Jump to content

Recommended Posts

WOuld eb another factor in war. It would give defenders a buff, especally if they are gangbanged

 

So defender starts with 10 WM, while attacker starts with 0 WM

 

if attacker gets a phyrric victory, or a utter faliure, then the defender gets a boost in WM, while attacker looses it

 

if defnder gets any victory then WM goes up

 

the exact effect of WM x can eb determned later.

 

but is the idea good overall?

  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that the attacker starts with 0'WM'. But you also say that if the attacker gets a bad victory, the attacker loses WM? You have also never stated how the attacker gets WM in the first place. And why should a phyrric victory mean a lose in WM, it's a victory nonetheless. This idea needs a bit of a clean up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see how this is necessary. How does it effect/interact with existing mechanics? Right now, it’s basically just numbers going up and down without any purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 7:52 PM, Arizona Robbins said:

Learn to spell correctly kthx bye

you can repost my stuff after runnign it thourh your gammar nazi stuff.

 

On 3/1/2019 at 7:38 PM, AwesomeNova said:

I don’t see how this is necessary. How does it effect/interact with existing mechanics? Right now, it’s basically just numbers going up and down without any purpose.

That would have to be determeing by ALex, as i still do not know the exact numbers for the mechanics interaxction. Maybe it could increase/decrease your roll effectivness?

 

It is  just a base idea

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

you can repost my stuff after runnign it thourh your gammar nazi stuff.

It’s not grammar nazism. I go back on my statement I made on one of your other barely legible posts. You are playing an English speaking game, with the majority of its players speaking English. If you don’t learn how to speak basic English then I’m sorry we can’t do anything with your ideas (tbh they were all pretty bad anyway).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!@#$s i was brn in us, all yall ovr hr thnking im a immgrnat.......

 

i sav tim by not being a grmmr nazi and sll chck, if it dont make snese i correct ti l8r

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

!@#$s i was brn in us, all yall ovr hr thnking im a immgrnat.......

 

i sav tim by not being a grmmr nazi and sll chck, if it dont make snese i correct ti l8r

okay, see, it doesn't actually take that much more time to type properly. Not everyone can be a speedy typist, but it took me under a minute to write this. Do better.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

!@#$s i was brn in us, all yall ovr hr thnking im a immgrnat.......

 

i sav tim by not being a grmmr nazi and sll chck, if it dont make snese i correct ti l8r

Lmao it isnt that hard to use decent grammar. I use mobile and still can create functional sentences. 

 

#NoExcuse

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

!@#$s i was brn in us, all yall ovr hr thnking im a immgrnat.......

 

i sav tim by not being a grmmr nazi and sll chck, if it dont make snese i correct ti l8r

Sup. Argie here. English is my third language, yet I still put more effort into constructing proper sentences than you do. For starters, it makes it easier for others to understand what the frick you're trying to say. Secondly, it shows that you're putting at least an ounce of effort into it, rather than just shitting it out there. Thirdly, to consistently type out like this can and does lead to bad habits later on. You've got no excuses for your appalling, kindergarten-grade typing.

As for the proposal itself, it's nonsense. Firstly, as others have pointed out, Pyrrhic is still a victory, and it's coded as such in the resistance damage where it deals a reduced amount but still deals some damage in that regard. Utter failures are net neutrals for resistance so there's that too. Your proposal is inconsistent with current systems. Secondly, this notion that only defenders should benefit from war morale is nonsense. Both in real life and games, war morale goes both ways, or do you seriously think that events such as the quick fall of France in World War 2 didn't have a boosting effect on the German morale and war support? Thirdly, it wouldn't even achieve what you're seeking due to material disparity, unless the guys that are gang-banging on the other guy are that incompetent or that outmatched, in which case they would still have a hard time regardless of war morale. 

If you're having problems with being constantly gang-banged, either join a better alliance or improve your own. Don't waste Alex's time with such worthless additions.

The above took exactly 5 minutes and 13 microseconds to type out, for the record. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, guys, I will use Grammarly

 

my idea is that a costly victory (such as WW2 4 USSR), should have some downsides on the war itself.

 

like I said before, my idea is to only put a barebone out, not the full details, maybe only utter failures will lower morale. Or maybe utter failures will increase enemy resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

my idea is that a costly victory (such as WW2 4 USSR), should have some downsides on the war itself.

Well, they do; awful and marginal victories cause considerable attrition on the aggressor's force numbers, and perhaps more importantly waste MAPs, preventing them from making otherwise gainful actions. All this without requiring the defender to spend their own action points. Action points are a resource, don't waste them needlessly

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure his bad English was just him trolling, but alright.

3 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

Alright, guys, I will use Grammarly

I actually do recommend Grammarly. I use it on school papers and such. It's a good service.

Anyways, as for the suggestion itself, it's just not necessary. There's no need to add this feature. It's just changing things up for the sake of changing things up and there's no point to that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grammer Nazi aside, there is something we can build off of this abut lacking proposal. The basic idea of morale is basically this: (people are happy) = (buffs in war) 

So let's work with this. Morale can be based off of how many victories in a war, or based off of your government approval rating. So how about when a war is imitated, both sides have a base morale of 10, with 1 morale added per 20% of your government approval rating, so you can start with a max of 15 or a min of 10. Morale will go up or down depending on victories or defeats. So what will morale boost? The 3 options are either increase in casualties, increase of attack/defense rolls, a tiny boost in resistance damage, or any combination of the 3. Obviously resistance wouldn't be increased for nukes or missiles. 

Also I think morale shouldn't be a boost that is dependent on how much government rating or war victories you have, and instead boost you by a flat rate if you have more morale than your opponent. This way weak nations with low government ratings because of war loss won't take more than usual damage from their next opponent.

its a unique idea and having morale based on government rating would make people actually care about controlling their pollution, disease, and crime even more than just a cap for their troops.

Also I think the propaganda project should increase your morale by 1 as well.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 1:42 AM, James Hutton said:

 snip

How’s about for every 10% decease below 50% in government approval you lose 1 resistance point damage?

e.g at 41% resistance a ground battle will do 10 res damage.

At 40, it does 9.

At 30, it does 8.

etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

That would require a reshaping of the approval rating system, which is in the trash right now

 

23 hours ago, Ivan Ivanov said:

How’s about for every 10% decease below 50% in government approval you lose 1 resistance point damage?

e.g at 41% resistance a ground battle will do 10 res damage.

At 40, it does 9.

At 30, it does 8.

etc.

Yea the way the current approval rating works is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2019 at 2:11 PM, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

could you p[rose a more refined idea, thats hwy i post this stuff

Refine your spelling, gottem. That's all I wanted to say, bye now.

  • Downvote 1

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.