Different approach to war resistance

[Soxirella]

Right now, both the aggressor and defender starts with 100 resistance each and the first to make the other zero wins. I suggest to tweak this and have both of them start on 50, but a player can lose or gain resistance based on his battle outcome.

1. A declares on B and both have 50 / 50

2. A does Immense Triumph GA on B - 60 / 40

3. A does Immense Triumph GA on B - 70 / 30

4. B does Immense Triumph Naval on A - 56 / 44

 

Compared to the current system, if one player is much more dominating than the other, a war can potentially finish sooner and less damaging to the other. Conversely, if they are more matched with each other, then it can potentially drag out longer than the current average. And although, I am from a pro-nuclear alliance, this system will only allow one nuclear bombing, unlike two under the current system.

I feel this is more fair and encouraging of evenly matched wars at player level. Nevertheless, politics and rolling of alliances using heavy numbers on either side is still possible.

A slight variation would be to make both sides start on 70, since starting at 50 means that one player can potentially beige the other within 18 hours, and starting at 70 makes it go for at least 24 hours.

[Sir Scarfalot]

10 hours ago, Soxirella said:

-snip-

Someone else made a similar suggestion, but this one is much simpler and arguably much better I would say. Upvoted.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Felkey]

The most interesting impact of this one is how it would affect the strategy of intentionally losing wars by letting your opponents beige you on the ground and with navy. You wouldn't be able to just dominate air while your opponents have to beige you because winning battles in the air would counter act the ground and naval victories enough to keep you from getting that beige shield. 

The upside is it severely limits the ability to hide on beige so it makes them easier to counter

The downside is the person one the receiving end of the airstrikes will end up staying at war longer if they win on the ground/at sea, so they may just end up getting sat in for the full war length.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Felkey

[Soxirella]

I agree with everything you said. It really comes down to how a player wants to play. They may choose to essentially surrender and not fight back, and then attack another player lower down the order with relatively more military and perhaps co-ordinated.

You'd also need to be strong comprehensively and can't just concentrate on one aspect of military, which is unrealistic. Players can also man up and give hell to the other as long as they can.

[Johnny Costello]

Good suggestion.  But how would missiles and nukes fit?.  

 

Also can personal treaties be a neat added effect 

[Soxirella]

9 hours ago, Johnny Costello said:

Good suggestion.  But how would missiles and nukes fit?.  

They shouldn't be much different to what it is now. If you read the original post, I mentioned that starting on 50 would mean there can be only one nuke per war, starting on 60 can perhaps make it two.

[Johnny Costello]

Well a nuke hits for 25. So that would be 2 no? 

[Soxirella]

A 50 / B 50

Let's say A does Naval only and B does Nukes only

After 12 turns, the resistance will be

67 / 33

After 8 more turns...

95 / 5

After 3 more turns, A can do a GA and beige.

So starting at 50 each will mean B can only get in one nuke attack.

 

If 60...

95 / 5 - 8 turns

At 12th turn...

109 / 11 - A Naval

84 / 36 - B Nuke

 

After 11 more turns, A can beige with two Naval and one GA

 

[Soxirella]

I messaged Alex, and he said:

I won't do one resistance scale because then it means when you know you're going to lose your best bet is to sit back and do nothing, no attacks, and just let the other guy beat the piss out of you because otherwise when you fight back you add resistance and it just means that they get to do more attacks on you. That's not fun for the loser at all.

 

So, I have alternatives with and without changing the scale:

I) If keeping the existing scale, the war should only end (beiging), if the difference in resistance is greater than 19 or some other smaller number, to avoid close encounters, which was the original intent.

2) In single scale mode, the current status quo can also be maintained by starting off the single scale on 100 each, and doubling resistance loss from the 45th turn. Currently, straight Immense Triumph Naval Battles can almost deplete your resistance in 44 turns, keeping in mind the starting 6.

Or, keep the original simple single scale resistance but keep the war going for a minimum of 45 turns.