Gods Community

It appears you are not logged in. If this is your first time around, please Register and an Admin or Moderator will Privately message you Via, inGame, Game Boards, These GodsComm boards, or Email.

GODSCOMM Board Team

The soul can split the sky in two and let the face of Gods' shine through.

If you guys have noticed, i have been active on beta, alpha and more recently back on eta, theta and zeta. A New Community is being built for Alliances that share the members of my alliances. Currently ONLY the ZETA alliance will be in this alliance, however an extention on beta, and alpha are in the works. from that we should beable to gain some experience and active userbase in which we will be able to expand to theta, eta, and other notable servers. ALL former POG alliances are welcome to Join the New Community.

Who is online?

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests

None


[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 36 on Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:49 am

Latest topics

» Alliance banners
Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:17 pm by laurelin717

» Active
Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:49 am by Fact

» MERRY CHRISTMASS
Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:42 am by cerberus

» Prayers for the lost
Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:37 pm by cerberus

» Theft Prevention
Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:48 am by Fact

» Ventrilo
Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:13 am by Fact

» NBC Poll
Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:30 pm by ambrosiaa

» Board look
Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:38 am by Fact

» New Board Functions
Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:05 am by Jergens

Vent Info

ventrilo Hosting by InstantVentrilo.com

    Re-vamping Military Standards

    Share
    avatar
    Bullpid
    Board Admin
    Board Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 675
    Age : 33
    Location : Eta, Epsilon, Gamma, Test
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-02

    Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Bullpid on Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:01 pm

    With the release of 3.0 and all the changes it brought this would be a perfect time to re-work our Military Standards to better fit the times we are now in.

    Le's get everyone's opinion on this and see if/what we want to change.


    _________________

    Sig by Eldracar

    Need to Contact Me? Bullpid @ AIM and Xfire

    Raede
    Lance Corporal
    Lance Corporal

    Male
    Number of posts : 49
    Location : Eta - Florida
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2009-01-06

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Raede on Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:51 am

    Quoted from PoG Laws:

    Standing Army Requirements:

    We ask that you have at least 3 Phalanx Per level of your Town Hall (i.e. lvl 5 hall would have 15 Phalanx) or a number of equivalent higher level troops like gunsmen and such. Phalanxes, though, are incredibly cost effective for defense and should be utilized.
    We ask that you Have at least 1 Ballista Per level of your Town Hall (i.e. lvl 5 hall would have 5 Ballista) or a number of equivalent higher level ships like mortar ships.
    Your Town Wall should be at least the same size as your Town Hall, this way you get all your defensive bonus from the wall. You should have a Hideout at least 2 levels small than your Town Hall fully stocked with spies


    With 3.0 out and troops being cheaper, one can assume that the pirates out for pillaging will have larger and better prepared forces than before. I would suggest updating the standards for a members "Standing Army" to include the following:
    Town walls equal to Town Halls
    5 Phalanx per Town Level - These provide the basics of defense with the walls.
    3 Archers per Town Level - These provide some defense but more so to provide some offense to help out those Phalanx actually kill the intruders.
    1 Balista Ship per Town Hall level exchanged for better ships as technology is acquired.
    Hideouts equal to Town Hall level and fully stocked

    Upgrading your troops / ships I think is worthy cause and should be done as soon as you can afford it. I used Archers here instead of Gunsman because of two reasons. You get archers a lot sooner in the technology tree and they have a "resistance" compared to the gunsman "assault" quality.

    As mentioned before as your technology allows you can trade out some troops. Steam Giants are great replacements for the archers when you can get them.

