Jan 17th poll discussion.

by Special Agent 47 Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:32 am

Main Server Survey:

Q1: At regular intervals people contact me and seem to have various issues with the short protections (4 Hours).
Currently for 1 Market Reserve you can go on a 4 hour protection.
There are currently no limitations on either how many Reserves you can hold or how often you can go on protection.

Please select ALL options which you would like if any of those were implemented:
A) NO change to current system (no limitations)
B) SOME limitatons should be made
C) REMOVE 4 hour protections completely
D) Limit on how many reserves you can hold
E) Limit how often you can use 4 Hour Protections in 7 days
F) You have to be outside protection for some time before you can use another 4 Hour protection again
G) Same as above, but you can activate multiple 4 hour protection (so go on protection for 16 Hours)
H) You cannot use more than THREE 4 hour protections in 7 days
I) You cannot use more than FIVE 4 hour protections in 7 days

Airforce will work using the following:
1) SAM systems use rockets to defend your realm from enemy aircraft
2) Air superiority fighters can shoot rockets and destroy enemy aircraft (when you're attacking AND defending)
3) Bombers drop bombs and destroy whatever you are sending your airforce to destroy (mostly when attacking but possible when defending)

Q2:Do you want a new building, Appartments get released? Each 1000 units need 1 appartment, which costs 10 million kuwal. Everyone will start with enough apartments, if released.
If you don't have enough apartments, you will produce less income. You can send your airforce to bomb enemy apartments with your bombers, which can be stopped by enemy fighters and enemy SAM systems. Do you want this update?

Please select an option:
A) Yes, I want apartments
B) No, I don't want apartments
C) Undecided / I don't care

Q3:If apartments get added, people without apartments will produce less income (either because they didn't build enough or the appartments they had, have been destroyed). How much less income should income units without apartments produce?

Please select an option:
A) Homeless income units produce 90% of normal income
B) Homeless income units produce 75% of normal income
C) Homeless income units produce 50% of normal income
C) Homeless income units produce 25% of normal income
D) Homeless income units produce 0% of normal income

Q4:When airforce is released, where should aircraft and SAM systems be produced?

Please select an option:
A) Aircraft will be produced in aircraft factories, SAM systems in SAM System factories (2 New buildings)
B) Aircraft and SAM systems will be produced in aircraft factories (1 New building)
C) Aircraft will be produced in aircraft factories, SAM systems in weapon factories (1 New building)
D) Aircraft and SAM systems will be produced in weapon factories (0 New buildings)
E) Undecided / I don't care

Q5: Please choose all missions which you want aircraft to be able to use, once they are released.
(Select EACH option you support)

Please select ALL options which you would like if any of those were implemented:

A) (Air Support Assault) Aircraft support you in assault missions
B) (Attack Airfields) Aircraft attack enemy aircraft of a player
C) (Attack Factories) Aircraft attack enemy weapon factories and training facilities (as well as aircraft factories, munition factories and SAM System factories if these get added).
D) (Attack Cities) Aircraft attack enemy appartments (if these have been added)
E) (Supression Bombardment) Temporarily reduce income and unit production for a short period of time

Q6:How should losses on both sides be calculated?
If both have same airforce technologies, both sides will always lose the same kuwal value.
How many aircraft should be destroyed after 1 mission on each side?

Please select ONE option:

A) 10% of attacker's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
B) 10% of defender's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
C) Losses on each side will be equal to 5% of attacker's force + 5% of defender's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
D) 10% on both sides. If attacker is stronger, then attacker will lose less % and defender will lose more %. If defender is stronger then the opposite will happen. (both sides still lose the same number of aircraft)
E) Undecided / I don't care

Q7:Should the attacker ever be able to destroy all of the defender's forces with 1 airforce mission?

Please select ONE option:

A) Yes, if the attacker is 10 times more powerful than defender
B) Yes, if the attacker is 20 times more powerful than defender
C) Yes, if the attacker is 40 times more powerful than defender
D) Yes, if the attacker is 100 times more powerful than defender
E) NO, this should never happen
F) Undecided / I don't care

Anything else you would like to add?
(You can also suggest types of buildings would you like to see added on Aderan Wars. Also describe how they should work and what they should do)
You can also make suggestions for the next poll, or prepare ideas for the next poll which will come within a few weeks.

Any further comments? (optional)

by Special Agent 47 Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:34 am

Well for me, this is my logic and line of thought on the subjects presented in the poll.

For question 1 I chose

B) SOME limitatons should be made
D) Limit on how many reserves you can hold
E) Limit how often you can use 4 Hour Protections in 7 days

But honestly feel only B is fully my ideal situation.

F) You have to be outside protection for some time before you can use another 4 Hour protection again

Has more the idea I think is best, but I do not want it limited to 4 hr protections as this choice implies.

I'm not sure limiting MR's is the answer, although I have said it needed to be done when 4 hr protections were born as people can literally stay on PPT for 2 to 3 weeks straight now, and that time will only grow. I have changed my mind so that I think it should be a limit on the monthly protection time somehow. I am not against 1 full week, and the beginning of another as it is a legitimate strategy to try to keep some big guns for the mid/last waves of a war. But 2 or 3 weeks straight is just to much IMO. I would like to see you be able to burn 7 straight days the first week, but IF you do then the next week requires some time off. Now if after 7 consecutive days the time is set be it 12 or 24 hrs a week off protection, or if its progressive such as 12hrs the first week, then 24 hrs the next, then 36 hrs the next, either way is fine with me. I just don't want to see them capped as that means 1 war will use them all up, and I would rather you be able to have more then 1 wars worth saved up. Ultimately I suggest the MR/4 hr Protection usage be limited by 24/48 hr protections. If you use two 24 hr protections, and one 48 hr protection in a row then 4 hr protection limits kick in. If you are on protection 7 straight days then overall protection limits kick in. But still allow for 1 full week(the first week), and then creative protection usage, but ultimately not allow 24/7 protection for another week.

