Pre-Army Council Meeting Polls

GP: Winners of the Name that Army raffle are Broken and Etac (with bid). Broken, comment with your email, and Etac, PC me on chat 🙂 . The winning answer was the Rebel Penguin Federation, but a lot of people put RPF instead 😦 . Basically, the riddle describes how RPF has no allies, was born out of UMA (red skies), and has a grey uniform (turns the world grey). Thanks for participating!

Good Day, readers! As you know, the Army Council is getting together soon to try to reform some of the invasion rules we all know and use today. Now, although the council has the final say in rule changes, I wanted to get some extra opinions on the changes we’re thinking about so we have a better idea of what most people thing is the best solution before we decide.

I had a meeting on TinyChat with AkaBob and Oberst the other day, and they introduced a few new ideas to me that I hadn’t thought of yet, so I’m going to add them in with mine too. This will work with a series of polls and comment debates. You don’t have to participate, but if you wan’t a say, then please just vote on the following polls, and add any extra opinions in the comments. I’ll read these comments too, so write as much as you want. I promise I won’tmind :).

First, we’ll go through Oberst’s and Aka’s ideas. It’s more like one, 3-part idea. Oberst wanted me to note that these ideas were supported by the Nachos and RPF Leaderships, as well as the ACP 2ics.

.

.

.

1. Minimum Invasion Troop Count – Major Armies.

Basically, they were thinking that when a major army invades, they should have at least 20 troops attending for it to count. Vote for more if you think the minimum should be more than 20, etc, etc.

*Credit goes to Aka Bob and Oberst

.

.

.

2. Minimum Invasion Troop Count – Medium Armies

Similar to the other one, just that medium armies should have 15 minimum. Same otherwise.

*Credit goes to Aka Bob and Oberst

.

.

.

3. Minimum Invasion Troop Count – Small Armies

Same again, except that small armies should have 10 minimum

*Credit goes to Aka Bob and Oberst

.

.

.

Okay, now it’s time for my ideas. This first one was also suggested by Oberst and Aka, but I’ve been thinking about it for a while too, so I guess we all get credit.

.

.

.

1. 24 Hour Rule – Elimination or Reduction

As the title says. We all think that something should be done with the 24 Hour Rule, we just wanted more opinions first.

*Credit goes to Aka Bob, Oberst and Sklooperis

.

.

.

2. Five Room Rule – Elimination or Reduction

I really feel that, with all of the talk about how fun the Golden Age was, that we could really get some of that back if we convert armies back to just straight up battling for servers instead of this silly room claiming. Although we may not bring the Golden Age back, the fun the battles held can easily be returned.

*Credit goes to Sklooperis
.

.

.

3. Minimum Server Rule – Elimination or Reduction

In case you don’t understand this, this is referring to the rule that an army must have 2 servers to invade or declare war on another army. This rule doesn’t affect much, but it’s still talked about by many, including small army leaders.

*Credit goes to Sklooperis
.

.

.

Alright, that’s all for now. The meeting is very soon, so we will use these poll results as a reference point.

Comment on any ideas for new rules, rule changes, or even rule eliminations! I’ll try to fit in as many as I can for suggestion!

Sklooperis: CPA Central CEO

64 Responses

  1. The minimum troop count is ridiculous, it’s just yet another pointless rule. I don’t see what it would accomplish at all, besides invalidating the efforts of an army. The five room rule should be changed to whoever logs off first looses.

    Like

    • No. If it was who logged off first, we’d have 5-6 hour long battles. Knowing ACP, they’d be on for 12 hours if it ment protecting a server. 😐

      Like

    • Also, Skloop, take a look at my post, “A Few Words…” Thanks.

      Like

    • It’s not really a rule in my eyes, it’s more of a helper in classification, htis way you are also able to set goals for armies and it helps news sites by far. To be honest with you a pointless rule is claiming rooms GO BACK TO BATTLING!!

      Like

    • I think small armies should be required to have at least 5 or so people. I mean I don’t want some three man army taking my capital because I forgot to post their obscure invasion.

      And 24 should be 12 or 18. It isn’t major but could help as a balance between a complete notice and no notice.

      Like

    • The menimum troop count is rubish.Theres no poll for the last one.

      Like

    • I just wanted to let everybody know that there’s been a new post on http://pinkmafias.wordpress.com/ and even a new page to keep everybody informed while I’m gone. I’ve done what I came here to do and unfortunately it’s time for me to leave once again. Please read these new updates and comment!

      Like

  2. Everything is fine. :3

    Like

  3. Claiming is stupid I say we take that down. It ruins battles.. An army only claims a room by making the oposing army(s) retreat.

