New setting: Upkeep [Poll for minimum reinforcements]

[SirSebstar]

Would it not be easier to simply multiply BOTH the deferred troops and upkeep?
so
(Your deploy x2) - (your deferral x 2)... this would mean if someone broke your bonus and killed most of your lands in the mean time, you would be screwed, but still get some troops.
If you are nearly dead, this deadbeat tactic would therefore not work (good idea)
If you hold a bonus, that did not get broken, you stay the same.
There is one small issue that remains...
If you do it like I discussed above, you actually might still suffer less from deferred troops. In the example where you would normally not miss your turn, you would place your troops, thus increasing your potential amount of troops and increasing next turns deferrals.

mmm.

This could be resolved by either adding the deferred troops to the current total and calculate the upkeep from there (stiff penalty in large games, but then you should not miss your turn) OR just consider it part of the setting(because you cannot use the troops to attack so next turn will be a much stiffer upkeep)

Might work..

Your deploy - 10 troops. Upkeep is 4 troops. If play 2 turns you will get 6 + 6 = 12 troops. If you miss 1 turn you will get 6 + 10 deferred = 16 troops .

Here is the math

wow, this is sooo bad

Wait, but I thought deferrals took into account the bonus of that missed turn...

Here is my chart

Miss 1: 3 + 4 = 7
Miss 2: 3 + 2 = 5
Start Turn 3: 3 + 12 deferred

Or else everytime someone secured a large bonus, they would miss the next 2 turns to save up.

Let's say on classic I grab asia and hold it, so I get the bonus.

Next turn, someone breaks my bonus, but I miss the turn. I don't keep my bonus, I lose it, even in the deferral.



So, for upkeep, the same should hold true.

Miss 1: 3 + 4 - 1 = 5
Miss 2: 3 + 2 - 2 = 3
Start Turn 3: 3 -2 + 8 deferred.
Three turn total = 9

Now, if I don't miss the turns.
Turn 1: 3 + 4 - 1 = 5
Turn 2: 3 + 2 - 2 = 3
Start Turn 3: 3 -2 = 1
Three turn total = 9

In the chart, I do 3 territory troops, plus bonus region, minus upkeep.

This does NOT give bonus troops if you follow the math correctly.

[Dako]

I think not taking turn when you see it will bring you down in upkeep because of the troops you receive is a part of the skill and strategy. Dubious one, for sure, but nonetheless not everyone takes his time to do the math :). So I am ok with such tactics.

[SirSebstar]

intentionally deadbeating is a major infraction.
Compare it to manual freestyle deabeating, it happens and people get punished for it

[SuicidalSnowman]

Would it not be easier to simply multiply BOTH the deferred troops and upkeep?
so
(Your deploy x2) - (your deferral x 2)... this would mean if someone broke your bonus and killed most of your lands in the mean time, you would be screwed, but still get some troops.
If you are nearly dead, this deadbeat tactic would therefore not work (good idea)
If you hold a bonus, that did not get broken, you stay the same.
There is one small issue that remains...
If you do it like I discussed above, you actually might still suffer less from deferred troops. In the example where you would normally not miss your turn, you would place your troops, thus increasing your potential amount of troops and increasing next turns deferrals.

mmm.

This could be resolved by either adding the deferred troops to the current total and calculate the upkeep from there (stiff penalty in large games, but then you should not miss your turn) OR just consider it part of the setting(because you cannot use the troops to attack so next turn will be a much stiffer upkeep)

Might work..

Ahh, I see the issue, since upkeep is based on the number of troops on the board, and if you do not deploy it might mean less. However, I am still wondering if that can ever work to a players advantage? And if so, how much of one? Or in what situations might it actually matter?

