War Declaration Range Possible Bug

[Placentica]

To my knowledge it's the 25/75% but also +/- 10 spots from where you are.

 

*I'm not planning on attacking anyone*, but I noticed on the leaderboard page that I could declare on only 3 nations.

 

When I pulled up the Declaration page on a GPA guy (again I'm not planning attacking him, did it just to see if it was a bug!) it said this:

 

You can't declare war on this nation because they are outside of your war range. Your war range extends to +75% or -25% of your score. You can also always declare on nations within the next 10 ranks above you.

 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Placentica

[Alex]

 

 

You can't declare war on this nation because they are outside of your war range. Your war range extends to +75% or -25% of your score. You can also always declare on nations within the next 10 ranks above you.

 

This is correct. You can't declare war on 10 spots below you, only above. The three nations that you're able to go to war with are within 25% of your score.

[Placentica]

Could I suggest you do -10 spots as well.  I know it's self-serving right now, but I'd suggest it even if I was in 10th place.  The 25%/75% difference is big enough to be quite restricting, but not having -10/+10 seems a bit extreme.

[Clarke]

No it's a bad idea and always was as this isn't the first time the subject was brought up. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Diabolos

[Hereno]

lmfao you can only hit 2 people and they're in the same alliance

 

makes me feel less guilty about being such a lazy (and cheap) nation grower

[Placentica]

For the record.  I can attack 3 people and 28 people can attack me under the current ranges.  If I put up a lot of military I would not be able to attack anyone.  How realistic is that?  The USA can't attack anyone b/c they are too big?

 

Also the #10 nation has 6 cities, 1 less than me and would be easily able to defend against someone with 7 cities imo.  Cities are really all that matter when it comes to ability to defend/attack.  If fairness is sought it would be better to say -1 city/+2 cities up-declare than to do a raw NS.

 

In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) it's -250/+250 for 10,000 nations.  So a -25/+25 for 1000 nations really would be realistic.  -10-15 down-declare even would be fine.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Placentica

[Shellhound]

No it's a bad idea and always was as this isn't the first time the subject was brought up. 

Can you explain your reasons as to why it's a bad idea?

[Phiney]

In speed round there was a point where I could attack precisely 0 people. I agree with plac, its a bit silly.

[Saru]

I had this issue in the last rounds and I think the consensus amongst everyone else was that it should stay the way it is.

[Prefontaine]

I had this issue in the last rounds and I think the consensus amongst everyone else was that it should stay the way it is.

 

Even in Alpha, when I was near the bottom, I thought the down declare range was far too limiting. People at the top can only attack a few, while many in comparison can attack them. Kangaroo can attack 3 people while 28 can attack him. That's a 933% difference. 

[Clarke]

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2016-lower-the-war-range/

 

To quote Sheepy from that thread.

 

No. The reason it has never been this way is because the #1 nation could simply beat down everyone that gets anywhere near him before they could get enough score to put up a fight. We don't want a ridiculous snowball effect where one player/players take control of the top end of the game. On the other hand, being able to attack 10 up actively prevents this from happening.

 

Please don't compare this to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), we all know how bad (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is at the moment which only really supports Sheepy sentiments in keeping it as it is.

If you want a terrible war range system keep playing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). 

Also I said it that thread "No that's a terrible idea.", Lamba agreed so it is the right thing. 

Any suggestion to remove the limitation is really not in the best interest of the game back then and now in the current game. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Diabolos

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I agree that its probably fine how it is. You want to grow out of war range, it means you can maintain limited military and benefit further from the security of a high score.   You want to wage war on lots of people, spend money on building resource stocks instead of more cities and infra, or get some projects.

 

Still, it does kind of suck having no one to fight because you're too good at the econ game.  I get that.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Clarke]

because you're too good at the econ game.  I get that.

Or donations, not that they're bad.

It's a nice amount of cash. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Diabolos

[Prefontaine]

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2016-lower-the-war-range/

 

To quote Sheepy from that thread.

 

Please don't compare this to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), we all know how bad (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is at the moment which only really supports Sheepy sentiments in keeping it as it is.

If you want a terrible war range system keep playing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). 

Also I said it that thread "No that's a terrible idea.", Lamba agreed so it is the right thing. 

Any suggestion to remove the limitation is really not in the best interest of the game back then and now in the current game. 

 

First off, on that bold part you're just being ignorant just because you dislike an idea doesn't mean there's no need to talk about it. Also, please keep bringing up Lambda, that will definitely strengthen your case.