    To get the ball rolling...
    avatar
    -Made-
    Game Operator
    Game Operator

    Number of posts : 397
    Location : Eta, Theta
    Reputation : 3
    Registration date : 2008-11-04

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by -Made- on Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:29 pm

    I agree with Raede on pretty much everything. I Think their should be a mix between phalanx and archers, but I think maybe at a 3 phal and 3 archers per town hall. I wouldn't boost the amount of standing troops too much because we still want to be as attractive as we can to members looking for an alliance. Once in the alliance, the respective generals for each server can suggest a better and more sophisticated defense.
    avatar
    Bullpid
    Board Admin
    Board Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 675
    Age : 33
    Location : Eta, Epsilon, Gamma, Test
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-02

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Bullpid on Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:52 pm

    I agree to what Raede said with Made's modifications.

    One thing I would suggest differently is instead of 1 ballista per town hall lvl make it 3 ballistas per town hall lvl. I understand this may be kinda hard for some one with a new town but only having 20 ballistas for a lvl 20 town is kinda pathetic.


    _________________

    Sig by Eldracar

    Need to Contact Me? Bullpid @ AIM and Xfire
    avatar
    -Made-
    Game Operator
    Game Operator

    Number of posts : 397
    Location : Eta, Theta
    Reputation : 3
    Registration date : 2008-11-04

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by -Made- on Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:09 pm

    How about 2 ballistas per town hall? Ballistas or anything with greater defensive stats.
    avatar
    nolanshields
    Game Operator
    Game Operator

    Male
    Number of posts : 443
    Location : Eta & Theta by way of New Hampshire
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-30

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by nolanshields on Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:31 pm

    How about this? Let's make two standards: one could be the minimum requirements, and the higher standard could be a goal for the more established players.

    I think Raede's suggestion is closer to the minimum standards. For established players, the troop and ship list should include Steam Giants and Mortar Ships for sure.
    avatar
    -Made-
    Game Operator
    Game Operator

    Number of posts : 397
    Location : Eta, Theta
    Reputation : 3
    Registration date : 2008-11-04

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by -Made- on Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:59 pm

    I think having a requirement for established players would be a little unnecessary because if they truly were established players, they would know how to defend themselves.

    Raede
    Lance Corporal
    Lance Corporal

    Male
    Number of posts : 49
    Location : Eta - Florida
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2009-01-06

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Raede on Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:22 pm

    We were talking about minimum standard armies that would keep most wandering pirates out. There is always going to be that top 5% that come in with a massive army like Krystal-K did. Truly 5 Phalanx and 5 Archers per level is ok up to a point, maybe level 10. After that the minimum should be higher as your stored resources are higher which makes you an inviting target.

    As it was pointed out, someone with a level 20 town that has only 60 Phalanx as per standard doesn't have much. The upkeep of armies and ships came down after 3.0 which leaves a lot peeps making gold.

    Yazdyeys
    Game Admin
    Game Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 109
    Age : 40
    Location : Gamma-PHD
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-11-02

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Yazdyeys on Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:22 pm

    If there is one thing that I've noticed about having a minimum standard it's this: Whatever the minimum is, most people will do only that much. That's IF they will adhere to even that. We've had a rash of attacks on Gamma, and as we've tried to negotiate some of them we've received strong implications that if our members protection would have been better then we wouldn't have been having the discussion in the first place. I think the higher we set the minimum the better. Then even though members will do the bare minimum they can to get by, at least they will have a somewhat decent defense. I think 5 Phalanxes and 5 Archers per level is not a bad idea at all. I plan on doing 100 of each, then adding in what my attack force will be for each town. That is of course coupled with a level 25 wall.

    cerberus
    Private First Class
    Private First Class

    Male
    Number of posts : 27
    Age : 36
    Location : Gamma
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-12-17

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by cerberus on Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:30 am