Airforce will work using the following:
1) SAM systems use rockets to defend your realm from enemy aircraft
2) Air superiority fighters can shoot rockets and destroy enemy aircraft (when you're attacking AND defending)
3) Bombers drop bombs and destroy whatever you are sending your airforce to destroy (mostly when attacking but possible when defending)

So we are dropping down to just 2 fighter classes? Last I heard there were 3? But going off just what is printed above my selections are

Q2:Do you want a new building, Appartments get released?

B) No, I don't want apartments

This game is becoming more and more an identical twin to AW2. Lets keep some sense of originality. Secondly and more importantly is this will create to devastating an effect on war. This coupled with the AF income attacks can cripple accounts to drastically and why are you making war cheaper by giving back dead UU in the form of wounded men, and looking to give back damaged weapons in the form of scrap if you plan to cut peoples income by 25 to 90%? It makes no sense to be able to reduce a crippled or maimed accounts income to 10% or less. That is sheer madness and guarantees victory to first strikers. A double whammy on income is not needed or justified. If you put them in you will regret it in the long run. Keep the originality of the AF income attacks and let the apartments idea be original to AW2.

Q3:If apartments get added, people without apartments will produce less income (either because they didn't build enough or the appartments they had, have been destroyed). How much less income should income units without apartments produce?

My response is same as Q2 "B) No, I don't want apartments"
But if you insist on forcing this game to follow AW2 then I hope you are smart enough to limit the income loss to LESS then 25%. When you add in the second whammy of AF income attacks you are killing the best and only way a defender has to rebuild and fight back.

Q4:When airforce is released, where should aircraft and SAM systems be produced?

A) Aircraft will be produced in aircraft factories, SAM systems in SAM System factories (2 New buildings)

I say two different builds as to me its attack and defense. Those are separated in tech levels, and I have heard you intend to separate att and defense weapons levels in the future, so it only makes sense to me. Tho 1 building for both would be acceptable.

Q5: Please choose all missions which you want aircraft to be able to use, once they are released.
(Select EACH option you support)

A) (Air Support Assault) Aircraft support you in assault missions
B) (Attack Airfields) Aircraft attack enemy aircraft of a player
C) (Attack Factories) Aircraft attack enemy weapon factories and training facilities (as well as aircraft factories, munition factories and SAM System factories if these get added).

I think AF should help in destruction's along with assaults. I can see not helping with assassin hunts and spy kills but Destructions need to be added. I definitely do not want apartment involved for reasons already explained (double whammy on income attacks). I am willing to try the "building attacks" but feel they need to be balnced very carefully because constant bombardment can spell disaster for to many. When you have to burn 24 hrs in protection just to build building to train men and arm them, then spend 24 to 48 more hrs to do the training and arming it will get to be just to much. Remember on constructions you can only build 40/20 per turn, and only 1 type of building at a time. In 24 hrs the max you can do is build 640 training and weapons facilities. You can not rebuild for war with so few weapons/training facilities.

Q6:How should losses on both sides be calculated?
If both have same airforce technologies, both sides will always lose the same kuwal value.
How many aircraft should be destroyed after 1 mission on each side?

Please select ONE option:

A) 10% of attacker's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
B) 10% of defender's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
C) Losses on each side will be equal to 5% of attacker's force + 5% of defender's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
D) 10% on both sides. If attacker is stronger, then attacker will lose less % and defender will lose more %. If defender is stronger then the opposite will happen. (both sides still lose the same number of aircraft)
E) Undecided / I don't care
E) (Supression Bombardment) Temporarily reduce income and unit production for a short period of time

This is a loaded question. Your saying if the tech levels are equal, 100 planes versus 1000 plans will equal 200 plans lost, 100 on ech side. Plain and simple end is the fact who ever strike first wins. Everyone will see what someones AF action is and build 1 plane over it a wipe them out, then another can destroy buildings. Its just a bad systemn all around to be honest. I also question the SAMS? If they are for def, do the SAMs of the defending realm not support the AF of the defending realm?

To answer the question I would choose which ever one cost the most ST and AT or make the battle last the longest. That way its effectiveness is cut to the bare minimum since you seem to intend a double(well actually tripple) whammy on income. Not only does the AF reduce your income, then apartments reduce it furture, but you have to spend 2 or 3 days building building just to be able to train and arm men to fight with.

Q7:Should the attacker ever be able to destroy all of the defender's forces with 1 airforce mission?

Please select ONE option:

A) Yes, if the attacker is 10 times more powerful than defender
B) Yes, if the attacker is 20 times more powerful than defender
C) Yes, if the attacker is 40 times more powerful than defender
D) Yes, if the attacker is 100 times more powerful than defender
E) NO, this should never happen
F) Undecided / I don't care

That's another loaded question really. You cant say never, because that means they will always have 1 plane that never dies. Also by your above method of losses if your facing 10 planes with 1000 the result is 990 strike plans make it a 0 def planes make it, so why this question really? All I can say is I assume this is basically a massive damage type thing with ground troops. So I go for 100 times.

As for adding, just please keep some uniqueness and originality between the AW games, stop making them more and more identical. Don't allow income to get double and triple whammied, Test AF well before releasing it to main. Then in time please revisit some other areas of the game that need revisited. There are alot of small updates that would really help the game. Empires would be nice to see born, but later, not now.

by Phyurie Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:20 am

Q1: D) Limit on how many reserves you can hold

The current system works pretty well in my opinion. However, I do realize it opens the possibility of someone saving up a ridiculous amount of MRs and going on protection... forever. Limiting the amount of reserves (25? 50?) should easily fix that.

Q2: B) No, I don't want apartments

I don't see these as having any benefits at all.

Q3: See Q2.

Q4: C) Aircraft will be produced in aircraft factories, SAM systems in weapon factories (1 New building)

It would make sense for aircraft to be produced in a new facility, but if you're already building tanks in a facility, why not ground based SAM systems too?

