Jump to content

Surrender option


Angel Lara
 Share

Recommended Posts

What it says on the title. The surrendered nation would give away loot and lose infrastructure as usual. The winning nation would have no choice but to accept the surrender. The surrendered nation should probably be sent away to the beige bloc.

As it is right now, not only you have to give away loot and lose infrastructure in the end; you also have to watch the enemy plundering small amounts of money and destroying your infrastructure for the lulz.

Edited by Angel Lara
Beige bloc
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Angel Lara said:

What it says on the title. The surrendered nation would give away loot and lose infrastructure as usual. The winning nation would have no choice but to accept the surrender. The surrendered nation should probably be sent away to the beige bloc.

As it is right now, not only you have to give away loot and lose infrastructure in the end; you also have to watch the enemy plundering small amounts of money and destroying your infrastructure for the lulz.

Not sure we share the same definition of surrender. Usually the losing party is in no position to dictate terms.

It's also mechanically unclear how you would "force" the nation to accept the surrender.

Edited by rapmanej
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rapmanej And in real life ground superiority usually doesn't negate air superiority, but what do we know.

This wouldn't be a way of "opting out" of a war. The losing party would lose resources and infrastructure as normal.

As for forcing the nation to accept the surrender: the losing party would click the "surrender" option, the winning party would be notified of it, along with the amount of resources and money looted, and that would be it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Angel Lara said:

@Auctor Please explain.

getting into beige allows you to restock and infrastructure damage isn't as significant as having mil maxed. Under this system nations with less than max mil would just surrender all their wars and reenter when restocked.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pointless addition imo.

If you send them off beige, people will surrender ASAP to preserve most of their military and avoid unfavorable matchups, which would make it practically impossible to zero someone, ever. Thus, it'd be unbalanced. 

Since it'd be fundamentally broken for war, it can't beige. And if it doesn't send off to beige, there's literally no point in surrendering since it's damages you'll take sooner or later. All it achieves in an alliance war is that your slots will be freed up more often for your adversaries to re-slot.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Changes.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I could see this work is if there was a cool-down and the surrendering nation couldn't declare offensive wars for a short time period after.  Hell, you could even make it only usable if the attackers army value was significantly higher than the defender or vice versa.

 

 

Quote

Then it can be made so surrendered nations don't enter the beige bloc, as it is right now with the peace option.

Isn't that just pointless then? Lose 4% of your infra/loot and just clear a warslot for someone else. At a certain point it's more viable to just take the beating.

Edited by River
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I like the premise of a surrender option I think it should still have to be accepted by the attacker just like peace. 

You have to understand that in large scale alliance wars people don't always biege their opponents, they allow it to expire so that more forces can continue the assault and keep them pinned. This would be essentially game breaking if they can biege themselves and rebuild when they otherwise would not be bieged.

Another issue is there would be nothing stopping a pirate from building up his infra and improvements then just putting all resources in their bank and just declaring on a bunch of inactives and surrendering to burn the infra away while keeping a large amount of overloaded improvements slots, they would then have a much lower score and could attack nations with much lower city counts than them while maintaining max military improvements.

A low infra count trader could also do the same just for the biege shield time so they could put billions in cash & rss into the market without risk of being raided.

Nebthet Seshat Asetneferu-Meritra Satsekhem Netjeretkhau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, simply having war expiration result in beige would do exactly enough to solve the problem that this suggestion addresses and more besides.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
meh
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surrender option can be made viable
Once you surrender, you don't go into beige
You lose same amounts of loots as you would in case you were beiged but no infra loss
The nations cannot hit each other for 12 turns as is the standard
And surrender will have to be two sided

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kurnugia said:

It's a really bad idea. It would make alliance wars utterly boring. Since most would give up and hug their pixels. The surrender has to be controlled by the game. Not by the players

 

7 hours ago, Angel Lara said:

The thing is I assume most people wouldn't accept a surrender. You win a lot more by constantly attacking someone weaker, looting small amounts of money.

If anything, most people that understand the war system wouldn't offer a surrender under such terms; it'd be just as bad for the dogpiled party as a truce.

@Kurnugiais right, the game mechanics absolutely need to be controlled by the game in this circumstance.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Angel Lara said:

The thing is I assume most people wouldn't accept a surrender. You win a lot more by constantly attacking someone weaker, looting small amounts of money.

