Zevari

Fair enough, but I wouldn't call a stalemate a fun defeat. If i'm being honest, GnR (for me at least) was a fun defeat. Simply because I was constantly fighting enemies way above my city levels to either keep them zeroed or to help alleviate pressure off of other bigger players. It only got boring when I was down-declared by 3 players effectively twice my size and zeroed out within a day. (but that was basically the end of the war) Basically all war is going to be boring unless something unexpected happens that makes it interesting in this game, we basically always know who is going to win a war cause lets be honest Rose solo would have never won even at full militarization. Have you ever considered giving a declaration notice? If you so desperately want a fair war stop starting your wars with a blitz (a tactic made to quickly crush the enemy) and write a warning on the forums that in X amount of time you will be attacking rose for X reason. This will give players time to work diplomacy, prevent counter Dog-piles due to people being scared and potentially create more interesting politics. Worst case, you still get to attack a weaker alliance but now you have your fair war since neither side is half militarized or blitzed down. (Unless rose preemptively blitz's, but that gives you moral highground and you could prob handle it)

Personally speaking, in a game where most the "War" or "Action" is seeing a number go up and down, I would much rather see my numbers go up and my enemy numbers go down, that represents success. The real fun in this game for me is typically the community, little conversations I have in messages with enemies, the war declarations, the community inside my alliance and certain mini-rp scenarios you can create. On a side note, can you please explain what a "Fun defeat" is for you guys? Cause your actions on the forums make it seem like you don't enjoy being defeated full stop and attacking rose (who was essentially un-militarized) in a blitz sounds rather boring, especially when you already had an advantage on them.

Oh you are right, why would people ever want to win. I mean who would play a nation simulation game to become the biggest, and strongest they could possibly be? Certainly not anyone who plays this, that's why we have so many of you complaining about losing right now... Oh wait On a side note, maybe if you put some more effort into diplomacy or FA you might be able to convince other alliances to stand aside for conflicts, maybe it's worth considering the possibility that hyper aggressive attacks on big alliances might scare other big alliances.... (I'm willing to bet the quality primates would of expected/prevented these scenarios) It should be noted that this game is called politics and war, but you guys seem to have forgotten the politics part and hyper focused on the war.

I didn't mean to word it like that they were meant to be two separate examples (KT as an alliance type) and (Wars to prevent hegemonic powers) So 3 or more years without a 'fair' war, has anything really changed in regards to dogpiles then? Or is this just people spinning narratives for their echo chambers at this point....

Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a real war where it was even for both sides? Excluding alliances such as KT which exists solely to fight and wars that were done out of desperation to save the game/prevent real hegemonic powers.

I feel like you answer this argument yourself.... I could very easily say your alliance doesn't have the balls to join/make a bloc that isn't the strongest in the game.... I mean come on, you start a war as a dogpile, then complain when you get counter dogpiled. Now you complain cause someone else is dogpiling you (despite being unable to realistically win in a 1v1)

Yeah, a strict structure never helps anyone but if the community could come together and actually formulate a proper guide on how the CB itself should be presented it would work wonders. (A radio show should consider grabbing a representative from all major alliances/players for this) I'm not saying people should stop writing their 1000 word essays, fan-fictions or one liners for a war declaration. I am just saying they should be direct with the CB itself, I don't mind reading those posts alliances make but it annoys me when I have to re-read and connect the dots to figure out the reason/goal of the war. Plus if we are being honest, the way in which each alliance styles their CB typically demonstrates their desired culture, I quite enjoy that aspect we have right now.

It would be interesting to see how fast GG combined efforts could build a re-rolled nation to whale or even Wampus tier albeit unrealistic.

I entirely agree with you here, and this is why I made this thread. (to try and make this discussion) This area of the game is severely lacking compared to other political aspects. I mean we literally have talk casinos, banks, talk shows and even major news outlets but we can't write a proper deceleration of war. It would be interesting to see more of the player base actually involved in rp and proper political maneuvering as you said, but the question is how would we make that a reality. I mean that is fair, it gives other alliances time to react and make some diplomatic moves which would at least be more interesting then the current standard we have.