    Ok so I have been siiting down trying to do the math for what would appropriately be a good defense and considering what may become the new standards and I am wondering at the upper lvls replacing archers with steam giants for the added punch ( even without the resistance bonus they still look better than archers) and mortar ships replacing the ballista ships for the upgrad reasoning. Add my numbers are showing that unless I reduce resource gathering and/or remove some researchers I will be forced to either meet the army requirements or meet the navy requirements, as the upkeep will be 2530g and 3000g respectively for a lvl 20 town (my fully populated lvl 22 town only produces roughly 2700g/hour). I know that an increase in millitary is definitely nessecary, but there needs to be a balance brought to the minimum requirements that allow for growth also. I am not saying that players should be able to rake in the gold while hidding behind the alliance banner. I just wanted to know what everyone else was thinking or rather coming up with for numbers, and maybe just having either an army or a navy is the new suggested plan but I just wanted to put my thoughts into the discussion.
    avatar
    Bullpid
    Board Admin
    Board Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 675
    Age : 33
    Location : Eta, Epsilon, Gamma, Test
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-02

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Bullpid on Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:04 pm

    Cerberus what numbers were you using?


    _________________

    Sig by Eldracar

    Need to Contact Me? Bullpid @ AIM and Xfire
    avatar
    Krylo
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Male
    Number of posts : 130
    Age : 38
    Location : Beta, Gamma, Zeta, THETA
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-12-14

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Krylo on Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:25 pm

    I liked nolanshields idea: having 2 requirements. If you want to be in PoG you must meet these reuirements, but once in it is expected to reach another set of requirements. I know we have a probation period, this could be part of it.

    I'd almost say do a general score vs total score, ie, you have a score of 10,000 you should have a gs of 400. You have a total score of 350,000 you should have a gs of 2200 (those are just figures I pulled out of my butt, don't hold me to them). You get the idea.

    cerberus
    Private First Class
    Private First Class

    Male
    Number of posts : 27
    Age : 36
    Location : Gamma
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-12-17

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by cerberus on Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:36 pm

    5x phanlanx per city size (lvl 20 city = 100 phalanxes @ 8G = 800G)
    5x archers per city size (lvl 20 city = 100 archers @ 8G = 800G)
    3x ballista ships per city size (lvl 20 city = 60 ballistas @ 14G = 840)
    Upkeep would total 2440. Which looks great I think.

    However if we were to consider researched units...
    5x phanlanx per city size (lvl 20 city = 100 phalanxes @ 8G = 800G)
    5x steam giants per city size (lvl 20 city = 100 sg @ 15G = 1500G)
    3x mortar ships per city size (lvl 20 city = 60 mortars @ 50G = 3000G)
    upkeep would total 5300G

    Again, I am just looking for some response as to what would be considered a good standing army/navy for those players that are of already established means. Basically I think we should not only have the minimum military requirements for joining, but also make a template with upgraded units for fellow members to follow. Which has been stated previously by nolan.

    Syrcen
    Girls Only
    Girls Only

    Female
    Number of posts : 43
    Age : 35
    Location : ETA
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-11-10

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Syrcen on Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:59 am

    I wanted to react to the cost ideas cerberus brought up, discuss the idea of using a defensive and offensive value rather then a set unit as a defensive standard, and throw around a few numbers discussing what I think the new military standard might be for the military standards. Dinally I think we need to just work on one standard here.
    This summary line is dedicated to babbling. Together, someday, we can find a cure. But not tonight...I'm sleepy and I'd get sillier...soon
    -----
    First I'm looking at the numbers cerbus is talking about. When your talking about upgrading to SG or mortars, that's a totally personal choice. The added costs are't really an issue for a pillager. They don't have to keep as many people in their production mines, they steal resources. How much you go above & beyond is based on what kind of player you are, how much (if) it will hamper your growth vs, how much you want to hamper your growth (or if it speeds your growth).

    You do make an interesting point with that 2440 gold.

    If we require 5 phalenx, 5 archers, and 3 ballista (8 gold each land unit, and 14 per ship) that is 122 total per town hall level...so yes, 2440 gold for a level 20 town. It doesn't seem like a big deal either way at a glace. Consider this, a level 20 town has 1,800 citizens, making upto 3 gold each, so this required 814 citizens not to be producing supplies so they can pay gold to support the army. In the other extreme a level 1 town has 60 citizens, 41 of which would be required to meet that standard. That's a bit harsh to me personally..Even with the big number, you want over 1/3 of capacity for defense. Shocked

    The present (old) standard in the Patched world ( 3 phalenx, 1 ballista) costs 38 gold per town hall level...about 13 citizens per level. Pirates are not deterred by that amount anymore so it has to be increased.

