Jun 2nd 2021, 14:42:08
Originally posted by Slagpit:
Originally posted by Dark Demon:
I’m open to change. But a lot of people
Don’t have the same skill levels as some of the elite and buy making these changes. The elite basically be un touchable would it not.
Don’t have the same skill levels as some of the elite and buy making these changes. The elite basically be un touchable would it not.
I really don't understand this. I asked this question earlier and I don't think that anyone answered it yet: "With the new formula, a country with 10 M spies could kill up to 4 M troops or jets with 10 successful ops. Does that feel about right? Should it be higher or lower?"
4 M troops is something like $500 million worth of military. That's what you get with ten successful ops. Is that number wrong? What should it be instead?
I suspect that if I changed things to be 3% max instead then people would feel that makes CDs stronger than a variable approach that would give 3.1% out of 4%. Why is there a need to do the absolute maximum amount of damage with every spy op?
If a country has 40m troops (common for strongest countries in late set wars on Alliance) and is a Dict with 145% weapons then the raw break is 72500000. Effectively right now using ops we could easily reduce that break to 22000000 raw which means you can break it using a Dict with 12m approx troops and only 40m troops on hand.
If with your proposed change you could CD 4m troops per 10 ops then 20 CDs (standard amount of CDs conducted on a killrun) reduces the troop count by 8m troops. This bring the raw break down to 58000000. With demos that is reduced to 40600000. Assuming the breaker is a Dict with the same weapons, it means that the breaker will need to have 22,400,000 troops to break, and for optimal readiness loss will need more than 3x that in troops on hand. Effectively 70m troops which is very costly for any country to buy.
Then the other massive change no one is considered here is the massive increase in oil consumption which is a further burden on the attacker. It would also drive up oil prices significantly over the course of the war because raw breaks would be far higher.
Essentially this all means that any early lead achieved in a war will almost be insurmountable as the sheer economic requirements towards killing large countries will become unfeasible once you start to struggle for breakers.
All in all I can see there will be less killing and wars will become a lot harder to conduct.