Stronger Incentives to Win Wars needed

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Zim]

9 hours ago, Epi said:

It's not hard to create war-attrition mechanics.

• Population: When you recruit soldiers you draw from your nation's population, an even spread across all cities. Reducing your income through commerce and hindering nations that are totally zeroed.
• Weariness: Your nation would have a war value of 0 in peacetime. If you attack another nation it decreases by -10 for instance, stacking up to -100. If you're the defender, the war could only cost -5 again stacking to -100. Each stack of weariness could lower your chances of winning a battle by 2.5% so at the total -100, your chances of winning at battle are lowered by 50%. War weariness stacks could erode 2-5-10 w/e per day or something.

There are a number of options beyond just increasing the cost of war (negatively impacts the amount of content we can create) and destroying improvements at a higher rate (we can rebuild easily).

Anything else you wanna add to nerf the raider/pirate playstyle out of the game, while you at it? 
We have already been getting nerfed in nearly every update as it is. 

We really don't need war weariness to be thing aswell, because your side don't believe our side is deleting fast enough. 
All what that would do is discourage wars from being declared, not fixs the broken war system.  

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Zim]

So people would have to think about what battle to priorities or try to find a way to calculate the least amount of troops needed to win a fight? 

[Critters]

This game doesn’t need a change in war mechanics. This game needs a change in alliance leaders....

[Sir Scarfalot]

19 hours 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.

There is no 'win' condition, there never was, there never should be. You are, again, advancing a completely ridiculous, self-serving, hypocritical and disingenuous narrative of how the game is "supposed" to be destroyed, and complaining that you can't actually pull it off.

[HARPER.txt]

On 12/19/2019 at 12:47 PM, Critters said:

This game doesn’t need a change in war mechanics. This game needs a change in alliance leaders....

?  but all of them not just your enemy

Edited December 20, 2019 by Unwanted

[Erev]

6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

There is no 'win' condition, there never was, there never should be. You are, again, advancing a completely ridiculous, self-serving, hypocritical and disingenuous narrative of how the game is "supposed" to be destroyed, and complaining that you can't actually pull it off.

I mean, how is my way to play any less - or more - valid than yours?

But since it seems even more clarification is needed I was refering to world wars and not the game as a whole. Sure, some folks may like to get caught up in an eighteen month long grudge match over a slight seven years prior and sigh happily while sitting on defeated nations for most of it - and that's cool for them I guess.

As for me? The ideal is a world war that lasts a few months, some wounds get taken, some reparations are made, and then shuffle things up for the next round.

[Sir Scarfalot]

12 minutes ago, Erev said:

I mean, how is my way to play any less - or more - valid than yours?

But since it seems even more clarification is needed I was refering to world wars and not the game as a whole. Sure, some folks may like to get caught up in an eighteen month long grudge match over a slight seven years prior and sigh happily while sitting on defeated nations for most of it - and that's cool for them I guess.

As for me? The ideal is a world war that lasts a few months, some wounds get taken, some reparations are made, and then shuffle things up for the next round.

Your way of playing is completely invalid as it attempts to annihilate the gameplay for everyone while not being fun for anyone, yourself included. Which you admit to here.

As for the latter, the only thing standing between you and your ideal is your own alliance, dude. They're the ones unwilling to even consider peace, and you're entirely at fault for continuing to support their explicit intentions to avoid that ideal world. If you actually want to see something like that world, then act like it, otherwise you're just not being honest, as is usual with IQ.

[Erev]

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Your way of playing is completely invalid as it attempts to annihilate the gameplay for everyone while not being fun for anyone, yourself included. Which you admit to here.

As for the latter, the only thing standing between you and your ideal is your own alliance, dude. They're the ones unwilling to even consider peace, and you're entirely at fault for continuing to support their explicit intentions to avoid that ideal world. If you actually want to see something like that world, then act like it, otherwise you're just not being honest, as is usual with IQ.

I mean, you've got quite a bit wrong here above and beyond your misplaced rage.

Lets start with the having fun and peace bits. I am, on the whole, having a blast or I wouldn't be here. The trouble which I'm trying to sort out is the world war dragging on. A world war that started before we got here and the negotiations are in the hands of Coalition A and Coalition B. The raiding, the counter war on TLE, accidentally making The Originals all declare war and go i to vacation five minutes later, and war having to do with ARGHH? Those are a blast and I look forward to much more when the world war is finally allowed to die by the coalitions.

