Jump to content
Avakael

Peace Terms.

Recommended Posts

I like this idea a lot.  

Makes both resistance and beige matter beyond simply existing to be exploited and offers more options for strategy.

Balancing it properly is the real challenge.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not wrong that beiging in war is more beneficial to the "loser" than not.  This particular idea seems a bit too complex for the game though, honestly.  Don't see anything wrong with the idea in general, but I also don't see how one could balance it out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps instead of having individual peace terms, alliances can set a top down policy that will automatically apply to all or specific nations in their alliance, set them up like tax groups. Would be much easier to manage and would not interrupt the flow of war with micromanaging terms for each war.

Ultimately this idea is probably way too much work for Alex.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

You're not wrong that beiging in war is more beneficial to the "loser" than not.  This particular idea seems a bit too complex for the game though, honestly.  Don't see anything wrong with the idea in general, but I also don't see how one could balance it out.

Balance issues would depend on the cost of each term. In general, standard terms (i.e. things that already happen today when you win a war) should probably be the cheaper ones; forcibly reducing the number of units you can buy and wide scale improvement destruction should be on the more expensive side. We might even start the switch by not having any optional terms that don't already happen at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devil is in the details, i.e, short beige could turn things into a "bounce the baby" game completely defeating the purpose of beige, long beige / punitive terms might drive people from the game.

 

Part of the issue is what kind of war system do we want? On one hand, having wars be too dependent on the blitz and the first few rounds of war is terrible. On the other hand, having wars last too long make them rather bland, like a sort of overgrown raid where the DoW and notice of surrender are signed on the same day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances need to be able to officially Declare War - Accept Peace in-game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wars should be on an alince vs allince level:

 

ie- i BK wants to hit TKR, then BK declares war on TKR as an allince. Nations are then randomly matched to opponents to fight (wihtout having a 20c whale hiting a f--- 10c)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2019 at 11:32 PM, Avakael said:

Currently, if you win a nation vs nation war, you have no dictation over what happens next. Often, the beige timer that your opponent is going to get will leave them better off than if you didn't win the war at all- especially if there's no money to loot.

Instead, I would suggest that as part of the act of winning a war, the victor should be able to declare terms. These terms could include all the things that currently happen, and more (and these are just ideas and examples);

  • Loot from the nation,
  • Loot from the alliance bank,
  • Not being able to declare new wars for a period of time,
  • Enforced debt (i.e. a portion of the opponents tax income is taken and handed to the victor until it is paid off),
  • Not being able to buy military units above a certain percentage for some time,
  • Forcible conscription of some opposing surviving military units,
  • Destruction of infrastructure,
  • Destruction of improvements (at random, so we can't forcibly choose hangars or power plants).

A beige timer would still exist, but the number of turns spent in beige would depend on the harshness of the terms inflicted. Therefore, if you won the war, and you chose to not attach terms, the beige timer should be relatively short (for example, 6 turns). If you won the war and decided to inflict as many terms as possible, the beige timer would be much longer.

The value of the terms inflicted, and thus the length of the beige timer, should be capped at no more than the percentage of resistance you won the war by. If you won by 6 resistance or less, you wouldn't be able to select any terms; if you won by 20, you'd be able to select maybe one thing, if you won by 50, something harsher, etc.

These changes are one possible idea, I'm sure there's other better ones to be thought of.

You just want people to rage quit more often and the game dies and you feel like you won.

Sit down, shut up, think, create strategies from the existing mechanics and stop trying to win the global by making one sided suggestiins. And if you think Alex will make that change in the middle of the global war you've thought totally and entirely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Deulos said:

You just want people to rage quit more often and the game dies and you feel like you won.

Sit down, shut up, think, create strategies from the existing mechanics and stop trying to win the global by making one sided suggestiins. And if you think Alex will make that change in the middle of the global war you've thought totally and entirely wrong.

Lmfao, dude. Syndi has a history going back like 3 years of imposing individual peace terms on enemy combatants. Individual as in, per nation not alliance. They have already done this and successfully too, it helped create the current political dynamic. It's kinda pointless, but 2 things are guaranteed to come from it if implemented:
1. Drama
2. Security

A lot of our agreements are offsite and we have no means of trusting people long term. This is similar to proposals around in-game banking / loans. Adding security to promote doing it :P If this was implemented we would 100% have more interesting peace terms. Whether or not peace terms are good is up for debate, but why else go to war? if not to gain something from your enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Epi said:

A lot of our agreements are offsite and we have no means of trusting people long term. This is similar to proposals around in-game banking / loans. Adding security to promote doing it :P If this was implemented we would 100% have more interesting peace terms. Whether or not peace terms are good is up for debate, but why else go to war? if not to gain something from your enemy.

All you are promoting is system of perpetual defeat for actual players and security for pixel huggers that then critise everyone who actually participates in the gameplay. This is not Farmville, you are free to download that on your phone and play it all you wish.

I wouldn't even call the OP a suggestion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Deulos said:

All you are promoting is system of perpetual defeat for actual players and security for pixel huggers that then critise everyone who actually participates in the gameplay. This is not Farmville, you are free to download that on your phone and play it all you wish.

I wouldn't even call the OP a suggestion.

