Biege at the end of a tie war

[Etgfrog]

Now as most should be aware, if you do not achieve 6 ground victories then a nation does not enter beige and be declared on instantly after. I'm proposing this gets changed so that if a war ends with one nation having <10% of their score in military as well as having lost more military or infrastructure then their opponent then they get beiged. This would allow a nation to rebuild their military if they are zeroed.

[Etgfrog]

That may be, but the whole point of biege was to allow a defeated nation the chance of repairing.

[Areton Chashul]

The whole point of not beiging someone is because you don't want them to repair

[Etgfrog]

Yes, and that should be a choice, but I also think a single nation shouldn't be allowed to be held at 0 military longer then a week.

[Ayayay]

That may be, but the whole point of biege was to allow a defeated nation the chance of repairing.

Where did this come from?

 

Raiders wanted a system where they could loot as much resources as possible and non-raiders thought that was &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid and wanted it to never happen. Beige was implemented as a compromise where you could loot a shitton from a nation but in return no one could loot them again for a bit. The only other way for someone to be bieged is through nukes but those were added months after biege was implemented. Even nuclear biege was because people were &#33;@#&#036;ing about how overpowered nukes were/gonna be.

 

Oh my, how wrong we were...

[Etgfrog]

Where did this come from?

 

Raiders wanted a system where they could loot as much resources as possible and non-raiders thought that was !@#$ stupid and wanted it to never happen. Beige was implemented as a compromise where you could loot a shitton from a nation but in return no one could loot them again for a bit. The only other way for someone to be bieged is through nukes but those were added months after biege was implemented. Even nuclear biege was because people were !@#$ about how overpowered nukes were/gonna be.

 

Oh my, how wrong we were...

I'm aware of how beige works. I wasn't aware of some of the history behind it. My intention of this suggestion is to make it so that vacation mode isn't the only escape from having a defeated military and angry nations after you. Does that apply to me at all? nope. This change would actually end up being detrimental to alliances like BK. Lets take the example that a war broke out between two alliances, one has a high average score(alliance A), one has a low average score(alliance B ). Alliance A would knock down alliance B's top nations, while Alliance A's lower nations would end up being defeated by the more numerous opponents. As it currently is, there will reach a point alliance A will have no targets within range while their lower score nations would be stuck at 0 military, the "whales" wouldn't be able to do anything other then be taken down one at a time or accept defeat. With this change alliance A could send resources to their defeated players after the first 5 days are up to rebuild their military and strike back.

 

So that will cause you to ask why would I make a suggestion like this. To allow for rouge nations to exist and prevent the game from stagnating. After this change, it would be theoretically possible to hold someone at 0 military for 9.9 days then they get 5 days of no attacks. But more then likely it would be a flat 5 days of being attacked then 5 days of beige to rebuild.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Etgfrog

[Ayayay]

Like I said, biege is for raiding. If you are at war you should be able to do the maximum amount of damage you can for as long as you can.

[Etgfrog]

Even you said it yourself, nuclear beige was in place because of the fear of how powerful nukes were. That very fact is the reason why you don't see nukes used commonly through an alliance war. What I am proposing will result in a back and forth fight instead of the almost constant curb stomps that happen. Has there been an alliance war that has lasted longer then 10 days before one side had an overwhelming advantage?

[Ayayay]

Even you said it yourself, nuclear beige was in place because of the fear of how powerful nukes were. That very fact is the reason why you don't see nukes used commonly through an alliance war. What I am proposing will result in a back and forth fight instead of the almost constant curb stomps that happen. Has there been an alliance war that has lasted longer then 10 days before one side had an overwhelming advantage?

Yes, back in alpha

 

Solution: Remove Nukes, Missiles, and Spies

#Makepnwgreatagain

 

 

Joking aside, if a group could not survive the initial week, they likely would not be able to survive the next. Your suggestion basically throws everyone on biege, so allies taking a bit too long to prep would be shit outta luck since by the time they could enter the war all their targets would be biege. You're basically delaying the inevitable.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Metro

[Etgfrog]

You see, I didn't say they would go into beige when their military hit 0, I suggested they go into beige once the war timed out and they have effectively been crushed, a lack of targets after being late will always be a problem. And no, it wouldn't be delaying the inevitable because if an alliance gets taken out quickly, like for instance VE when BK hit them, all nations who got dropped to 0 military will be out of the war unless their attackers get defeated. This means an ally has to hit the alliance hitting you, which promotes the current treaty web. This system also punishes players who try to play casually, regardless of how smart they play.