Remove maximum offensive war slots

[Apeman]

I think it would cause no harm if the cap on offensive war slots were to be removed for us all. It is our choice as the attacking party if you want to have 6 offensive wars or even 100. It would really help raiders cash in. Leave the defensive at 3 unless you make it two only. 

 

Think it over

Edited July 18, 2018 by Apeman

[Micchan]

No, you need a limit, then we can talk about that limit

[Dwynn]

Why would you need unlimited or expanded war slots?

"Help raiders cash in"

A raider should take the time to look at their targets war history and determine if you're going to get results. Sure, looking at the war history and timelines won't ALWAYS give you an accurate accounting of whether or not they're sitting on loot, but that alone isn't worth the change. Stop being a lazy raider. You can raid up to 5 people at once currently, the problem is you're either A.) not researching dilligently, or B.)hitting people too close to their inactivity cut off.

You NEED to have some risk to raiding, otherwise you're simply saying "Hey, give us as much free money as we want."

[Apeman]

5 hours ago, Micchan said:

No, you need a limit, then we can talk about that limit

What purpose does a limit serve? 

[Ukunaka]

3 hours ago, Apeman said:

What purpose does a limit serve? 

well a new player could just raid as many of the 500+ inactives in range of him as they wanted simultaneously as could anyone losing a war.
another easy exploit to this is that one could attack alot of bigger active nations with the intention of losing so they could stack biege time and right before they are bieged hit all the inactives and weak nations in range of them without regard to their alliances and noone could counter them because of their weeks of biege time stacked.
(now granted changing the biege mechanic to where it doesnt give time for losing aggresives could limit some of that but would still happen when losing defensive wars just with a shorter shield)

now don't get me wrong id be open to increasing the limit maybe to like 7 or even 10, but i do think there should be some limit.

[Apeman]

I'm down for removing beige. I don't know about you all but I didn't want to hide in beige. If the raider can manage 500 wars without getting crushed I think he should get a badge not limited on the attempt. What good is an inactive anyways?

[Soxirella]

@Apeman There are also almost no one to fight you back when someone is so low in the rank to find that many inactives to raid.

Sure, forfeit of beige when you go beyond three wars could be a solution, but given that there is a three defensive wars limit, essentially three people can block all the targets in the game.

[Apeman]

2 hours ago, Soxirella said:

@Apeman There are also almost no one to fight you back when someone is so low in the rank to find that many inactives to raid.

Sure, forfeit of beige when you go beyond three wars could be a solution, but given that there is a three defensive wars limit, essentially three people can block all the targets in the game.

I don't disagree with what you said. I do feel like the no war slot filling rule would fix the concern you brought up. I also believe trying to declare more than 10 wars without buying military would be difficult. Especially having to do the captcha and risk someone countering. It would require extra planning and research. The effort should offer more pay so to speak. Just one sorta active person would ruin the multiple declares.

 

Maybe a captcha that activates once every 5 declares would help make it more difficult. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Could it be that you don't want a limit so that you, a guy that likes to hold a ton of nukes can declare on as many people as possible to do as much damage as possible without having a decent percentage spied away like in the last war?

 

[Apeman]

I launched roughly 8 times the nukes that got spied away. Nukes also add 15 ns per nuke so the more I had in theory I wouldn't be able to declare on all that many people as only so many would be in range. I don't know why you have to bring this up? Is that what scares You?

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

When you propose a change that is so obviously self serving, its only fair to call it out as so.  Your proposal makes it real easy for someone to go buy up 50-60 nukes, and then going to rage on whatever alliance, and hit 30-40 members or whoever is in range, all while limiting the damage each of those 30-40 nations can do to you.

It's a stupid proposal.  You should be ashamed of yourself for wasting people's time with this.

[Apeman]

Your fear and ignorance has been noted. Check and check. Just one more check to make

[Mohammad]

how about limting only attriton/ordinary wars, sicne those are the ones that are sued in actual wars, and increaseing amountof raid wars to like 7, so you can haev 5 A/O Wars but you can have up to 7 R wars.