[SirSebstar]

Would it not be easier to simply multiply BOTH the deferred troops and upkeep?
so
(Your deploy x2) - (your deferral x 2)... this would mean if someone broke your bonus and killed most of your lands in the mean time, you would be screwed, but still get some troops.
If you are nearly dead, this deadbeat tactic would therefore not work (good idea)
If you hold a bonus, that did not get broken, you stay the same.
There is one small issue that remains...
If you do it like I discussed above, you actually might still suffer less from deferred troops. In the example where you would normally not miss your turn, you would place your troops, thus increasing your potential amount of troops and increasing next turns deferrals.

mmm.

This could be resolved by either adding the deferred troops to the current total and calculate the upkeep from there (stiff penalty in large games, but then you should not miss your turn) OR just consider it part of the setting(because you cannot use the troops to attack so next turn will be a much stiffer upkeep)

Might work..

Ahh, I see the issue, since upkeep is based on the number of troops on the board, and if you do not deploy it might mean less. However, I am still wondering if that can ever work to a players advantage? And if so, how much of one? Or in what situations might it actually matter?

Assume a vicious battle, then any dice more then the other party might make the difference. Especially if you gain it with what can be considered against the siterules. It is not likely that a new setting will be introduced that has C&A mods look at new forms of abuse because the system encourages it..

If I would have a bonus and have a large stack I would want to attack the other teams 1’s and bonuses but leave stacks alone as much as possible. The more troops it has, the less troops it will receive, the less effective it can counterattack.

Assume a 1 vs 1 game. Normally deadbeating is not advantageous except in some games or some no spoils games. Assume we are both equal, big stacks and bonuses for both. You cannot reach my bonus and I cannot reach your bonus without going through each others stacks.
It is my turn, I can get a few reinforcements, but not enough to guarantee a successful attack on your bonuses, but with more troops I might be able to reach it. Also, the troops added to my stack will add to my upkeep, so next turn I get even less troops. Assume some neutral troops as well to decrease the payout of attacking first. The person who attacks first is likely to kill my stack but do no significant damage, however he would leave himself open to retribution.

When it is my turn, and you have killed my stack, I get a bigger amount of reinforcements, after all, you killed my upkeepstack.. I now rampage through you…

Imagine I deadbeat out of my turn, you attack me. I now get a bigger amount of reinforcements because you killed my stack, and when I am done, I get troops to deploy on a strategic place, e.g. in the middle of your bonusarea. You are now screwed.

I not only make you wait for 24 hours, I gain more troops then normal because I waited. Normally I pay upkeep over my total amount of troops, so say 100 +10 reinforcements would pay upkeep over 110 in turn 2 which would result in 9 troops. Now I skip a turn instead of taking it. I get the 10 troops normally awarded(more or less depending on the luck of my opponent) during your turn 1, but instead of gaining 9 troops in referred deployment either you get the deferred troops without upkeep added in the OP’s original proposal. Assuming this is fixed, you also pay upkeep, in effect upkeep is doubled for missing 1 turn. Now you will see that the upkeep is not cumulative, that is upkeep is not calculated on the moment of deferred troops. This is not possible either, because if I can attack and then receive upkeep, I would in essentially be rewarded for attacking and wasting troops and then replenish then without my opponent being able to do a thing about it.

I see the sense, but does the above make any sense to you guys?

[SuicidalSnowman]

I not only make you wait for 24 hours, I gain more troops then normal because I waited. Normally I pay upkeep over my total amount of troops, so say 100 +10 reinforcements would pay upkeep over 110 in turn 2 which would result in 9 troops. Now I skip a turn instead of taking it. I get the 10 troops normally awarded(more or less depending on the luck of my opponent) during your turn 1, but instead of gaining 9 troops in referred deployment either you get the deferred troops without upkeep added in the OP’s original proposal. Assuming this is fixed, you also pay upkeep, in effect upkeep is doubled for missing 1 turn. Now you will see that the upkeep is not cumulative, that is upkeep is not calculated on the moment of deferred troops. This is not possible either, because if I can attack and then receive upkeep, I would in essentially be rewarded for attacking and wasting troops and then replenish then without my opponent being able to do a thing about it.

