War: There's got to be a better way.

[Despartainian]

I understand that the current system in place to prevent larger nations from stomping newer, weaker nations--but it presents a problem.

 

Today, I was messaged by one of my alliance leaders asking me if I could lend a hand to another member who was being attacked. I was the only one besides him in the group that wasn't beige. I was happy to do this, but I wasn't able to attack because the person's score was signifigantly lower than mine. I think that's a problem. We're having to watch this guy get stomped beacause our armies are too large to help.

 

I don't know what a better way would be, but there has to be one. I mean, if a nation decides that they don't want to be beige anymore, they take on the consequences of that choice.

[Dark Specter]

You can send your ally money and resources to fight his war

[Shellhound]

Send your ally resources and money, teach him how to grow better to be closer to you or how to fight back. Big nations shouldn't be allowed to stomp smaller ones just because someone in their alliance doesn't know how to war.

[Despartainian]

That's the thing though. I can send him all the aid I want, but Alliances should be a war detterant. Attacking someone in an alliance should bring the threat of retalation from stronger nations. You join an alliance so you don't stand alone when attacked. Resources are only a portion of what an alliance should provide.

 

I'm not saying that I should be allowed to fight, but the ability to lend soldiers or otherwise aid beyond resources.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Despartainian

[Dark Specter]

Then message the attackers alliances gov explaining what happened.

[Alex]

Your smaller, beige nations can also leave beige to assist your member being attacked. As others have suggested, sending your member money and resources can also be a deciding factor. Spy attacks are also not limited by score, you can run espionage operations against the target regardless of the discrepancy in score.

 

As a further safety check, if your alliance mate loses his war he gets to be Beige for the next 5 turns to recover.

[Despartainian]

I guess I just feel as though there should be more options. A single suggestion, just hear me out.

 

• The Ability to add soldiers to the alliance "Bank", or some other way. Basically, a promise that, should a nation in the alliance go to war, there are extra untis from other nations to back them up without those nations actually getting involved or fighting. It would be a completely voluntary thing--you wouldn't necessarily have to put soldiers into this "Bank", and it would be up to the leaders of the alliance and/or the nation that would be providing them if the recipent is worthy, so to speak. Maybe a limit to the amount of soldiers a nation could draw out as well, I don't know. I would probably limit it to soldiers though, so that people aren't just trading tanks, planes, and missiles around willy-nilly.

Other than that, I concede that there are plenty of ways to help, and I understand why the system is the way it is. I just think there's probably a better way, though I can't think of one. So, I'll shut up for now and let it go.

[Taureg]

I guess I just feel as though there should be more options. A single suggestion, just hear me out.

 

• The Ability to add soldiers to the alliance "Bank", or some other way. Basically, a promise that, should a nation in the alliance go to war, there are extra untis from other nations to back them up without those nations actually getting involved or fighting. It would be a completely voluntary thing--you wouldn't necessarily have to put soldiers into this "Bank", and it would be up to the leaders of the alliance and/or the nation that would be providing them if the recipent is worthy, so to speak. Maybe a limit to the amount of soldiers a nation could draw out as well, I don't know. I would probably limit it to soldiers though, so that people aren't just trading tanks, planes, and missiles around willy-nilly.

Other than that, I concede that there are plenty of ways to help, and I understand why the system is the way it is. I just think there's probably a better way, though I can't think of one. So, I'll shut up for now and let it go.

 

The better way, is better alliance management.  Mentor your new players so they're prepared, and provide them with support.  If the higher tier members are going leave the lower tier members high and dry that's an alliance problem and isn't anything the game should make special accommodations for. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by Taureg

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Another method is to sell off soldiers to reduce your score, then hit your target...

[Kadin The First]

Personally, I don't see the harm in being able to send aid directly in the form of military units, and have advocated for that in the past. I still think it would make a nice addition to the game.

[Dwynn]

Because it's overpowering and easily abusable. That's why.

[Alex]

Personally, I don't see the harm in being able to send aid directly in the form of military units, and have advocated for that in the past. I still think it would make a nice addition to the game.

 

I've always liked the idea of being able to buy and sell arms on the market, but Malone pretty much sums up my concerns:

 

Because it's overpowering and easily abusable. That's why.

[Despartainian]

That's just lazy thinking. I am sure there are ways to regulate it to make abuse more difficult.

[Dwynn]

That's just lazy thinking. I am sure there are ways to regulate it to make abuse more difficult.

 

There are, have your nation be prepared. I'll explain why it's abusable and overpowering using your own very predicament.

 

You have a small nation who hasn't been fielding a sufficient military. Why? One can only guess it's because they can't afford it. You sending them troops which they cannot afford (as they're not maintaining it on their own) immediately puts them into a situation where they're unable to pay for their upkeep most likely. So "Little Nation A" then suddenly has more troops than they can muster and upkeep on their own, which triggers the upkeep issue shutting down power to the nation, which then leaves the nation in a deeper hole than it started. And this is just because of your well-meaning attempt to help.

 

Taking it a step further, thinking longer range here. I'm a larger nation, I am fielding a smallarmy. We're about to go to war, so I declare on a target, then my alliance mates send me "military aid" which puts me 1) at max capacity, 2) unfairly skirts the military purchase limitations. Simply an overpowered mechanic that you're suggesting.

 

Sure, Sheepy could spend time and effort coding this in so you can babysit nations that cannot take care of themselves. Or you could have proper alliance skills and teach nations the importance of managing their nation properly so they don't become targets.

[Despartainian]

Fair, I concede my point. You're right.