    Also in the OLD system, a phalenx cost 24 gold upkeep each, and a ballista cost also cost 24 gold, SO 96 gold per town hall level. The number of citizens per town hall level hasn't changed significantly, but citizens did give 4 gold instead of 3. We required 24 citizens per town hall level before the patch.

    In light of the change in value of gold, I suggest we try to design a guideline that can be covered with about 72 gold per town hall level (24 citizens @ 3 gold).

    ------------------------
    My second idea is this:
    What if we didn't use a unit standard, but rather told members they needed a certain number of offensive and defensive points per town hall level.

    Maybe something along these lines?

    For each level of your town hall in every town you are required to keep:
    -A land based defense including atleast 160 points of defense, and (in order to actually kill possible invaders) 100 of offensive power per town hall level. Phalenx are the most cost effective defensive unit.

    -A sea based defense including atleast 35 points of defense and 30 points of offense. Cargo ships never count towards this requirement.

    -A hideout at least within 75% of the size of your town hall, or doubled sea and land defenses for that town.

    -Town walls no more then one level behind your town hall.

    PoG understands that different players have different play styles. We require every player keep a bare minimum of defense, However, players regularly keeping any significant amount or resources, as is typical with large towns, may need to supplement this standard to effectively deter pirates. If you need help designing your defensive army, please contact your server general for advice or to be pointed to an appropriate mentor.

    We recommend players review their military at least once a week to ensure they haven't forgotten to build units as they upgrade their halls.

    ---------------------------------------
    Yeah, i added random comments. It looks more serious that way.

    Why those numbers:
    The sea numbers allow just over 2 ballista, but the 30 point ensure a single catapult doesn't quite cover the total, so people end up with at least a ship or two more then their town hall level even if they substitute. The goal is really 2.5 ballista, or a catapult and half ballista. I know you can't buy half ships, but you can buy 2 at even levels, and 3 at odd levels... Very Happy

    The land requirement is built with a mix of 4 phalenx and 2 archer (or as I would do it, 5 phalenx 1 gunman). I understand that people need to have offensive units, but I personally feel more comfortable with more phalenx then any other unit. Plus I have no use of archers. I built some once, and they made me sad.
    Just in case anyone wonders, Made's suggestion of 3 phalenx, 3 archers is exactly 159 defense, 120 offense. While it doesn't quite meet the defensive standard above, but add a cook or spare phalanx and you do meet them. It's a pretty flexible standard. If people want all phalenx, they can have just over 7 per level. The cheapest way is 4 phalanx, 2 archers, But 3.03 phalanx, 3 archers as a close second. The defensive standard is the greater demand on purpose, partly because I worry people will just ignore any part of the standard that demands offensive units or offensive points...It is my hope that people won't really squirm more then a point or two on that 160 so you get at least 5 phalenx and maybe swordsman if they decide to lower the standard a little (As Yaz commented, not everyone follows standards very well).

    To meet my suggested requirement (6 land units, 2.5 sea units) would cost about 78 gold per level, or 26 citizens per town hall level. I think that's close enough to the old requirement to provide a new standard without suddenly requiring people to take a lot of people from production that they use to have. The use of numbers is helpful for people who like to do substitutions but have trouble defining a 'fair' exchange rate. (1 sg is not equal to 3 phalanx, but maybe to is worth 2..)

