Injuring Miners

[TacticalCommander]

Right now, the only idea that really has any potential for winnable wars is making miners killable, but that also is a bad idea for many reasons which you probably already know or can guess.

I proposal is to have miners injured instead of killed.

injured, NOT DEAD, NOT KILLED, just injured

Yes I am aware that having this instead will take alot of new code, so I am going to do my best to keep it up front and simple and will provide good justification for each reason.


Implementation:
-A new attack, for now named MotherShip Bombardment
--other name suggestion, Orbital Bombardment
-Cost 1-15 turns

Attacker:
-Attacks with MS ONLY.
-Can only damage MS and Miners.
-Has to defeat the defending MS and defense
-Damage that hits miners is same as what would have infuse onto a strike.

Defender:
-Defends with MS AND Defense
-Defensive Action (ONLY) is amplified by 10 (NOT defending MS)
--All that defense power being concentrated on one target
--30bil defense does 300bil worth of damage to attacking MS.
----After this amplification, the defending MS attack power is added to the defense
--------MS power is NOT amplified
----They don't just sit by doing nothing while being attack.
----Designed to prevent Big MS players from outright harassing small MS.

Successful attack:
- Attacking MS overcomes both Defending MS and defense.
--So that you still have to mass a defense first, just like for ACing.



Injured Miners:
- Don't produce Naq
- Bank space NOT effected
- A % amount of miners are injured per successful attack
--Current number suggestion, 1% of total miners per 20bil damage
---20bil damage is after going through defending MS(if any)/defense
- A max % of miners that can be injured
--Current number suggestion, 90%

so if the max damage an MS can hit the miners with is
10bil would take 180 attacks or a total of 2700 AT
20bil would take 90 attacks or a total of 1350 AT
40bil would take 45 attacks or a total of 675 AT
60bil would take 30 attacks or a total of 450 AT
80bil would take 23 attacks or a total of 345 AT
to reach 90% injured.
-Assumes using 15 Turn attacks.

keep in mind, the defending MS or defense may have to be removed first and would therefore cost more than that amount of AT.

Based on:
-20bil damage
--10k weps on your MS, give or take a few,
---costs only 521bil naq from scratch.
----not hard to work toward these days.

-40bil Damage
--675 AT to mass

-60bil Damage
--450 AT
---Saves 125 AT
----125 AT is worth say 10bil naq
-Cost to upgrade from 40bil to 60bil damage
--2.521 Trillion naq
---A LOT more than 125 AT.
---2.521 Trillion > 10 billion




Miner Recovery
- % per day
- should be slow, for 100% I'm think a minimum 2 days, 48 turns
---Faster this is, the less effective the desired result will be
---desired result is winnable wars

-Current number suggestion is 30% recovered per day.
So if someone has 90% injured, it will take 3 full days to fully recover. Thats still giving 1 Full day of income if they use a 4 day PPT run or they can get 2 full days of income if they go on PPT right after the first 30% of miners recover.

or

Other suggestions for this are located further in the thread, removed from first post to make for easier reading.




Reasons for NOT using normal Attack
-Prevent massing of both defense and miners at same time.
-Avoid injuring miners from a single farm hit.
--MS over comes MS, attack over comes defense, steal naq, MS injures miners.
--designed for use in wars, not everyday farming.

Reasons for using MS
-Gives another use
-No new attack units
-Bombarding from above causes dispersal damage which results in the injured instead of killed. Or maybe they trapped in a bomb shelter, or the mine collapses and they can't get the naq out, whatever floats your boat.


Finally, this thread is named Injured Miners, not MS Bombardment Attack. So while you may have an Awesome Idea for using that attack, unless it involves injuring miners, it doesn't belong here.

Also, as its title is injuring miners, not killing them, killing them is whole different suggestion, and all arguments for that, or about that should be done not here.


Example Battle report can be found at the bottom of this post
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=94850&p=1127800#p1127800



To Show Support Copy/Paste this into your sig

INJURING MINERS SUGGESTION
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=94850


TC

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Hmm, I like that idea FAR more than limiting AT's and AT's on market!



Teal'auc

[Zeratul]

a well thought out idea...

[Bob_2007]

I'm a wee bit confused.

I haven't been in *that many* wars so I'm probably being thick. What do you mean by "making wars winnable"? The wars I've been in have been won, or lost... I'm not sure why wars are unwinnable, clearly I haven't been in a big or messy enough one (yet).

I mean I like the idea simply because it looks good on paper and would add a new dimension to the game, I'm just being a total n00b trying to figure out what it's designed to fix...

[mondomadmun]

Wars are never ending because the resources generated by the larger players means that they can recover where they are within 24 hours no problem.

I had an idea from Rise of Nations when i was playing the other day about "Nuclear Embargo"

I think if your alliance underwent an "Embargo" when you are at war with another alliance, and you could only trade (excluding the normal market) with your own alliance - wouldn't this limit the amount of resources that can be supplied from "empires"?

I really like the idea of injuring the miners, or at least "phasing out their income for 5 turns" or something like that.

[Teal'auc of the Void]

It would also help to solve the problem with sole 'farmfest' style of war...

In a way, I like ascension, because you can 'eliminate' a player by descending them temporarily. I believe there should be a way to eliminate a player on main, if for a day or two - it would decide wars and make them winable.



