Jump to content

Dwynn

Members
  • Content Count

    1729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Dwynn last won the day on August 14 2015

Dwynn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1256 Upvote King

6 Followers

About Dwynn

  • Rank
    Legend of Duskhorn

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Alliance Pip
    Rose
  • Leader Name
    Dwynn
  • Nation Name
    Duskhorn
  • Nation ID
    90760
  • Alliance Name
    Rose

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Dwynn

Recent Profile Visitors

4305 profile views
  1. I mean... no Rose member had even responded to you. Are you sure you're aware the meaning of defensive?
  2. Dwynn

    Fix Tiering

    Then why post shit suggestions? Go to bed and save us the hassle?
  3. That's a valid point that they would just drop infra and improvements. It could be said that a city should have X amount of support improvements to support the military improvements but that would require even more complexity. However, if a nation were to simply sell down and go military only improvements, they lose a good chunk of their income so I see that as a fair trade off. Though I don't see how it would cause homogeneous city blobs to avoid the negative consequences of infra lost. In fact it would cost them more making war more strategic for the smaller city nations.
  4. But... with all that production is there really 0 pollution? I mean even the greenest of industrial zones puts out some pollution.
  5. I've thought about this and believe I even suggested it ages ago, but I think this war begets it to be resuggested. Infrastructure needs to play more of an impact in a city's operational status. This is going to probably be a very poorly received suggestion, but right now this war has demonstrated again that city-count is a huge indication of which way a war is going to usually fall. This is because military units are directly tied city count, so those with the higher city count should have a distinct advantage. However, as we see people are eager to get infra shaved off their nations so their higher city count advantage becomes unbeatable. I mean a 22 city nation declaring on a 14 city nation, pack it up. There's no point in even showing up for the war. So my suggestion to try to combat this? When a city's infrastructure is below the slot-requirement, improvements randomly go "offline" for a turn. Then the next turn it's randomized again. Think about it, infrastructure is literally the logistics of your nation. If a city doesn't have the logistics to support the amount of improvements that you have in it, shouldn't there be some sort of penalty for it? Now, I know what you're thinking.. "This gives the attacker the advantage right away!" well.... maybe? I mean defenders can destroy infra just as well. This may alleviate some of the lopsidedness of wars because it will require nations to maintain their city infrastructure to be at peak operational status. Maybe an improvement doesn't go offline, maybe instead it just functions at a penalized rate. Also, power plants could be put at a lower chance (but still a chance) of going into offline/penalized mode because most cities would make sure their power infrastructure is sorted and good. I'm just spit-balling, but I think it might add another dynamic to the war game as well instead of the "hey lets rush to get each other close as we can to beige then sit there for 12 turns" that war basically is now.
  6. It's not slotfilling. Slotfilling was very clearly *cough vaguely cough* defined (formatted for highlight): "Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule." If they're declaring or paying for beige and the other person is beiging them, there is intentional fighting. Now if the person getting beiged doesn't fight, is that slot filling? Because if that's the case, there are nations that get declared on all the time and are inactive and don't fight back, they would then be victims of the slot-filling rule. This isn't slot filling... This is something else. And if it's going to be a rule, it needs to be very clearly defined.
  7. I actually like this idea and it needs to be explored and fleshed out more. And this would be a better change to the beige system than removing offensive beige.
  8. Wars are lost and people need time to recover. The beige system is broken? Then fix it in general but giving it only to defensive wars lost is just silly. Sometimes people over-extend either intentionally to help the war front, or unintentionally. Either way they usually get defeats. That doesn't negate the fact that the nation would need time to recover from the war just as a defensive nation might. What's really at the heart of the problem here is that the war system favors the attacker heavily. An attacker comes in and immediately gets air superiority and then badboom badabing usually wins the war. Usually being the wording used because sometimes the defender can coordinate or the attacker messes something up and ends up losing out. However, that being said usually the attacker is going to win the war simply because of the fact that the down-declare range and the city counts allowing for quicker buy-backs etc. Removing attacker beige won't fix that. Fixing beige system won't fix that. It's still going to be a mis-balanced war system with quite a bit of weight given to the attacker.
  9. "Could have"... i mean if we're playing that game the entire war "could have" played out differently. I'm merely talking about what DID happen. And sure, they "could have" sold down, but really, what do you think the likelihood of that "could have" been? Guardian and GOB have always prided themselves on their nation building ability. They have done that since I was a part of them long ago.
  10. It could be argued that t$ were actually harming BK's war effort by knocking the whales further down the score count putting them in to range for more of BK-sphere's targets. Anyone assuming that t$ was doing more than being opportunistic really wasn't looking at the bigger picture.
  11. Not gonna lie to was bound to play out this way. And for everyone crying that "IQ never broke up" let's be real... They were in a block together, they formed relationships. They didn't end on a bad-note break up. They were more of a "hey this is getting stale, let's try seeing other people" scenario. So even if their ex deserved to get punched for starting a fight, they still got them feels. They can't sit by and do nothing. It's just a shame they weren't upfront about it.
  12. I can respect starting stuff simply for the sake of starting stuff. However, this is really more of an attack of opportunity than anything. If this really was a "no grudges, just business" endeavor it could have been done when your opponents weren't already engaged in battle. I would agree that human nature is absolutely that way. Human nature wants us to be safe and to survive, but this isn't human nature. This is a game of pixels. If I wanted a safe space that didn't involve a war I could possibly lose, I'd play Nationstates or something like that.
  13. Ah yes... the age old "fair fight is pointless" argument. Sure, if your entire purpose is to create a powersphere great enough to dominate the game so you can sit in circles telling each other how great you are, then yes going into a fair fight is pointless. However, if your purpose is to create some atmosphere of uncertainty about war or to create an atmosphere where war is more abundant so there is more activity in this world, fighting to break apart the powershperes and allow for more dynamic war structure that doesn't rely on who can pull the most treaties is actually more useful and productive. So the real question is what do you want to do? Sit in a circle jerking chains on how awesome you are, or actually playing the game and proving how great you are?
  14. I mean, it depends on the wording I suppose. The whole purpose of treaties is to document what will happen if someone attacks etc etc. If it's an optional defense pact, then make it an ODP. I never liked how loosey goosey the treaty system has become. "Back in my day..." people honored treaties even if it as a losing battle.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.