Q5:
A) (Air Support Assault) Aircraft support you in assault missions
B) (Attack Airfields) Aircraft attack enemy aircraft of a player
E) (Supression Bombardment) Temporarily reduce income and unit production for a short period of time

Aircraft would be very useful in these situations. I would prefer infrastructure be untouched by aircraft just as it is untouched by ground forces. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have aircraft destroy a factory when an army can't.

Q6: was confusing to me.

Q7: I really agree with SA's analysis on this one.

by Manleva Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:36 am

I'll start by saying that I am not happy to still see both the "Undecided" and "I don't care" options listed together again as there is a vast difference between these two choices.
By selecting the "Undecided" answer I am saying that I cannot make a clear decision between the other options listed or that I am not happy with the actual choices. I am also indicating that in fact I do care which is very different from saying I don't care.

Generally I have many of the same feelings as those expressed by SA47 but I do have some additional comment as shown below.

Poll Questions:

Q1: At regular intervals people contact me and seem to have various issues with the short protections (4 Hours).
Currently for 1 Market Reserve you can go on a 4 hour protection.
There are currently no limitations on either how many Reserves you can hold or how often you can go on protection.

Please select ALL options which you would like if any of those were implemented:
A) NO change to current system (no limitations)
B) SOME limitatons should be made
C) REMOVE 4 hour protections completely
D) Limit on how many reserves you can hold
E) Limit how often you can use 4 Hour Protections in 7 days
F) You have to be outside protection for some time before you can use another 4 Hour protection again
G) Same as above, but you can activate multiple 4 hour protection (so go on protection for 16 Hours)
H) You cannot use more than THREE 4 hour protections in 7 days
I) You cannot use more than FIVE 4 hour protections in 7 days

I opted for options B and G here but I think that i am looking at it from a different view point to many others.
Many appear to want to be able to prevent the defender from being able to jump into protection when they are being massed. This is the same tactic that they inturn use themselves after attacking. i.e. Attach then Hide so that retaliation is avoided.
I have to note that there are other options available to the defender that can affect the battle but they have to be online at the time to implement any form of protection which if a well planned attack is made is going to be very unlikely.

I also do not want to see any restrictions on Market Reserves because this can hinder there use in other ways. We need to remember that thay are not only used for Protection.

So as to the limitation, I would like to see something similar to that used for Vacation Mode but would suggest that the the limitation be set at 25% of the protection being selected i.e. 1 hour for a 4 hour protection, 6 hours for a 24 hour Protection and 12 hours for a 48 hour protection.

Also since I mentioned Vacation Mode here, is there a possibility that players could activate a delayed Vacation Mode. Events in real life can arrive totally unplanned and without warning and can leave players with no access to the internet let alone the game. It would be nice in these situations to be able to login and select to enter Vacation Mode but to have it automatically delayed until the appropriate time.

Airforce will work using the following:
1) SAM systems use rockets to defend your realm from enemy aircraft
2) Air superiority fighters can shoot rockets and destroy enemy aircraft (when you're attacking AND defending)
3) Bombers drop bombs and destroy whatever you are sending your airforce to destroy (mostly when attacking but possible when defending)

Q2:Do you want a new building, Appartments get released? Each 1000 units need 1 appartment, which costs 10 million kuwal. Everyone will start with enough apartments, if released.
If you don't have enough apartments, you will produce less income. You can send your airforce to bomb enemy apartments with your bombers, which can be stopped by enemy fighters and enemy SAM systems. Do you want this update?

Please select an option:
A) Yes, I want apartments
B) No, I don't want apartments
C) Undecided / I don't care

Here I selected C) Undecided. I do care and when viewed in relation to other questions listed I can see where this is heading. To me it looks like you are considering ways to add so form of economic affect into battle and I can see some positives to this. The cautionary side of this is that in many ways we are reliant on farming of inactive players and damaging inactive accounts that will not recover will greatly reduce income from them.

Rather than adding accommodation that is destroyable why not look at the places these people work ie. the Farms, Factories and Mines. Already we can attack Workers and Miners so they are covered so I would suggest adding Farms. I would also suggest that while farms have to be built they cannot be destroyed. They can however be damaged. This damage would automatically be repaired over time and would be represented by a lowering of income from farmers while the repair work was undertaken. I will also add that as I'm talking of farms here I would not expect to see any major impact so lets say 1 Kuwal per farmer per turn for say 1 day.

Q3:If apartments get added, people without apartments will produce less income (either because they didn't build enough or the appartments they had, have been destroyed). How much less income should income units without apartments produce?

Please select an option:
A) Homeless income units produce 90% of normal income
B) Homeless income units produce 75% of normal income
C) Homeless income units produce 50% of normal income
C) Homeless income units produce 25% of normal income
D) Homeless income units produce 0% of normal income

Interesting choices here and I see no option for no loss of income. I have chosen B here but also refer to my comments above.

Q4:When airforce is released, where should aircraft and SAM systems be produced?

Please select an option:
A) Aircraft will be produced in aircraft factories, SAM systems in SAM System factories (2 New buildings)
B) Aircraft and SAM systems will be produced in aircraft factories (1 New building)
C) Aircraft will be produced in aircraft factories, SAM systems in weapon factories (1 New building)
D) Aircraft and SAM systems will be produced in weapon factories (0 New buildings)
E) Undecided / I don't care

I have chosen option C here and the following basis, Aircraft will need to be built somewhere and an additional building seems applicable. However thinking more on this I am not so sure. 2 new buildings may be more applicable for building these Items with the addition that Missiles and Bombs need to be built in the weapons factories. This then equates the Aircraft and Sam systems with Units and the bombs and missiles with weapons.

