Remove Beige Time for Losing Offensive Wars

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Reduce war length to 3 days from 5.

Oh HELL no, you want to remove the possibility of nuke/missile beiges? HELL no, and frick you for even considering the notion.

[kosmokenny]

Well he already nerfed 3 of my war slots to only be worth 50% damage, now he's coming for the 5 he didn't nerf.  Chances are good hes gonna do something like that next just to make asymmetric war utterly impossible 

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Oh HELL no, you want to remove the possibility of nuke/missile beiges? HELL no, and frick you for even considering the notion.

Well lowering MAPs required for Nukes and missiles could be doable in that scenario. Getting Nuked is always good. I wouldn't lower the other attacks though.Nuclear proliferation would go through the roof and that's always a bonus.

[Buorhann]

@Sphinx - Can you provide evidence on those you claim to do the same thing as you’ve done?

[Alex]

21 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Here’s another solution that’ll solve the issue: ALL wars result in beige. Higher resistance at the end wins. If both sides same resistance, both lose resources/infra without gaining any resources but both are beiged anyway and both nations increment their lost wars stat.

turning off beige for losing offensives would mean that beige can’t be stacked enough to escape blockade lockdown. It comes down to intent and discipline right now, but my solution means lockdown can ALWAYS be escaped no matter the opponent, making it impossible to bully anyone out of existence.

I would point out that I’m saying this, and have said it consistently. Spin that to your narratives if you can, IQ, but this is OOC.

I think this is worth exploring / testing on the test server.

[ArcKnox]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

I think this is worth exploring / testing on the test server. 

Resource looting and infra destruction should be limited to 0 res beige if you're going to do this.

[True King]

Without being able to get beiged, I think more would be likely to quit after losing; since beige gives rebuild time as they decide on a next move. Already the war system can be pretty time demanding on a continuous basis for those at war often.

[Sir Scarfalot]

3 hours ago, ArcKnox said:

Resource looting and infra destruction should be limited to 0 res beige if you're going to do this.

You mean, like, if an attack actually causes the beige then loot/infra damage of beige applies, but if it's expiration beige then it doesn't? It's a fair suggestion, though I'm not sure about it myself.

[Avakael]

Declaring offensive wars that you can't possibly win in the hope that dumb people will beige you isn't exactly a new tactic.

[True King]

29 minutes ago, Avakael said:

Declaring offensive wars that you can't possibly win in the hope that dumb people will beige you isn't exactly a new tactic.

If you max your declares, you can often force wars where they lose if they don’t finish you off as well. Although I think it’s a valid tactic if your infra is wrecked anyways & you want to max your time on beige.

[Sir Scarfalot]

46 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

If you max your declares, you can often force wars where they lose if they don’t finish you off as well. Although I think it’s a valid tactic if your infra is wrecked anyways & you want to max your time on beige.

 

1 hour ago, Avakael said:

Declaring offensive wars that you can't possibly win in the hope that dumb people will beige you isn't exactly a new tactic.

Both of these are valid tactics; it's a matter of intent. Declaring on a friendly and encouraging or outright paying for beige, that's when it becomes slotfilling

[Avakael]

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Both of these are valid tactics; it's a matter of intent. Declaring on a friendly and encouraging or outright paying for beige, that's when it becomes slotfilling

It's absolutely slot filling.

[Dwynn]

It's not slotfilling. Slotfilling was very clearly *cough vaguely cough* defined (formatted for highlight):
"Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule."

If they're declaring or paying for beige and the other person is beiging them, there is intentional fighting. Now if the person getting beiged doesn't fight, is that slot filling? Because if that's the case, there are nations that get declared on all the time and are inactive and don't fight back, they would then be victims of the slot-filling rule. This isn't slot filling... This is something else. And if it's going to be a rule, it needs to be very clearly defined.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Dwynn

[Torleif]

On 7/1/2019 at 11:39 PM, Alex said:

I would not implement this until the major war was over. I am simply looking for feedback at this time, whether you think it is a good or bad idea. 

I quit the game because of the way wars work now. There is something seriously wrong with a game that claims, in the wiki, that

"Another primary use of Score is to ensure that only similarly sized nations are able to declare war on each other. This prevents very large nations from picking on very small nations."

But then in reality one sees 25-city nations, having sold their infra and military, declaring on 10-city nations (and rebuilding mil afterwards).

 But what got me was the sheer bloody tedium of not being able to defeat bigger opponents when I could because  of the advantage beige would have given them. Specific example: 3 20-city nations declare on my 12-city nation. Two have only troops, one has a few planes and tanks. So I get some satisfaction striking those planes and tanks. But for the other two I quickly realize (especially as these guys all have ground control) that the amount of gas and munitions it costs me to strike their soldiers is far more than the cost of replacing the 20k soldiers I can kill. Similarly,  infra strikes it seem pointless, they are expensive and they have so little infra left. So I just sit there in my fortressed nation and they launch the occasional ground strike, after which we both buy soldiers.

And I though to myself, three more months of this dismal tedium? For this I built my nation? Where's the delete button? If the suggestion had been implemented and I had been able to defeat them without beiging them, I might have had an incentive to continue the game, or at least continue it longer.

Games have to be fun. These sorts of wars aren't fun. I might be able to put up with it for two or three weeks, but not for months, and certainly not several times a year.

P.S.: I am well aware that as someone who quit I have no right to post here, and will not do so again, but I think Alec might be interested to hear why someone quit, and that his suggestion might have kept them in the game longer.

