Jump to content

Beige Replacement - Relief Mechanic Not Tied to Losing Wars


Recommended Posts

This system greatly punishes the defeated sides in large scale wars, as well as lower infra raiders. If you make a system of relief based up how much you've lost, there comes a point where you have little of value to lose. Often nations maintain a 700-1000 infra avg level due to the inexpensive costs of infra at that level but the ability to field near max military, or at least max mil improvements at those levels. If they're trying to fight back they'll be maintaining infra around this point even as it gets blown up, in some cases they might end a war with more than they've lost because they're trying to mount a double buy. With this system a nation is better off not logging in until they end of the war once they've been beaten down because they'll not likely see enough a break to ever meaningfully come back. 


This system is also flawed in staggered wars, if you someone is about to beat you, then two more wars are declared nations can just sit on you during your beige time and only blow up what you build. So you've effectively broken even and get no reprieve what so ever and just repeat this process eternally. 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 4

Always keep your foes confused. If they are never sure who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next.
Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you.


It's like I'm reading a book and it's a book I deeply love. I'm reading it slowly now so the words are really far apart and the spaces between the words are almost infinite. I can still feel the words of the story, but it's in this endless space between the words I find myself now It's a place that's not of the physical. It's where everything else is. This is where I am now, and who I am.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like where this is going but it seems like there could be a scale issue with the 5% idea. In theory, someone at various NS, city and infra levels could get 100% of their infra destroyed in just a few days. Is that 20 days of beige then?

Edited by Nacho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont get it....

whats the problem with having an active-reserve system in place instead of a beige-relief one ?

its quite straightforward in my mind:


x=active troops, y=reserve troops 

the total amount of your x+y troops cannot exceed the total number that you are able to field at any given time 

that goes the same with all mil units and your spies 

Also Lets implement this to alliance wide wars:

you are getting blitzed and CANT to fight back?

you get one for the team, wait the 5days that you would need either way to build back up and then come out swinging 

this can also give alliances a great opportunity to get back up after a losing round in a war if planned correctly 

you are getting blitzed and YOU THINK YOU CAN fight back?

each day you are given the opportunity to make the reserves you build each day active and use them like you do now 


All in all you are going to decide how you wanna use your units and when.

I can understand that this given ability for alliances to get back up after a losing round in a war, might destroy the incentive for the alliances that wanna initiate this said war but i dont think that this politics problem should be mingled with the war mechanincs of the game itself !!



  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few points I'd like to address,

The most important one is that beige is based on the amount of infra (whether percentual or absolute) decides the amount of beige time. As a milcom head, I can say that I honestly don't care how much infrastructure there is destroyed in the cities of the enemy. Once a war starts both sides will go down to +-800 infra anyway, one side just takes a bit more time. The most important aspect to determine who is winning is the amount of troops both sides have, not the amount of infra. When this system is introduced, I can see that many nations will intentionally do attacks that are utter failures (even if they are on the winning side) to prevent to destroy infra. 

Another point is that it's easy to 'beat' the system. If you're the losing side and in need of beigetime, why not declare a few attrition wars that you know you're gonna lose, just so you can lose infra from there which is very cheap to rebuy once you're down to 700-1000 infra. Those attrition wars can give you a lot of beige time for almost no cost. 

Even though I seriously appreciate it that in this system there is no incentive to lose wars on purpose or to let them expire, there still is an incentive to not attack as good as you can or to declare wars with the intention of losing them, which does not sound good to me. 

Besides that, in the video you pointed out one of the problems was that it was helpful to declare on your allies in the old system to give them beige time. This is true and I agree that it should be fixed. However, I fail to see why the current system would fix that. As infra costs almost nothing once a nation is below 1000, what stops me from declaring on an ally and getting attacked with a lot of ships while on attrition to gain beige time? The rebuild cost for to rebuy from 500 to 1000 infra is 1.3-1.5M/city, so I could get my infra destroyed and thus a full rebuild for the cost of only 1.5M * cities. I would take that deal, hence not preventing this issue. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

@Changeupthat problem has been addressed in the feedback by making all wars end in beige for the loser whether they're the aggressor or defender and whether it expires or concludes on someone hitting 0 res.

Wild concept to just tweak the existing system rather than reinvent the wheel

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand the issue that these changes are trying to address, I don't think it deals with the root of the problem. I suggest we should leave beige mechanics alone and instead figure out a way to over rule the mindset some people might have regarding encouraging people to quit the game. What I would propose is instead of implementing mechanics to address wars, we instead address the politics. Wars should end in one of two ways. 1.) The losing alliance agrees to surrender with certain reasonable terms imposed. 2.) Both alliances agree to white peace. In both instances they would be unable to attack each other again for a set period of time. This would require an in game mechanic to acknowledge that 2 or more alliances are at war with each other. Alliance leaders can surrender at any time. Alternatively, if an alliance leader chooses to drag the war out against the will of its members, they can anonymously cast votes in game to force a surrender. If a certain percentage of the alliance demands it, the alliance will be forced to surrender. This would increase the importance of maintaining good morale within your alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Why haven't you just removed the like, two, three unpopular bits of what's on the test server and released it? It's way simpler, is always coded, is reflective of the most popular community suggestions on the topic for years back, and it fixes the problem you're describing as setting out to solve. 

It's not perfect, we get that, but all anyone was looking for was to stop permanent hold downs like last war, or to avoid the work of moderating slot filling or getting someone to do so.

What is already tested achieves that, the feedback on it is already there with the requested tweaks, and barring the wider play testing it'd get on the live server, is ready to go.

While it's better than the nothing we have now, I'm with Benfro on other immediately obvious problems that make it worse than what's already available.


  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To parrot what I said in the dev team channel:
Although the premise behind the idea is enticing, it has several flaws within it. For one, infrastructure is not a valid indicator of whether or not someone is losing a war, people already aim to minimise infra damage to prevent the enemies score from dropping too low. Furthermore, as the war continues, infrastructure levels tend to drop and sit somewhere <1000 levels, especially for the losing side. 

Unit damages is an ideal way of judging damages taken, but at the same time is difficult to judge. If it was feasible without the several glaring gaps in the system I would really like it. Is it a percentage based system on how much you initially had at the start of the war? Or based on flat damages dealt? The former means anyone can simply decom all their units, declare a bunch of wars and farm free beige. The latter means that you can be infinitely pinned once you are zeroed. I really can't see any meaningful methods of fleshing this system out so that it could work.

All of this was brought up in the discord by several other people besides me. This idea wasn't even polished out by us in a doc like so many of the others were, it was mostly touched upon in a few messages on discord before we realised the troubles with implementing a system like this. 

I genuinely appreciate your efforts to get extra feedback by posting this in a more public format and I know much of what is said on discord tends to get drowned out unless it's written on a doc so it is difficult to go back and refer on the feedback given in the moment, but why not also bring out the several other proposals listed out by us? I don't see much need in limiting discussion to what is arguably the most half-baked idea we had, especially when there were alternatives that did much of the same thing (disassociating beige with losing wars) much more effectively.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.