The other option available would be Training special units to man these items. eg pilots for fighters, Pilots and crew for Bombers and missile crews for the Sam Systems

Q5: Please choose all missions which you want aircraft to be able to use, once they are released.
(Select EACH option you support)

Please select ALL options which you would like if any of those were implemented:

A) (Air Support Assault) Aircraft support you in assault missions
B) (Attack Airfields) Aircraft attack enemy aircraft of a player
C) (Attack Factories) Aircraft attack enemy weapon factories and training facilities (as well as aircraft factories, munition factories and SAM System factories if these get added).
D) (Attack Cities) Aircraft attack enemy appartments (if these have been added)
E) (Supression Bombardment) Temporarily reduce income and unit production for a short period of time

I selected All of these options because I felt that they are all valid. I have covered my views on apartments above.

Q6:How should losses on both sides be calculated?
If both have same airforce technologies, both sides will always lose the same kuwal value.
How many aircraft should be destroyed after 1 mission on each side?

Please select ONE option:

A) 10% of attacker's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
B) 10% of defender's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
C) Losses on each side will be equal to 5% of attacker's force + 5% of defender's force (both sides lose the same number of aircraft)
D) 10% on both sides. If attacker is stronger, then attacker will lose less % and defender will lose more %. If defender is stronger then the opposite will happen. (both sides still lose the same number of aircraft)
E) Undecided / I don't care

Again another Undecided. You talk about airforce technologies in the question so I have to ask where do SAM Systems fit in. Also I can not see basing losses on technologies alone to be valid, both technology and numbers need to be considered so that total airforce power is used. I also cannot see how either side can loose the same number of aircraft unless both sides are completely equal in both numbers and technology, generally I would expect that fighters would have some advantage over bombers because they should be smaller and more agile. The same could also apply for fighters verses Sam Systems.

Q7:Should the attacker ever be able to destroy all of the defender's forces with 1 airforce mission?

Please select ONE option:

A) Yes, if the attacker is 10 times more powerful than defender
B) Yes, if the attacker is 20 times more powerful than defender
C) Yes, if the attacker is 40 times more powerful than defender
D) Yes, if the attacker is 100 times more powerful than defender
E) NO, this should never happen
F) Undecided / I don't care

This was an easy answer, 1 Player should never be able to completely destroy another players defenses with one single mission of any type.

I suppose the question that needs to be asked is what will happen when a player with an airforce attacks one without any air defenses. Depending on costs and construction requirements poor balancing could see newer players at a severe disadvantage. While most players will act in a reasonable manner with newer players it only takes one or two to act in ways that will see newer players leave which is something we don't want to see.

Anything else you would like to add?
(You can also suggest types of buildings would you like to see added on Aderan Wars. Also describe how they should work and what they should do)
You can also make suggestions for the next poll, or prepare ideas for the next poll which will come within a few weeks.

Any further comments? (optional)

I would also appreciate some more details on the Airforce features being posted in the forum.
What the poll contains only paints part of the picture and a better overview would make commenting a lot easier

by Admin Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:43 am

Special Agent 47 wrote:So we are dropping down to just 2 fighter classes? Last I heard there were 3? But going off just what is printed above my selections are

We'll start out with 2, a third one has not been dropped, but it will not be included in the first batch.

Special Agent 47 wrote:and why are you making war cheaper by giving back dead UU in the form of wounded men, and looking to give back damaged weapons in the form of scrap if you plan to cut peoples income by 25 to 90%? It makes no sense to be able to reduce a crippled or maimed accounts income to 10% or less. That is sheer madness and guarantees victory to first strikers. A double whammy on income is not needed or justified. If you put them in you will regret it in the long run. Keep the originality of the AF income attacks and let the apartments idea be original to AW2.

Recycling units means more fighting, makes damn well more sense than coming up with something that increases income production because at least you are forced to use the added resoruces for what they were meant to be used as in the first place.
Just like invasion mission, there's worlds length of difference between being able to do something, it being profitable, someone actually doing it and then even in the extent one does it.
You will hardly be able to use these missions if you already have a shortage of ST to adress more pressing issues.

Also giving an advantage to a first strike makes perfect sense. If someone knows a first strike will not give someone a big advantage, diplomacy will hardly escalate into war unless there are far more ridiculous reasons to get involved, such as pride and arrogance. However if a first strike can have devastating effects on the outcome of a conflict then both sides will have much more incentive to drop negotiations in favor of a surprise attack.
That's Risk Management 101

Special Agent 47 wrote:My response is same as Q2 "B) No, I don't want apartments"
But if you insist on forcing this game to follow AW2 then I hope you are smart enough to limit the income loss to LESS then 25%. When you add in the second whammy of AF income attacks you are killing the best and only way a defender has to rebuild and fight back.

Question clearly asks for, what if appartmens would come anyway. making the opinion on the previous question only relevant to the amount you would chose how much of a reduction should take place.

And as always, better to ask about 10 paths and pick the best ones, rather than to ask about none and come up with a crappy one.

Special Agent 47 wrote:Q4:When airforce is released, where should aircraft and SAM systems be produced?
I say two different builds as to me its attack and defense. Those are separated in tech levels, and I have heard you intend to separate att and defense weapons levels in the future, so it only makes sense to me. Tho 1 building for both would be acceptable.

Separation only in terms of research as was on reset and in RA, production still takes place in one building. Plus aircraft attack and defend at the same time anyway

Special Agent 47 wrote:This is a loaded question. Your saying if the tech levels are equal, 100 planes versus 1000 plans will equal 200 plans lost, 100 on ech side. Plain and simple end is the fact who ever strike first wins. Everyone will see what someones AF action is and build 1 plane over it a wipe them out, then another can destroy buildings. Its just a bad systemn all around to be honest. I also question the SAMS? If they are for def, do the SAMs of the defending realm not support the AF of the defending realm?

To answer the question I would choose which ever one cost the most ST and AT or make the battle last the longest. That way its effectiveness is cut to the bare minimum since you seem to intend a double(well actually tripple) whammy on income. Not only does the AF reduce your income, then apartments reduce it furture, but you have to spend 2 or 3 days building building just to be able to train and arm men to fight with.

