Stronger Incentives to Win Wars needed

[Sardonic]

Currently, there is not enough of an incentive to win wars.  In many, arguably most cases right now, more damage is done during the war and implicitly as a result of the blockade than the final victory. The benefit of being put into beige mode is significantly too high too.  I would argue that increasing the velocity of wars and conflict in general would lead to more engaging combat overall, where counterintuative things like letting wars expire, or even intentionally losing the war are not the optimal strategy.

Rather than adding incentives through new systems or complexity I think the most straightforward improvement is to make two simple changes:

Infrastructure Damage from 4% to 8%

Maximum beige mode duration per war lost reduced to 16 hours.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Sardonic

[Sardonic]

39 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

This ruins the entire point OF beige mode, which is to prevent people from being pinned down forever. 

I've got bad news.  The current meta of the game is literally to keep people pinned down forever, hence people letting wars expire or even losing to prevent their opponent from receiving the reprieve.

Moreover, in the long run, beige mode isn't going to meaningfully prevent a nation's destruction in an alliance war, it's just dragging it out over a longer period.  It doesn't even do anything if properly cycled.  I believe the beige mode system should be replaced with something else that creates less counterintuative incentives, but that's a discussion for another day I expect.  Reducing the amount given would be a reasonable step to increasing war velocity.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Sardonic

[Azaghul]

4 hours ago, Sardonic said:

I've got bad news.  The current meta of the game is literally to keep people pinned down forever, hence people letting wars expire or even losing to prevent their opponent from receiving the reprieve.

Moreover, in the long run, beige mode isn't going to meaningfully prevent a nation's destruction in an alliance war, it's just dragging it out over a longer period.  It doesn't even do anything if properly cycled.  I believe the beige mode system should be replaced with something else that creates less counterintuative incentives, but that's a discussion for another day I expect.  Reducing the amount given would be a reasonable step to increasing war velocity.

The difficulty of properly cycling people should be considered.  And the potential cost if the person is question is able to fight back at all.

One change I would support to beige is that you have a certain amount of time before you can leave beige.  Could be done a number of ways:

1) You have to less than 24 turns left of beige in order to leave beige.
2) Each time you are beiged your "minimum" time in beige is extended by 12 hours.

The point being to limit the use of beige to provide cover for short term offensive wars.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Azaghul

[Mandystalin]

Perhaps a carrot would be better than a stick. Impose penalties on the nation who declared war if it expires rather than one side winning

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

I don’t think the added infra damage would be a big deal, although agree with those saying beige is meant to prevent nations from being pinned down forever. So don’t think that should be reduced.

Nations getting a shorter amount of beige anyways if the enemy is winning & let’s it expire could incentivize people to finish wars more.

[Limbuwan]

1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I don’t think the added infra damage would be a big deal, although agree with those saying beige is meant to prevent nations from being pinned down forever. So don’t think that should be reduced.

Nations getting a shorter amount of beige anyways if the enemy is winning & let’s it expire could incentivize people to finish wars more.

And what would that shorter beige time achieve ? Nothing. Instead the losing side will forever get pinned which is against the meaning of beige colour. Sir scarf introduced somewhere of those with less resistance is beiged automatically if the winner doesn't finishes the war. If the winner does beige, then he’ll have higher loot and infra dmg compared to no loot and dmg if war is let to expire.

Not only there is an incentive to beige ur enemy and win war, the losing side can build to fight back again creating rss drain which every war supposed to. Infact the game should address the “Improvement invincibility”.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

1 hour ago, Limbuwan said:

And what would that shorter beige time achieve ? Nothing. Instead the losing side will forever get pinned which is against the meaning of beige colour. Sir scarf introduced somewhere of those with less resistance is beiged automatically if the winner doesn't finishes the war. If the winner does beige, then he’ll have higher loot and infra dmg compared to no loot and dmg if war is let to expire.

Not only there is an incentive to beige ur enemy and win war, the losing side can build to fight back again creating rss drain which every war supposed to. Infact the game should address the “Improvement invincibility”.