Teal'auc

[Bob_2007]

Ah, I begin to get the idea... so I guess this happens when there's very big players on both sides?

Couldn't this happen even if there weren't - I mean if the two sides were pretty evenly matched regardless of how "big" their players were I can see how that might produce a very prolonged war. But then, it would in real life, wouldn't it??

Doesn't it boil down to strategy? In such a war shouldn't you be looking for new allies, new members, to try to tip the balance in your favour and "win".

Anyway that's another discussion. If this "injuring miners" thing helps with that, all the better. It's a good idea for an extra dimension to the game even if it doesn't.

(Afterthought... but... doesn't it simply favour whoever can build the biggest mothership the fastest?)

(Hindsight... yeah sort of... but isn't that the point?)

When you start discussing things with *yourself* you know you're in trouble... I think it's time for bed...

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Basically, when two equal forces meet ina war and they mass the crap out of each other the war then turns into 'farmfest' and PPTfest. It can go for ages, especially if both sides do not wish to surrender. There should be 'something' what would force one of the sides to give up, as they'd be unable to carry on.

The question is what that should be. I personally am against limiting AT's. This is a war game. Let AT's flow and let people play and make wars. As I believe there are other ways to put some kind of strategy back into game but another way.

I would really like to see something similar to 'descension' on main, of course with different effects and with 'removing' that player from the war for say day or two.



Teal'auc

[Bob_2007]

Well, the *first* thing you need in a war, is a theater. And the first thing *I'd* do in the war theater is remove the ability to jump to perg or ppt. No ppt even for market purchases if you're at war.

Did I mention no ppt or jumping to perg during wars?

Wars are expensive, you know. The war effort would probably require mining to go into overdrive. So they produce DOUBLE turn income. But the miners DIE at a very fast rate. Yes, die. Wouldn't this fix the problem?

(I'm not sure I understand how you can get on ppt if you're at war anyway? Isn't it impossible to get on ppt if you've attacked someone in the last 24 hours? I've never used it but I've hopped over to perg for a bit, so I can't immediately check.)

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Well, the *first* thing you need in a war, is a theater. And the first thing *I'd* do in the war theater is remove the ability to jump to perg or ppt. No ppt even for market purchases if you're at war.

Did I mention no ppt or jumping to perg during wars?

Wars are expensive, you know. The war effort would probably require mining to go into overdrive. So they produce DOUBLE turn income. But the miners DIE at a very fast rate. Yes, die. Wouldn't this fix the problem?

(I'm not sure I understand how you can get on ppt if you're at war anyway? Isn't it impossible to get on ppt if you've attacked someone in the last 24 hours? I've never used it but I've hopped over to perg for a bit, so I can't immediately check.)

Sadly, you can jump on PPT anytime -- no matter who you destroyed minute ago. It's quite silly, yes. I blame the ability to use PPT during war as another big source of problems in wars and why people are able to wage farmfests instead of decent wars.

I doubt you would be able to sign some Protection Treaty if you just killed hundreds and hundreds units of someone...think of the unlogical stuff here...



Teal'auc

[Bob_2007]

Sadly, you can jump on PPT anytime -- no matter who you destroyed minute ago.

{falls off chair}

Lol. Shows how much attention I've been paying. I always thought there was a time limit.

<boggle>

I retract what I said on another thread about ppt being like a "nox protection". Now I'm of the opinion we shouldn't insult the nox by even mentioning them in this game. Nox Insurance that doesn't give you full protection? And a ppt that lets you beat the crap out of somebody and run?

Bizarre... No wonder people are complaining, now the picture's getting much clearer...

[Teal'auc of the Void]

PPT is like plague for me. I'd be so happy if admin dropped using of that crap.



Teal'auc

[Bob_2007]

Oh well... from what I'm beginning to understand it doesn't sound like it alone, would fix the problem. But I still like this idea of injuring miners, so I'll still vote yes.

As to the "problem", my head's buzzing with ideas right now so maybe I'll start a new thread... Tomorrow, because it's 03:00 so it'd probably be an incoherent mess if I did it now...

G'night all... hands off the naq while I sleep, you gits...

[TacticalCommander]

PPT is why I suggested full miner recovery take 48 hrs minimum.

That way when People jump on PPT, they don't get a full 2 days income, they only get partial, because they have to wait for their miners to recover and when they come off you can hit, smash them again.

Perhaps it would be better for recovery to take 4 days, but then it might be better to start with 2 and go from there.

In a sense, this makes wars winnable in that with expensive ATs, and it taking a lot of them to effectively mass defense, covert, MS, planet or 2, and with this miners, destroying income will limit the available naq one side has for buying the needed amounts of AT, or managing repairs on large strikes, buying UU to replace lost units if possible.

Obviously if things really don't change with a 2 day recovery, then the time it takes to recover should be increased. This turns PPT from a 2 day get full income and rebuild or whatever to PPT recover income and hope I hold out long enough to rebuild and strike back before I lose my income again.

Please try to keep other suggestions to making wars winnable to another thread.

TC

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Well, yes, it makes sitting on account possible mate, however big players can sit on smaller players and they don't need this update to do it. So I guess even now we should stand up to bullies and protect smaller players - but it's beyond of this topic.

I personally like this suggestion and I will forward it to admin this evening.



Teal'auc