I dont intend anything of what you just said. If people want to be able to cripple their incomes then I couldn't care less.
And no, it's not a loaded question, each system makes perfect sense. Current strike system is option D, and it seems people are ok with sticking with the tradition.
Either way, it's clearly not based on who attacks first but who has and can build more planes. Just like whoever can field more soldiers will also win.
Even then, You spend 3-5k ST's wiping out someone's account. What's next? you're going to wait the next month not being able to do anything while the other 30 enemy accounts you haven't even touched rip your account apart?
Not really the smartest tactic around.

Special Agent 47 wrote:That's another loaded question really. You cant say never, because that means they will always have 1 plane that never dies. Also by your above method of losses if your facing 10 planes with 1000 the result is 990 strike plans make it a 0 def planes make it, so why this question really? All I can say is I assume this is basically a massive damage type thing with ground troops. So I go for 100 times.

It's not a loaded question at all. It's a simple yes or no question.
You say my "above method of losses". Which one?
Either way, the only difference it would make if people vote simply no, is that after a complete annihilation, you might be left with a few planes left compared to none. The military power that those few planes will carry will be almost 0.
It's like saying it matters if you're left with 0 or 100 defenders when being turn farmed by someone.

As for adding, just please keep some uniqueness and originality between the AW games, stop making them more and more identical. Don't allow income to get double and triple whammied, Test AF well before releasing it to main. Then in time please revisit some other areas of the game that need revisited. There are alot of small updates that would really help the game. Empires would be nice to see born, but later, not now.[/quote]
The poll is a very general based questionnaire about some basic features.
I've already said on the forum at least once that there will be a test server of it for a short time, at the very least to do some rough tuning.

by Admin Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:04 pm

Manleva wrote:I'll start by saying that I am not happy to still see both the "Undecided" and "I don't care" options listed together again as there is a vast difference between these two choices.
By selecting the "Undecided" answer I am saying that I cannot make a clear decision between the other options listed or that I am not happy with the actual choices. I am also indicating that in fact I do care which is very different from saying I don't care.

For the purpose of knowing what the players think, you will realize that both answers are indeed identical.
Even if you answer "i care" it will still be totally useless in telling me actually in what sense you care. That is why both options are together and will remain so.

Manleva wrote:... The cautionary side of this is that in many ways we are reliant on farming of inactive players and damaging inactive accounts that will not recover will greatly reduce income from them.

... They can however be damaged. This damage would automatically be repaired over time and would be represented by a lowering of income from farmers while the repair work was undertaken....

Why would you be wasting AT, ST and kuwal on something that will give you absolutely nothing in return.
Also, Q5 clearly talked about "temporary" reduction of income and up "for a short period of time" which adresses your second option of hitting income

Manleva wrote:Interesting choices here and I see no option for no loss of income. I have chosen B here but also refer to my comments above.

As explained to nomad, the point in having appartments would be that they DO REDUCE income. Hence adding an option saying "no income loss" would be pointless and plain st.

Manleva wrote:The other option available would be Training special units to man these items. eg pilots for fighters, Pilots and crew for Bombers and missile crews for the Sam Systems

There is no intention to add such an extra layer of complexity for now.

Manleva wrote:I also cannot see how either side can loose the same number of aircraft unless both sides are completely equal in both numbers and technology, generally I would expect that fighters would have some advantage over bombers because they should be smaller and more agile. The same could also apply for fighters verses Sam Systems.

Point taken, seems people were still somehow able to think that if you send only bombers which have been stated to have no air attack ability whatsoever, an attacker would be able to suffer fighter losses.
Same story with fighters going against sam systems.
Also why are you saying you cannot see something something to just happen to be if it was clearly said that it was the situation to be evaluated.

I suppose the question that needs to be asked is what will happen when a player with an airforce attacks one without any air defenses. Depending on costs and construction requirements poor balancing could see newer players at a severe disadvantage.[/quote]
This issue has been adressed in the previous poll.
Although if you follow the pattern that is present in other types of attack, such as a strike hunting assassins, then the answer is already present.

by Special Agent 47 Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:58 pm

TY for your time and your discussion about the poll Admin. Giving insight on thought processes and intent always help to cultivate the discussion. If you do not mind you have a few points I would like to rebuttal tho.

You spoke as tho I am against the recycling of UU and weaponry. While I admit I was against it at first, having seen it in action it is not so bad. My point was why lessen the cost of war making recovery easier, just to then remove income which puts you right back in the same boat as before? It does not matter how many mean you have, if you can not train them due to having no buildings, and you can not build anything because you have no income. You gave no % on income attacks for AF, but you offered up to 90% reduction due to apartments. That will lead anyone to assume its on the table to possibly reduce someone income to LESS then 10%. That's the point I wanted to make. Do 1 income attack or the other, but not both at the same time. You have a great sense of balance for game mechanics so if you do this I will try it, but double and triple threats are very unbalanced.

I happen to disagree greatly with making this game so first strikes win. It does not make sense at all. What will make sense is the first struck rolls over and dies or simply quit because the game mechanics have been made so first strike wins and those struck can never stand a chance. That's just not a game I want to play. Giving a definite advantage is fine, one that can not be overcome is not. As said before tho, you have a good sense of balance so all I can do is hope for the best.

I must ask why you think it will take 3 to 5K ST to destroy someones account? As in every war I have been able to break 3, 4, even as high as 6 or 8 accounts and NEVER run out of ST. This begs the question of how many ST and AT will these attacks require? I mean you say nothing of the ST or AT cost, and since they are directly tied to other missions why would the cost increase any at all? It does not cost us more to send 500K men into battle then it cost to send 500 men. Some clarification might help to clear some confusion.