    ----
    Here is another issue. Some people don't pillage much. Every unit your asking them to build above the minimum to deter pirates is just hampering growth for non-pillagers, particularly if they are to small to really assist in a conflict. If people need 6 units to not be a big red target, I respectfully disagree with any idea of making an added requirement beyond that. If I understood nolan's idea, he just wants a guideline for building an optional alliance assistance force for larger players, and that might be fun. Long term quests can be super fun! But having to do it sucks the fun out and make it work...and who wants work in their game? So maybe that guide/quest idea should be discussed after we get the minimum standard set....And not as a requirement...Just a guideline or advice.
    avatar
    Bullpid
    Board Admin
    Board Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 675
    Age : 33
    Location : Eta, Epsilon, Gamma, Test
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-02

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Bullpid on Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:01 am

    A couple quite thoughts before I have to go to work.

    1) On my main account my Total score is about 300k, (town halls about 23) I have full production and research going on, and I maintain a military in the top 50 (4.6k pts) which has a upkeep of 16k/hr. So I do not understand how a lvl 20 town hall can not support a 5k/hr military. When I get home today I'll run some numbers.

    2) I think most of you have missed that with our current standard military is list 3 phalanx per town hall or EQUIVALENT. So even though we list X amount of units it is also based on the unit stats.

    3) It is my personal opinion that our standard for Walls and hideouts should be equal the the lvl of the town hall. I think because with walls you do not get your full bonus unless they are the same lvl and because a hideout is THE most effective tool in deterring a pirate.

    4) I do agree that we do not want our standard to alter or hinder a players growth or progress but at the same time the standard needs to be high enough to not make people a target. If the standard is not high enough people will get pillaged and now the players with high miltarys have to go and protect them which hinders their growth. Now I am not saying we should not protect people, and I know that sometimes even the biggest people need help defending themselves. I'm saying that larger players should not have their growth limited either because of other peoples negligence.


    OK I have to go to work now but I'll comment more when I get home.


    _________________

    Sig by Eldracar

    Need to Contact Me? Bullpid @ AIM and Xfire

    cerberus
    Private First Class
    Private First Class

    Male
    Number of posts : 27
    Age : 36
    Location : Gamma
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-12-17

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by cerberus on Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:00 pm

    I think what syrcen brings up are great ideas, but I am having trouble following and figuring out what my points would be or rather are... I think that sticking to a X times city size is just easier for everyone to understand and follow. However, if we could use syrcen's system to figure out what a good standard would be I think that would be great. Also, looking forward to what bullpid comes up with.
    avatar
    Bullpid
    Board Admin
    Board Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 675
    Age : 33
    Location : Eta, Epsilon, Gamma, Test
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-02

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Bullpid on Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:44 pm

    My capital (lvl 23) has 1399 citizens making gold, 134 citizens are scientist, the other 882 are workers. This gives me an income of 3795/hr.**

    5 phalanx*23=115 *8= 920gold/hr; 5 archers*23=115 *8= 920gold/hr; 2 ballistas*23=46 *14= 644gold/hr Total Upkeep= 2484 gold/hr

    3795-2484= 1311gold/hr total income


    Lets take a different town (lvl 20) with 896 cit. making gold, 134 cit. are scientist, the other 982 are workers. This gives me an income of 2688/hr.**

    5 phalanx*20=100 *8= 800gold/hr; 5 archers*20=100 *8= 800gold/hr; 2 ballistas*20=40 *14= 560gold/hr Total Upkeep= 2160 gold/hr

    2688-2160= 528 gold/hr total income


    **Number of citizens and income are my actual numbers
    ***Note: Upkeep numbers do not include the reductions you get from research.

    On one server I have lvl 23, 23, 23, 23, 19 towns. That means I should have 555 phalanx and 555 archers or 33855 pts attack 39405 defense pts.
    I currently have 250 swords, 310 phalanx, 270 archers, 150 gunsmen, 50gyros, 40 steam giants, 10 catapults or 39890 attack 33770 defense pts.


