TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Lord Ishurue wrote:
Lets extend the CeaseFIRE until the peace treaty is signed or something to that extent .

But . I think we should test out some of the farm policy proposals .

my proposal and Jiro's , with these conditions .

My proposal the Defense clause does not kick in , since we are still at war .

Jiro's policy . That one really cant be tested out during this ceasefire . unless every player posts their defense at full power before the war . IE i had ~3bil b4 the war . or something to this extent .

opinions thoughts ? This would prolly eliminate the trial run of 28 days which ian suggested .

Lord Ishurue wrote:
Lets extend the CeaseFIRE until the peace treaty is signed or something to that extent .

But . I think we should test out some of the farm policy proposals .

my proposal and Jiro's , with these conditions .

My proposal the Defense clause does not kick in , since we are still at war .

Jiro's policy . That one really cant be tested out during this ceasefire . unless every player posts their defense at full power before the war . IE i had ~3bil b4 the war . or something to this extent .

opinions thoughts ? This would prolly eliminate the trial run of 28 days which ian suggested .

ian wrote:

Lord Ishurue wrote:
Lets extend the CeaseFIRE until the peace treaty is signed or something to that extent .

But . I think we should test out some of the farm policy proposals .

my proposal and Jiro's , with these conditions .

My proposal the Defense clause does not kick in , since we are still at war .

Jiro's policy . That one really cant be tested out during this ceasefire . unless every player posts their defense at full power before the war . IE i had ~3bil b4 the war . or something to this extent .

opinions thoughts ? This would prolly eliminate the trial run of 28 days which ian suggested .

I have no problems with extending the ceasefire. I also have no problems once a farming policy is agreed that "normal" farming & raiding of TIE/ TOC can commence within 24hours of the farming policy being agreed while the ceasefire continues (to allow discussion of the other points).

As for the 28 day trial period... my concern is ANY policy we agree upon may once its put into practice actually turn out to be crap/unsuitable for whatever reason. Thats why i want the 28day trial period - so IF it turns out to be not so good we can adjust it as necessary. It might well turn out to be adequate in which case no need to change anything... lol. I just want the flexibility for us to adjust the policy IF its found to be unsuitable for either TIE or TOC.

Suggestion (following on from the previous suggestion by Jiro):

Profit = 0.55 times the defence?

So:

Defence of 1billion = 0.55billion profit needed
Defence of 2billion = 1.1billion profit needed
Defence of 3billion = 1.65billion profit needed
Defence of 4billion = 2.2billion profit needed
Defence of 5billion = 2.75billion profit needed
Defence of 6billion = 3.3billion profit needed
Defence of 7billion = 3.85billion profit needed
Defence of 8billion = 4.4billion profit needed
Defence of 9billion = 4.95billion profit needed
Defence of 10billion = 5.5billion profit needed

Expand the excessive military clause to cover BOTH strike & defence. I.e. someone will be unable to farm TIE or TOC if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 9 days economic generation invested into strike.

Someone will fall outside of the above policy and consequently be able to be farmed (simply requiring a 150million profit) if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 18 days economic generation invested into defence

Basically it means for someone to have a high defence they ll need a high economy & thereby should still be farmable under the above system. If you simply base a policy on defence with no clause for excessive defences though you ll end up with people having a huge income vs. their defence, making them unfarmable.

aworon wrote:ian's proposal about profit 0.55*defense is acceptable to me. Very simple and not time consuming.
Ishurue any chance you could come up with some single line formula?

FarleShadow wrote:The voice of reason incoming:

Why .55?

Surely the easiest number is .5 or half?

Its far easier to go 'ok, 3 bill defense, I need to make 1.5 bill profit' than opening the calculator and herp derpin for 10 minutes before hitting the attack button.

ian wrote:I have no problems with extending the ceasefire. I also have no problems once a farming policy is agreed that "normal" farming & raiding of TIE/ TOC can commence within 24hours of the farming policy being agreed while the ceasefire continues (to allow discussion of the other points).