It's not a loaded question at all. It's a simple yes or no question.
You say my "above method of losses". Which one?
Either way, the only difference it would make if people vote simply no, is that after a complete annihilation, you might be left with a few planes left compared to none. The military power that those few planes will carry will be almost 0.
It's like saying it matters if you're left with 0 or 100 defenders when being turn farmed by someone.

Time for work, so I'll return later and edit from here.

by Phyurie Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:35 pm

Admin, it is implied from the poll that there will be airforce tech (which is good). How will this work? Is it going to be like assassins and covert where you research power levels and get techs or like attack and defense where you research different types of aircraft, build them, and have tech? Will personal bonuses or race bonuses affect airforce?

by kingkongfan1 Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:37 pm

Well, heres my two cents worth...

Q1. Personally I voted to leave the whole thing alone, Market Reserves are used for more than going on protection, (purchasing bank size increases, Attack turns, & more importantly, supply turns) this last war I was involved in taught me the importance of Market Reserves. I say if you must, limit the amount of 4hr protections a player may use per week,( say 6 per week), but do not set a cap on the number of Market Reserves a player may hold. JMO...
Q2. I voted no, absolutely not, I do not want this game becoming more like RA then it already is, also, if someones home is destroyed, why does their income decrease? example, in 2002 my house was destroyed by a tornado, but I still went to work, I still drew a paycheck, I even got money from the guys I worked with, not to mention the insurance check... so destroying a players apartments & causing income loss makes no sense to me... JMO.
Q3. see Q2, but, I can't see homeless people not producing income, even the guy sleeping in a cardboard box, standing on the street corner with his hand out is making SOMETHING, cause somebody is gonna give him their pocket change... JMO.
Q4. in 2 separate buildings... JMO.
Q5. I voted a, b, c, did not vote d, see reason above, did not vote e, however I do want more detail as to how this may work, as I could change my mind on this... JMO.
Q6. given what was put forth, I voted B, but I would like more discussion on this, & possibily changes made, I am interested in seeing this in action in the test server... JMO.
Q7. I actually voted D here, but after having time to think more, I cannot think of any attacks in history where everything was destroyed in 1 attack, so I am open to rethinking my vote here... JMO.

I am sure to have more to say on this after the test server is up & things get put into motion...

by Manleva Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:36 pm

Thanks for the answers Admin.

Admin wrote:
Manleva wrote:I'll start by saying that I am not happy to still see both the "Undecided" and "I don't care" options listed together again as there is a vast difference between these two choices.
By selecting the "Undecided" answer I am saying that I cannot make a clear decision between the other options listed or that I am not happy with the actual choices. I am also indicating that in fact I do care which is very different from saying I don't care.
For the purpose of knowing what the players think, you will realize that both answers are indeed identical.
Even if you answer "i care" it will still be totally useless in telling me actually in what sense you care. That is why both options are together and will remain so.

Manleva wrote:... The cautionary side of this is that in many ways we are reliant on farming of inactive players and damaging inactive accounts that will not recover will greatly reduce income from them.

... They can however be damaged. This damage would automatically be repaired over time and would be represented by a lowering of income from farmers while the repair work was undertaken....
Why would you be wasting AT, ST and kuwal on something that will give you absolutely nothing in return.
Also, Q5 clearly talked about "temporary" reduction of income and up "for a short period of time" which adresses your second option of hitting income

There are a couple of points Ill make on your responses.

The first is on the Undecided / I don't care comments. I do agree with your comments that as far as the poll goes there is not a difference but only if no additional comments are made. I am not sure how you handle responses to your polls which could be part of this issue as well. If each response is stored separately then you will see additional comments for the Undecided selections fairly clearly. If on the other hand all of the results are simply stored in the same table the difference is much harder to see. In this instance if you separated the options you would at least get an indication of the different opinion and would be able to see where people don't really care of where there may need to be more clarification because they have not been able to make a clear choice.

The second comment refers to inactives. I was not suggesting that players would generally use these options against existing inactive accounts although there may be a bit of this to start with. Rather I was looking at the situation where players go inactive because of war. here we would now see an active player leaving before apartments were rebuilt which would result in those accounts no longer returning to their normal Farmer based incomes.

@ Kingkongfan1 - I do understand your reasoning behind your response to Q2. however we do not have natural disasters in AW and there is no insurance company. The issue here is war and I cannot think of any war in which there has not been collateral damage caused to non military targets.
This collateral damage is partially accounted for with attacks that target Workers and Miners however there is no ecenomic effects for those players who only build Farmers. I can see what Admin is attempting but it's not simple to implement.

by kingkongfan1 Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:57 pm

Manleva wrote:
@ Kingkongfan1 - I do understand your reasoning behind your response to Q2. however we do not have natural disasters in AW and there is no insurance company. The issue here is war and I cannot think of any war in which there has not been collateral damage caused to non military targets.
This collateral damage is partially accounted for with attacks that target Workers and Miners however there is no ecenomic effects for those players who only build Farmers. I can see what Admin is attempting but it's not simple to implement.

I can agree with what you are saying, no natural disasters, & no insurance, but in wars past, for the states anyway, the economy grew greatly during times of war, I am glad to say that I have never had to experience war as I know some others may have, & I hope I never do... I am basically argueing against turning this game, (the Beginning) into a mirror image or copy of Red Apocalypse, we've already seen the wounded come over from RA, I am willing to bet that other aspects will be attempted as well, just as we see this with Apartments... as for the second part of your statement, I suggested almost a year ago that players must have a certain %age of their population trained in all economic fields, (farmers, miners, & workers) it got shot down so fast, it made me head spin, I suggested it cause I saw that other, especially larger, better built accts only had farmers trained, & saw this as an unfair advantage, I still do, even tho I only train farmers myself... I would much rather see players having to have a % of all economic units trained, than to see apartments, or any other aspect of RA come over to this game... JMO.

by Admin Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:01 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:I must ask why you think it will take 3 to 5K ST to destroy someones account? As in every war I have been able to break 3, 4, even as high as 6 or 8 accounts and NEVER run out of ST. This begs the question of how many ST and AT will these attacks require? I mean you say nothing of the ST or AT cost, and since they are directly tied to other missions why would the cost increase any at all? It does not cost us more to send 500K men into battle then it cost to send 500 men. Some clarification might help to clear some confusion.