I think this is the most relevant concern. The use of troops to break a bonus and then re-deploy in the middle of a bonus area would happen under any settings with deadbeating. I think you are more right to have concern about this aspect, where you can avoid the upkeep for adding troops but not attacking.

A solution would be to do the calculation as though the deferred troops were added. This would make missing turns in upkeep games a HUGE disadvantage, because you would pay the upkeep cost without the chance to either attack and gain territories, or attack and burn off some extra troops.

[OliverFA]

I think this is the most relevant concern. The use of troops to break a bonus and then re-deploy in the middle of a bonus area would happen under any settings with deadbeating. I think you are more right to have concern about this aspect, where you can avoid the upkeep for adding troops but not attacking.

Right. So this is not an upkeep-related issue.

A solution would be to do the calculation as though the deferred troops were added. This would make missing turns in upkeep games a HUGE disadvantage, because you would pay the upkeep cost without the chance to either attack and gain territories, or attack and burn off some extra troops.

Or... players could pay upkeep when the turn is passed due to running out of time (wathever it's easier to code).

My proposal is that when time runs out, number of troops is updated even if they are not deployed. Allow me to show with an example. Let's take 10 as the upkeep factor.

- 1st turn: The player has 50 troops on board and a bonus of 15. Time runs out, and at that very moment, deferred troops are calculated. Deferred troops are 15-5=10 (15 for the bonus minus 5 for the upkeep). So player has 60 troops (50 on board plus 10 deferred).

- 2nd turn: The player loses a turn for the second time, and receives 15-(50+10)/10=15-6=9 troops. He has 50 troops on board plus 19 deferred troops. He has 19 deferred troops instead of 20 because the upkeep he payed during this 2nd turn (even if he didn't play) took away 1 extra troop from reinforcements.

- 3rd turn: The player this time starts his turn, and receives 15-(50+19)10=15-6.9=15-6=9 troops. He has payed upkeep for the 19 deferred troops even if he won't be able to deploy them until the end of the turn.

[OliverFA]

About the minimum reinforcements number:

I see that people who have voted and want a minimum number of reinforcements are almost double as people who want minium reinforcements to be 0. If this continues to be that way (and it's logical to suppose it will continue) I will ammend the proposal to include map minimum reinforcements as the minimum also for upkeep setting.

[SirSebstar]

i think your solution about the deferred upkeep might need some tinkering, but in the endconclusion i agree, you need to NOT create an advantage for missing turns

[OliverFA]

i think your solution about the deferred upkeep might need some tinkering, but in the endconclusion i agree, you need to NOT create an advantage for missing turns

Thanks! The biggest problem I see with this solution is that it requires a few extra coding I know that the simplest the suggestion the easier it will get coded. But I can't think about a simplest way that is also fair. So it is sort of compromise between coding complexity and fairness.

On the other hand, it only requires to store a "deferred troops" value. If it is easier for the programmer, it can even be stored via a line in the log.

[nebsmith]

I know it has been said that if you don't like the setting don't play, and I probably wouldn't.

But I have two problems with this idea

1) working out what you are due becomes quite complex. I can see having to think before each attack " if I take this territory, how will it affect what I get next round and how will it affect, what the player whose territory I take, will get next round ". So it might be worth thinking of barring this setting for NR's so as not to put them off.

2)It has been said that the idea is to make the game more realistic. Now I have played a lot of wargames and I find that the more complex the rules - in an attempt to represent how war really is - the less fun the game. More complex rules generally means a more limited set of options available for any particular move and more thought has to go into working out those options. Often the outcome of these games is fairly obvious well before the end.
I think complexity in rules constrains gameplay. IMO the best games have a few simple rules leading to many strategies and many possible outcomes.

[OliverFA]

Thanks for your comments nebsmith. Here is the answer to your concerns.

I know it has been said that if you don't like the setting don't play, and I probably wouldn't.

