JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
I would point out that the update implies the American Air Force sat doing nothing while they waited for the Mexicans to arrive.
NukaNESIOT: Superpowers
- Thread starter Nuka-sama
- Start date
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
I don't even know whether ragequitting or not will spite you more at this stage.
The problem is you lacked tanks and arty and basically got blitzed. But there are aspects that are broken in the game like how the EC attacked Ukraine and took no losses.. Or how the west Africa army gave up troops to another army and wasn't completely destroyed in the process.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
Except when my forces were almost all mechanised, I didn't get to do any blitzing? In fact, they just rolled over and died. Apparently just as well as infantry do.
This is how this game works: sneak attack the other guy by sinking yourself into massive debt, destroy two thirds of their force while the rest sit around and watch, force them to go into massive debt also to eke out a better loss, make peace, recover in two turns because you've done more damage to them than they have to you, attack one turn later before the ink is dry, going into massive debt again, repeat as nauseum. Once you've lost the first engagement (as in, the very first turn of the process), you've lost the entire game and the rest is you stretching it out. Should I have called gg and quit at turn 2? Is that working as directed?
Bear in mind this is why almost every game has a truce timer. It's all very well to say "fight on" decamper, but theres zero reason to if you've already lost. Stretching out a loss isn't fun in mechanical games for the loser, believe it or not. It's not like you're emotionally invested in the history of your country and your interested in the story either, because in this game your country is just a blob to beat other blobs with. Theres an actual winner and losers here, its a mechanical game. Which is fine, and fun, but if that's the case then you should be able to recover from losing. Working to scrape back a defeat you can recover from is fun - being dead man walking from turn 2 is not. Honestly if I was you might as well have told me.
In terms of actual mechanical considerations the real issue is that you can borrow three times your income on day one, and my recommendation would be "you can't borrow more than your income on the first turn of war" which might help with the "keep kicking a dude when he's down"/magical blitzkrieg issue. Or make borrowing twice your income in one turn have actual consequences to it, and major ones. Otherwise, you may as well call game the day you get invaded the first time.
I'm not saying I'm ragequitting yet, because a) I suspect I'll spite decamper more by not doing it given the optimal strategy this game is basically force your opponent to ragequit and b) even if i do decide its not so much ragequitting as it is calling gg because barring God knows what shenanigans its game for me (to use a league metaphor, you surrender at 20 because you know where this game is going) but the point that I'm trying to make is that there's a serious balance and mechanical issue here and I'm not just complaining about getting beat once.
EDIT: hell, even a PM going " you are being attacked, how do you want to respond?" would do a lot to alleviate this problem. An all or nothing gamble like Mexico just did should have consequences. The rest of the army shouldn't just stand there like dead fish.
I'm not the only person with this problem, I'm just ahead of the curve with the continuation of the cycle.
This is how this game works: sneak attack the other guy by sinking yourself into massive debt, destroy two thirds of their force while the rest sit around and watch, force them to go into massive debt also to eke out a better loss, make peace, recover in two turns because you've done more damage to them than they have to you, attack one turn later before the ink is dry, going into massive debt again, repeat as nauseum. Once you've lost the first engagement (as in, the very first turn of the process), you've lost the entire game and the rest is you stretching it out. Should I have called gg and quit at turn 2? Is that working as directed?
Bear in mind this is why almost every game has a truce timer. It's all very well to say "fight on" decamper, but theres zero reason to if you've already lost. Stretching out a loss isn't fun in mechanical games for the loser, believe it or not. It's not like you're emotionally invested in the history of your country and your interested in the story either, because in this game your country is just a blob to beat other blobs with. Theres an actual winner and losers here, its a mechanical game. Which is fine, and fun, but if that's the case then you should be able to recover from losing. Working to scrape back a defeat you can recover from is fun - being dead man walking from turn 2 is not. Honestly if I was you might as well have told me.
