Ways To Aid Weaker Nations

[naTia]

For a while I have seen the same few raiders taking from the alliance bank and generally discouraging younger nations from continuing. I find it difficult to watch as nations who happened to find out about P&W later get demolished by low score raiders with militaries I never had at that score. Are there any current ideas about letting me directly aid a lower scored nation militarily?

 

I personally considered:

• Allowing larger nations to supply troops based on the smaller nation's current military capacity
• Increasing the war range of aggressors to others within the defender's alliance
• Making retaliatory wars separate from other wars in ways like looting, battles, and classification

To expand on the idea of retaliatory wars I was thinking that they could allow a larger nation to directly help smaller nations, but be limited in what they can achieve. For example, their success would not loot the aggressor's bank, their battle options could be limited (half their airforce, quarter of their army, etc.), and they would be classified differently as a retaliatory war.

 

In conclusion, what I am really looking for is a change in what I can do other than give a smaller nation money and resources. This not only pertains to defending my alliance, but also helping people stay with P&W.

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

Sending troops seems like a nice idea but you would need a limit or conditions to prevent smaller nations from being OP.

[naTia]

Sending troops seems like a nice idea but you would need a limit or conditions to prevent smaller nations from being OP.

Of course as stated, it would be within the limits of their existing improvements, however we could add something like the donated amount can only be half of what they can produce per day?

[Vincent]

First of all ,how or what do you define as large nation or what is the definition of smaller nation. If we do not defined it properly it will lead to a lot of complications later on. For example yourself , do you define yourself a large nation or would be you classify yourself as a small one? If I were to raid you will you be entitled to assistance like what you proposed above? I think your proposal will only lead of a lot more complicated game as a whole.

 

As for the small nation being raided, I do understand your point, basically is those nation with one city. But a lot of time, I notice some of those nations, they are still below 14 days period. So it makes me wonder why did they come out from Beige at the first place? If they remained at Beige and use the period as the protection to build their nation and military to be either out of range of those raiders then they wouldn't have been raided at the first place. So I really don't understand the need to rush and come out from the Beige protection that is accorded when you are a new nation. And IMHO I do not see the need to make this game more and more complicated with too many complicated rules and options.

Edited October 20, 2014 by vincentsum8

[naTia]

how or what do you define as large nation or what is the definition of smaller nation

The definition does not matter, there would be no difference between if I had 100 score and was helping somebody with 20 score, or if I had 200 score. Because of the basic nature of larger and smaller, one nation simply has to be large enough for the aggressor to normally be out of war range. All options simply add ways for players normally out of raiders' war ranges to help aid in the war effort. To answer your questions simply, if you were to raid me then yes, I would be entitled to such aid. Raising the point that many being raided are less than 14 days does not address the fact that even being three weeks in could mean death for you by raiders. My whole concept is that I think there needs to be possibilities for aid when facing raiders other than to get everyone out of their war range, or send the targeted countries resources.

 

I think the simplest fix proposed is to simply make the war range of aggressing nations larger to others within the alliance. Even the idea of being able to supply troops to replace only casualties is not very game breaking. Yes, the idea of retaliatory wars is a stretch that would require more work and optimization, but it is simply an idea. I really do not think the first two are overcomplicating or even that far of a stretch from what the game is now. The only thing I aim them to do is to discourage raiders against larger alliances and to aid new nations who (even if they did make the choice) are no longer beige.

Edited October 20, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Vincent]

So if i go along with your arguement what you basically proposed is for bigger nation to be able to sent its troop some where else on the pretext of aiding smaller nation? So my next question is what about in the event of alliance war? Will these nation still be able to transfer their army around? If yes then this will significantly alter the game play. Some nation will delibrately choose not to have a military because they know in event of war their allies will be able to only to extend not only monetary and resources but also military manpower as well. This might lead to some sort of arrangement whereby some country just focus on military whereas the others focus in economy . then when war happens just shift the military from one nation to the other?  By the way if not mistaken i think previously there was already someone who make the proposal on being able to transfer soldiers from one nation to another. Maybe you could refer to that thread to see the response of the others there. (If that thread is still around that is).

Having said so, i think i would have humbly disagree with your suggestion as i think it will only further complicating the game with more and more options. I think there are many other options to aid smaller nations against raiders without having the need to transfer soldiers from the bigger nation to a smaller ones.

[naTia]

Some nation will delibrately choose not to have a military

As already stated, the transfer would be limited to their current military capacity (what their improvements can hold), and half of what they can produce in one day (per day). If necessary, this could be further limited to just one nation supplying?

 

I appreciate your considerations on the matter, and I feel this is a very good debate.

Edited October 20, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Hansarius]

The problem with this is that it also allows for the raiders themselves to aided from their benefactors.

Which to be honest is more likely to happen than it is that victims are going to get aid.

[elsuper]

I personally considered:

• Increasing the war range of aggressors to others within the defender's alliance

 

This has some elegance to it, if I understand it correctly. Do you mean expanding down-declare options if the target is at war with a member of your alliance?

[Vincent]

This has some elegance to it, if I understand it correctly. Do you mean expanding down-declare options if the target is at war with a member of your alliance?

 

It might also be an option . But you need to remember if that measure is adopted. Then in the event of an alliance war, we might be exposing ourself to attack from a nation far larger than us ( That previously cant declare on us as we are out of their range).

 

And 2ndly if we were to be at war with a Raider's alliance then we are also exposing ourself to this expanded down declare options. Exposing ourself to be hit by those larger nation in those Raider Alliance ( The Raiders Return or etc?). This will then be a blade that cut both ways.

 

 

[naTia]

So it sounds to me the largest problem with these ideas are problems with the solutions also benefitting the "wrong" nation. I think the easiest fix is including only the defender in range of said benefits. Although this may come with its own problems, it definitely is a step away from helping raiders.

Edited October 22, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Vincent]

Well you suggestion to benefit the defender. Well that solve the problem if is a raid. But what if is an alliance war? Then we are giving necessary advantage to the defender. Unless the game is able to differentiate the war between a genuine alliance war or is it merely a raid. In an alliance war both attacker and defender should sort out their dispute in a fair play ground. No one should be given any undue advantage such as what you suggested. And even if the game is able to identify between a raid and an alliance war. What if the raider alliance declare on your alliance then? 

Edited October 22, 2014 by vincentsum8

[naTia]

When choosing a target, most people attack people with militaries that are weaker than their own, normally, any unfairness is equalized by the fact that the attacker generally is stronger militarily.