Grave Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 My idea is basically either one of two options: Either winning nations could get 10% of pre-tax revenue from the losing nation for 10 days, hindering alliance income and personal income . Or the losing nation has 10% of their total improvements not function at all for the same timespan, (not including any power plants). This would be stackable so If some one lost 6 wars in a 10 day span they would lose 60% of their pre tax revenue/ total improvements until the first timer expired then 50% etc. Overall the concept is Pretty straightforward, let me know what you all think about this? Wash your hands, stay safe and have a great day, -Grave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 How is losing 4 percent of your infa and a percentage of your resources and cash not a big enough punishment for losing? Or to frame it in the winner's perspective, how is destroying 4% of your opponents infra, and stealing a percentage of thier resources and cash not a big enough prize for winning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: How is losing 4 percent of your infa and a percentage of your resources and cash not a big enough punishment for losing? Or to frame it in the winner's perspective, how is destroying 4% of your opponents infra, and stealing a percentage of thier resources and cash not a big enough prize for winning? Because the beige time given is far more valuable to them then your loot and infra destroyed stat. The specific things he suggested are still bad, but the original premise of an issue is not. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanPatriot Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 I do agree wars should feel more satisfying or devastating depending if you win or lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grave Posted March 28, 2020 Author Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Akuryo said: Because the beige time given is far more valuable to them then your loot and infra destroyed stat. Took the words out of my mouth Quote The specific things he suggested are still bad, but the original premise of an issue is not. What's bad about them? There are two relatively agreed upon problems with the current game mechanics, that alliance wars can be dragged out for too long and the the loser ultimately wins I think both of these general premises (even if the % Is disagreed upon) cover both problems better than any potential solution offered so far. Edited March 28, 2020 by Grave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandystalin Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 So... in a war system that allows easy wins to whoever coordinates better/has more friends, you want winning to be more devastating and to make people's ability to carry on fighting after one round even more impossible? This suggestion is great for raiding but bad for alliance wars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grave Posted March 28, 2020 Author Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Mandystalin said: So... in a war system that allows easy wins to whoever coordinates better/has more friends, you want winning to be more devastating and to make people's ability to carry on fighting after one round even more impossible? This suggestion is great for raiding but bad for alliance wars If this would cause wars to end in one round for you than that's on you, but I suspect this would cause global wars to last 2-3months simply on resource consumption/ lack of production instead of potentially a year. As for cordination and numbers, the best cordinated alliances should win, also I believe size would matter much more and numbers less than they currently do as this would make people more inclined to use tanks and ships. And in turn be able to have more sucess in (and higher maintainabliity against) 1v3 updeclares when that extra revenue comes in And this doesn't break the bank for the losers as it is similar to having an alliance tax be in effect while in beige. Edited March 28, 2020 by Grave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandystalin Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 Maybe I wasn't clear. Currently in an alliance war whoever gets that first round of blitzes in is then on top, and their opponents cannot effectively fight back unless the aggressor is particularly incompetent, simply because of the mathematics of military rebuying. Taking away extra resources means less ability to rebuy (well, depending upon your warchest, but this will deplete them faster). Having improvements stop working means the numbers of specific military units you can rebuy goes down. So basically, further undermining the ability of an attacked nation/alliance to resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grave Posted April 2, 2020 Author Share Posted April 2, 2020 On 3/30/2020 at 7:10 PM, Mandystalin said: Maybe I wasn't clear. Currently in an alliance war whoever gets that first round of blitzes in is then on top, and their opponents cannot effectively fight back unless the aggressor is particularly incompetent, simply because of the mathematics of military rebuying. Taking away extra resources means less ability to rebuy (well, depending upon your warchest, but this will deplete them faster). Having improvements stop working means the numbers of specific military units you can rebuy goes down. So basically, further undermining the ability of an attacked nation/alliance to resist. Currently the alliance that wins the first round of blitzes is on top and that is already true. Minimalist builds shouldn't be the meta war needs to cost more (though tanks and ships being necessary) and that cost needs to be supplemented partially to the winner and taken partially from the loser. The only nations this undermines in 1-5 rounds or even more are the ones who didn't prepare with extra resources . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grave Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 I think this deserves a Necrobump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viselli Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 No this is a horrible idea now that beige has gone away. Beige was a defenders friend, it hypothetically gave time to rebuild troops. Now there is no wait between the end of one war and the beginning of the next. We should not hurt the losers more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grave Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 17 hours ago, Viselli said: No this is a horrible idea now that beige has gone away. Beige was a defenders friend, it hypothetically gave time to rebuild troops. Now there is no wait between the end of one war and the beginning of the next. We should not hurt the losers more. This would be a change that would allow beige to return as it was and still not be better than winning, not replace beige . 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.