In terms of actual mechanical considerations the real issue is that you can borrow three times your income on day one, and my recommendation would be "you can't borrow more than your income on the first turn of war" which might help with the "keep kicking a dude when he's down"/magical blitzkrieg issue. Or make borrowing twice your income in one turn have actual consequences to it, and major ones. Otherwise, you may as well call game the day you get invaded the first time.
I'm not saying I'm ragequitting yet, because a) I suspect I'll spite decamper more by not doing it given the optimal strategy this game is basically force your opponent to ragequit and b) even if i do decide its not so much ragequitting as it is calling gg because barring God knows what shenanigans its game for me (to use a league metaphor, you surrender at 20 because you know where this game is going) but the point that I'm trying to make is that there's a serious balance and mechanical issue here and I'm not just complaining about getting beat once.
EDIT: hell, even a PM going " you are being attacked, how do you want to respond?" would do a lot to alleviate this problem. An all or nothing gamble like Mexico just did should have consequences. The rest of the army shouldn't just stand there like dead fish.
I'm not the only person with this problem, I'm just ahead of the curve with the continuation of the cycle.
Shadowbound
Incorrugible
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,078
The issue is primarily:
1) Extended turn length. The original rules had turns of a single month, which meant that advances were much more limited. In the current game a sneak attack is able to rapidly cover a great deal of ground into undefended areas because there is (at least) a three month delay before new orders are sent. Two turns of the US 2nd Army, for example, would have created a very different result, while here they just sat on their asses for three months.
2) Debt. The fact that debt is linked to current income, and can be rapidly accrued, gives a huge advantage to the attacker. A defender will likely lose some of their cities in the initial assault, which has a significant impact in the debt that they assume the next turn.
3) Rapid advances in hostile territory. Let's be completely honest, can you see an Indonesian/Chinese/Japanese/Mexican/African army conquering and maintaining control over an area with 1000x its population in a six month period? Wolverines, yo.
4) Dumb players. An NPC has Schrodinger's Army, which is constantly protecting all of its borders simultaneously until the turn it is actually attacked. Players, meanwhile, can leave most of their nation undefended. See: China, Russia, India.
1) Extended turn length. The original rules had turns of a single month, which meant that advances were much more limited. In the current game a sneak attack is able to rapidly cover a great deal of ground into undefended areas because there is (at least) a three month delay before new orders are sent. Two turns of the US 2nd Army, for example, would have created a very different result, while here they just sat on their asses for three months.
2) Debt. The fact that debt is linked to current income, and can be rapidly accrued, gives a huge advantage to the attacker. A defender will likely lose some of their cities in the initial assault, which has a significant impact in the debt that they assume the next turn.
3) Rapid advances in hostile territory. Let's be completely honest, can you see an Indonesian/Chinese/Japanese/Mexican/African army conquering and maintaining control over an area with 1000x its population in a six month period? Wolverines, yo.
4) Dumb players. An NPC has Schrodinger's Army, which is constantly protecting all of its borders simultaneously until the turn it is actually attacked. Players, meanwhile, can leave most of their nation undefended. See: China, Russia, India.
TheLastJacobite
No Commies
The other issue is supply lines. How would the Mexicans be able to reinforce and resupply an army attacking Washington DC? That's a 2000 mile corridor thru hostile territory (thru the American South no less). Every good-ole-boy with a rifle, cell phone and some home made explosives could throw a monkey wrench into that massive relief column.
China invading Russia is the same problem except then it was over massive mountain ranges and deserts.
China invading Russia is the same problem except then it was over massive mountain ranges and deserts.
Right well to answer some questions:
1. The USA did fight back. The Third Army attempted to hold two Mexican Rev Guard Divisions, attempting it without training, armor support, gunships, meaningful artillery support, ect. They lost and were pushed back.
2. Then the 1st RGD went down to Florida to fight the 1st Army. Keep in mind, the US Air Force has been fighting outnumbered and out-trained this entire time. The 1st Army has 2 Marine Divisions and an irrelevant specialization. They can and did fight hard, but they really can't do much without necessary support.