As for the 28 day trial period... my concern is ANY policy we agree upon may once its put into practice actually turn out to be crap/unsuitable for whatever reason. Thats why i want the 28day trial period - so IF it turns out to be not so good we can adjust it as necessary. It might well turn out to be adequate in which case no need to change anything... lol. I just want the flexibility for us to adjust the policy IF its found to be unsuitable for either TIE or TOC.

9 days in strike & 18 days in defense seems very very high for an excessive clause .
if a player had both 9 days strike and 18 days defense they can still farm and be unfarmable . they can just build their defense & strike with barely any spies and assassins .

Lord Ishurue wrote:

ian wrote:

Lord Ishurue wrote:
Lets extend the CeaseFIRE until the peace treaty is signed or something to that extent .

But . I think we should test out some of the farm policy proposals .

my proposal and Jiro's , with these conditions .

My proposal the Defense clause does not kick in , since we are still at war .

Jiro's policy . That one really cant be tested out during this ceasefire . unless every player posts their defense at full power before the war . IE i had ~3bil b4 the war . or something to this extent .

opinions thoughts ? This would prolly eliminate the trial run of 28 days which ian suggested .

I have no problems with extending the ceasefire. I also have no problems once a farming policy is agreed that "normal" farming & raiding of TIE/ TOC can commence within 24hours of the farming policy being agreed while the ceasefire continues (to allow discussion of the other points).

As for the 28 day trial period... my concern is ANY policy we agree upon may once its put into practice actually turn out to be crap/unsuitable for whatever reason. Thats why i want the 28day trial period - so IF it turns out to be not so good we can adjust it as necessary. It might well turn out to be adequate in which case no need to change anything... lol. I just want the flexibility for us to adjust the policy IF its found to be unsuitable for either TIE or TOC.

Suggestion (following on from the previous suggestion by Jiro):

Profit = 0.55 times the defence?

So:

Defence of 1billion = 0.55billion profit needed
Defence of 2billion = 1.1billion profit needed
Defence of 3billion = 1.65billion profit needed
Defence of 4billion = 2.2billion profit needed
Defence of 5billion = 2.75billion profit needed
Defence of 6billion = 3.3billion profit needed
Defence of 7billion = 3.85billion profit needed
Defence of 8billion = 4.4billion profit needed
Defence of 9billion = 4.95billion profit needed
Defence of 10billion = 5.5billion profit needed

Expand the excessive military clause to cover BOTH strike & defence. I.e. someone will be unable to farm TIE or TOC if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 9 days economic generation invested into strike.

Someone will fall outside of the above policy and consequently be able to be farmed (simply requiring a 150million profit) if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 18 days economic generation invested into defence

Basically it means for someone to have a high defence they ll need a high economy & thereby should still be farmable under the above system. If you simply base a policy on defence with no clause for excessive defences though you ll end up with people having a huge income vs. their defence, making them unfarmable.

9 days in strike & 18 days in defense seems very very high for an excessive clause .
if a player had both 9 days strike and 18 days defense they can still farm and be unfarmable . they can just build their defense & strike with barely any spies and assassins .

9 days strike max & 15 days defense max . 9 days of strike is gonna nerf their income from upkeep .

o . incase any1 is curious . 9 days of strike is roughly 2% of ones army size . 15 days is ~3.3% of ones army size .

My proposal to test out too .
Farming Policy .
1. Defense clause - minimum of 3 days economic investment in defense to be covered/protected .
2. Excessive Military clause . A maximum of 9 days of economic generation in strike , with a maximum 40% of your population in military .
3. If you meet those conditions you must also be with in the tiers.

