:. A fix to the barrack/soldier bonus problem, Yes it is a problem

At the moment the soldier bonuses with things like barracks and guerrilla camps are not worth the trouble and risk of being anarchied when you lose a smaller number of troops than you would expect to cause the anarchy.

The main problem I have come across is losing troops in an assault will currently lower the number of defending troops you have, and with aluminium as a base resource I can't get rid of it.

The solution is simply to change the way the bonus works. Instead of taking your basic troop number and adding a percentage to that, it should add to the amount you buy. This way, the extra troops aren't simply cannon fodder adding to your loses.

EDIT: If you vote no, please post why.

At the moment all no votes are null until I get a reason why.

This post has been edited by smallfrog on Aug 31 2007, 02:44 PM

Good fix. That's all I need to say.

I do not care how, but this needs changing IMO.

this should work.

Does anyone object? I nearly anarchied myself today

Definitely. If you dismiss 100 soldiers, you dont let thos eother weaklings follow them.

Great idea, I agree.

This would help alot, so Yes!

People who voted no, please state why.

so when I buy and dismiss troops, I buy/dismiss the amount I clicked, rather than the "amount I clicked +x% from resources/improvements"?

if that's what your saying then i fully support this. hell I'll even sig it, post it on my alliance forum and get everyone I know in RL that plays this over here lmao!

Basically, yes. The additions are already added on to the amount you clicked, but the price is what you would pay for the standard troops without the bonuses.

I support the idea. The current system is annonoying.

I agree this needs fixing, but I think it should be done maybe as raising your soldier cap. The way you're saying it should be done seems to imply you keep the same soldier cap, which is kind of pointless, soldiers are cheap, I don't need a 10% discount on them :P

So instead of 80% limit you get a 90% limit?

That could wok but you still have the problem I'm actually complaining about, which is the you lose soldiers in an attack and it subtracts men from your defense. But this could work as an addition to my idea.

Yes, basically. My solution doesn't have the problem you're talking about either. The reason you lose those extra soldiers is because those soldiers killed in the battle report are removed from your base number of soldiers, and since you've lost that base amount, your +10% bonus is also not as effective, making soldiers disappear.

Either way fixes the problem, I just think my way makes it potentially more useful to people, because, like I said, soldiers are cheap.

i already suggested a fix in which the "modifiers" are totally removed to prevent the increase of losses and disbandmends while having barracks/camps and just increasing the purchase cap of total military that a nation is allowed to buy. it was ignored although it would entirely solve the problem of self-anarchying and overall hurting yourself with your improvements because you increase your own losses as well...

Example:
Standard Nation (no rax/camps)
- 10,000 citizens
- max. military (80% pop count): 8,000 soldiers
- max. deploy (60% military): 4,800 soldiers (+800tanks)

now the nation has 5 barracks and the cap is increased by 10% each (+50% total):
- 10,000 citizens
- max. military (80%*1,5=120%): 12,000 soldiers
- max. deploy (60% military): 7,200 soldiers (+1200tanks)

--> this way, these military improvements are really doing what they are supposed to do: increasing the war-capabilities of your nation significantly, but not hurting yourself by increasing the own numbers/losses *magically*. if a x% cost reducing equal to the % cap increase is added as well, you can buy the new amount of soldiers for the same price like the old amount so everything should be fine.

--> guerilla camps should be reduced to -4% income/+15% soldiers to keep the numbers reasonable (otherwise 5barracks [+10% each] and 5camps [+35% each] would increase the gap by 50% [barracks] and 175% [camps], leaving a nation of 10,000citizens with the ability to purchase 26,000 soldiers which seems a bit overpowered...)

maybe the current war makes clear that such a change is desperately needed... its one step to rework the current war- and battle-system which is insanely screwed overall...

I still think that barrack should be applied differently

Like take tech-300= x*somenumber

Then tech bonus from 300+ x*somenumber = total tech bonus

x would be like
1
2
3
4
5

some number depends how the current tech bonus system works, So I can not institute an arbitrary number


In this way, the more tech you had the more it would be worth buying barracks

what? I don't understand any of that. Can you give a simple version for someone who decided not to use their brain for the summer holidays.?

i like it.

he means that tech&barracks together should influence soldier performance. the problem with that is:

- you must use if for tanks as well, because some ppl have 3000 or 4000tech and with your formula a soldier would be stronger then a tank in the end
- if you do that, high-tech nations have INSANELY strong armies that are almost indefeatable. for example i have 3000tech and could very easily search for a target with only 500tech. with tech + barracks giving such a huge bonus to my soldiers, the other nation has no single chance of ever fighting back, i would anarchy and loot him all the time and he would only lose and lose and lose...

i think my suggestion with the cap-raising for barracks is pretty much the best alternative to the current situation. the caps are "broken" with the modifiers anyway, but unfortunately today the modifiers work for losses and disbandments as well, what is crap :o