How is setting your enemy back farmville? If anything it just means we have more brutal wars. Lmfao. We already have a system of perpetual defeat unless you've seen UPN win a war in the past half a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Epi said:
2 hours ago, Deulos said:

 

How is setting your enemy back farmville? If anything it just means we have more brutal wars. Lmfao. We already have a system of perpetual defeat unless you've seen UPN win a war in the past half a decade.

You're not paying attention!! Farmville isnt  competitive it's all about planting and trading and expanding into endless pixel land. There are no enemies.

 

UPN is literally raid bait not an actual alliance They exist just for the purpose of baiting raiders into traps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 2:55 AM, Deulos said:

You just want people to rage quit more often and the game dies and you feel like you won.

Sit down, shut up, think, create strategies from the existing mechanics and stop trying to win the global by making one sided suggestiins. And if you think Alex will make that change in the middle of the global war you've thought totally and entirely wrong.

How dare you out me. It's EZI for you, buddy.

You're not wrong that this change would put a lot more control in the hands of the war victor as to how the next rounds go. That's the intent. If you win the war, you should have that control. The trick is balancing the beige timer on a term by term basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh, looking back at all the old threads. It seems when harsher terms were imposed it actually left them as a stronger alliance. The moment they started dragging out wars, the communities started dying and the alliances fell apart. It's actually rather interesting, 'The only true means of victory is making the other guy delete' this is a common mantra in KT-TKR, I don't like to believe it, but it seems rather obvious with hindsight. 

Share this post


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

'The only true means of victory is making the other guy delete' this is a common mantra in KT-TKR, I don't like to believe it, but it seems rather obvious with hindsight. 

That's interesting since your ally over in BK likes to brag about how many people he has gotten to delete.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Epi said:

Tbh, looking back at all the old threads. It seems when harsher terms were imposed it actually left them as a stronger alliance. The moment they started dragging out wars, the communities started dying and the alliances fell apart. It's actually rather interesting, 'The only true means of victory is making the other guy delete' this is a common mantra in KT-TKR, I don't like to believe it, but it seems rather obvious with hindsight. 

Lolwhat.

No, that mantra is not common. Stop spewing bullshit. Where exactly do you get this claim from? KT laughs about it when it happens but it's not their modus operandi to defeat their enemies. It sure as hell isn't TKRs, their side last war experienced loss rates of 25% or more if they were lucky. 

And the people laughing and encouraging that were their attackers,.of which KT was not among, but BK oh so certainly was. It's the memory of that behavior that leaves some of them at near scarfalot levels of vindication, to the point of wanting to bleed you into dust.

Thankfully for everyone, their senses are getting the better of them. Infact to my knowledge the only alliance threatened with destruction by our side was a non combatants involved in taking our bank. 

Meanwhile, once again, sphinx stated the intentions were already there 

Capture.JPG

If you take issue to people behaving the way you described, I'd suggest you take it up with them. The only people over here who want what you claim don't have any real power to enforce that, compared to....

Well, if you care it's there to act on. Up to you.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

-stuff-

Fun fact, part of the impetus for creating Chaos was how disgusting some of the alliances in our previous coalition were. In my opinion the worst alliances were BK, Acadia, and UPN. Funny how it's always the alliances who need other people to do their heavy lifting that seem to have ideas about punishing other communities, isn't it? I'm glad Sphinx found friends that suit his play style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Epi said:

'The only true means of victory is making the other guy delete' this is a common mantra in KT-TKR, I don't like to believe it, but it seems rather obvious with hindsight. 

>Be KT
>Get rolled in 69 alongside TGH
>TRF wants to impose the harshest terms on you
>Get revenge war a couple of months down the line
>Impose no terms other than color change, don't even go for an official surrender
>Have people pretend that you gun for deletions even though you didn't go that route in the one situation you could've potentially done it

Truly KT man bad.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying they're evil for saying it, there is no innocent party. That's not how war works. And it's not exactly common among the members, but if you talk to the gov for more than 5min about war, that is how you reach victory. 

True victory is deletion, temporary victory is making the game unplayable by zeroing them and holding till peace. Ik there are economic and strategic motivations, but concerning just victory this isn't a secret or a surprise, lol. 

It's very easy to recover from war in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Epi said:

Tbh, looking back at all the old threads. It seems when harsher terms were imposed it actually left them as a stronger alliance. The moment they started dragging out wars, the communities started dying and the alliances fell apart. It's actually rather interesting, 'The only true means of victory is making the other guy delete' this is a common mantra in KT-TKR, I don't like to believe it, but it seems rather obvious with hindsight. 

I've always taken a stance that there's no pride in leading to someone deleting or driving people out of the game and we've never gunned for either of those as a goal of war. Your side on the other hand, has gleefully stated otherwise and has even touted it during peace negotiations:

2nKxtEx.png

Share this post


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

I'm not saying they're evil for saying it, there is no innocent party. That's not how war works. And it's not exactly common among the members, but if you talk to the gov for more than 5min about war, that is how you reach victory. 

True victory is deletion, temporary victory is making the game unplayable by zeroing them and holding till peace. Ik there are economic and strategic motivations, but concerning just victory this isn't a secret or a surprise, lol. 

It's very easy to recover from war in this game.

Talk to whose leadership? Again, BK, TCW, certainly. KT? Maybe? But id also imagine they'd follow up with saying they'd also delete because trolling is KTs thing.

My point is that the only people in power who are serious about that, are on one side of the aisle.

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.