Doesn’t matter much if they’re given full beige time or slightly shorter; although probably right they should get full. Improvements aren’t nearly as invincible as some make it sound, I’ve been destroying plenty even when not trying.

[Limbuwan]

15 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Doesn’t matter much if they’re given full beige time or slightly shorter; although probably right they should get full. Improvements aren’t nearly as invincible as some make it sound, I’ve been destroying plenty even when not trying.

I’m talking about continued use of improvements even though a city doesn’t have required infra level to support all that improvement.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

21 minutes ago, Limbuwan said:

I’m talking about continued use of improvements even though a city doesn’t have required infra level to support all that improvement.

I think that shouldn't matter though & would be a really annoying feature. Deciding which improvements to keep active in each city, etc.

[Captain Splendid]

7 hours ago, Mandystalin said:

Perhaps a carrot would be better than a stick. Impose penalties on the nation who declared war if it expires rather than one side winning

I believe you might have that expression backwards.

[Sardonic]

How about losing a war destroys 2 random improvements in each city?

[Mandystalin]

8 hours ago, Captain Splendid said:

I believe you might have that expression backwards.

I believe I do. My brain and my fingers were apparently not communicating properly 

[Wendell]

What about If the war expires and the defender resistance is still at 100, they get 12 turns of beige time, automatically. @Sardonic

[Mandystalin]

I still think a good stick is the best option, a punishment for an aggressor if the war expires rather than being won.

 

The actual punishment can be debated, but I had a few ideas. 

Essentially it relates to your citizens being extremely dissatisfied with how the war went and rioting

Obviously some sort of infra damage, maybe similar to what a losing nation would suffer

In addition, because your armed forces are busy with the rioters you can't declare a new war for a few days, and if someone attacks you then you have fewer MAPs to start with

 

What do you think?

[Sardonic]

9 hours ago, Deulos said:

What about If the war expires and the defender resistance is still at 100, they get 12 turns of beige time, automatically. @Sardonic

I don't think we want to get into the business of even more beige generation.  Aside from the fact that that could potentially be a reward for the attacker to prevent additional counters.

8 hours ago, Mandystalin said:

I still think a good stick is the best option, a punishment for an aggressor if the war expires rather than being won.

 

The actual punishment can be debated, but I had a few ideas. 

Essentially it relates to your citizens being extremely dissatisfied with how the war went and rioting

Obviously some sort of infra damage, maybe similar to what a losing nation would suffer

In addition, because your armed forces are busy with the rioters you can't declare a new war for a few days, and if someone attacks you then you have fewer MAPs to start with

 

What do you think?

Ehh, I think that's still putting the incentive on the wrong side of the equation.  I get where you guys are coming from, but I think it makes a lot more sense IC to increase the war loss penalty than invent a war expiration penalty.  Increasing the war loss penalty also has the added advantage of increasing the velocity of conflict, and speeding up the duration of wars, whereas penalties effecting the attacker would likely just slow it down even more.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

8 hours ago, Mandystalin said:

I still think a good stick is the best option, a punishment for an aggressor if the war expires rather than being won.

 

The actual punishment can be debated, but I had a few ideas. 

Essentially it relates to your citizens being extremely dissatisfied with how the war went and rioting

Obviously some sort of infra damage, maybe similar to what a losing nation would suffer

In addition, because your armed forces are busy with the rioters you can't declare a new war for a few days, and if someone attacks you then you have fewer MAPs to start with

 

What do you think?

Delay before they can declare new wars is one way to punish it. Maybe if both get a special beige where they can’t declare new wars if it expires.

[Sir Scarfalot]

On 12/15/2019 at 8:32 AM, Sardonic said:

I don't think we want to get into the business of even more beige generation.  Aside from the fact that that could potentially be a reward for the attacker to prevent additional counters.

Ehh, I think that's still putting the incentive on the wrong side of the equation.  I get where you guys are coming from, but I think it makes a lot more sense IC to increase the war loss penalty than invent a war expiration penalty.  Increasing the war loss penalty also has the added advantage of increasing the velocity of conflict, and speeding up the duration of wars, whereas penalties effecting the attacker would likely just slow it down even more.

