Popular Post Sir Scarfalot Posted January 16, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2020 Any time a nation is at war, they can declare 'surrender'. In that mode, they cannot attack, and the first attack against them in every war instantly ends it with the current victory/defeat system. While in 'surrender', the nation cannot declare more wars nor can wars be declared against them, and once their current wars end they get exactly one week of security before their safety expires. Surrender mode can only be invoked again after a full month passes. And there you go, a safety mode that leaves you in the meatgrinder for a solid month before you get a single rebuild. Which fully allows you to get into the fight, so you still can't be fully destroyed. Nobody's unhappy, unless they're disingenuous toxic !@#$ that just want mechanics that enable them to fully sit on their opponents forever with no possibility of rebuilding ever. 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dryad Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) I like the general idea behind a protection time that you can trigger for yourself. It's an easy way to ensure that nobody ever remains permanently dead and has a way to get back up. I'm not sure though if I'm a fan of the exact implementation proposed. During peace time in particular I think this would be too easy of an escape button as you will see people getting declared on for the first time in 3 months and immediately use it which seems kinda strange to me. I dont know how great I would feel if I declared on some player to steal some money with ground battles but then have them simply end the war this way. Or in some kind of political scenario where a person gets hit to bear the consequences of their actions but then simply escapes and gets a week of negotiation time before they can be hit again; seems strange. Perhaps a system that would allow wars to be fought fully and then triggers a protection time after would be better? There is also possibility for exploitation with allies hitting each other just to trigger surrender mode, which maybe could be an issue. Edited January 16, 2020 by Dryad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 16, 2020 Administrators Share Posted January 16, 2020 Mind you, this would be in conjunction with a number of other changes to the war system I have in mind: Assuming beige is removed from the game, I don't see why a nation couldn't "surrender" in any active war and have it automatically finish the war as if they lost (do the % infra damage and loot.) I suppose it might be an issue if you transferred all your money/rss away and then did a "surrender" and then received them back, but presuming there was some way to prevent that I don't have a problem with giving nations the option to end a war they expect to lose early. I know that's not what you proposed, but I want to add it to the discussion. Part of what I have in mind for changing the war system would be 1/3 rebuilds daily on all military units (not missiles/nukes/spies) such that rebuilding to 2/3 of your total military force is possible in any given double-buy. I think that eliminates the problem with needing time to rebuild and not getting it without beige. 6 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limbuwan Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Have you considered removing war range restrictions along with removal of beige as well ? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Alex said: Mind you, this would be in conjunction with a number of other changes to the war system I have in mind: Assuming beige is removed from the game, I don't see why a nation couldn't "surrender" in any active war and have it automatically finish the war as if they lost (do the % infra damage and loot.) I suppose it might be an issue if you transferred all your money/rss away and then did a "surrender" and then received them back, but presuming there was some way to prevent that I don't have a problem with giving nations the option to end a war they expect to lose early. I know that's not what you proposed, but I want to add it to the discussion. Part of what I have in mind for changing the war system would be 1/3 rebuilds daily on all military units (not missiles/nukes/spies) such that rebuilding to 2/3 of your total military force is possible in any given double-buy. I think that eliminates the problem with needing time to rebuild and not getting it without beige. That would pretty much make up declaring impossible. It's like restricting wars to a tier system except you removed the tier system part of it and so now the tier 10s are hitting tier 6s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Akuryo said: That would pretty much make up declaring impossible. It's like restricting wars to a tier system except you removed the tier system part of it and so now the tier 10s are hitting tier 6s. then build more cities? I do not understand this bull about making up declaring hard, or new nations need a boost. The simple fact is a 20 city nation should be able to slap around two 15 city nations. I simply do not understand this "do not make it to hard for me to hit people". You want to fight whales, become a whale, if not stay in your lane. Edited January 16, 2020 by Elijah Mikaelson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Alex said: Mind you, this would be in conjunction with a number of other changes to the war system I have in mind: Assuming beige is removed from the game, I don't see why a nation couldn't "surrender" in any active war and have it automatically finish the war as if they lost (do the % infra damage and loot.) I suppose it might be an issue if you transferred all your money/rss away and then did a "surrender" and then received them back, but presuming there was some way to prevent that I don't have a problem with giving nations the option to end a war they expect to lose early. I know that's not what you proposed, but I want to add it to the discussion. Part of what I have in mind for changing the war system would be 1/3 rebuilds daily on all military units (not missiles/nukes/spies) such that rebuilding to 2/3 of your total military force is possible in any given double-buy. I think that eliminates the problem with needing time to rebuild and not getting it without beige. Honestly if you just implemented the 1/3 rebuild on planes/tanks/ships then you wouldn't even need to touch beige mechanics. As nations would be rebuilding fast enough that biegeing wouldn't be seen as a bad thing anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Alex said: Mind you, this would be in conjunction with a number of other changes to the war system I have in mind: Assuming beige is removed from the game, I don't see why a nation couldn't "surrender" in any active war and have it automatically finish the war as if they lost (do the % infra damage and loot.) I suppose it might be an issue if you transferred all your