Make wars more frequent

[Critters]

How about after 60 days without a war a nation’s income drops 5% every seven days until they have a war? The timer restarts after their last war ends. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

Regrettably, that's abuseable as simply as "declaring" a war and "negotiating" a peace. I appreciate what it's trying to do, but it's just not an effective solution.

[Aksel]

Reset X amount of days, all treaties get reset - nations/alliances have to fight to be at the top each round. Top X alliances (or some shit) get benefits going next round should they keep using the same alliance or maybe top nations. Thats the type of nation sim I want. Something to keep you GOING.

[Azaghul]

How about an economic modifier that boosts income based on infra destroyed and infra lost?

For example:  War modifier for each war = (infra destroyed + infra lost) / (nation infra at the end of the war) / (turns since war ended / 720).  Limit to 1.25 or a 25% boost.  Total modifier = 1 + Sum of modifiers to all wars.  Max 1.25, or 25%.  720 turns is 60 days.  It could be based on attacks but that'd probably be harder to code and take more server power.

Making it based on infra destroyed and infra lost would provide a boost to both winners and losers.  And since it takes actually destroying infra, it'd limit the extent that it could be abused with dummy wars.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Azaghul

[Soxirella]

IMO, even the best formula or suggestion for penalising no declaration of wars is a failure, since that'd take away from the "Politics" aspect of the game.

In reality leaders of current and future potential alliances need to make some bold and risky decisions, if they want to engage in more "War" aspect of the game. If they don't, then you are going to be stuck in Peace mode for a long time.

And that may or may not be a bad thing depending on how the leaders play. If they want to conserve pixel and stay on top in terms of score / infra / revenue, then it makes more sense to be diplomatic enough to not be at war or in a war where you can roll someone.

[Azaghul]

On 7/13/2018 at 12:01 AM, Soxirella said:

IMO, even the best formula or suggestion for penalising no declaration of wars is a failure, since that'd take away from the "Politics" aspect of the game.

In reality leaders of current and future potential alliances need to make some bold and risky decisions, if they want to engage in more "War" aspect of the game. If they don't, then you are going to be stuck in Peace mode for a long time.

And that may or may not be a bad thing depending on how the leaders play. If they want to conserve pixel and stay on top in terms of score / infra / revenue, then it makes more sense to be diplomatic enough to not be at war or in a war where you can roll someone.

I disagree.  I think having more wars would create more political changes, not less.  The politics of the game moved a lot faster when wars were a lot more frequent.  Wars often lead to political changes.  Old grudges are satisfied and new grudges created.  The balance of power changes.

[Soxirella]

That may be true, but now the climate is different. People hesitate to declare on others and the time between wars are getting longer.

 

You can't force anyone to do anything. If you want more wars via game mechanics, you need to give incentives for war, not penalties or forced actions. Forced wars won't heal wounds.

[Azaghul]

14 hours ago, Soxirella said:

That may be true, but now the climate is different. People hesitate to declare on others and the time between wars are getting longer.

 

You can't force anyone to do anything. If you want more wars via game mechanics, you need to give incentives for war, not penalties or forced actions. Forced wars won't heal wounds.

 I proposed an incentive to fight more rather than a penalty for not fighting.

Arguably it's a distinction without a difference.

Longer times between wars as the game ages is a predictible response to the way the game is structured.  There's a reason it happens in other games to.