War slot filling discussion

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

@Alex 

In the game report forum you stated.

 

• Evidence suggesting that the nations could be allies or are in cahoots to intentionally beige while doing minimal damage AND
• The defender has been active since the war began and is making no effort to fight back in any way AND
• The defender has the means to mount some sort of counter-attack (i.e. while the attacker may be doing naval attacks, the defender does have a superior air force or ground force and could conceivably have a shot at winning the war if they made any effort to do so)

So if you can report individual wars and show the latter 3 are true, there is potential for moderation action. However, in a situation where for example the attacker is doing full-force attacks, the defender is fighting back, and the attacker fights and wins the war, there's no room for me to take moderation action even if there is some back-channel intention of beiging the defender so that they have a chance to rebuild.

With this being said, will you make a ruling on alliances declaring wars on nations with no intention of trying to win the war? As i said before the rules are not clear and you really should improve upon them, As declaring wars with no intention of trying to win the war, should be seen as war slot filling.

Yes I know when you beige someone it gives them time to rebuild, BUT that's what Alex wanted people to have, and that's why we have it, unless Alex fix that then you should all be in volition of that rule as you declare wars with no intention of winning them.

 

[Alex]

Are you talking about people who declare wars and fight but don't "finish" the war through the game mechanic by beiging the opponent?

That has been allowed because that tactic has existed for the entirety of the game (and frankly even before Politics & War in the game CyberNations.) It depends on the interpretation of "win" the war - in my opinion, holding down your opponent without beiging them is "winning" in an alliance-war tactical sense.

However, a number of changes have been made over the years to make that strategy less favorable in lieu of an actual mechanical win - including increasing damages, loot, and reducing beige time. Ultimately, the solution is going to be eliminating beige time for losers so that there is never an incentive to "lose" a war, and all war system incentives are properly aligned.

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

19 hours ago, Alex said:

Are you talking about people who declare wars and fight but don't "finish" the war through the game mechanic by beiging the opponent?

That has been allowed because that tactic has existed for the entirety of the game (and frankly even before Politics & War in the game CyberNations.) It depends on the interpretation of "win" the war - in my opinion, holding down your opponent without beiging them is "winning" in an alliance-war tactical sense.

However, a number of changes have been made over the years to make that strategy less favorable in lieu of an actual mechanical win - including increasing damages, loot, and reducing beige time. Ultimately, the solution is going to be eliminating beige time for losers so that there is never an incentive to "lose" a war, and all war system incentives are properly aligned.

But fighting a war to beige your target with doing little damage but to get max loot has been a raiding policy pretty much as long as the game has been about, even in CN, but now when people are doing it to mess with IQ plans its reported?.

How many raids have been done with people simply using planes or just troops to get a win that cost nothing but gives loot?

if this war finally bring about changes in the war system i am sure everyone will be happy.

 

[Alex]

4 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

But fighting a war to beige your target with doing little damage but to get max loot has been a raiding policy pretty much as long as the game has been about, even in CN, but now when people are doing it to mess with IQ plans its reported?.

Doing a minimal damage raid in general is not against the rules.

If I have sufficient reason to believe it is done in coordination with the defender (i.e. the defender is making no effort to fight back, even when they have the ability to fight back and win the war) that's war slot filling.

[lightside]

On 1/11/2020 at 10:27 AM, Alex said:

Are you talking about people who declare wars and fight but don't "finish" the war through the game mechanic by beiging the opponent?

That has been allowed because that tactic has existed for the entirety of the game (and frankly even before Politics & War in the game CyberNations.) It depends on the interpretation of "win" the war - in my opinion, holding down your opponent without beiging them is "winning" in an alliance-war tactical sense.

However, a number of changes have been made over the years to make that strategy less favorable in lieu of an actual mechanical win - including increasing damages, loot, and reducing beige time. Ultimately, the solution is going to be eliminating beige time for losers so that there is never an incentive to "lose" a war, and all war system incentives are properly aligned.

Honestly you could fix this by just giving nations biege time when any war expires if the resistance the nation has is below a certain amount. While not applying loot/infra damage as no one won the war. This would be like the united nations enforcing a ceasefire in a war and stopping future conflict for a short time. This would incentivize winning the war instead of just not ending it.  Effectively this would allow bieges to serve there original purpose

Edited January 13, 2020 by lightside

[Adrienne]

On 1/11/2020 at 1:27 PM, Alex said:

Ultimately, the solution is going to be eliminating beige time for losers so that there is never an incentive to "lose" a war, and all war system incentives are properly aligned.

Unless this proposed change is accompanied by other changes to your war system, this will skew things in the direction of the winners way too much and remove a lot of strategy and opportunity for nations to try and recover.

[Guest PhantomThiefB]

9 hours ago, lightside said:

Honestly you could fix this by just giving nations biege time when any war expires if the resistance the nation has is below a certain amount. While not applying loot/infra damage as no one won the war. This would be like the united nations enforcing a ceasefire in a war and stopping future conflict for a short time. This would incentivize winning the war instead of just not ending it.  Effectively this would allow bieges to serve there original purpose

I don't mind this I guess, but if it's expired rather than won the beige time should be shorter, say 12 turns instead of 25. Just my 2 cents.

[James II]

On 1/11/2020 at 12:27 PM, Alex said:

 Ultimately, the solution is going to be eliminating beige time for losers so that there is never an incentive to "lose" a war, and all war system incentives are properly aligned.

You said you wanted a war system so people could always fight back. Even in this current system with beige it gets to a point where there is nothing you can do about being hit. Are you going back on that?

[lightside]

5 hours ago, SleepingNinja said:

I don't mind this I guess, but if it's expired rather than won the beige time should be shorter, say 12 turns instead of 25. Just my 2 cents.

That would make sense