Tiers by population/ profit ratio per 10 Attack turns . ( 1mil1 = 1,000,001 , and so on )

Army/population________ minimum profit per tier
0 army - 1million army - 200million profit ( high profit , reason why damage an active account when there are plenty of 0 defense farms with same amounts out )
1mil1 - 2million army - 300mil profit
2mil1 - 3million army - 450mil profit
3mil1 - 4milion army - 600mil profit
4mil1 - 5million army - 850 mil profit

5mil1- 7million army - 1.1bil profit ( this is were our old policy cut off . )
7mil1 - 9mil army = 1.3bil profit
9mil1- 11mil army = 1.5bil profit
11mil1 - 13mil army = 1.7bil profit
13mil1 - 15mil army = 1.9bil profit

15mil1 - 18mil army = 2.3bil profit
18mil1- 21mil army = 2.7bil profit
21mil1 - 24mil army = 3.1bil profit
24mil1- 27mil army = 3.5bil profit
27mil1 + = 4bil profit .

aworon wrote:I'd like to see clarified if TIE wants Emperors to be bound by this treaty.

If yes then I would like to see some improvements in the part on personal policies as several points need to get addressed.
As you explained in your version, I could end up having 10-20 people from TIE wishing to declare war upon me because I farmed them while following the farming policy BOTH sides agreed upon and my alliance cannot intervene.
I see no problem with demanding a 1v1 though, however only under the condition that repeated attacks have been made which failed to uphold the farming policy and no compensation has been paid by the attacker.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole point of a farming policy is to set a "rule" under which the alliance says it's ok to farm and get farmed without requiring further escalation of conflicts, making the whole "personal policies for farming"
Should you however wish to push for your personal policies thing then I will need to see the profit per defense dropped significantly to offset the profits I lose by not being able to farm certain people.

Lord Ishurue wrote:

ok

very large TOC & TIE players .

SA47, Lord Ishurue, ian, Kenzu , to name a few .

between the 4 of us , we fluctuate 90 - 98% income units . The lower end is during war , higher end is peace times . so middle way is ~ 95% ish

larger players ,
guys around 5mil - 10mil ish average at 90% eco

smaller guys. average at ~ 75% eco units .

(75 + 90 + 95 )/3 = 86% so will say 85% eco units .

now ian with your daily economy . if u had 9 days of economy in strike with APC . ( 1bil weapon training )
u would have 385k supers armed With APCs .

your at 15million army .

385k/15million = .025 or 2.5% of population in strike .

lets say minimum defense you need a minimum of 2 days eco to be protected .

2.5/4.5= .0055 or .55% same thing . so round down to .5% for example sake .

were looking at 85% income units .

Strike 2.5% population ( maximum amount to make legal farms )
Defense .5% population ( minimum amount to be covered by policy )
Spies 4.5% population
Assassins 3.5% population

that makes a total of 11% military to be covered by policy . still have 4% of military to put somewhere .

lets say someone adds that 4% to defense spies and assassins


This is a simulation of someone with 85% income units and 15% military who wants to maximize their strike with out sacrificing too much economic lose .

Strike 2.5% population ( maximum amount to make legal farms )
Defense 2.5% population ( minimum amount to be covered by policy )
Spies 5.5% population
Assassins 4.5% population


ian set up using the 85% eco 15% military with APC / weapon level 9 as his weapon .

375k attack supers
375k defense supers
825k spies
675k assassins

12,750,000 income units

This was an attempt of turning Days of economy into population and assuming every1 is "playing like a very player ."

now lets turn back the Clock .

ian population of 20 times smaller . 15mil/20 = 750k army size
18,750 attack supers
18,750 defense supers
41,250spies
33,750 assassins

637,500 income units

either way . if a population for excessive strike clause were to pass . then it only makes sense for larger accounts to be able to arm the same level of strikes as smaller players .

2.5% population in strike is very very high I cant agree to anything higher then that .

u need more spies then u do supers . u break 4% of enemy strike weapons and 4% of enemy defense weapons to your 5% spies being SENT.


most players have Main battle tank .

1 tank costs 308k . 1 spy cost 225k . so its clear u need slightly more spies to protect u against the very powerful covert accounts .

ian wrote:

Lord Ishurue wrote:

ok

very large TOC & TIE players .

