ELPINCHAZO Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 There is already a option to offer mutual peace but I think it might be interesting if parties would be able to offer a 'conditional surrender' i.e. if I give you $200k will you go away or if you give me $500 steel you can end this war. The major problem I have with the idea is possible abuse via multis and such but maybe they will be very obvious and it may be no different than what they do currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted September 11, 2014 Administrators Share Posted September 11, 2014 I think that the issue with multis makes it potentially more harmful than beneficial. You can always negotiate a conditional surrender in-game without an in-game mechanic, and failing that if you can defeat the opposing nation you "earn" a conditional surrender bonus. 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...
ELPINCHAZO Posted September 11, 2014 Author Share Posted September 11, 2014 I think that the issue with multis makes it potentially more harmful than beneficial. You can always negotiate a conditional surrender in-game without an in-game mechanic, and failing that if you can defeat the opposing nation you "earn" a conditional surrender bonus. so by the same token if it doesn't require the game mechanic it shouldn't be deemed more harmful than beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I think this takes away drama potential (ie. someone taking reps but not giving peace, or accepting peace without paying reps), but that might be a good thing as it makes all of our lives easier. I could go either way on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhelm IV Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Seems like a good idea to me. To avoid abusers, Sheepy just needs to check all peace outs, to see if people are abusing. There's not going to be many and abuse will be fairly obvious. As a result, it seems like a good idea to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 To clarify, like an automated reparations system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 To clarify, like an automated reparations system? Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I already know several people who have payed to get out of a war. It is already handled in-game without the need of additional mechanics. 1 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 To clarify, like an automated reparations system? it could be that....or it could be used as a ransom against further damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Whenever I see a war that ended in a peace agreement I wonder if there was actually mutual peace made, or if someone surrendered to the other. I like the option of being able to offer an opponent the option to surrender in lieu of peace. It could purely be cosmetic and really only serve as bragging rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Whenever I see a war that ended in a peace agreement I wonder if there was actually mutual peace made, or if someone surrendered to the other. I like the option of being able to offer an opponent the option to surrender in lieu of peace. It could purely be cosmetic and really only serve as bragging rights. "You lost the war!" "No, you lost the war!" "Well why can't we just white peace?" "Because you lost! So surrender!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmoZombie Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Is this dead? Quote Just kidding, brats are the wurst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted June 6, 2016 Author Share Posted June 6, 2016 Is this dead? YOU'RE dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungu Gavana Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 An in-game mechanic would prevent nations from black-mailing the nation that it was combatting against.​EXAMPLES:​IN-GAME MECHANIC: *Samedi intends to exchange $500,000, 1,500 food, and 200 munitions in exchange for peace.* *ACCEPT or DECLINE* *Accepted. Samedi is currently beige* ​Out of Game: *Private message*​Nation 1: "Can I exchange $500,000, 1,500 food, and 200 munitions for peace?​Nation 2: Sure. Transport the funds in exchange for peace. ​*Nation 1 transports funds to Nation 2* ​Nation 1: Why didn't you accept the proposal?Nation 2: HAHAHAHAHA!​*Nation 2 continues to assault nation 1* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 An in-game mechanic would prevent nations from black-mailing the nation that it was combatting against. ​EXAMPLES: ​IN-GAME MECHANIC: *Samedi intends to exchange $500,000, 1,500 food, and 200 munitions in exchange for peace.* *ACCEPT or DECLINE* *Accepted. Samedi is currently beige* ​Out of Game: *Private message* ​Nation 1: "Can I exchange $500,000, 1,500 food, and 200 munitions for peace? ​Nation 2: Sure. Transport the funds in exchange for peace. ​*Nation 1 transports funds to Nation 2* ​Nation 1: Why didn't you accept the proposal? Nation 2: HAHAHAHAHA! ​*Nation 2 continues to assault nation 1* actually it prevents nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schirminator Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 actually it prevents nothing. It doesn't prevent blackmailing. It just prevents people from conning another person into funding their own destruction. Having an in game option for conditions would actually guarantee peace for the nation being attacked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 9, 2016 Administrators Share Posted June 9, 2016 An in-game mechanic would prevent nations from black-mailing the nation that it was combatting against. ​EXAMPLES: ​IN-GAME MECHANIC: *Samedi intends to exchange $500,000, 1,500 food, and 200 munitions in exchange for peace.* *ACCEPT or DECLINE* *Accepted. Samedi is currently beige* ​Out of Game: *Private message* ​Nation 1: "Can I exchange $500,000, 1,500 food, and 200 munitions for peace? ​Nation 2: Sure. Transport the funds in exchange for peace. ​*Nation 1 transports funds to Nation 2* ​Nation 1: Why didn't you accept the proposal? Nation 2: HAHAHAHAHA! ​*Nation 2 continues to assault nation 1* Why wouldn't you just use a 3rd party for escrow? 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...
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.