There is a difference between doing assault missions and doing invasion missions.
Try reducing someone's miner and worker count by 50% and then tell me how many ST's you've spent. Let's ignore the kuwal cost since the invasion mission is made that you should kill more than you lose if there's no more def standing.

I haven't mentioned anything about AT, ST cost because it was not relevant for the purpose of the poll, which was to know what people think of the following outline.
It's obvious to me that wiping out someone's income could only be possible under 2 theoretical situations:
A) It's borderline impossible unless both the defender does something totally stupid (like training only miners), despite being repeatedly warned not to, and the attacker spends thousands over thousands of ST's.
B) The effect is temporary (meaning even without any action from target, income would return to 100% eventually) and making any or all of the following subject to balancing, implementation or exclusion from the system. Time required for income to be restored to maximum potential, ability of target to speed up the process, cost to/ability of the attacker to prolong the process.

B) was the idea behind Q5 Option E

And it should be obvious to anyone making such deep thought processes (thinking this far ahead usually also means one is capable of current observation) that nothing ever could be destroyed for free on this game and nothing ever will.

About techs:
The idea was that you simply improve the efficiency of bombs and rockets used. Wouldn't matter if you're defending or attacking

by Special Agent 47 Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:21 am

I am confused by the above response. Why has invasion missions even been mentioned? Do they have anything to do with the discussion at hand? If so please make the link for me as I am missing it.

Also, I am confused by you saying income returns to normal? How is this so? I assumed apartments were like in RA once destroyed they don't come back unless you expend resources rebuilding them? If that is the case then how will the income ever revert back to normal when 1) attacker does daily mission to keep the defender suppressed as the defender has no income, no training or weapons facilities, or other means to gather resources? 2) The defender does not bother to rebuild due to no income to rebuild with?

Now to continue from my previous post

It's not a loaded question at all. It's a simple yes or no question.
You say my "above method of losses". Which one?
Either way, the only difference it would make if people vote simply no, is that after a complete annihilation, you might be left with a few planes left compared to none. The military power that those few planes will carry will be almost 0.
It's like saying it matters if you're left with 0 or 100 defenders when being turn farmed by someone.

This truly confuses me. The difference between 0 defenders and 100 defenders is MASSIVE. A hit for me on a 0 def account has 0 cost to me other then AT. A hit on 100 defenders would cost me 5 to 10 bill kewal. Therefore this statement confuses me greatly.

I guess a better explanation of cost and power may be needed as you say a few planes power will effectively be nothing, where the effectiveness of just a few defenders is massive.

When I stated ""above method of losses" I was referring to the very clear method you were going to instatute. That is

If both have same airforce technologies, both sides will always lose the same kuwal value.

That means its absolutely nothing like attack and defense where losses are calculated as a % of the force used. This is a completely different losses formula then used anywhere else in the game.

This will be a double edged sword. It means the biggest income, if big enough, will be able to suppress the smaller based entirely on the fact they can simply out build the smaller players. It also means that the biggest air forces can be nickled and dime to death by many smaller and weaker air forces. Size will ultimately account for nothing. 1 air force of 1,000K planes will fall to 10 air forces of 100 planes. If the 10 join together at 1 time that makes sense, but not if they line up attacking 1 at a time.

Really like the discussion, and wish more of the active player base would join in publicly, instead of just in chats and such.

by Admin Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:50 am

You were asking where would 3-5k ST cost come from, so I explained.

About losses:
"10% on both sides. If attacker is stronger, then attacker will lose less % and defender will lose more %. If defender is stronger then the opposite will happen"
Is the precise definition of the current attack missions losses formula, except that the number isn't 10 for attacker and defender but different numerical values.

Special Agent 47 wrote:It means the biggest income, if big enough, will be able to suppress the smaller based entirely on the fact they can simply out build the smaller players.

And

Special Agent 47 wrote:It also means that the biggest air forces can be nickled and dime to death by many smaller and weaker air forces. Size will ultimately account for nothing. 1 air force of 1,000K planes will fall to 10 air forces of 100 planes.

So by your explanation we've successfully addressed both sides of the issue if I understand correctly. Since a big player has their advantage while at the same time not being unbeatable

Oh yeah, ignoring the fact that if you have 10 small airforces you need to sped more AT's and ST's to wipe out that 1 big one. Just like when there's 10 small strikes massing a big defense, or one big strike massing 10 smaller defenses

by Special Agent 47 Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:02 am

Admin wrote:You were asking where would 3-5k ST cost come from, so I explained.

About losses:
"10% on both sides. If attacker is stronger, then attacker will lose less % and defender will lose more %. If defender is stronger then the opposite will happen"
Is the precise definition of the current attack missions losses formula, except that the number isn't 10 for attacker and defender but different numerical values.

Special Agent 47 wrote:It means the biggest income, if big enough, will be able to suppress the smaller based entirely on the fact they can simply out build the smaller players.
And
Special Agent 47 wrote:It also means that the biggest air forces can be nickled and dime to death by many smaller and weaker air forces. Size will ultimately account for nothing. 1 air force of 1,000K planes will fall to 10 air forces of 100 planes.
So by your explanation we've successfully addressed both sides of the issue if I understand correctly. Since a big player has their advantage while at the same time not being unbeatable

I still am missing the point in the 3 to 5K ST needed to wipe an account, why are invasions even needed at all? Thats what I am missing. You have said its theoretically possible after the updates to reduce income to under 10% but destroying apartments and income suppression attacks?(using the extremes you have mentioned in poll)

With this income really does face a triple threat.