    Like

  4. The reason me and Aka talked about that rule Godplayer is that if an army is able to sustain that many troops during an invasion, it would classify it being a true major army. If a major army goes to an invasion with less then 20 troops is saying something, you can argue that maybe a school day might effect that number but your biggest turnouts no matter what are always on the weekends. We just feel that if you made it into the top 10 major, medium, or small armies you should be able to consolidate your position and retain your army’s strength. This is just my opinion against yours, but if that is what you choose to believe I will respect your decision.

    Like

    • Right, but if we already have a perfect formula for Top 10 armies using legit mathematics, we do we need a rule defining them?

      Like

      • It is an attempt to organize armies better. The current top ten is kind of sloppy. I mean, remember back when ACP was put at fifth because of one bad week and everyone flew off the handle due to it?

        Like

        • The system was improved a month ago to where that can’t possibly happen again, and our Top 10 is almost 100% based on math, so it can’t possibly be any less sloppy than it is now.

          Like

          • More numbers is definetley what kids want to see after a day at school.

            We should start making trading cards and a stats center as well, since everything should be about mathematics.

            Like

            • The sloppy math that makes the Top 10 is poorly handled, I think. The fact remains that the ACP is currently ranked 3rd because of one bad weekend. Then you’re so-called “3rd” strongest army got around 130 troops at the Invasion of Fog a few days later.

              My point is that the Top 10 is still just opinion (or at least as inaccurate as opinion). So instead of trying to improve the system why don’t you just make it more interesting?

              Ias had a great system. A picture for each army, a short description, and the armies’ latest events. It was just as accurate, and 10x more fun to read.

              Like

              • You don’t know the formula, I’m sure, so how would you know that. The only reason you don’t like is because it landed ACP in 3rd. In response to Fog, how can you count an event that happened after the Top 10 was released? And we do provide pictures and summaries for each army.

                Like

                • I suggested a formula that is basically what you use.

                  It landed the ACP in 3rd. The ACP proved themselves to be 1st by a mile a few days later. It is inaccurate.

                  Also, you don’t provide pictures and the descriptions are all variations of the same description.

                  Like

            • We don’t show the math, all we show is is the final score, and your way is pure opinion. After they get counted as whatever way they are, how do you rank them after that?

              Like

  5. If any of you guys have concerns about the polls go ahead and express your opinion, i’m just here to kind of supervise the reaction that these polls would make towards the future. If you don’t agree with them I will respect your decision but I will tell you why we came up with the thoughts that lead to it.

    Like

  6. um why do u have minimum troop count what if a major army starts off with 18 they forfeit?

    Like

  7. Every thing is fine execpt claiming.

    Like

  8. 12 hours

    Like

  9. Lets put this minimun troop count into a scenario, Let’s say UMA was Invading the Nachos. Both armies are Major, If UMA shows up with 14 troops but nachos only show up with 7, UMA Dominates in Tactics and successfully claims 5 rooms, But the Invasion wouldn’t count because UMA didn’t reach the minimum of troops required? No that proposition is ridiculous.

    Like

    • I agree.

      Like

    • Please read what Oberst said earlier.

      It is a classification thing for the Top Ten. It does not affect a battles outcome whatsoever, just instead of guessing who is a “World Power” and who is a “Major Army” all the time on the Army Nation’s page, this would be easier at determining that.

      Like

  10. Small armies?
    It should of been over 5 not 10. People who get 10+ are considered medium by SMAC. Note the Romans.

    Like

  11. I think 5+ for small armys 10-15+ for medium and about 25-30+ for large armies and also i think there should be no “reclaiming” and if they claim thats it they have that room no other army can take it back

    Like

  12. @The last opinion.
    To get servers, you need to invade.
    But you got no servers, so can’t invade.
    lolwut..

    Like

  13. Just to let you guys know these are some propositions that Aka and I made up in the last day or so, we wanted these polls put up to see the reaction it would cause so we can revise these propositions. But keep giving feedback, the more the better 🙂

    Like

  14. large army count and room elimination should be allowed but the server rule should be top 15 only, for no small army will have two servers

    Like

  15. Minimum troop rule= Pointless and dumb rule.
    24 hour rule= Meh, I’m okay with it.
    5-room claim= Oh my god YES!

    Like

  16. Can’t believe more people didn’t want to change the 24 hour rule. If we made it to 12 hours, we could at least give Euro troops the ability to get themselves involved in battle…

    But then again, I forgot I was talking to a bunch of 10 year olds on lessons of “fairness.”

    eh.

    Like

    • Then again, take into account the amount of US troops and amount of Euro troops here. It should be the army,s responsibility, not the Council’s. As well as that, 24 hours is barely enough to muster half your army because we spend 18 of those hours at school and sleeping, so 12 hours would be ludacris.

