Jump to content
Dad

Shorten Wars

Recommended Posts

I think wars should be shortened to 48 or even 36 turns. Nobody is really slugging it out for the entire 5 days, especially after Fortify got nerfed. 60 turn wars also are the key of what makes "pin" blockade strategies so effective since you can strangle a nation for 5 days with one naval IT. I don't really have an essay to write about this, I just think 60 turns is way too long given current levels of resistance depletion per attack.

 

Edit: And this is blatantly self serving since the current warlength bores me to death.

Edited by Dad
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

There's already a thread discussing this.

Resistance and War Length are different things my dude.

 

And last I checked the other thread had devolved into discussions of a completely different game.

Edited by Dad
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dad said:

Resistance and War Length are different things my dude.

 

And last I checked the other thread had devolved into discussions of a completely different game.

Is everyone in your alliance this daft? Both threads address the same problem with different suggestions, it's really not that hard to see.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Is everyone in your alliance this daft? Both threads address the same problem with different suggestions, it's really not that hard to see.

 

Is there a PnW version of Godwin's Law that talks about the time it takes before somebody tries to derail a topic by attacking the NPO?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dad said:

 

Is there a PnW version of Godwin's Law that talks about the time it takes before somebody tries to derail a topic by attacking the NPO?

Was just telling someone like a couple of hours ago, PnW's Godwin's Law is essentially, the longer a discussion carries on, the higher chances of "NPO sucks" or "NPO is evil" will occur. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dad said:

Resistance and War Length are different things my dude.

 

And last I checked the other thread had devolved into discussions of a completely different game.

Both ideas revolve around making the game much easier to play by removing coordination needed to alternate beiges. Argue random semantics all you want, the case remains the same. If you dislike the fact that the war mechanics heavily punish those who can't coordinate, learn to coordinate. Will take you a lot less time to learn the mechanics than trying to convince everyone else that the mechanics should be stripped away. 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Was just telling someone like a couple of hours ago, PnW's Godwin's Law is essentially, the longer a discussion carries on, the higher chances of "NPO sucks" or "NPO is evil" will occur. 

If only you could use your hive-mind in-game as you do on the forums, then mechanics that require coordination would work completely in your favor. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dad said:

 

Is there a PnW version of Godwin's Law that talks about the time it takes before somebody tries to derail a topic by attacking the NPO?

You guys are literally like the PW political version of SJWs. And the actual SJWs here are bad enough already. Stop acting like whiny idiots who are always the victim and people will stop calling you whiny idiots. It's literally that easy.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vladamir Putin said:

If only you could use your hive-mind in-game as you do on the forums, then mechanics that require coordination would work completely in your favor. 

Coordination isn't the problem here nor why folks are suggesting this lol. Easier to debate the mechanics then attack the AA the person is in no? 

 

2 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

You guys are literally like the PW political version of SJWs. And the actual SJWs here are bad enough already. Stop acting like whiny idiots who are always the victim and people will stop calling you whiny idiots. It's literally that easy.

Don't really see where we're whining. But okay. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

Coordination isn't the problem here nor why folks are suggesting this lol. Easier to debate the mechanics then attack the AA the person is in no? 

All the changes suggested would greatly reduce the amount of coordination needed to permanently hold down targets. It's everything about coordination. 
 

 

4 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Easier to debate the mechanics then attack the AA the person is in no? 

 


When you suggest ideas that would have no positive effects on the game, yet would directly benefit your alliance, discussing the idea and the AA is one and the same.





 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vladamir Putin said:

When you suggest ideas that would have no positive effects on the game, yet would directly benefit your alliance, discussing the idea and the AA is one and the same.

How exactly does this benefit the NPO specifically? Go on, be objective.

Edited by Shadowthrone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shadowthrone said:

How exactly does this benefit the NPO specifically? Go on, be objective.

An alliance based on maximizing effectiveness with the least amount of total effort will always benefit the most from the simplest mechanics possible.

And there is nothing more effortless than having a few people manage the growth of the entire alliance and having members attack in the same exact way, pressing the same few buttons repeatedly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Vladamir Putin said:

An alliance based on maximizing effectiveness with the least amount of total effort will always benefit the most from the simplest mechanics possible.

And there is nothing more effortless than having a few people manage the growth of the entire alliance and having members attack in the same exact way, pressing the same few buttons repeatedly. 

 

 

Thats the thing though, shorter wars don't make it easier. Shorter wars, requires more staggered hits, more coordination to ensure cyclical beiges are covered, and if anything requires more effort in war planning, and coordination across alliances and coalitions. Shorter wars by no means makes the war cycles simpler, it reduces the grind and allows folks to get out cycles faster and or if people screw up, the effect is more, since you have less time to correct it. Five day wars, require folks to sit on their opponents and swat their rebuys and gives way to easier clicking. If anything, NPO suggesting such a change, would be counterproductive to our play style as you've so wonderfully stated above. 

Also I'm quite certain the total effort of effectively managing our system is quite high. It requires constant changes, constant interaction and an overall headache amongst for most of the alliance to ensure maximum effectiveness of the system to work. Alas, thats another debate though, nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Thats the thing though, shorter wars don't make it easier. Shorter wars, requires more staggered hits, more coordination to ensure cyclical beiges are covered, and if anything requires more effort in war planning, and coordination across alliances and coalitions.

>shorter wars require more staggered hits

3-4 day wars would likely prevent missiles and nukes being used to force a beige onto someone who doesn't want to beige you. So how will you fix that? Add resistance damage to nukes and missiles so the same strategy can be used in these new smaller war sessions? This also prevents someone from getting an extra opening to double-buy in the same war, often used to combo with counters. None of these changes have any specific problem that they're trying to solve, just randomly throwing out suggestions with random numbers and getting upset with people who criticize the lack of improvements. 

52 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Shorter wars by no means makes the war cycles simpler, it reduces the grind and allows folks to get out cycles faster and or if people screw up, the effect is more, since you have less time to correct it.

>simpler

There's your issue right there. Your goal shouldn't be to make the mechanics simpler, it should be setup to award those who can coordinate and punish those who can't. Making the game faster doesn't make it better.

Let's make wars 1 turn, 60x the fun!

52 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Five day wars, require folks to sit on their opponents and swat their rebuys and gives way to easier clicking. If anything, NPO suggesting such a change, would be counterproductive to our play style as you've so wonderfully stated above. 

3 day wars would increase the ratio of starting MAPs (5-6) used in war compared to the MAPs you gain over time. This would basically be a bootleg version of speeding up the game. This adds no new strategies, rather takes some away or you'd have to alter some numbers proportionally (missile/nuke example before). If you want this, just make updates every 12 hours and turns every hour, and the game will be twice as fast. 

52 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Also I'm quite certain the total effort of effectively managing our system is quite high. It requires constant changes, constant interaction and an overall headache amongst for most of the alliance to ensure maximum effectiveness of the system to work. Alas, thats another debate though, nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

I said total effort. Average out the total effort from every single person under this system, then compare it to if everyone managed their own nation, and it's not even close.

Also, can't blame the answer for being off-topic if you asked for it.


Another reason why lowering length of wars is a bad idea:

When updeclaring pretty high up, often you get into a situation where if you airstrike anymore, you'll end up beiging them, while they still have a ground/navy strong enough to beige you. Normally you'd have to choose between beiging or getting beiged in this situation. But with 3 day wars, there's a good chance the war could expire before that could happen, allowing you to pounce on them again without them having any chance to retaliate.



Now while i appreciate people posting the first idea that pops into their head, it would be nice for them to post many different war situations and break down how the new war system would increase the incentive to coordinate in all of them, rather than just how the new system has different numbers because they're bored of the old ones. 

Edited by Vladamir Putin
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dad said:

I think wars should be shortened to 48 or even 36 turns. Nobody is really slugging it out for the entire 5 days, especially after Fortify got nerfed. 60 turn wars also are the key of what makes "pin" blockade strategies so effective since you can strangle a nation for 5 days with one naval IT. I don't really have an essay to write about this, I just think 60 turns is way too long given current levels of resistance depletion per attack.

 

Edit: And this is blatantly self serving since the current warlength bores me to death.

God, no, just no, and more importantly please heck off.

The wars are just long enough to allow your cheesy bullcrap "pin" ""strategy"" to be countered by extremely efficient and dedicated play; doing what you ask here would make it COMPLETELY UNSTOPPABLE.

So, to reiterate: Please heck off.

If you actually want to shorten wars, then go ahead and do it; there's nothing stopping you from just taking that last hit and shortening the wars yourself.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a ban on all topics related to changing war mechanics during global wars by participants in those wars.

 

Also this is just generally a bad idea.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I am hearing is "NPO SUCKS!"?  

 

Am I right?!?!?!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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