SA47, Lord Ishurue, ian, Kenzu , to name a few .

between the 4 of us , we fluctuate 90 - 98% income units . The lower end is during war , higher end is peace times . so middle way is ~ 95% ish

larger players ,
guys around 5mil - 10mil ish average at 90% eco

smaller guys. average at ~ 75% eco units .

(75 + 90 + 95 )/3 = 86% so will say 85% eco units .

now ian with your daily economy . if u had 9 days of economy in strike with APC . ( 1bil weapon training )
u would have 385k supers armed With APCs .

your at 15million army .

385k/15million = .025 or 2.5% of population in strike .

lets say minimum defense you need a minimum of 2 days eco to be protected .

2.5/4.5= .0055 or .55% same thing . so round down to .5% for example sake .

were looking at 85% income units .

Strike 2.5% population ( maximum amount to make legal farms )
Defense .5% population ( minimum amount to be covered by policy )
Spies 4.5% population
Assassins 3.5% population

that makes a total of 11% military to be covered by policy . still have 4% of military to put somewhere .

lets say someone adds that 4% to defense spies and assassins


This is a simulation of someone with 85% income units and 15% military who wants to maximize their strike with out sacrificing too much economic lose .

Strike 2.5% population ( maximum amount to make legal farms )
Defense 2.5% population ( minimum amount to be covered by policy )
Spies 5.5% population
Assassins 4.5% population


ian set up using the 85% eco 15% military with APC / weapon level 9 as his weapon .

375k attack supers
375k defense supers
825k spies
675k assassins

12,750,000 income units

This was an attempt of turning Days of economy into population and assuming every1 is "playing like a very player ."

now lets turn back the Clock .

ian population of 20 times smaller . 15mil/20 = 750k army size
18,750 attack supers
18,750 defense supers
41,250spies
33,750 assassins

637,500 income units

either way . if a population for excessive strike clause were to pass . then it only makes sense for larger accounts to be able to arm the same level of strikes as smaller players .

2.5% population in strike is very very high I cant agree to anything higher then that .

u need more spies then u do supers . u break 4% of enemy strike weapons and 4% of enemy defense weapons to your 5% spies being SENT.


most players have Main battle tank .

1 tank costs 308k . 1 spy cost 225k . so its clear u need slightly more spies to protect u against the very powerful covert accounts .

To clarify, is what your proposing that players can have a minimum of 85% of their army size in income units? With no more than 2.5% of army size in strike and no more than 5% in defence

If the player:

- Has an excessive strike (2.5%+) they can't farm TIE/TOC
- Has an excessive defence (5%+) they can be farmed for a profit of just 250million.
- If they have less than 85% income units they can't farm TIE/ TOC & hits will only need to take 250million profit.

I m still not happy about any excessive clauses being based on army size. I.e. a 6million army size = about 70% AE. 15million army size = about 49%.

Lets say Player A is the 6million army size, he has 85% income units under what you propose - 5,100,000 farmerx x 50 = 255million x 0.7 = 178,500,000 x 48 = 8,568,000,000 kuwal's worth per day from income.

Player B is the 15million army size, he has 85% income units under what you propose - 12,750,000 farmers x 50 = 637,500,000 kuwal's worth x 0.49 = 312,375,000 x 48 = 14,994,000,000 kuwal's worth per day from income.

Player A has a 18k Raw Unit Production. UU rates are 175k - thats 3,150,000,000 kuwal's worth a day from U.P
Player B has a 25k Raw Unit Production. UU rates are 175k - thats 4,375,000,000 kuwal's worth a day from U.P

Player A's total economy is 11,718,000,000 kuwal's worth.
Player B's total economy is 19,936,900,000 kuwal's worth.

Player B is 170.139% economically stronger than player A. Under your proposal Player B can have 250% more units in defence, strikes, assassins & spies than Player A.

I.e. 2.5% of 6million = 150k strike supers. 2.5% of 15million = 375k strike supers. (100 / 150,000) x 375,000 = 250.

THIS is why i m so against doing anything by army size - it results in huge imbalances.....