Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

by Manleva Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:50 am

I'm not sure that the title is 100% correct but it's a start.

First a question. What actual in game benefit is there in belonging to an Alliance.

My answers are that other than some possible protection in numbers and the possibility of shared knowledge there is actually nothing tangible.

Currently there are no features available that give any benefit to being a member of an alliance.

There are other discussions going on around features such as Chat and Funds which I'll leave where they are. This is all about Teamwork.

Currently all military action is carried out by individuals and no matter how many players attack another player they all do so as individuals. So how about letting a number of players combine their forces and attack together at once.

Scenario

Player A has Defensive Action of 10,000,000
Player X has a Strike of 2,000,000
Player y has a strike of 4,500,000
Player Z has a strike of 3,500,000

Neither players X,Y or Z has any realistic chances against Player A individually but combine their forces and then that are evenly matched.

The question then is how do we do this combining of forces?

The answer is Military Commanders.

Players can select another Alliance Member as their Military Commander and can assign a specific amount of one unit type to that commander.
The commander when attacking specifies that a Reinforced attack is being made and all units assigned to the commander are used in the attack.
Losses are apportioned to the individual players based on the percentage of units they allocated to the combined force.

I originally thought that to be able to do this effectively all players contributing to the combined force should be online at the time the attack was made but have reconsidered due to the global nature of the game. To prevent exploitation the Military Commander agreement lasts for 12 hours only.

To prevent over massing of individual players the Defender must be within 20% power of the combined forces power.
I.e. The combined force of 10,000,000 can only attack a defender between 12,000,000 to 8,000,000 in power.

by Nomad Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:03 am

I'm sorry to say but I find that to be a horribly exploitable idea. Not to mention the decrease in cost of AT and ST.

This would make Defenses useless and nothing more then a liability. Look at WR now, if each of the 86 member did this with just a 1 bill strike your looking at a 86 bill strike.

You have to have some form of a counter as well, whats defenses get out of this idea other then beaten to a pulp?

by Manleva Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:47 am

Nomad wrote:I'm sorry to say but I find that to be a horribly exploitable idea. Not to mention the decrease in cost of AT and ST.

AT and ST costs can be fixed simply by using AT and ST from each player I.e. If 3 players combine forces an 10 At are used then 10AT are taken from each player so AT ans ST costs match the amount that would be used if each attacked individually.

This would make Defenses useless and nothing more then a liability. Look at WR now, if each of the 86 member did this with just a 1 bill strike your looking at a 86 bill strike.

And they have to find a target within 20% of 86 bill Defense (they cant hit anyone under 68.8 bill defense or over 103.2 bill defense)

You have to have some form of a counter as well, whats defenses get out of this idea other then beaten to a pulp?

Defense gets nothing from this and it is not intended to other than the Attack power needs to be with 20% of the defense power

This is to allow smaller players to be able to combine their smaller forces so that they can actively participate in wars against larger players. It adds another dimension to War because currently all you see are larger accounts massing the smaller accounts that may possibly be a threat. Consideration would need to be given to as lot more scenarios

I could ask a different way I suppose which may clarify. When was the last time that the USA went into a war without any allies?

by Nomad Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:13 am

This is not real life, and can never be compared to it.

I think its far to exploitable. It would no longer make sense to even build a def. All you have to do is pick a target, then have the correct amount of people to do this. So a 20 bill def just needs 20 1 bill strikes. The 20 bill def losses Everything, yet the strikes only lose 1 bill. I'm sorry but I just can not make that acceptable in my eyes.

by Kenzu Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:00 am

Manleva wrote:I'm not sure that the title is 100% correct but it's a start.

First a question. What actual in game benefit is there in belonging to an Alliance.

My answers are that other than some possible protection in numbers and the possibility of shared knowledge there is actually nothing tangible.

Currently there are no features available that give any benefit to being a member of an alliance.

There are other discussions going on around features such as Chat and Funds which I'll leave where they are. This is all about Teamwork.

Currently all military action is carried out by individuals and no matter how many players attack another player they all do so as individuals. So how about letting a number of players combine their forces and attack together at once.

Scenario

Player A has Defensive Action of 10,000,000
Player X has a Strike of 2,000,000
Player y has a strike of 4,500,000
Player Z has a strike of 3,500,000

Neither players X,Y or Z has any realistic chances against Player A individually but combine their forces and then that are evenly matched.

The question then is how do we do this combining of forces?