3. No player has, at this point, funded an insurgency in their own country to fight back.
Admittedly, the debt rules should be fixed (see changes after update 11!), but I mean, a big part of the game IS about getting the jump on other players. I am more than happy to take contingency orders though. I'd say more, but I have to go to work and just wanted to throw some things out there, I do hope you stay though.
1. The USA did fight back. The Third Army attempted to hold two Mexican Rev Guard Divisions, attempting it without training, armor support, gunships, meaningful artillery support, ect. They lost and were pushed back.
2. Then the 1st RGD went down to Florida to fight the 1st Army. Keep in mind, the US Air Force has been fighting outnumbered and out-trained this entire time. The 1st Army has 2 Marine Divisions and an irrelevant specialization. They can and did fight hard, but they really can't do much without necessary support.
3. No player has, at this point, funded an insurgency in their own country to fight back.
Admittedly, the debt rules should be fixed (see changes after update 11!), but I mean, a big part of the game IS about getting the jump on other players. I am more than happy to take contingency orders though. I'd say more, but I have to go to work and just wanted to throw some things out there, I do hope you stay though.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Actually I'd say players MUST leave most of their nation undefended. Too much border for too few armies?
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Why does NukeNES have any narrative at all? It was pretty clear to me from the moment of joining that it's a gamey game with gamey game objectives (i.e. elimination).
Zappericus
Euro scumbag
Which is why I loved Fallen Star. Players like being acknowledged for their actions. Playing for the sake of moar armies, moar monies, moar techies and moar clay isn't why I play forum games. If I wanted to play risk, I'd play risk or an RTS.
xoxo
I'm more than happy to create the narrative, but yes this is definitely more the boardgame route than the simulation style. Keeping in mind that the ultimate goal in this game is to conquer the world, I'm not hugely in favor of long protracted guerrilla warfare. For influences, I do look alot at the Second Gulf War (circa 2003) and the initial campaign to remove Saddam as a guide to confrontations with NPC countries. That being said, a protracted struggle can happen, and some countries (Hi Japan!) have seen success by hunkering down with constructed fortification lines.
Again though, I want to point out that the emphasis is on country vs country combat. In regards to supply lines, there are reasonable concerns of it being unrealistic that I am willing to address. I am contemplating that units cannot be reinforced at the start of the turn unless in your national boundaries, and would implement that likely at the end of the Fall update.
IMF regulations are coming this turn like I said, but if anyone has suggestions, I am more than happy to take them into consideration
Again though, I want to point out that the emphasis is on country vs country combat. In regards to supply lines, there are reasonable concerns of it being unrealistic that I am willing to address. I am contemplating that units cannot be reinforced at the start of the turn unless in your national boundaries, and would implement that likely at the end of the Fall update.
IMF regulations are coming this turn like I said, but if anyone has suggestions, I am more than happy to take them into consideration
Again everything is a gamble. Indoesnia and Japan are lucky that they are "technically" fighting with their backs against the wall. With no Aussies to worry about, there is no one to stop them really. I'm gambling on the Nanyza not attacking me. Playing defensively doesn't seem to benefit you unless you're fighting in a corner like Japan, or can magically out maneuver an army.
In rare cases where there is a built in contingency, the usual attack can still be devastating. The US never really recovered from its initial beating, having lots its navy and thus preventing it from expanding. Still this game is definitely like risk, but some nations were made unequally. National fighting capcities are only partially taken into consideration. If everyone was treated equal then perhaps things would be different. The US/China/Russia/Indonesia have massive areas that require at least 2 armies to defend, at last no one has more than 3. There are definitely some issues that should be addressed if we were to try this again. But alas we have a game to finish, hopefully Nuke will take the criticism and adjust.
In rare cases where there is a built in contingency, the usual attack can still be devastating. The US never really recovered from its initial beating, having lots its navy and thus preventing it from expanding. Still this game is definitely like risk, but some nations were made unequally. National fighting capcities are only partially taken into consideration. If everyone was treated equal then perhaps things would be different. The US/China/Russia/Indonesia have massive areas that require at least 2 armies to defend, at last no one has more than 3. There are definitely some issues that should be addressed if we were to try this again. But alas we have a game to finish, hopefully Nuke will take the criticism and adjust.