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Torleif

[Migraine d'al Braskia]

8 hours ago, Torleif said:

-snip-

 

Uhuu! Go girl, speak your mind! We support you!
#alexonaspike

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

I don't know, if I was a 20 city nation and with two other 20 city nations, i could lose to a single 12 city nation, I would be pretty pissed off.

[KiWilliam]

On 7/2/2019 at 5:46 PM, Alex said:

I think this is worth exploring / testing on the test server.

I believe the test server should be used for explicitly that; to test every single change that is intended to go to the live server. The test server =/= the real one, but throwing changes into the real game blindly isn't a good practice for many reasons. I will always support the test server being utilized.

[Wendell]

[True King]

If anything people not finishing off wars to prevent someone from being beiged is a work around the meant break from war beige is meant to give. If someone uses their offense slots to try getting beiged as a work around to that, don’t see why it’s a problem or people complaining.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Lu Xun]

18 hours ago, Torleif said:

I quit the game because of the way wars work now. There is something seriously wrong with a game that claims, in the wiki, that

"Another primary use of Score is to ensure that only similarly sized nations are able to declare war on each other. This prevents very large nations from picking on very small nations."

But then in reality one sees 25-city nations, having sold their infra and military, declaring on 10-city nations (and rebuilding mil afterwards).

 But what got me was the sheer bloody tedium of not being able to defeat bigger opponents when I could because  of the advantage beige would have given them. Specific example: 3 20-city nations declare on my 12-city nation. Two have only troops, one has a few planes and tanks. So I get some satisfaction striking those planes and tanks. But for the other two I quickly realize (especially as these guys all have ground control) that the amount of gas and munitions it costs me to strike their soldiers is far more than the cost of replacing the 20k soldiers I can kill. Similarly,  infra strikes it seem pointless, they are expensive and they have so little infra left. So I just sit there in my fortressed nation and they launch the occasional ground strike, after which we both buy soldiers.

And I though to myself, three more months of this dismal tedium? For this I built my nation? Where's the delete button? If the suggestion had been implemented and I had been able to defeat them without beiging them, I might have had an incentive to continue the game, or at least continue it longer.

Games have to be fun. These sorts of wars aren't fun. I might be able to put up with it for two or three weeks, but not for months, and certainly not several times a year.

P.S.: I am well aware that as someone who quit I have no right to post here, and will not do so again, but I think Alec might be interested to hear why someone quit, and that his suggestion might have kept them in the game longer.

 

There's an in-game tactical counter. However, I agree that up-declaring down-declaring is way too strong at this point.

[Kyubnyan]

On 7/1/2019 at 6:07 PM, Alex said:

It's pretty impossible to know for sure when someone is declaring an offensive war hoping to win and hoping to lose. I'm going to end up punishing a lot of people that aren't intentionally losing offensive wars, but because they benefit from it, it looks like they are doing it on purpose.

Are you kidding me! We can’t even fight losing wars now? Are you going to punish people who declare war with 0 ships and then lose because for some reason naval triumphs are worth more than air? This is honestly ridiculous could you please clarify what you mean?

[Leo]

Just rework the entire war system, its too one-dimensional as is.
Fix the down-declaring of nations, I'm sick of having to fight against guys that can double buy my max aircraft/tanks.
Add a cap of 3-5 city difference between attacker & defender ^
Add a Vault/Smuggler project to store/buy a capped amount of resources while in a blockade.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Dusk

[True King]

Buorhann complains to Alex someone found a way to be beiged despite his best efforts to prevent it.

Alex breaks game in response.

Just tell those complaining beige is meant to give a break between rounds anyways & not care about what the very small minority thinks here.

[Azaghul]

Adding my support to the "all wars should result in beige" idea.

A couple other additional ideas:

1) War ends if no one has launched an attack for 12 turns.

2) If your opponent is in beige you can end the war.

3) You can't get out of beige until at least half your beige time has expired.

[ArcKnox]

On 7/4/2019 at 11:36 AM, Torleif said:

I quit the game because of the way wars work now. There is something seriously wrong with a game that claims, in the wiki, that

"Another primary use of Score is to ensure that only similarly sized nations are able to declare war on each other. This prevents very large nations from picking on very small nations."

But then in reality one sees 25-city nations, having sold their infra and military, declaring on 10-city nations (and rebuilding mil afterwards).

 But what got me was the sheer bloody tedium of not being able to defeat bigger opponents when I could because  of the advantage beige would have given them. Specific example: 3 20-city nations declare on my 12-city nation. Two have only troops, one has a few planes and tanks. So I get some satisfaction striking those planes and tanks. But for the other two I quickly realize (especially as these guys all have ground control) that the amount of gas and munitions it costs me to strike their soldiers is far more than the cost of replacing the 20k soldiers I can kill. Similarly,  infra strikes it seem pointless, they are expensive and they have so little infra left. So I just sit there in my fortressed nation and they launch the occasional ground strike, after which we both buy soldiers.

And I though to myself, three more months of this dismal tedium? For this I built my nation? Where's the delete button? If the suggestion had been implemented and I had been able to defeat them without beiging them, I might have had an incentive to continue the game, or at least continue it longer.

Games have to be fun. These sorts of wars aren't fun. I might be able to put up with it for two or three weeks, but not for months, and certainly not several times a year. 

P.S.: I am well aware that as someone who quit I have no right to post here, and will not do so again, but I think Alec might be interested to hear why someone quit, and that his suggestion might have kept them in the game longer. 

 

It's not the game's fault your gov chooses to use this specific strategy.