The answer is Military Commanders.

Players can select another Alliance Member as their Military Commander and can assign a specific amount of one unit type to that commander.
The commander when attacking specifies that a Reinforced attack is being made and all units assigned to the commander are used in the attack.
Losses are apportioned to the individual players based on the percentage of units they allocated to the combined force.

I originally thought that to be able to do this effectively all players contributing to the combined force should be online at the time the attack was made but have reconsidered due to the global nature of the game. To prevent exploitation the Military Commander agreement lasts for 12 hours only.

To prevent over massing of individual players the Defender must be within 20% power of the combined forces power.
I.e. The combined force of 10,000,000 can only attack a defender between 12,000,000 to 8,000,000 in power.

I like your idea very much, however you should also consider the disadvantage.

Why would you want multiple guys to attack together?
Obviously the game mechanics is such that even if everyone is armed with the same weapons and has the same technology, if 5 people attack with 1 billion attack against 5 billion defense, the attacker will lose a lot while defender not much, only because the system doesn't care about your technology and weapons, but only cares about how big your action is.

I personally believe it's wrong.
I believe that if there are 11 armies, each has the same technology and weapon equipment, if 10 armies attack 1 army, which is 10 times bigger than each 1 army, even if they attack at different times, then both sides should be losing the same amount of troops.

Example:
10 armies each with 10.000 units, keep attacking someone who has 100.000 units.
If they have same technology and weapons, then 10 armies will lose a total of 100.000 units and the defender also 100.000, even though each single attacker attacked against a 10 times bigger enemy.

Your suggestion would not solve the problem
Because then simply a lot of players could gang upon 1 player, and by having a total strike much higher than defense, they would destroy much more than the defender.

I believe the problem is that losses are calculated based on strike action and defense action ratios, like in most games, even though on Aderan Wars this system is much better developed than in most other games, and instead losses should be calculated based on not only actions, but also damage done per unit (technology ratios), just like on Red Apocalypse.

This is what I consider the best system:

Losses ratio must be based on the technology ratio.

On Red Apocalypse, if a small attacker with same weapons and technology but only 10.000 soldiers attacks a big player who has 100.000 soldiers in defense, then in an assault, the attacker will lose 1.000 soldiers (10%) and the defender will lose also 1.000 soldiers.
If the defender had technology and weapons making the defenders 2 times more powerful per unit than attackers, then defender would lose only 500 units. (attacker still loses 1.000)
If the attacker had tech and weapons making the attacker 2 times more powerful per unit than defender, then defender would lose 2.000 units. (attacker still loses 1.000)

We should not lose touch with reality. Having 10 times bigger army than someone doesn't mean that you will have less losses than someone, especially not if you have same technology, and definitely not if the smaller army has much better technology than you.

Example: A scenario where North Korea attacks South Korea and neither is aided by other countries.

North Korean army: 1.106.000 soldiers
North Korean technology: (tanks, aircraft, missiles) are predominantly from the 1970s and 1980s.

South Korean army: 687.000 soldiers
South Korean technology: a bigger share of modern military equipment than North Korea.

If This war was on Aderan Wars, then North Korea would lose less soldiers than South Korea.
But in the real world, I am pretty sure you all would agree that North Korea would lose more troops than South Korea, even though North Korea has a bigger army.
(And it doesn't matter who would have won, as this is not the point in this discussion. We are looking only at the losses during battle.)

by Admin Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:59 am

in AW, at least on main, north korea would have lost more units, since how many units you send doesn't affect what ratio of units you'll be killing.

by Kenzu Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:23 pm

Admin wrote:in AW, at least on main, north korea would have lost more units, since how many units you send doesn't affect what ratio of units you'll be killing.

How about we got two players: North and South.

North has 1.100.000 attack soldiers and a strike action of 3.300.000.000 (3.000 per soldier)
South has 680.000 defense soldiers and a defense action of 2.380.000.000 (3.500 per soldier)

who will lose more soldiers after 1 assault?

I am sure South will lose more soldiers, even though South has slightly better technology.

Will the losses be the same for both sides if North had def soldiers instead, and South had strike soldiers instead and South was the one attacking?

by Nomad Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:44 pm

Having slept on this I have thought of another greivous error/exploit, but also though of a way I might find this idea acceptable.