      Like

  17. Do they really have the power to change all this?

    Like

  18. suggestedergonomic@gmail.com

    Don’t ask. It was two words on one of the stickers that came with my laptop.
    Creativity ftw

    Like

  19. Wait that doesn’t make any sense at all.
    RPF has friends and connections EVERYWHERE.

    We’re allies with UMA, even.

    Like

  20. At tomorrow’s army council meeting, me and Aka will be there. We are going to jointly talk about these idea’s to the Army leaders and can explain to you how these can effect an army’s future. I’m not here to say i’m right or i’m wrong but after seeing you guys express your opinions, me and Aka will express ours.

    Like

  21. Should the Five Room Rule be eliminated? Yes and no.

    Yes: You all know the argument. It detracts from the actual battle. It makes for more running around the server and less actual fighting. Whoever avoids battling is the one wins the battle.

    This also leads to several high-intensity arguments immediately following the battle; the ACP gets 60 troops, the Romans get 20. Clearly teh ACP would win the battle if the two fought, but the Romans retreat, claim a room, retreat again, claim another room, etc. The ACP says they won because the Romans did nothing but retreat; the Romans say they won because they claimed a ton of rooms. And according to the rules, both armies have reasonable claim to victory. The ACP had much higher numbers and appeared to defeat teh retreating Romans. The Romans, however, claimed enough rooms to call it a victory. What is teh actual result? Nothing but continued debating and flaming.

    No: Not many people seem to remember the past and why the Five Room Rule was invented in the first place. Army “A” would invade Army “B”s server, and Army “B” would be late or not show up. Army “A” then said that Army “B” must’ve surrendered, so they then laid claim to the entire server. Soon, armies like Army “A” would simply take a picture on a server, log off, and say they won the server; some invasions lasted only 2 minutes. This created just as much flaming as the current “you were stronger but I claimed five rooms” battles.

    Obviously, logging onto a server, taking a picture, and logging off is not a legitimate invasion. So the Five Room Rule was invented. Now the invading army had to actually claim five rooms while retaining numbers WHILE the defending army still didn’t show up. It legitimized invasions of empty servers. Without it, armies would simply go back to taking a picture and immediately logging off. Invasions would be trivial, wars would be annoying, and flaming would infest army websites like the Plague.

    So now you know both sides of the argument. And if you read this far good job; you aren’t ignorant like the rest of those boneheads who didn’t read it, yet continue to argue as if they know what they’re talking about.

    Anywhere, here’s my proposal. It’s simple, effective, and the way things are ideally meant to be:

    [1] If the defending army is present, then the invading army must defeat the defending army to win the server.

    [2] If the defending army is NOT present, then the invading army must claim five rooms to make the invasion legit.

    Anyway, please consider it and let me know what you think.

    Like

    • Couldn’t we just use a Common Sense Standard? I mean obviously the stronger army should be declared the winner. Otherwise you’ll just get repeats of the RPF/IW War of 2010 where we just ran around claiming rooms with 5 people and they couldn’t reclaim fast enough.

      Eventally it got so bad that IW had to use the same tactics to hold Sub Zero, after RPF and friends carved through about half of their land.

      Like

    • The solution to this problem is this: whoever logs off first looses. Hour can last for battles again, and Euro troops can fight when US troops sleep.

      Like

      • It’ll be more of a stakeout than a war.

        Like

      • No they couldn’t. UK is like 5-6 hours ahead of you. Let’s say a troop goes to sleep at 10:30PM in the US. That would mean a troop if he was to fight for his army, wake up at 4:30AM. The event’s should be euro then US take over. Not vice-versa.

        Like

  22. grrr!!! I had it first too godplaya! D:< i should've put rebel penguin federation, ehh i didnt wanna be author anyways xP they stole my answer though!

    Like

  23. Basically, the 5 room rule should only count if the opposition isn’t present. After all, what’s the point of claiming rooms if there’s an army to fight?

    Like

  24. Oooh! WV wants in! =D

    Like

  25. Add me?

    suggestedergonomic@gmail.com

    Like

  26. Now that’s just offensive how we have no allies (D). We have allies like ACP and IW and RT, IV, and armies like that. Wow you know I think we really do to increase foreign affairs.

    Like

  27. Matre, we don’t even have a Foreign affairs minister. Just a Secretary of defense that may soon retire.

    Like

  28. Minimum troop rules make no sense. You fight with what you have. If you have 5 soldiers, you fight with five soldiers. If you have 70, you fight with 70 soldiers.

    Like

  29. The troop Thing will be nearly impossible for a small army some small armies only max 5 and average 2

    Like

What do YOU think? Comment your opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: