Make Utter Failures Cost Resistance

[J Kell]

Pretty simple, make it so Utter Failures cost resistance.  This is more realistic and makes the war progress more naturally.  

It would also discourage losing nations to cheat the system and send in a few planes or ships to waste the winner's WC.

Nothing crazy, just a 5 resistance loss would do.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Balish
Added More Detail!

[Roq]

Seems like fun, but I'm at the losing end of that spectrum far too much, being a TKR non-supporter, and a neutral in the war. Sadly, this wouldn't suit my needs, and therefore I shall down vote this and hope that it fails.... 

 

 

Jk jk, this actually seems like a nice idea, and  it's something that I would like to see. 

[Vladamir Putin]

25 minutes ago, Balish said:

Pretty simple, make it so Utter Failures cost resistance.  This is more realistic and makes the war progress more naturally.  

It would also discourage losing nations to cheat the system and send in a few planes or ships to waste the winner's WC.

Nothing crazy, just a 5 resistance loss would do.

Seems like a fun idea.

However, what would prevent someone from giving themselves lots of beige time by declaring war on random people in order to spam 50 soldier ground attacks to beige themselves? And would that be considered slot-filling?

Also, iirc, when you send just a few units in an attack, it wastes almost no resources from the defender.
 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Vladamir Putin

[Sir Scarfalot]

35 minutes ago, Vladamir Putin said:

Seems like a fun idea.

However, what would prevent someone from giving themselves lots of beige time by declaring war on random people in order to spam 50 soldier ground attacks to beige themselves? And would that be considered slot-filling?

Also, iirc, when you send just a few units in an attack, it wastes almost no resources from the defender.
 

Yeah, as far as I can tell the game only costs the defender something like a maximum of twice the unit value of the attack in resources... like if you spent 50 soldiers and a tank in an attack against someone with 100k soldiers and 10k tanks, the defender would therefore only be charged for the use of 100 soldiers and 2 tanks. I may be way off in my understanding of this, but it's roughly what I've observed in the few cases when some schmo suicides against me.

And more importantly, being able to beige oneself in that manner isn't really what I'd like to see. I wouldn't be opposed to a direct surrender function though, wherein one party in war has the option to "surrender" and thus automatically beige themselves, with all the normal penalties of beige... IF they can only do this when they have zero military of any sort, and executing the surrender depletes their military buying power for that day as well. That way it can't be used to triple raid someone under beige that easily.

[J Kell]

On 11/13/2018 at 1:08 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

And more importantly, being able to beige oneself in that manner isn't really what I'd like to see. I wouldn't be opposed to a direct surrender function though, wherein one party in war has the option to "surrender" and thus automatically beige themselves, with all the normal penalties of beige... IF they can only do this when they have zero military of any sort, and executing the surrender depletes their military buying power for that day as well. That way it can't be used to triple raid someone under beige that easily.

1

I am thinking also for the endless war system some alliances roll with.  If one nation knocks resistance down to 10 and then just sets around for the rest of time so it expires, I think there should be an out for the nation being attacked.