The exploit is that now all an alliance needs is 1 active player. Presently most alliances are about 1/2 active (active defined in this example as logging in 3 or more times a day to bank and train). This idea basicly allows the entire alliance to fight with only 1 man even active in the alliance. This gives far to much power to alliances meaning the death of lone wolves(who never really stood a chance in AW), and gives a power multiplier based on alliance size. You would have to force alliance capps and decrease allinace sizes.

Now one idea that may make it useful, if a "commander" has to have a RAW military force 10 times greater(number can be adjusted, used for example only)Then those giving reinforments. This means the actual fighter/user/player has to commit and build a large force.

Secondly, 1 mans army fights with 100% effecincy. But when you send another mans forces to help controling and communicating with a different race/army takes its toll and both armies fight with only 97% efficency, 3 men joining their armies would fight at only 90% efficency, 4 with 75%, and 5 with only 50%

On top of that, the more men committing to the join forces, the higher the ST cost of the attack. All the reinforcements are moving twice after all.

You have to give this "attack bonus/feature" a severe cost or negative effect in my opinion.

by Manleva Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:49 pm

While looking at all of the possible downsides you are missing the main thrust of this suggestion.

The intent is to create a feature where Alliance member can join together as a team to do something.

The suggestion included a limited time frame of 12 hours (in would really be the next turn after 12 hrs) to prevent the relationship lasting to long.

@Nomad - Sorry I cannot agree with your suggestion that the Commander having to be 10 times the size of the officers. This would restrict it totally to a feature that's available only when the commander is online. This is more about making sound strategic decisions and picking the right commander to attack at the right time. Also just because someone has more power it does not follow that they are a better commander

It also attempted to match the Attack and Defense powers so that essentially when the forces met in battle then essentially they were even.
I suggested a 20% spread for this as exact matching would be impossible.

Also to keep things on a more even footing I include this fbit that comes from another suggestion.

Activity and its effects.
To ensure that both of these are of benefit to Active members only and to stop feeding the following mechanisms are included.

A period of inactivity of more than 7 Days will see all transfers from the inactive account cease.
Inactive accounts will be dropped from alliances after 60 days.

Vacation mode - All transfers will be stop when members enter vacation mode and automatically restart when they exit.

So if an account is not active then it cannot be used because only the officer can select the commander.
To prevent further abuse via Protection and Vacation mode simply make it that a player cannot utilize these features while they have an active commander relationship. Once the attack has been made then they are covered by the normal restrictions. Just because they didn't click the attack button has no bearing, it's the fact their units were use that is important.

Kenzu has made some comments on Tech levels which also has some possibilities that could enhance the suggestion so I will give them some thought as well.

by Nomad Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:45 pm

Manleva wrote:While looking at all of the possible downsides you are missing the main thrust of this suggestion.

The intent is to create a feature where Alliance member can join together as a team to do something.

The suggestion included a limited time frame of 12 hours (in would really be the next turn after 12 hrs) to prevent the relationship lasting to long.

@Nomad - Sorry I cannot agree with your suggestion that the Commander having to be 10 times the size of the officers. This would restrict it totally to a feature that's available only when the commander is online. This is more about making sound strategic decisions and picking the right commander to attack at the right time. Also just because someone has more power it does not follow that they are a better commander

It also attempted to match the Attack and Defense powers so that essentially when the forces met in battle then essentially they were even.
I suggested a 20% spread for this as exact matching would be impossible.

Also to keep things on a more even footing I include this fbit that comes from another suggestion.

Activity and its effects.
To ensure that both of these are of benefit to Active members only and to stop feeding the following mechanisms are included.

A period of inactivity of more than 7 Days will see all transfers from the inactive account cease.
Inactive accounts will be dropped from alliances after 60 days.

Vacation mode - All transfers will be stop when members enter vacation mode and automatically restart when they exit.

So if an account is not active then it cannot be used because only the officer can select the commander.
To prevent further abuse via Protection and Vacation mode simply make it that a player cannot utilize these features while they have an active commander relationship. Once the attack has been made then they are covered by the normal restrictions. Just because they didn't click the attack button has no bearing, it's the fact their units were use that is important.

Kenzu has made some comments on Tech levels which also has some possibilities that could enhance the suggestion so I will give them some thought as well.

I did state 10 times was an example, 2 or 3 times would do, but its like a merc army, you have got to have people you trust to "control,guide,govern,direct,etc,etc" another man army. Why would my forces of 5K men obey your commander and his pathetic force of 500 men? I just think it needs to make sense is all.

