Jump to content
Alex

Remove Beige Time for Losing Offensive Wars

Recommended Posts

War loss is still a war lose regardless of offensive or defensive. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking out offensive beige strats, is workable but you'd need to make some heavy changes to how beige works.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alex you said this is a problem. Then why not make the punishment for it harsher? 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheRebelMan said:

@Alex you said this is a problem. Then why not make the punishment for it harsher? 

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 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.

This has been war procedure since at least last war. Arrgh protocol is generally, if suppressed, go find neutrals or unaligns and start raiding them. You win, you get war loot, you lose, you get beiged. Is that not allowed?

Edited by Inst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alex 

War Slot & Espionage Filling

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.

Would you see a nation declaring war and doing very little to no damage, and the only goal is to circle through blockades, not the same as having no intention of fighting? you should change it from fighting to no intention of trying to win the war.


would this not be war slot filling and baiting to be beige, they attacked five people yet they have no ships, no tanks, no planes and a handful of troops

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=117071&display=war

might add this is no difference to what they claim sphinx has done.

Edited by Elijah Mikaelson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

@Alex 

War Slot & Espionage Filling

"Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them"

*Snip*

Would you see a nation declaring war and doing very little to no damage, and the only goal is to circle through blockades, not the same as having no intention of fighting? you should change it from fighting to no intention of trying to win the war.

Here's the thing: tactics often require an intentional sacrifice for others to be able to win.  If that means I "lose" my war, I'm ok with that,  because the team wins in the end.  IMO, that's totally different than me "not fighting," it's me fighting (however ineffectual my attacks) in a strategic way to reduce enemy defenses enough for someone else to win. Do we really want to insist that you must have "intent" (subjective, must be interpreted by admin/mods for enforcement) to "win" a war when declaring? 

 

We already know that "beiging is bad" because the enemy rebuilds if it isn't done in a strategic way.  I don't think Alex ever "intended" that, but that's me interpreting that I think he wanted it to be a straightforward way to benefit the "winning" nation in war, without foreseeing the unintended effects.

 

Now, as a result of the war mechanics and incremental changes to them causing even more convoluted strategies, we ALL (except Arrgh, or when raiding) avoid "winning" wars because "winning" too many individual wars causes the large-scale wars to be extended longer.

 

All of these counterintuitive tactics, from the first T$/Jessica Rabbit strategies, and including MaxAir, NoShip, 1-Ship, downselling, score-capping & tiering, etc., began with clever people realizing that the war system had begun to inadvertently present disincentives to operating within "normal" war strategies.  They simply did math and figured out the best M.O. based on the best outcomes.

 

At its core, this whole thing is a reflection of deeper issues in war mechanics.  I'm not sure anyone, from Alex down to any alliance with complaints, has a comprehensive plan for a complete, fair, and straightforward remake of the war mechanic to make it more logical.

 

In short, simply changing the wording to "you must intend to win" is so subjective, and impossible with the current mechanics, as to be completely unenforceable with any degree of fairness or impartiality.  It would be unfair to ask any admin or mod to consistently enforce that rule in a logically defensible way.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malal said:

Anti-Memesphere: How dare sphinx use our tactics and attack nations to bait beige, let's report this to sheepy!

Sheepy: Okay, well I think I have just the change to solve this issue permanently 

Anti-Memesphere: Wait no

Literally none of us were complaining about this mechanic. Attacking enemy or unaligned nation's with poor beige discipline has always been a tactic and nobody to my knowledge has really complained about it. 

Attacking the protectorate of your direct allies and trying to pay them to beige you is something else entirely. If Smith was hitting blackfyre nation's to get beiged I'm sure you'd all be reporting him. I know I would be. 

1 hour ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

@Alex

Would you see a nation declaring war and doing very little to no damage, and the only goal is to circle through blockades, not the same as having no intention of fighting? you should change it from fighting to no intention of trying to win the war.

would this not be war slot filling and baiting to be beige, they attacked five people yet they have no ships, no tanks, no planes and a handful of troops

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=117071&display=war
 

The problem here is there are legitimate reasons to attack someone with no hope of victory. Maybe you are going to suicide in to help someone else or just be an annoying ankle biter. Maybe you're Od and occupied but plan to missile/nuke in a guerilla campaign a la 69 day war. I suppose attacking and doing literally nothing ever wouldn't be much of a fight, but even still it is on the enemy to actually reward you with the beige. I can't see it as applying to any of the current rules, though I could see the argument for a new rule in those edge cases. I think it would be very hard to define though.

Edited by Mikey
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

@Alex 

War Slot & Espionage Filling
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=117071&display=war

might add this is no difference to what they claim sphinx has done.

You underestimate the power of a double buy against low city dudes. This is a valid tactic. Also, nukes and missles are valid in terms of tactics. 

Also, as someone already mentioned, we are at war with your side. If you want to deny that, well, idk what to tell you. What Sphinx did was literally bribe people to beige him. Thats A) morally wrong, and B ) abuse of the war mechanics. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Literally none of us were complaining about this mechanic. Attacking enemy or unaligned nation's with poor beige discipline has always been a tactic and nobody to my knowledge has really complained about it. 

Attacking the protectorate of your direct allies and trying to pay them to beige you is something else entirely. If Smith was hitting blackfyre nation's to get beiged I'm sure you'd all be reporting him. I know I would be. 

Mikey, you've been in SK for 5 years, you of all people should know better than to assume "allies" of allies means anything.

Edited by Malal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Malal said:

Mikey, you've been in SK for 5 years, you of all people should know better than to assume "allies" of allies means anything.

Didnt this whole war escalate because of allies of allies joining into the fray? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Sphinx: show where he paid the guys he attacked to beige him. I've checked bank records, and nothing untoward seems to have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the current war meta requires some kind of change. I'm basically losing on purpose so I can win long term. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to fix war mechanics first, and then worry about beidge........

 

right now a 30 city whale can demolish a 15 city guy, all thanks to the broken score system. A 30 city whale has DOUBLE the military capacity as a 15 nation.

2 minutes 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.

 

BEST IDEA EVER......

 

This would end the cycling of nations at 6 resistance, and would in effect make wars usefull.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

I think you need to fix war mechanics first, and then worry about beidge........

 

right now a 30 city whale can demolish a 15 city guy, all thanks to the broken score system. A 30 city whale has DOUBLE the military capacity as a 15 nation.

BEST IDEA EVER......

 

This would end the cycling of nations at 6 resistance, and would in effect make wars usefull.

 

There’s a few refinements that have been suggested before the last several times I’ve suggested it, but the general idea is the same

it just plain makes you want to win where you can, since if you’ve won you’ve won, and if you’ve lost you’ve lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Malal said:

Mikey, you've been in SK for 5 years, you of all people should know better than to assume "allies" of allies means anything.

Hey, we know that even direct allies doesn't always mean something ;) But the rules have been pretty consistently applied not just to hitting your own AA, but allies as well. Attacking a prot of a direct ally runs quite close to that line, especially considering he felt the need to ditch his own AA when doing so. To say nothing of the payment. Whether or not you think that skirts under being an infraction, it's definitely not the same as attacking enemy nations with a disincentive to beige you, in the hopes that they will mess up and do so.

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.