There is no real incentive for war

[Avatar Patrick]

On 2/17/2021 at 10:35 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

It's the politics part of politics and war that ignite war.

wars are too expensive to go to war over a mechanics issue

 

 

8 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If it takes you longer than a week or two to rebuild post war, you are not prepared to fight in a war.  Honestly if it takes more than a few days to bounce back, you are not prepared to fight a war.

These 2 statements contradict each other. Are wars too expensive to fight over trivial things or is rebuilding quickly not an issue?

[Jangles]

Just make it so alliances who hide and move resources from getting looted get permanently banned. And all of the resources that both alliances hold are totally deleted.

 

That seems fair to me. And I'm sure that would probably create an incentive for war. Granted it is a solution for an exploit that most pixel huggers probably do not see as a exploit.

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Jangles

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

On 2/22/2021 at 8:05 PM, Avatar Patrick said:

 

These 2 statements contradict each other. Are wars too expensive to fight over trivial things or is rebuilding quickly not an issue?

Peace time is the time you use to prepare your nation for the next war, so if you or your alliance is properly run, you should already be prepared for a post war rebuild before you hit the declare war button.   (this is one of the reasons people like NAPs because everyone is paranoid they are going to get hit right after they rebuild, which would probably cripple them, as they just spend a large portion of their savings on rebuilding)

But they dont contradict each other, because I dont support going to war over trivial game mechanics, I think its dumb, I do support going to war to help your allies, or help ensure your security, which are Political reasons. 

To sum up what I am saying is, you dont need to build in mechanics in the game to force conflict, because wars are too expensive to fight over a few billion dollars.  But at the same time, your alliance should be run well enough that if you do find yourself in a war, post war rebuild should be pretty easy.

[Sir Scarfalot]

On 2/25/2021 at 6:19 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Peace time is the time you use to prepare your nation for the next war, so if you or your alliance is properly run, you should already be prepared for a post war rebuild before you hit the declare war button.   (this is one of the reasons people like NAPs because everyone is paranoid they are going to get hit right after they rebuild, which would probably cripple them, as they just spend a large portion of their savings on rebuilding)

But they dont contradict each other, because I dont support going to war over trivial game mechanics, I think its dumb, I do support going to war to help your allies, or help ensure your security, which are Political reasons. 

To sum up what I am saying is, you dont need to build in mechanics in the game to force conflict, because wars are too expensive to fight over a few billion dollars.  But at the same time, your alliance should be run well enough that if you do find yourself in a war, post war rebuild should be pretty easy.

Right, and hitting your opponent directly after they rebuild and decom, in direct contravention of peace agreements, is far and away the most effective way to help your allies and ensure your security. Which is something that no alliance can rebuild from again afterwards, since there would therefore never be any possible time to do so without immediately getting hit afterwards. Which means that NAPs are 100% contraindicated by any alliance that is by your definition "well run", and there's no time wherein you shouldn't be at war. Which contradicts your point that alliances should be "well run" enough to have billions for post-war rebuilds at all times.

tl;dr: The only alliances that are even remotely close to your idea of "well-run" are Arrgh, KT and Mythic, and the ones furthest from "well-run" are Grumpy, T$, e404 and basically everyone that isn't a dedicated raiding AA.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

5 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Right, and hitting your opponent directly after they rebuild and decom, in direct contravention of peace agreements, is far and away the most effective way to help your allies and ensure your security. Which is something that no alliance can rebuild from again afterwards, since there would therefore never be any possible time to do so without immediately getting hit afterwards. Which means that NAPs are 100% contraindicated by any alliance that is by your definition "well run", and there's no time wherein you shouldn't be at war. Which contradicts your point that alliances should be "well run" enough to have billions for post-war rebuilds at all times.

tl;dr: The only alliances that are even remotely close to your idea of "well-run" are Arrgh, KT and Mythic, and the ones furthest from "well-run" are Grumpy, T$, e404 and basically everyone that isn't a dedicated raiding AA.

If people are going to start attacking again right after peace is declared, then the politics part goes right out the window and this game basically falls apart.