You are, as usual, forgetting the fundamental point that P&W is not meant to be 'won', rather, only the wars within it are. Attempting to shoehorn arguments about how bad beige is and how awesome it would be if you could crush your opponents beyond all ability to play is counterproductive and nothing short of disingenuous.

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[HARPER.txt]

Constructive Criticism/Building from OP's Suggestion would be a good start instead of arguing it/against/applying Bias or would be "snark", the bottom line is as the title reads "stronger-incentives-to-win-wars-needed"  @Sardonic Feel free to send me an Add on Discord as I'd rather not try to discuss/offer opinion in #trainwrecktown  I'm sure you've already brainstormed/skimmed across most of what i could input anyway, but no harm in trying.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Dondarrion
Grammar/Syntax, yeet me

[Erev]

3 hours ago, Epi said:

Wouldn't it be awesome if in beige you could just rebuild your entire military. And make the subsequent round more than keeping people pinned. It might buff uppertier but meh, at least there'd be a point in growing. 

The trouble is that keeping people pinned is part of the win condition - that's simply how this sort of game goes. Certainly not the pinning itself but removing the will to keep fighting and opening negotiations. This can be seen in any number of PvP games. If it seems like the current war has dragged on forever imagine what it would be like if everyone was back on their feet two days after each and every lost war. There would be no winning or losing there would be, at best, exhaustion.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

30 minutes ago, Erev said:

The trouble is that keeping people pinned is part of the win condition - that's simply how this sort of game goes. Certainly not the pinning itself but removing the will to keep fighting and opening negotiations. This can be seen in any number of PvP games. If it seems like the current war has dragged on forever imagine what it would be like if everyone was back on their feet two days after each and every lost war. There would be no winning or losing there would be, at best, exhaustion.

Think this war has showed a Coalition doesn’t need to give peace even when the enemy is pinned down & seeking surrender. If people could recover easier, maybe everyone would have moved on months ago.

[Erev]

28 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Think this war has showed a Coalition doesn’t need to give peace even when the enemy is pinned down & seeking surrender. If people could recover easier, maybe everyone would have moved on months ago.

I rather doubt that but this war has proven that the system is still broken. The only reason the war continues is spite, distrust, and poor diplomacy really. Both sides just have leaders and diplomats too prideful to move on (for good reason or not).

Edit: Specifically doubt that the war would be over and folks would have moved on.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Erev
Clarification.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

3 minutes ago, Erev said:

I rather doubt that but this war has proven that the system is still broken. The only reason the war continues is spite, distrust, and poor diplomacy really. Both sides just have leaders and diplomats too prideful to move on (for good reason or not).

Think the other side was banking to much on NPO getting involved proving IQ still exists, so next war NPO would lose if they did. Although I think a lot of the rhetoric along those lines early probably made this inevitable from way back.

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Erev]

Just now, Epi said:

Tbh, pinning people is totally pointless. I've explained this to a lot of my own coalition. If we get pinned, we can suicide squad and just stick on them like ticks for over a year. 50 people x 5 wars x 3 days. We can beige 500 people every week xD. And that's legit with nothing but soldiers. It's impossible to actually suppress an opponent in politics and war due to daily bonus and the 100k reserve your opponents can't loot.

The nature of war has changed in the past few years. Losing doesn't really matter politically and it's easy enough to catch up. We need a new system to force parties to surrender, because with the current model we're just waiting for grievances to blow over. And in the case of this war, it's been 7 months and people with 10 years of beef are content to login 3 times a day and express their rage.

Pinning does more than beiging does is part of the problem but you are right that PnW is set up to make it so that folks are never entirely helpless - especially those with large city counts that can afford to throw soldiers endlessly. You are also right that there needs to be a mechanic that pulls folks out of the war. The trouble is that the only ways I could think of doing this would require rather large changes to the game, lots of tracking, and would impede the ability of midwar political maneuvering.