New Idea: GBG Attrition multiplier proportional to distance from home base

[stampede]

In RL war there is a logistical penalty to large armies spread over big areas (consequences of long supply line, comms issues, etc.). Thus, in RL, long supply lines cause higher battle unit attrition. In GBG there is no penalty to a large guild from having their army / fighters spread over the entire board covering all the zones at the same time (zero attrition contribution from supply line length).

Realising this points at an easy solution to rebalancing GBG between small and large guilds: Make the attrition proportional to the fighting distance from the home zone. The attrition algorithm could add a probability adjuster, that depends on the number of zones you would travel through from the base zone to get to the battle zone. As a made up example with 0.2 probability for attrition with full building support this could be adjusted as follows x1.05 (if traveling through 2 zones), x1.1 (if traveling through 3 zones) etc.

Obviously, the exact adjustment formula should be simulated in test runs to determine the right number.

This would model attrition in RL battle zones stemming from long supply lines and potentially provide a scalable and easily adjustable (from the programming point of view) mechanism to create better equilibrium between small and large guilds (armies).

 

[Drsam74]

Interesting idea. But imo no added attrition should be given from base to center. But after that, past the center, it would be nice.

 

[Droppy]

Small and large guilds are players choices. Why should Inno make an adjustment for that. If you feel your guild is not active or big enough you should join another guild.

 

[Big boss cz]

Small and large guilds are players choices. Why should Inno make an adjustment for that. If you feel your guild is not active or big enough you should join another guild.

I agree guild is your chose You can make own guild and nobody will join based on close guild or make big and strong guild or joon bug and strong guild there is lot's of choses

you can join to lot's of guilds as many as is on world where you are

 

[Ariana Erosaire]

it's an interesting idea for logistical sense and realism, but there should be a bigger benefit to being near your HQ as well in this idea, not only the penalty for going far away to the other side of the map. I don't know if it would help or hurt small guilds or improve balance, not likely to make a big difference at this point in the game.

But - presuming you built an "outpost" or "barracks" or "field camp" on your sectors, that actually solves the logical part of the supply line (and would remove the penalty) because you're not running all the way from HQ now, that's why you build something on the sectors you take, to increase your supply lines as you go. Then it becomes a very complicated idea to implement, to check if there are touching sectors between your HQ and your various sector buildings to determine if your supply line is disrupted or not.

This idea is not without precedent, in the old GVG which had a lot more strategy and thought put into it, any sector that was cut off from HQ (no touching sectors in a direct line) no longer received defense support of 50% and was 0% instead, therefore making solo sectors owned in far flung regions of the map much easier for enemies to conquer.

Also this idea was the basis for the "guild support pool" bonus that applied in GvG and was also removed last year, how much support a guild had from guild level and member GB's like Deal, Basil, and Observatories, was calculated into the sectors they owned and distributed out from HQ, with HQ receiving the most boost at 75% and then 50% support distributed to the ones near HQ. A sector 3 or 4 away from HQ might run out of support pool and only have 12% support, even if it was connected to HQ in a direct line.

Oh the richness of the game that used to exist, replaced with the bland vanilla clicker we have now.

 

[Droppy]

Also this idea was the basis for the "guild support pool" bonus that applied in GvG and was also removed last year, how much support a guild had from guild level and member GB's like Deal, Basil, and Observatories, was calculated into the sectors they owned and distributed out from HQ, with HQ receiving the most boost at 75% and then 50% support distributed to the ones near HQ. A sector 3 or 4 away from HQ might run out of support pool and only have 12% support, even if it was connected to HQ in a direct line.

Oh the richness of the game that used to exist, replaced with the bland vanilla clicker we have now.

And how easy we forget what it really was like. Only Industrial and up gave a boost of 75% for the HQ to start with. Era's before that it was lower.

 

[Ariana Erosaire]

And how easy we forget what it really was like. Only Industrial and up gave a boost of 75% for the HQ to start with. Era's before that it was lower.

Considering the OP probably never played GvG, I wasn't worried about the details for colonial and below, only that the idea did exist in the game at one point. Defense/support didn't matter for the last several years the feature was live anyway, even people who played GvG soon forgot about it when the rampant boost arms-race inflation started around the same time GBG was released. The nuances of GvG were killed off long before it was actually removed - but at one time there was a lot more realism incorporated into the game.

But yes, droppy pants, Colonial and below was only 50% to HQ and then the rest of the support pool distributed going outward at 25% per sector until it ran out. And iron age! OMG it was 25% on iron age HQ only and all other sectors were 0% whether they were connected to your HQ or not.

Next, regale us with tales of how the pirates and barbarians used to attack the beaches and sectors by the mountains every night so that eventually your border sectors could revert to an NPC if you didn't restock the troops enough. SO --- MUCH --- REALISM! lol.

 

[stampede]

Interesting idea. But imo no added attrition should be given from base to center. But after that, past the center, it would be nice.

Good idea to scale attrition up only beyond the center

 

[Droppy]

Considering the OP probably never played GvG, I wasn't worried about the details for colonial and below, only that the idea did exist in the game at one point. Defense/support didn't matter for the last several years the feature was live anyway, even people who played GvG soon forgot about it when the rampant boost arms-race inflation started around the same time GBG was released. The nuances of GvG were killed off long before it was actually removed - but at one time there was a lot more realism incorporated into the game.

But yes, droppy pants, Colonial and below was only 50% to HQ and then the rest of the support pool distributed going outward at 25% per sector until it ran out. And iron age! OMG it was 25% on iron age HQ only and all other sectors were 0% whether they were connected to your HQ or not.

Next, regale us with tales of how the pirates and barbarians used to attack the beaches and sectors by the mountains every night so that eventually your border sectors could revert to an NPC if you didn't restock the troops enough. SO --- MUCH --- REALISM! lol.

Considering the OP probably never played GvG it is not relebant to him what it was like. Neither is it to bring it up, unless you like to dwell in the past and have a problem accepting changes. If that is the case and your OCD forces you to start explaining, at least do it right. Colonial wasn't 50 %, but 65% . It started with 25% max for your HQ in IA and went up with 10& each age until it reached 75% in Industrial. Ofcourse I never played it.