[Sir Scarfalot]

37 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If people are going to start attacking again right after peace is declared, then the politics part goes right out the window and this game basically falls apart.

Which, by your own (and entirely correct) logic, it should. QED

Thing is, people (including yourself) tend to prefer an environment of solid and sacrosanct NAPs after large-scale conflicts which alter or rebalance the power structure for that peacetime period, and for reasons beyond purely selfish ones. Ones which you clearly value (as you've signed those NAPs despite grumbling about them), but for some darn reason just can't seem to find their way into your actual rhetoric.

It's almost like there's some kind of underlying reason as to the theatrics on the forum that ensures some kind of playable balance in the actual video game... one that actually and genuinely required the "mysterious HM leader" to remain mysterious so as to ensure all sides had themselves a grudge to posture over and thus ensure the war didn't end up as IQ vs IQ or something equally horrific.

Just my two cents plus change

Edited March 12, 2021 by Sir Scarfalot

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

48 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Which, by your own (and entirely correct) logic, it should. QED

Thing is, people (including yourself) tend to prefer an environment of solid and sacrosanct NAPs after large-scale conflicts which alter or rebalance the power structure for that peacetime period, and for reasons beyond purely selfish ones. Ones which you clearly value (as you've signed those NAPs despite grumbling about them), but for some darn reason just can't seem to find their way into your actual rhetoric.

It's almost like there's some kind of underlying reason as to the theatrics on the forum that ensures some kind of playable balance in the actual video game... one that actually and genuinely required the "mysterious HM leader" to remain mysterious so as to ensure all sides had themselves a grudge to posture over and thus ensure the war didn't end up as IQ vs IQ or something equally horrific.

Just my two cents plus change

Spoken like someone that isn't in a leadership position and doesn't seem to understand how picking your battles work.  The battles I speak of are not the ones where you launch missiles the entire time as I know you love to do, they are the ones where you need to make decisions about the future of your alliance/bloc/ possibly the entire game.   Do I think NAPs are dumb? Yeah I do, am I going to burn all political capital to try to prevent it from occurring?  Don't care that much.  Grumpy in its history as far as I can remember has never asked for a NAP win or lose.  The only nap I have ever probably supported was the 6 month post IQ war nap.

[Sir Scarfalot]

4 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Spoken like someone that isn't in a leadership position and doesn't seem to understand how picking your battles work.  The battles I speak of are not the ones where you launch missiles the entire time as I know you love to do, they are the ones where you need to make decisions about the future of your alliance/bloc/ possibly the entire game.   Do I think NAPs are dumb? Yeah I do, am I going to burn all political capital to try to prevent it from occurring?  Don't care that much.  Grumpy in its history as far as I can remember has never asked for a NAP win or lose.  The only nap I have ever probably supported was the 6 month post IQ war nap.

And yet you continue to act exactly like yourself, as you yourself continue to describe. Supporting NAPs by inaction is equivalent in effect to supporting them by action, so I really don't know what you're even trying to describe in your contradictions, let alone what you hope to accomplish?

[Deborah Kobayashi]

My Suggestions for this


1. Bounties
blockades do not stop bounty collection, or at least add an escrow account for collected bounties until blockade is lifted


2. Treasures Rework
Increase the number of treasures and have more variety in their bonus (including having some higher then the highest now)

Make Treasure Tiers:
c15 & Below
c10 to c20
c15 & Above

3 different ways i see to do this,
easy mode: Treasures only spawn in tiers 
hardcore: treasures can only exist in tier (do not receive in war and cant trade out of tier)
Middle Road: Treasures Spawn only in tier and can be sold only in tier but can always be taken through war (my Preference)

Tiers listed are just suggestions, open to change the tiers, but they must have some overlap

Treasure Tiers make it so that alliances can't just horde them in their strongest tier, if an alliance attempted to horde many treasures in different tiers, the potential of them being taken through war increases if that alliance doesn't have strong coverage in that range

3. Territories 
like Treasures but provide bonus for resource production,
Each Territory only adds a bonus to 1 type of resource.
Linked to Continents, Must be on its continent to take it when winning a war.
must have a diminishing bonus when holding more than one territory of the same resource type  
Changing continents forces respawn

Open to making tiers for this as well, but not my current vision for it

4. Rebuild Cost Change
Infra cost less to rebuild than to initially build.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Deborah Kobayashi

[OldNoob]

Noob here but perhaps I could provide a fresh perspective.