I feel the idea is good, but the exploitability of it is great. Keep in mind, right now as you have proposed it that 2 men on different side of the globe and online 24 hrs a day can utalize EVERY military man from their entire alliance and never have a man of their own trained. 1 insomniac with alot of coke or coffee could war basicly endlessly with his alliance mates only logging in 1 or 2 times daily to committ their forces to him. I can not see how others do not see an issue with this proposal.At least as it stands. I also can not see giving a bonus to strike that is in effect double, triple, 10 times, even 80 to 100 times its strength should not have ANY cost or side effect.

Love the debate tho, and do feel there is a gold nugget in here.

I could accept it more if those joining forces were actually online. A "join forces" last 60 seconds. Then you have to reclick every 60 seconds till your no longer needed.

by FarleShadow Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:40 pm

Nomad wrote:1 insomniac with alot of coke.

Spoiler:

Also, the join forces every 5 minutes (rather than 60 seconds) would work alittle better I think, so we don't get alot of people spamming 'join forces' at the same time.

by Manleva Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:15 pm

On the time period side where I suggested 12 hours I was looking for a realistic value that allowed for players RL situations. I know that I have issues with access when I am at work and I hear Sea moaning about it enough. I also do want to get some sleep.

To answer Nomads suggestions on who can be the commander, I will still stick to it being anyone in the alliance. In reality they are nothing more than the button pusher. If you want to bring in a chain of command functionality then we could consider requesting that Admin code something along the lines where the Alliance leadership will set both who the commander is and a time period in which they are allowed to press the button. Essentially coding what I would expect to be happening within an alliance anyway. Ie. if I am going to send My troops and Nomads into battle then I would have discussed it with Nomad and the alliance leadership first.

I am also happy to a restriction on the amount of AT and hence the number of attacks that can be made this way just so long as it is reasonable.

to answer Kenzu's comments around smaller players attacking larger ones, yes it is possible and feasible however the 10 smaller players who attack individually will always loose while if their forces are combined there is the opportunity for them to win. This is merely psychological but no one wants to loose all of the time and it's nice to have a way of evening the odds so that you can win sometimes against much larger opponents.

by Nomad Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:35 am

Manleva wrote:On the time period side where I suggested 12 hours I was looking for a realistic value that allowed for players RL situations. I know that I have issues with access when I am at work and I hear Sea moaning about it enough. I also do want to get some sleep.

To answer Nomads suggestions on who can be the commander, I will still stick to it being anyone in the alliance. In reality they are nothing more than the button pusher. If you want to bring in a chain of command functionality then we could consider requesting that Admin code something along the lines where the Alliance leadership will set both who the commander is and a time period in which they are allowed to press the button. Essentially coding what I would expect to be happening within an alliance anyway. Ie. if I am going to send My troops and Nomads into battle then I would have discussed it with Nomad and the alliance leadership first.

I am also happy to a restriction on the amount of AT and hence the number of attacks that can be made this way just so long as it is reasonable.

to answer Kenzu's comments around smaller players attacking larger ones, yes it is possible and feasible however the 10 smaller players who attack individually will always loose while if their forces are combined there is the opportunity for them to win. This is merely psychological but no one wants to loose all of the time and it's nice to have a way of evening the odds so that you can win sometimes against much larger opponents.

Just let me note that "who" is the commander is not my issue. I agree ANYONE in the alliance can be. My issue is the state of the commanders account. I think that the commander should not be able to have 0 trained or armed men. I think at the very LEAST if he has a 1 bill strike, then other players can only match it. I would prefer to see the commander needing 2 bill strike to allow others to add 1 bill worth of strike each. I like it to the mercs. You have to have leaders, captains, generals of your OWN army to lead other peoples armies.

I also think that every great "boost" or "plus" has to have a cost or negative effect. Yes it would be great for all the small guys to be able to band together. But dont you think it was suck ass if you were the big guy that those 10 small guys decided to wipe out for no other reason then they can? Because they are bored? Because your a lone wolf? Because their alliance is 8 times bigger then yours? Try looking at it from all sides is all I am saying.

by Manleva Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:29 am

Nomad wrote:Just let me note that "who" is the commander is not my issue. I agree ANYONE in the alliance can be. My issue is the state of the commanders account. I think that the commander should not be able to have 0 trained or armed men. I think at the very LEAST if he has a 1 bill strike, then other players can only match it. I would prefer to see the commander needing 2 bill strike to allow others to add 1 bill worth of strike each. I like it to the mercs. You have to have leaders, captains, generals of your OWN army to lead other peoples armies.