To be fair those were meant as basic one line suggestions I said to expand upon. A lot of them were made using recent conflicts ingame and justifications from real world war. I have seen your 10 commandments before, they did influence a few of the ones I wrote hence the very similar nature to them. The reason I did that was to try make a way where people can actually write a cb someone can look at and go "ok they are going to war for reason A, their end goal is this and we should expect xyz outcome. Right now our current conflict is "Whale too strong, we must stop them" but no public attempt at creating a remedy is being made (at least on the forums for me to see). Also I apologize for any perceived toxicity. I didn't experience the games major events that caused certain rulings, these are just things I feel like could be used to at least make the current environment a little more interested both diplomatically and war wise (since anyone could look at the RoH or DoW and see what the goal of the war is for both sides) Shocking news, a large majority of players DO NOT enjoy engaging in worthless wars that cause mass damage to their city. War without a massive coalition on your side just means you have to risk more to gain nothing... Great right? So what is your solution to motivate the pixel huggers of all tiers into fighting offensive/defensive wars they don't want to fight? Or should they just quit because it isn't your idea of enjoyable? Yeah I can agree with that. That's why I proposed a potential structure for CB after the suggestions. (I want people to actually expand upon the 2 words of justification inside the 1000 word essay they wrote) I mean from what I can tell you guys are basically at war for "Whale to strong, We hate GG due to past reasons". So what's the end goal? What's the plan to contain GG? Are you just gonna hit them for a bit and leave cause that doesn't solve the inherent problem of whale strong. Ah yes state directly. Is that why the current war needed two forum posts to actually explain what the CB was? Very direct! Also It's fine to debate the CB and argue on the forums, but if the argument is over WHAT the CB is and not WHY it is that. Well we have an issue now, don't we. Yeah I've been playing for 1.5 years and I'm already bored of the same shit being spewed over and over. These days it is either "sekret treaties" or "hEgeMonY" being yelled at each other.

The issue is the don't state then directly or immediately. If you need to go fishing for the reason someone went to war then you did it wrong. A simple one liner does a wonderful job. You can put explanatory RP after that to make it a much smoother process. (also the reason I cited those is that they are all valid HISTORICAL in the real world, which makes them pretty legit in game if applied correctly. The current wars we have had just had people going "oh I guess we are using this reason". I mean it's worth a shot. I rather look like an idiot trying to provide some sort of solution/discussion then complain about it all day long. (plus some of these reasons do get mentioned indirectly or very briefly) That's more direct then half the current wars being made to be fair. Or someone just knows what people historically used as a reason to go to war..... I do agree with that, and that's why I said CB are currently worthless as is. The issue is, the current meta of the game doesn't make sense for alliances to fight in a fair manner. We don't stand to gain anything from individual conflicts so all we do now is beat up the strongest dudes to try force them into smaller blocs. (which we then dogpile again anyway) If we actually had some incentive to winning fair wars you might actually see more interesting and dynamic events. (for example in a fair battle you could demand reparations for X percent of damage or maybe transfer all treasures owned/obtained until treaty expires)

But it is our fault for being boring on the RP side of things. We can't play a game called politics and war and then blame the game mechanics for all our alliances having shitty politics.