But I have two problems with this idea

1) working out what you are due becomes quite complex. I can see having to think before each attack " if I take this territory, how will it affect what I get next round and how will it affect, what the player whose territory I take, will get next round ". So it might be worth thinking of barring this setting for NR's so as not to put them off.

In fact they are not complex at all. The answer to the question "How will it affect to my income if I take this territory" it's exactly the same as now. Let's see with an example.

In the Classic map without upkeep, if you take Africa and keep it by the begining of your next turn, you will get 3 more armies in your income. That's exactly what will happen with upkeep.

If you lose a bonus, you will lose the income coming from that bonus. Exactly the same as it is now.

The extra factor that you will have to take into account with upkeep is that it limits the size of your army and the speed at which you reinforce. It does not affect the bonus growth.

If the player wants, he can make complicated calculations. But if he does not want, it's easy to know that getting more bonuses leads to higher income, and that breaking opponent's bonuses leads to less income on his side. The other thing he needs to know is that the closer his army numbers are to the maximum he can maintain, the slower the army will grow.

2)It has been said that the idea is to make the game more realistic. Now I have played a lot of wargames and I find that the more complex the rules - in an attempt to represent how war really is - the less fun the game. More complex rules generally means a more limited set of options available for any particular move and more thought has to go into working out those options. Often the outcome of these games is fairly obvious well before the end.
I think complexity in rules constrains gameplay. IMO the best games have a few simple rules leading to many strategies and many possible outcomes.

Yes, the idea is to make the game more realistic but not more complicated. Of course, it is a new rule, and has to add some complexity. But it will be the lowest complexity possible. I have already summarized the only extra factor that a player needs to take into account. The closer his army to the maximum he can maintain, the slower that army will grow. I don't see this as an overly-complicated rule. And the benefits, are great, compensating by far the samll extra complexity.

Gamers who want to think can measure the income to the last army (like they do now by the way). Gamers that want to be more impulsive will have enough by knowing that an army needs resources to be maintained.

[TheForgivenOne]

This is changing back to a Standard Topic due to lack of posting, and because a final resolution still hasn't been found via the Poll.

[OliverFA]

Will try to update the proposal soon with all the received feedback.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I have to say that I like the concept. I personally voted for 0 reinforcements as I think that it's the way it should be. Granted there's a number of other options that would be nice to see added before this (Adjacent Attacks, some of the XML updates that've been suggested for years, etc) but I do think that this would be a nice addition to the site and would provide for some very interesting games.

[OliverFA]

I have to say that I like the concept. I personally voted for 0 reinforcements as I think that it's the way it should be. Granted there's a number of other options that would be nice to see added before this (Adjacent Attacks, some of the XML updates that've been suggested for years, etc) but I do think that this would be a nice addition to the site and would provide for some very interesting games.

Thanks Tanarri

[oran0007]

I like the idea, however as I read it, I think it will cause more stalemating than anything else. As others have pointed out, attacking another player's stack may result in giving that player an advantage on their turn. Let's say that I have a stack of 15 against a stack of ten, and both of us are receiving no new troops because of the upkeep. If I attack, I may give my opponent a better position simply by clearing out some of his/her troops. Now I am vulnerable. End result, neither of us are likely to attack. Maps without auto-deploy bonuses will quickly end up in a lock, possibly even if one player is quite a bit stronger than the other.

Bonuses become much more important under your system, so maybe a solution would be to, in effect, double (or otherwise modify) the bonuses. This could be done by simply subtracting any bonuses (times the modifier; i.e. 4 * .5 = 2) from the upkeep total.

Code: Select all

Upkeep Cost=(Number of armies *Upkeep modifier) - (Bonus armies *bonus modifier)

I think as it is, I would probably not play it because I would not want to end up in a situation where my opponent and I both refuse to attack because the next person who attacks, even if they win the battle, will likely lose the war. Endless stalemate...no thanks.