money/rss away and then did a "surrender" and then received them back, but presuming there was some way to prevent that I don't have a problem with giving nations the option to end a war they expect to lose early. I know that's not what you proposed, but I want to add it to the discussion. Part of what I have in mind for changing the war system would be 1/3 rebuilds daily on all military units (not missiles/nukes/spies) such that rebuilding to 2/3 of your total military force is possible in any given double-buy. I think that eliminates the problem with needing time to rebuild and not getting it without beige. It is about time you change the war system, right now 3 15 city nations can hold down a 35 city nation, this needs to change it is rather silly this is possible, the same way that infra has so much NS that a 35 city nation with no infra max army can hit a city 18 nation with infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Alex said: I know that's not what you proposed, but I want to add it to the discussion. Part of what I have in mind for changing the war system would be 1/3 rebuilds daily on all military units (not missiles/nukes/spies) such that rebuilding to 2/3 of your total military force is possible in any given double-buy. I think that eliminates the problem with needing time to rebuild and not getting it without beige. One concern here is that wars would then become a lot more focused on warchests and how you can keep people engaged versus actual tactics and fighting. This just seems to compromise a lot of the strategy of war. Instead of removing beige, I think a cool idea would be to add some sort of attrition metric (I'm thinking something like EUIV war exhaustion). A nation could have a beige counter on it that increases by 1 point for each beige, and it maybe decreases by one point every 5 days. Each point of attrition reduces maximum military capacity by 5% with a cap at 15 points of attrition. Then, beige still gives the strategic advantage of allowing someone to rebuild, but also in succession beiges will slowly impede a war effort. This also helps to force wars to end. Also, these numbers are just an example and open to change. Alternatively, the attrition could directly affect population, which would lower econ and military simultaneously. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asierith Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: One concern here is that wars would then become a lot more focused on warchests and how you can keep people engaged versus actual tactics and fighting. This just seems to compromise a lot of the strategy of war. Instead of removing beige, I think a cool idea would be to add some sort of attrition metric (I'm thinking something like EUIV war exhaustion). A nation could have a beige counter on it that increases by 1 point for each beige, and it maybe decreases by one point every 5 days. Each point of attrition reduces maximum military capacity by 5% with a cap at 15 points of attrition. Then, beige still gives the strategic advantage of allowing someone to rebuild, but also in succession beiges will slowly impede a war effort. This also helps to force wars to end. Also, these numbers are just an example and open to change. Alternatively, the attrition could directly affect population, which would lower econ and military simultaneously. If you overhaul the existing approval system so it actually has some bearing upon your nation, this could feed into it. Sustained involvement in war causes it to decrease, victories correspond to an increase and add in a base increase to allow for recovery. You could tie the approval to things like city costs/increased delays or directly to economic output or even to military effectiveness. Hopefully it would serve to make actually winning wars a useful thing again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Storm Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Alex said: Mind you, this would be in conjunction with a number of other changes to the war system I have in mind: Assuming beige is removed from the game, I don't see why a nation couldn't "surrender" in any active war and have it automatically finish the war as if they lost (do the % infra damage and loot.) I suppose it might be an issue if you transferred all your money/rss away and then did a "surrender" and then received them back, but presuming there was some way to prevent that I don't have a problem with giving nations the option to end a war they expect to lose early. I know that's not what you proposed, but I want to add it to the discussion. Part of what I have in mind for changing the war system would be 1/3 rebuilds daily on all military units (not missiles/nukes/spies) such that rebuilding to 2/3 of your total military force is possible in any given double-buy. I think that eliminates the problem with needing time to rebuild and not getting it without beige. What's to stop me from smashing surrender on any disadvantageous war before unit damage can be done to me? There would need to be a minimum time elapsed before surrender is possible. Edited January 16, 2020 by Pop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etat Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) I like the idea! People play for a range of reasons, and if they don’t want to fight wars then that’s fine!! Probably would mean more players will stay in the game too because it would still be fun for them. They’ll still lose out due to being looted though. Also those inclined to fight could fight many more wars thus getting more loot! Moved the second half of my post to a new topic! This one is worthy enough not to derail. Edited January 17, 2020 by Etatsorp Quote Celer Et Audax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandystalin Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 9 hours ago, Alex said: Part of what I have in mind for changing the war system would be 1/3 rebuilds daily on all military units (not missiles/nukes/spies) such that rebuilding to 2/3 of your total military force is possible in any given double-buy. I think that eliminates the problem with needing time to rebuild and not getting it without beige. Disclaimer, obviously this is one part of your plan so maybe other things have knock-on effects. But... Firstly, needing a double-buy simply disadvantages everyone living in inconvenient timezones. Like Europe and Africa. Secondly, I'm doubtful that even a 2/3 rebuy will be enough, given how wars are currently fought. Just as an example I got blitzed when HS entered the war and the opening attacks took me from 1400 aircraft to 400 aircraft (1/3 rebuy gets to 866). By update I had 0 aircraft, giving me a max rebuy of 933 which is effectively worthless. All this change will accomplish is allowing the aggressors to keep at 100% troop levels, while squashing their opponents. 100% (or more) rebuy is the only option that will change anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.