As for the last part, in a large and active playerbase I would be inclined to say yes, but here all it would take is either the largest 30 to 40 accounts banding together, or 2 power alliances banding together to get the "ascended DD" effect. Where the large are so strong the weak can never get a footing to retaliate. Thats all I'm saying.

We shall see how it develops and how testing goes as that will show more then any discussion can ever bring to life.

by Kenzu Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:35 pm

SAM systems support defending aircraft.
In fact SAM systems will fight enemy aircraft anytime that enemies are attacking you, no matter if you have defending aircraft or not.

obviously bombers can't harm fighters at all, and fighters can't harm SAM systems.

kingkongfan1 wrote:Well, heres my two cents worth...

Q1. Personally I voted to leave the whole thing alone, Market Reserves are used for more than going on protection, (purchasing bank size increases, Attack turns, & more importantly, supply turns) this last war I was involved in taught me the importance of Market Reserves. I say if you must, limit the amount of 4hr protections a player may use per week,( say 6 per week), but do not set a cap on the number of Market Reserves a player may hold. JMO...
Q2. I voted no, absolutely not, I do not want this game becoming more like RA then it already is, also, if someones home is destroyed, why does their income decrease? example, in 2002 my house was destroyed by a tornado, but I still went to work, I still drew a paycheck, I even got money from the guys I worked with, not to mention the insurance check... so destroying a players apartments & causing income loss makes no sense to me... JMO.
Q3. see Q2, but, I can't see homeless people not producing income, even the guy sleeping in a cardboard box, standing on the street corner with his hand out is making SOMETHING, cause somebody is gonna give him their pocket change... JMO.
Q4. in 2 separate buildings... JMO.
Q5. I voted a, b, c, did not vote d, see reason above, did not vote e, however I do want more detail as to how this may work, as I could change my mind on this... JMO.
Q6. given what was put forth, I voted B, but I would like more discussion on this, & possibily changes made, I am interested in seeing this in action in the test server... JMO.
Q7. I actually voted D here, but after having time to think more, I cannot think of any attacks in history where everything was destroyed in 1 attack, so I am open to rethinking my vote here... JMO.

I am sure to have more to say on this after the test server is up & things get put into motion...

I don't think you were sleeping on the street. Imagine a city is bombed and half the people don't have a place to live, no bed, no place to cook food, nothing. Don't you think it will negatively affect how they work?

by Special Agent 47 Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:37 pm

What will the kill ratio be between planes and SAM's?

Is there a difference in kill ration when a SAM is fighting alone or supported by an active air force?

What will the construction rates of air force and SAM's be?

What is the price difference between planes and SAM's?

obviously bombers can't harm fighters at all, and fighters can't harm SAM systems.

What makes you say this? I have never seen a bomber that did not have at least minimal defenses even if nothing more then a belly gunner or tail gunner. Granted they should have a very low kill ratio, but saying they can not hurt them at all? Secondly, why would a fighter plane not be able to hurt a SAM? That's really out of line as they are the ones who normal engage SAM systems to clear the way for a bomber. If a bomber is using its payload on SAM's then it has nothing to use on buildings.

Admin, can you confirm if this is correct information or not please.

by Kenzu Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:34 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:What will the kill ratio be between planes and SAM's?
1:1 at equal tech levels

Is there a difference in kill ration when a SAM is fighting alone or supported by an active air force?
No

What will the construction rates of air force and SAM's be?
not sure, but probably same like with weapons, namely 1 per factory per turn.

What is the price difference between planes and SAM's?
Defending with SAMs will most likely be slightly cheaper than defending with aircraft, since SAM's can't attack other players.

obviously bombers can't harm fighters at all, and fighters can't harm SAM systems.

What makes you say this? I have never seen a bomber that did not have at least minimal defenses even if nothing more then a belly gunner or tail gunner. Granted they should have a very low kill ratio, but saying they can not hurt them at all? Secondly, why would a fighter plane not be able to hurt a SAM? That's really out of line as they are the ones who normal engage SAM systems to clear the way for a bomber. If a bomber is using its payload on SAM's then it has nothing to use on buildings.

AW isn't a WW2 re-enactment where bombers were armed with machineguns to counter enemy fighters which were also armed with only machineguns.

In Aderan Wars fighters are armed only with air-air missiles, while bombers will be armed only with air-ground bombs.
AW fighters are cant only combat air forces, bombers only ground forces.

The third aircraft Fighter-Bomber is the only one which can fight both. It will be armed with air-air missiles as well as air-ground bombs. If there will be another poll about airforce, you might want to watch closely to support Fighter-Bombers get added too, so that you can build aircraft that can fight both (2 Fighter-Bombers will be as efficient as 1 Fighter and 1 Bomber, since in total they carry the same firepower against ground and air.)

It will work the way that if Fighters engage bombers, say 10 bombers will be destroyed. What the attacker loses are no fighters, only rockets to shoot down enemy bombers. The value they destroy will be 2:1, in other words the attacker spend a fair share of kuwal too.

Admin, can you confirm if this is correct information or not please.

by seaborgium Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:22 pm

Why is Kenzu answering questions directed at admin for Main?

by Admin Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:14 pm

because a clarification of something that was already mentioned in the poll was requested (specifically about bombers being able to fight fighters, fighters attacking SAMs) and I am currently still tangled up in RL for the next 26 hours

The other questions, dunno

by seaborgium Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:13 pm

Kenzu how do you know it will be a 1:1 ratio?
considering nothing was said in the poll nor in this thread.
I am sure sams shoot more then 1 projectile at once, so it can hit more then 1 aircraft at once.

Why should SAMs be cheaper?
I am sure that SAMs can shoot both bombers and aircraft, well in RL anyways.
Since it can take out 2 items it should cost more.

I don't remeber seeing anything about a 3rd aircraft in the poll

by Kenzu Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:27 pm

SAMs can shoot down all aircraft
See SAM system in action:

Jan 17th poll discussion.

Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.

Re: Jan 17th poll discussion.