So lets address CB's. Why do we give a !@#$ what we use as a reason for war in this current meta? We don't gain anything from war, no reparations, no imposed sanctions or restrictions. Nothing, not a single benefit at all. Literally the only use for CB's at this point in time is to give people on the forums a topic to argue over, seriously it's kinda pathetic. Since you guys struggle so much, here are some simple CB's for you all to use: - Cut down to size (You are growing too fast or are already too big, we want you to bleed) - Humiliate (for you guys with old grudges you want to settle but have no valid reason, just fight you chickens) - Containment (You are doing something that is pissing everyone off, stop it) (this can be warmongering, unjustified actions or overbearing attitudes in past peace conferences) - Ideology conflict (for alliances with RP reasons to have conflict, FA actions or alliance culture) - Retribution (Justification against people who are housing players alliances are holding a grudge against. This could be traitors, spies, unjustified raiding done either directly by the alliance or indirectly through means such as leaving and joining raiders temporarily. Or hunting people who have unpaid debts or stole large sums of items/money) Obviously you should expand upon these few concepts. Try and actually format it correctly, explain the reason why you are going to war, if you have any. Then give a list of steps the others could potentially take to prevent the war (to open negotiations early, even if they are extreme), then give a method of how you plan to reach your goal. If we are trying to beat up Grumpy are you going to just hit them for a week and ditch or do you plan to nuke every one of their cities to rubble? Clearly outlining these methods will give you a diplomatic advantage in negotiations as it demonstrates the planning and effort put into this war before it even started. An alliance will be less likely to continue a war if you can give a detailed plan of what your end goals are, being all mysterious about whether a war will last 2 days or 6 months only makes diplomacy harder, an end goal is far more useful. Feel free to discuss any of the stupid shit I have said, I just want to see this crap actually dealt with and not just left with the shit we have which is basically: "Oh we thought they should be punished" or "Well we gave a reason in paragraph 7 of our monologue" TLDR: For CB's: Give a reason, Expand upon reason, Explain what your end goal is, Why it can't be reached peacefully, how do you plan to achieve your goal.

Shut Your GOB - Makes fun of Grumpy's name - Makes reference to the SRD cb (potential target stuff) - The amount of salt and complaining by both sides on the forums - The fact the war is about beating up Grumpy for being to big/bragging to much

"The Great Mirage" It kind fits since both blocs seem normal at first but in reality roasis had massive lower tier with almost no high tier vs the overwhelming Hollywood high tier. The war gave the illusion of being extremely one sided but ended in a white peace due to the inability of both sides to effect breach the respective tiers. (plus it suits considering the real definitions of Hollywood/oasis)

It would be interesting if the suppression was a bit more dynamic. Something like the % decrease in tank strength being relative to the amount of planes the player with air control has. For example if I only had 50% of my planes while holding air-control the buff would be halved (25% decrease instead of 50%). Would make sense as well since the more planes you have the easier it would be to suppress the enemy tanks, the less you have the lower your effect would be.

You know I gotta say, we (Roasis) are kinda like a barbarian horde against the Roman Legions. Odds are we will win through numbers but damn is our quality far below theirs. Seriously our average strength is really bad compared to the overall quantity. Although this kinda disproves the "hegemony" point it does point out and any individual bloc in this war would struggle really badly in a 1v1. (with averages showing top tier being dominated and low to mid tiers nearly drawing) The primary issue seems to be the top tiers. We can't effectively stop the top tier of Hollywood which is allowing them to down declare on people who can't do anything against them. Updeclaring is a lot harder since one big guy can probably handle three dudes with 2/3 the cities pretty easily.

Fair enough, I do agree with your first paragraph. Although it isn't our conflict I don't think some old meta should really dictate how we operate. At this point in time are we not trying to change up the meta and create new content? (Downsizing spheres etc) Also at the end of the day a 10%-30% is still a difference, especially so for an alliance who has actively been on a warpath. I would much rather preemptively put down that threat then wait for it to kill all my neighbors and start knocking on my door. (Especially so since the 'punishment of hidden treaties' would technically apply to Oasis since we were part of the quack dogpile)

Basically it is perfectly fine for you guys to selectively pick targets and ensure you outnumber them in your wars, But the second the tables have turned it becomes a terrible dogpile? Now aside from all that, In what world would an alliance sit idle while another bigger alliance is going around murdering everyone else? It is clearly in our best interest to stop you in your tracks before it becomes our turn to be attacked.