    After doing all of this I think that maybe a 5 phalanx and 5 archer per town hall lvl is too much considering I am in the top 50 generals and yet I would not meet our minimum standard


    _________________

    Sig by Eldracar

    Need to Contact Me? Bullpid @ AIM and Xfire
    avatar
    -Made-
    Game Operator
    Game Operator

    Number of posts : 397
    Location : Eta, Theta
    Reputation : 3
    Registration date : 2008-11-04

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by -Made- on Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:13 pm

    Bullpid makes some great points.

    I feel the point of the minimum defensive standard is to ensure that we have members who aren't constantly attacked because their military score is at zero. Why don't we implement a minimum general score, as opposed to a minimum number of units per town? As geologist has shown us in his latest CR, purely defensive units will still fall if their is nothing to attack back with. If we are only suggesting defensive units, than too many members will only build defensive units. This isn't good for the prospects of war.

    I propose we ask that members have a certain general score relative to their overall score. Let the individual members decide how to set up their military. As general I can see everyones troops and I feel that it is my job to help members set up proper defenses if they are getting attacked.

    In short, I would rather our military standards be based off of a persons general score relative to their overall score, as opposed to the current minimum number of units per town hall level.
    avatar
    nolanshields
    Game Operator
    Game Operator

    Male
    Number of posts : 443
    Location : Eta & Theta by way of New Hampshire
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-30

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by nolanshields on Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:41 pm

    Good idea, Made. If everyone has their hideouts leveled up, the enemy won't know what troops lie in wait, so it won't matter whether they are Phals, SGs, Archers, etc.
    avatar
    Bullpid
    Board Admin
    Board Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 675
    Age : 33
    Location : Eta, Epsilon, Gamma, Test
    Reputation : 1
    Registration date : 2008-11-02

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Bullpid on Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:49 am

    OK so lets do something like 4 phalanxes per town hall level, and 2 ballistas with a minimum generals score equal to 1% of your total score.

    Example you have 150000 total points and level 20 towns. You would need 80 phalanx and 40 ballistas per town and a military score of 1500.

    The reason I say to still have some set amount of phalnax, or any unit i just happened to pick phalanx, is because you can fake a military score. You can build some of the higher end units and have a large military score and still not be protected in your towns. This has a lot to do with the fact that stamina plays a very big role in 3.0.


    _________________

    Sig by Eldracar

    Need to Contact Me? Bullpid @ AIM and Xfire

    Raede
    Lance Corporal
    Lance Corporal

    Male
    Number of posts : 49
    Location : Eta - Florida
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2009-01-06

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Raede on Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:00 am

    If you do not require some sort of offensive to help then the purely defensive Phalanx army will fall. If 4 Phalanx are to be the standard per town level than that is only what some of the members will build and IMHO, they are only trying to bluff the pillagers with a higher general score.

    I completely agree that if your hideouts are high enough pillagers will find it next to impossible to see your true troop count and make-up, but what if they don't care? When they try to spy and see that their success percentage is 5% they may decide to attack anyway without the report. When the pirates attack the town wall guarded by phalanx only another CR like Geo's will be left in the end.

    As we are only talking about a minimum here, I suggest that if you go with 4 Phalanx then add 2 Archers. At least that army has a fighting chance to survive. The 2 ballista ships per town level work for me at this point because that is a naval issue to be resolved.

    cerberus
    Private First Class
    Private First Class

    Male
    Number of posts : 27
    Age : 36
    Location : Gamma
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-12-17

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by cerberus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:39 am

    I think that we should have at least 3x ballista ships per town lvl. With the new no bashing for sea battles that blockades are going to become more common and a bigger issue. As for the the army units, what about a 4x phalanax and 3x archer minimum??
    avatar
    ambrosiaa
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Male
    Number of posts : 99
    Age : 47
    Location : Eta out of Illinois
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-11-28

    Military Standards

    Post by ambrosiaa on Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:15 pm

    From my point of view, troops are more critical than boats. As for what we should expect from our members, I think we should make it really simple. Don't mandate what to build unit wise. If you are looking for what to build, then read our boards and ask questions.

