing from captured territories.
      You're not considering the fact that there are more territories to conquer in in 100 player, and therefore more resources to be generated. If you're smart with what you conquer, there is going to be so much abundance that lines of forts will actually become feasible. There might not be such large militaries, but that will just make smaller battles across larger expanses; not a bad thing.

    • The most distant provs in 100 player world map, stabilize at some 50% morale IF you have no wars. This is without forts.
      Build forts and morale will go to about 75%.

      Hence, it is definitely worthwhile to develop non-cores, even at the largest distance from the capital.
      Especially double resource provinces, which, at 100% morale would still produce something like 4k/day if fully developed. So, even at 75% morale, that would still be 3k/day in the most distant corner.

      Now say you have 5 wars and thus -25% morale extra, then your most distant double resource prov still produces 2k/day and a single resource prov about 1k/day.

      In short: you should ALWAYS develop your conquered provinces! Simply because it pays off.


      Nevertheless, a reducing penalty over time (from 75% to a lower number) or a lower penalty in general would be realistic. It will shorten especially the end-phase of the game, which normally is a very boring part, since it rewards active and successful players.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by _Pontus_ ().