Country base take maximums

[1ijac]

The change to enable a country to take only 30% of an enemy country has had a minimal effect on the 2 country beat down on one country.  A setting of 22% or so could maybe have a better outcome and force the other two countries to fight one another, giving the suppressed country a fighting chance and not be overwhelmed.

Cheers,  One-eye

[caldera]

Yep.  +1

[The Fugitive]

On most maps a single base take, percentage is between 2-4% So for that 20-30 percent change is 2.5 to 5 bases. Dropping it to 22% would only get a single base "buffer" to hold on for the win. Maybe try 25-26% for a bit first.

[Dadtallica]

I worked this out with a silly basic formula, but what if instead of having a fixed threshold on how many bases you can capture from another country, we instead had a dynamic threshold based on how many bases you’ve captured from the other side?

Using rough math, let’s say each country starts with 45 bases not counting the uncapturable ones.  (tonight’s map was 48 apiece and I don’t remember how many uncapturable maybe two or three)

Dale institutes a roughly 13% dynamic capture balance between the two fronts. (.133333 technically) That would allow one country to get approximately six bases ahead against one opponent before having to make progress against the other.

For example, if the Rooks capture six Bishop bases and zero Knight bases, they can’t capture another Bishop base until they take at least one Knight base. That unlocks the seventh Bishop base. Take another Knight base, and you unlock the eighth Bishop base.

You still need 20% of each opponent’s original bases to win the war, which in this case would be nine from each. But instead of a fixed capture ceiling, you’re limiting how far ahead a country can get against one opponent while ignoring the other. The limit moves dynamically as bases change hands, and it applies equally to all three countries.

Meaning, at some point, you always have to go back to the other side before you can finish the first side.

The equation is this for any side this is from the rook pov…

Rooks = (Knights − Bishops) ≤ 13.33% × 45 ≈ 6

[1ijac]

I suggested that earlier.

[Dadtallica]

I suggested that earlier.

Well, then, if you agree that Paris is the capital of France. We’re back in agreement.

[Animl-AW]

I think 30 is kinda useless.

[Banshee7]

On most maps a single base take, percentage is between 2-4% So for that 20-30 percent change is 2.5 to 5 bases. Dropping it to 22% would only get a single base "buffer" to hold on for the win. Maybe try 25-26% for a bit first.

I've always thought a 2 base "buffer" was perfect. 

[Dadtallica]

I've always thought a 2 base "buffer" was perfect.

I’m still convinced a straight cap is not the answer. It needs to be dynamic between all three where you can’t take more than a certain percentage of what you have at the other side that will always then force your country to work both sides.

[atlau]

What about after taking 2-3 bases you can't take any more until you take 1 from the other country?

[Dadtallica]

Scroll up lol

[Animl-AW]

What I see in some suggestions are intensional loopholes that still benefit what they do. It’s a placebo. “We agreed as a good sport, (but it doesn’t do much)”

30% would never do much. Its rare that one country gets to 30%. It’s a very easy workaround, as designed.

Now lets do an effective number.

[hitech]

I worked this out with a silly basic formula, but what if instead of having a fixed threshold on how many bases you can capture from another country, we instead had a dynamic threshold based on how many bases you’ve captured from the other side?

Using rough math, let’s say each country starts with 45 bases not counting the uncapturable ones.  (tonight’s map was 48 apiece and I don’t remember how many uncapturable maybe two or three)

Dale institutes a roughly 13% dynamic capture balance between the two fronts. (.133333 technically) That would allow one country to get approximately six bases ahead against one opponent before having to make progress against the other.

For example, if the Rooks capture six Bishop bases and zero Knight bases, they can’t capture another Bishop base until they take at least one Knight base. That unlocks the seventh Bishop base. Take another Knight base, and you unlock the eighth Bishop base.

You still need 20% of each opponent’s original bases to win the war, which in this case would be nine from each. But instead of a fixed capture ceiling, you’re limiting how far ahead a country can get against one opponent while ignoring the other. The limit moves dynamically as bases change hands, and it applies equally to all three countries.

Meaning, at some point, you always have to go back to the other side before you can finish the first side.

The equation is this for any side this is from the rook pov…

Rooks = (Knights − Bishops) ≤ 13.33% × 45 ≈ 6

So far I can not think of anything I would be against in this idea.

HiTech

[Dadtallica]

So far I can not think of anything I would be against in this idea.

HiTech

I thought about it a little more you could definitely still have a hard cap percentage. Otherwise there would still be an overrun. It’s just a matter of determining what the threshold should be whether it’s dynamic per map or static.

[CptTrips]

I thought about it a little more you could definitely still have a cap. Otherwise there would still be an overrun otherwise it’s just a matter of determining what the threshold should be whether it’s dynamic per map or static.

Of course that still doesn't protect a low side from getting continually smashed by a large side.  Hangars, fuel, radar, ammo destroyed.  Mowing the lawn periodically just to keep them weak without needing to capture.