In each iteration of the Superpowes game, I think there have been improvements each time. It's not perfect no, but each country has their own advantages and disadvantages. South Africa has a smaller ep base, but alot of easily annexed countries nearby. China has a large starting ep base but there are 4 countries nearby that can also attack it. Indonesia has the ability to protect itself not just with its armies, but also by having a strong navy. The USA has a larger industrial base than Mexico, but Mexico can expand easily into Central America. The powers ARE balanced, just in different ways.
Except Europe. Europe's OP.
Except Europe. Europe's OP.
Well Australia has the great benefit of the tiny island nations being so close by. They may only count for .5 ep, but they are near literally free income (almost no chances of casualties) if you divert forces to them, and can add up.
Australiasia is super strong. It has 1 enemy, lots of room for expansion at low cost as Nuke noted and can get away with running just a navy. Indonesia by contrast has to split its forces across the navy and army to expand which horribly weakens it relative to Australasia. Honestly, India is probably the strongest power in Asia by virtue of having so much room for expansion, with a single enemy to worry about under normal circumstances, China. And even China is a marginal sort of threat.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
I understand that, but you have to understand that when you raise objections with a hard-and-fast ruleset on the grounds of plausibility, you are in fact raising "simulationist" objections. Saying "this doesn't make sense" instead of "this is against the rules" is a big red flag for mixed priorities. I understand a little narrative is fun here and there, but this is a 13-player game with all kinds of prescriptions on how to build armies and fight each other with them. This game is basically Risk with some window dressing, and the narrative is there for our amusement. The reason why it's harmful to be ignorant of this fact is because when we get too taken in by the narrative we start to ask questions like "Wait, why is Mexico able to fully occupy the Eastern Seaboard again?" And there's no satisfactory answer to that question because that isn't what the game is about. And, frankly, it's the tip of a very, very deep iceberg.
Of course there's always a balance to be struck between die rolls and carefully-crafted narratives in games like this, but plausible and implausible? Ho boy, we best not go there. We're as far off the plausible as, well, an actual game of Risk, or a game of Europa Universalis IV for that matter. Simulation clearly ain't what this game is here for. With that in mind, and considering the predominance of stats and rules, we have to accept that the narrative is there to illustrate outcomes, not prescribe them. So of course it's going to be an implausible narrative because the rules are representative of an implausible system. And that's OK, because it's not meant to be plausible. It's meant to be a game. See: Risk, EU4. Make sense?
I have to say without knowing the full situation and just glancing at the stats, the American situation is... understandable. If the numbers were truly in the Mexicans favor, and assuming they didn't up the experience of the unit, then routing a green army isn't completely improbably. Which is part of the reason i decided to move my 3rd Army to West Africa as it would simply die in a fire against an actual opponent.
Again, the game is risk which favors the attacker. Of course changing the reinforcement rule will negatively effect the outcome of certain wars in progress and might "punish" the winners. The Chinese strategy this turn made sense, if they could destroy the Japs, the tide definitely would have turned in their favor. However the economic situation in India was definitely not in their favor which is part of the reason they failed.
In terms of contingency, giving the immediate sneak attack plan, I would suggest everyone start putting them in their orders. Everything is a learning experience and we have to roll with the punches. Learn from your fellow players mistakes and don't make them!
Again, the game is risk which favors the attacker. Of course changing the reinforcement rule will negatively effect the outcome of certain wars in progress and might "punish" the winners. The Chinese strategy this turn made sense, if they could destroy the Japs, the tide definitely would have turned in their favor. However the economic situation in India was definitely not in their favor which is part of the reason they failed.
In terms of contingency, giving the immediate sneak attack plan, I would suggest everyone start putting them in their orders. Everything is a learning experience and we have to roll with the punches. Learn from your fellow players mistakes and don't make them!
Similar threads