Ok how about this modification, Anyone of any power can be the commander but the officers cannot send all of their troops. The amount of troops allocated to the commander will match in power 75% of the Commanders power in the type of forces being commanded. This means that if my strike power is 1,000,000 as the commander the most I could use of your strike force would be 750,000,000 power even if your full strike is 10bil.

There is room to modify the percentage but it should be better than purchasing mercenaries. As they come from another alliance member their loyalty should be better. I'll also add that I'm against set figures. Percentages are more flexible and fairer.

I also think that every great "boost" or "plus" has to have a cost or negative effect. Yes it would be great for all the small guys to be able to band together. But dont you think it was suck ass if you were the big guy that those 10 small guys decided to wipe out for no other reason then they can? Because they are bored? Because your a lone wolf? Because their alliance is 8 times bigger then yours? Try looking at it from all sides is all I am saying.

By the same reasoning don't you think it "sucks ass" that someone 10 times your size can wipe you out for no other reason than they can. Since losses are based on percentages they should be around the same whether a player attacks by themselves or as part of a group. I have also said that the amount of At used could be limited which also adds a negative.

If you really want I could add a suggestion that they also cannot enter protection for a specific time but if I did that then I would want it across the board and that would really ruffle some feathers

by Kenzu Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:25 am

An active player is someone who is playing.
I log in 2 times a day and I don't consider myself an inactive player.

Saying anything less than 3 log ins per day is inactive is a bad definition.

by Nomad Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:58 pm

Manleva wrote:
Nomad wrote:Just let me note that "who" is the commander is not my issue. I agree ANYONE in the alliance can be. My issue is the state of the commanders account. I think that the commander should not be able to have 0 trained or armed men. I think at the very LEAST if he has a 1 bill strike, then other players can only match it. I would prefer to see the commander needing 2 bill strike to allow others to add 1 bill worth of strike each. I like it to the mercs. You have to have leaders, captains, generals of your OWN army to lead other peoples armies.

Ok how about this modification, Anyone of any power can be the commander but the officers cannot send all of their troops. The amount of troops allocated to the commander will match in power 75% of the Commanders power in the type of forces being commanded. This means that if my strike power is 1,000,000 as the commander the most I could use of your strike force would be 750,000,000 power even if your full strike is 10bil.

There is room to modify the percentage but it should be better than purchasing mercenaries. As they come from another alliance member their loyalty should be better. I'll also add that I'm against set figures. Percentages are more flexible and fairer.
I love it, and agree % are the way to go. Problem solved

I also think that every great "boost" or "plus" has to have a cost or negative effect. Yes it would be great for all the small guys to be able to band together. But dont you think it was suck ass if you were the big guy that those 10 small guys decided to wipe out for no other reason then they can? Because they are bored? Because your a lone wolf? Because their alliance is 8 times bigger then yours? Try looking at it from all sides is all I am saying.

By the same reasoning don't you think it "sucks ass" that someone 10 times your size can wipe you out for no other reason than they can. Since losses are based on percentages they should be around the same whether a player attacks by themselves or as part of a group. I have also said that the amount of At used could be limited which also adds a negative.
A good start, and a good negative, but to me the plus so far out weighs the negative that it is trivial.

If you really want I could add a suggestion that they also cannot enter protection for a specific time but if I did that then I would want it across the board and that would really ruffle some feathers I dont think that is a doable option, explained below

Let me approach this from a different point, 1 guy has worked his but off to grow and build a balance account that can stand with most accounts and hold its own. 10 smaller accounts join forces and destroy him daily because their cost is 1/10th the big guys cost, the big guy has to expend 10 times the resources (as he has to mass 10 individual accounts where they mass 1) not only that but the 10 are online 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week where the big guy at best has 12 hrs if he works and sleeps.

Massive accounts have massive incomes, this leaves them at a great disadvantage that will force them to sell and the GAAS and growth of the game will hault, the cost of UU will plummet as no one will want to grow as your a target.

Those we like to call "sniper" will rule as they will keep no income, no def, but build strikes and go farming for very little cost when split between 10, 20 even 80 accounts, not to mention only 1 man in the alliance need be active.

by Sponsored content

Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders

Re: Alliance Reinforcements - Military Commanders