Ideologies, (economic or social policy), could be better utilized.

I get ideologies are mostly for RP purposes but they could be used as another incentive for war.

Nations could get a boost to income  depending on how many other nations within the same region share the same ideology. We could see alliances engage in wars to force others to adopt their preferred ideology.

Perhaps religion could function in a similar way.

Would this result with everyone ending up with the same religion/ideology? 

I doubt it.

Most people are quite attached to their ideology, either for RP or personal reasons. If the European continent becomes extreme left and a player is facing pressure to convert they could move their nation to another region that supports an ideology they like.

With this system the world would divide into ideological blocks of alliances that may fight amongst each other but should band together when faced with a threat from an opposing ideology.

Absolute monarchists may go to war with constitutional monarchists but when under threat by republicans they might band together to defend the faith.

Edited April 1, 2021 by OldNoob
clarity

[JadenStar10]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:18 AM, Alex said:

We could reduce the cost of rebuilding previously built infrastructure.

I would suggest somewhere between a 30%-50% decrease in rebuilding.

[Grave]

On 2/19/2021 at 12:04 PM, Alex said:

I agree with you, but Treasures *were* way more powerful in the past. Instead of war, we just got collusion where everyone teamed up to reap the bonus and it was way OP.

I like the discussion here, and I'm open to new ideas on this as I agree, it is a bit of an issue.

In the past, I had pitched a system for "Control Points" which were kind of like bounties. They were an in-game mechanic where each nation has an amount of Control Points (starts with 0) and over time, when you are at peace, your Control Points increase. Control Points themselves offer some sort of a bonus to your nation. When you defeat another nation in war, you take their control points (or perhaps some portion.)

The result is that over time, nations that stay at relative peace build up a large swath of these Control Points that make them juicier and juicier targets for other nations.

The difficulty with anything like this though is figuring out how to balance things and prevent people from abusing the system.

 

@Alex

 

I'm really late but what if treasures gave 15% but you can only have one per alliance and they don't  change hands automatically or are even given to an individual player, but to the alliance directly, with a 5% chance for it to be taken by another alliance   when a nation wins a war against that alliance. 

(Maybe 5-10% chance going down as an alliance has more members (1% per 20 players maybe) id much rather try to send 300 wars [100 player alliance] for a 5% chance each than <60 wars [less than 20 members ] for a 10% chance each ) 

 I could see that being worth a global war.  

15% might sound like a lot but its very likely that one or two of these bonuses would be shared between a bloc , (i still think it should be tradeable with a 14 day cool down for both this reason and if for example, a unauthorized raid stole a treasure and the alliance who had it stolen wants it back and is threatening war over it. )

On 4/1/2021 at 6:16 PM, OldNoob said:

Noob here but perhaps I could provide a fresh perspective.

Ideologies, (economic or social policy), could be better utilized.

I get ideologies are mostly for RP purposes but they could be used as another incentive for war.

Nations could get a boost to income  depending on how many other nations within the same region share the same ideology. We could see alliances engage in wars to force others to adopt their preferred ideology.

Perhaps religion could function in a similar way.

Would this result with everyone ending up with the same religion/ideology? 

I doubt it.

Most people are quite attached to their ideology, either for RP or personal reasons. If the European continent becomes extreme left and a player is facing pressure to convert they could move their nation to another region that supports an ideology they like.

With this system the world would divide into ideological blocks of alliances that may fight amongst each other but should band together when faced with a threat from an opposing ideology.

Absolute monarchists may go to war with constitutional monarchists but when under threat by republicans they might band together to defend the faith.

 

 

I see a big issue with this tbh, either you are wrong and everyone uses the same one, or if you're right it would tear every single alliance apart as they find somewhere that matches their religion