Actually resource loot and bank loot many times is worth much more than cash loot and it frees the raider to hit another and force them to surrender. The cash from ground attacks is usually quite negligible in comparison to resource loot especially since if they're active they can (and should) just liquidate the cash if under blockade by dumping it Infra, baseball team, land, etc. And if not blockaded they could just put it in their alliance bank.

Another issue with this suggestion is if they decide to send the surrender most likely the alliance bank would be moved to a nation for safekeeping and if not blockaded so would their nation loot. So actually I retract proposed change and oppose the idea entirely.

However I will like this post for balance purposes so your reputation isn't low from all the downvotes. Since once negative it usually snowballs from there and gets worse and your ideas aren't necessarily bad it's just that your still pretty new and still learning and I don't want you to be hated for that. 

 

Just trust us on this, it seems like a good idea if you don't know better but it's just too easily exploitable even if it required mutual acceptance.

 

  • Upvote 1

Nebthet Seshat Asetneferu-Meritra Satsekhem Netjeretkhau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2018 at 6:47 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

@Kurnugiais right, the game mechanics absolutely need to be controlled by the game in this circumstance.

I think we had something like this long ago
I've only seen it in screenshots though
I think long ago, doing 6 consecutive IT GAs forced the people to surrender

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, TheShadow said:

I think we had something like this long ago
I've only seen it in screenshots though
I think long ago, doing 6 consecutive IT GAs forced the people to surrender

Yes, the issue was people started just doing naval battles and airstrikes to perpetuate the wars beyond sanity and never actually "winning", in order to avoid ever allowing the opponent to surrender. Which was extremely imbalanced.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Yes, the issue was people started just doing naval battles and airstrikes to perpetuate the wars beyond sanity and never actually "winning", in order to avoid ever allowing the opponent to surrender. Which was extremely imbalanced.

Man I remember them days back when I started. Nukes used to biege as well and you couldn't see how many people had without an Intel report (though it used to still effect score so there were ways to calculate them without using spies)

People used to always go back and forth to 4 or 5 IT ground attacks and then the other would turn it around and do 4 or 5.

1 v 1s with two active players used to almost always expire either for the reasons you mentioned or simply because they kept going back and forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ukunaka said:

Man I remember them days back when I started. Nukes used to biege as well and you couldn't see how many people had without an Intel report (though it used to still effect score so there were ways to calculate them without using spies)

People used to always go back and forth to 4 or 5 IT ground attacks and then the other would turn it around and do 4 or 5.

1 v 1s with two active players used to almost always expire either for the reasons you mentioned or simply because they kept going back and forth.

That is what rose colored glasses look like, because if someone got 4-5 IT ground attacks in, there was no way it was turning around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could work only IF there was severe consequences. The 1st being that the surrending nation is NOT allowed to rebuild their military for the duration of the beige period. The second is that the loot recieved is DOUBLED. 50% of all revenue (both resources and money) are collected by the winner during the beige period (before taxes). Any trades (including bank withdrawls/deposits) would be subject to a 25% tax by the winning nation (resources and money, yes this is double taxation) 

 

The loser gets an extradinarily long beige period (could be agreed upon by warring nations, or be a set amount of days-lets say 2 weeks) that they are not able to get out of beige until the timer expires. The losing nation is allowed to keep his pixels. Any remaining nukes/missiles are automaticly dismantled before any loot is given. 

 

Thoughts? This is probably better used by whales since they have the pixels to make it beneficiary. It also addresses most of your concerns. Probably should be done in the test server first and foremost before it reaches here.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paul Warburg said:

This could work only IF there was severe consequences.

The 1st being that the surrending nation is NOT allowed to rebuild their military for the duration of the beige period.

The second is that the loot recieved is DOUBLED. 50% of all revenue (both resources and money) are collected by the winner during the beige period (before taxes). [Maybe. Perhaps a lower percentage; around 30-40%]

Any trades (including bank withdrawls/deposits) would be subject to a 25% tax by the winning nation (resources and money, yes this is double taxation) 

The loser gets an extradinarily long beige period (could be agreed upon by warring nations, or be a set amount of days-lets say 2 weeks) that they are not able to get out of beige until the timer expires.

The losing nation is allowed to keep his pixels. Any remaining nukes/missiles are automaticly dismantled before any loot is given. 

Thoughts? This is probably better used by whales since they have the pixels to make it beneficiary. It also addresses most of your concerns. Probably should be done in the test server first and foremost before it reaches here.

Greetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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