As for the gameplay bit - I fail to see what aspect of gameplay we are magically turning upsetting. Perhaps you simply can't handle losing? More likely it isn't gameplay at all and you can't really get around being called out for making or standing by those who make really suspect moral choices?

Whichever it is, we've already won. I can guarentee that you spend far more time each day thinking about GOONS than we ever give you as a whole.

[Sardonic]

19 hours ago, Critters said:

This game doesn’t need a change in war mechanics. This game needs a change in alliance leaders....

A war system where people purposefully lose or let wars expire is not logical nor entertaining to plan around.  I'm sorry if I'm hurting the feelings of people who have been here for years and are wedded to it, but as many advantages as the system has over other games' systems, this sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Clarke]

These threads are desperate. "Beige is a problem! Soldiers is a problem!"

Both have easy counters, staggering targets and direct air attacks on soldiers. 

You can't however have your cake and eat it. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Clarke

[Etat]

On 12/13/2019 at 3:21 AM, Sardonic said:

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.

I think change to the mechanics that provides a more rapidly decisive victory at the level of a large or global war would be welcome, whatever that looks like.  Individual changes are likely to have very specific benefits for some, and deleterious effects for others depending on current circumstances and play style.  A multi-pronged approach to changing the mechanics is in order IMO, potentially including your suggestion but also including things like prolonging the time between individual nations being able to declare on one-another, adding capability to units such as ships v planes, modifying cost of and damage done by units to a more realistic level, blockading also impeding the transfer of taxes etc.

On 12/18/2019 at 8:33 PM, 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.

I'm happy to be apart of their therapeutic experience but new players didn't sign up for that.

A war system that increases cost to both sides as long as the war is sustained might work, rather than just favoring the winning side.  It would be a true test of alliance and coalition strength, and even if not promoting long term peace, would promote periods of cessation of hostilities and keep the game more dynamic.

21 hours ago, Critters said:

This game doesn’t need a change in war mechanics. This game needs a change in alliance leaders....

That is too contentious an idea to support.  For all the various strengths and weaknesses, and other's personal opinion of the the various leaders, they are generally the most active and engaged people in Orbis.  A mass culling of leaders would not be helpful.  It'd likely just cause multiple shadow gov's and possibly fracture considerably a lot of the positive aspects of their gameplay to date.  Another way to look at it is 'better the devil you know'.

[Sir Scarfalot]

11 hours ago, Erev said:

I mean, you've got quite a bit wrong here above and beyond your misplaced rage.

Lets start with the having fun and peace bits. I am, on the whole, having a blast or I wouldn't be here. The trouble which I'm trying to sort out is the world war dragging on. A world war that started before we got here and the negotiations are in the hands of Coalition A and Coalition B. The raiding, the counter war on TLE, accidentally making The Originals all declare war and go i to vacation five minutes later, and war having to do with ARGHH? Those are a blast and I look forward to much more when the world war is finally allowed to die by the coalitions.

As for the gameplay bit - I fail to see what aspect of gameplay we are magically turning upsetting. Perhaps you simply can't handle losing? More likely it isn't gameplay at all and you can't really get around being called out for making or standing by those who make really suspect moral choices?

Whichever it is, we've already won. I can guarentee that you spend far more time each day thinking about GOONS than we ever give you as a whole.

And again, you're missing the long proven point that the obstacle to peace is entirely your coalition. Also, your alliance's moral choices aren't even questionable, they're despicable. It's all on you and yours, and you're being willfully disingenuous every time you post.

[Limbuwan]

Auto beige for low resistance if war expired should be good incentive for wars to win. This will also stop soldiers only spam as some people complained and will create a strong rss/money drain so that alliance cannot keep up with long wars which leads to short frequent wars. Win-win situation for all of us.

[Erev]

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

And again, you're missing the long proven point that the obstacle to peace is entirely your coalition. Also, your alliance's moral choices aren't even questionable, they're despicable. It's all on you and yours, and you're being willfully disingenuous every time you post.

Hey! Look! You can be led within a stone's throw of the point! I knew you had it in you!

The current coalition setup certainly is a problem - which is a point I've been making in this thread. You've missed that in your "RAARRGH! GOONS ARE POSTING!" rampage but I get that you are easily distractible when it comes to GOONS. I very much agree that infinite coalition wars need to be curtailed and, hopefully, this thread can be part of that so that we can get on with things and declare war on new, interesting people.

As for your opinion on my alliance? Coming from you that sounds like a compliment. Thank you!