    I think we should simply look at our Generals score. Lets face it, troops are dirt cheap in version 3.0. If you are over 100k points and your military score is garbage, then you have a serious problem. Is it too much to ask to at least be in the top 1000 Generals if you have that many points?

    For example, I'm 35th on the total score board with a 397k score. I am 28th on the military score right now. So I don't think that it's unrealistic to say something like this:

    under 100k scores should be building dozens of phalanx and should strive for the top 3000 generals
    100k - 150k scores should be in the top 2000 generals
    151k - 200k scores should be in the top 1500 generals
    201k - 300k scores should be in the top 1000 generals
    300k+ scores should be in the top 500 generals

    If you don't have that high of Generals scores, then you shouldn't expect a lot of help. I'm just throwing numbers out there, but I think this would be the easiest way to judge. We can't help people if they aren't willing to help themselves defend. Boats don't kill looters, troops do.
    avatar
    ambrosiaa
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Male
    Number of posts : 99
    Age : 47
    Location : Eta out of Illinois
    Reputation : 0
    Registration date : 2008-11-28

    Military Standards

    Post by ambrosiaa on Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:38 pm

    To give you a feel for our Alliance members points versus General scores - sorted by total points.

    Name Generals Rank Points
    nolanshields..100 Sect. Gener 565,356
    greeny42.... 687 Leader 403,550
    ambrosiaa... 28 Major 397,301
    Bullpid........ 37 Home Secre 316,409
    Pontiac.......1642 Captain 306,636
    raissamy.....1083 Captain 297,425
    Steven........2159 Captain 292,048
    Bearmoney.. 435 Captain 282,568
    Made......... 81 General 282,443
    Captain Jax. 353 Captain 276,141
    Brami.........2388 Ambassador 257,821
    zayster...... 1241 Warrant 245,710
    Killaloting.... 910 Warrant 243,336
    zenit......... 1075 Warrant 242,195
    drewv........ 2149 Warrant 240,880
    jghpfpcttaa.1073 Warrant 231,842
    Eldracar......543 Sect. Genl 230,415
    Truth........ 585 POG ADMIN 216,322
    Hadrian X... 21 Sergeant 210,443
    Aragorn..... 478 Spy Master 206,283
    leksell........ 713 Sergeant 203,913
    Rohan........ 1046 Diplomat 202,001
    Vicious Vixe 831 Sergeant M 201,550
    GreatKingSa 623 Sergeant M 180,797
    preciousp....323 Sergeant M 175,039
    hierakles.... 1319 Master Se 174,446
    xyim......... 2630 Master Se 166,406
    romeo108... 2150 Sergeant 126,076
    mchamplain. 2639 Sergeant 125,158
    evilking...... 1369 Corporal 119,905
    hannible..... 2124 Corporal 107,339
    thanaklor....4486 Corporal 105,107
    Bluefox...... 940 Lance Col 87,947
    expresso.... 2178 Lance Co 83,094
    Johnny H.....1894 Private F 71,644
    Zenis......... 2466 Private F 71,053
    Raede........ 1136 Private F 68,559
    a1000blo.... 1927 Private 46,673
    Aibfie.........2772 Watchman 39,669
    wall_knot32 1933 Private 31,166
    coronado.... 1206 Private 25,490
    talie.......... 2830 Private 23,472
    Cajungirl.... 4742 Private 11,377
    Kryptic...... 4106 Private 3,720
    Scifer........ 5930 Private 2,712
    avatar
    Greeny42
    Game Admin
    Game Admin

    Male
    Number of posts : 500
    Age : 31
    Location : Eta, Zeta
    Reputation : 2
    Registration date : 2008-11-01

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Greeny42 on Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:39 pm

    I like the graduated scale idea that ambrosia has laid out. Granted I currently don't qualify for it. But I like the idea of the graduated scale.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Re-vamping Military Standards

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:31 pm