 

What's the point in having a +10 scenario? The current #11 is still in the #1's range to attack by 150 or so points. But the #1 can only attack down to the #4? That hardly seems fair and shows that having a +10 is basically worthless and will almost never come into play. Were Kangaroo to build a military, it would be likely there would only be 1 player he could declare upon. I don't think it's beyond reason to have a +10/-10.

 

It's worth discussing.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Prefontaine

[Clarke]

You can still talk about it and discuss it, doesn't mean this old idea benefits the game. 

Also no need to hate on Lambda, he was a valuable member of this community before he went on a rampage which is to say he had excellent thoughts on the game prior to that. 

 

"you're just being ignorant just because you dislike an idea doesn't mean there's no need to talk about it."

To skip back to that, eh? I have no idea where I said you couldn't talk about it.

It seems like you're just trying to find something out of nothing to argue with and to call me ignorant over it, well damn now I am just lost as to how I can be ignorant for something that never happened. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Diabolos

[Skyler215]

@diabolos just don't mind them... They're just trying to make the game suit to their own interest but the masses say its fine.. And alas, you said about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) I agree with you more than a hundred percent..

[Grillick]

It may be worth discussing, Prefontaine, but it's certainly not a bug. This isn't even a missing feature: it's a feature that's already been discussed and decided, so changing it is clearly a suggestion.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Grillick

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Is this about up/down declarations or about an alliance wanting its top member to be able to reign death and destruction on lots weaker nations.  The +10 is good since it means you can't "grow out of being attacking" if a goodly portion of those in the 10 below you are out for your blood.

[Alex]

Diabolos already found the quote, which is more or less what I was going to restate in response.

 

A -10 war range, where you can declare on nations up to 10 ranks below you, have game breaking potential. To say that in the real world, the US doesn't have limitations on attacking smaller nations is unfair -- in the real world, there are no "war range" limits. Therefore, the real world is irrelevant in this case for the sake of creating a game with fair rules.

 

Let's say Placentica could declare war on nations 10 ranks below him. Let's also say that, in this hypothetical, the nations' scores aren't what they currently are. Maybe the #10 nation is 500 score below Placentica. Would it be fair for him to be able to declare war and utterly destroy him, then rinse and repeat with whoever is next at #10? This could go on forever, with no one ever able to reach his score and he would essentially be the hegemon of the game. People would try not to get in his war range.

 

On the other hand, having a +10 war range makes it so that you can take a risk and fight someone potentially much larger than you. In this instance, if Placentica is the largest nation by far, the other nations can attempt to fight him if they'd like, even if he's way out of their war range. If one of them is successful, then it brings about change and unseats him as the #1 nation, etc. which is good for the game (to be dynamic and have changing top players).

[Odin]

Isn't it nice looking down from the Throne?^^

 

You could start another nation if you want wage wars, or wait a bit till we get nearer^^

 

 

That game is just either exactly made for you, or totally not.

You're literally Usain Bolt on ecstasy, complaining why the other can't keep up

 

But to solve the general Problem: Reduce the points gotten from citys to near 0?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Wilhelm II

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

You could start another nation if you want wage wars, or wait a bit till we get nearer^^

 

 

 

I thought about doing that to experiment with raiding, too bad you're not allowed to have more than one nation.

[Placentica]

Diabolos already found the quote, which is more or less what I was going to restate in response.

 

A -10 war range, where you can declare on nations up to 10 ranks below you, have game breaking potential. To say that in the real world, the US doesn't have limitations on attacking smaller nations is unfair -- in the real world, there are no "war range" limits. Therefore, the real world is irrelevant in this case for the sake of creating a game with fair rules.

 

Let's say Placentica could declare war on nations 10 ranks below him. Let's also say that, in this hypothetical, the nations' scores aren't what they currently are. Maybe the #10 nation is 500 score below Placentica. Would it be fair for him to be able to declare war and utterly destroy him, then rinse and repeat with whoever is next at #10? This could go on forever, with no one ever able to reach his score and he would essentially be the hegemon of the game. People would try not to get in his war range.

 

On the other hand, having a +10 war range makes it so that you can take a risk and fight someone potentially much larger than you. In this instance, if Placentica is the largest nation by far, the other nations can attempt to fight him if they'd like, even if he's way out of their war range. If one of them is successful, then it brings about change and unseats him as the #1 nation, etc. which is good for the game (to be dynamic and have changing top players).

Fair enough.  Originally I did think it was a bug. 

 

The #10 nation could easily defeat me.  And the #20+#21+22 nations could thoroughly trash me, just picking random rankings, not war ranges.  Even 1v1 a well stocked nation with 6 cities could beat me.

 

As it is right now the smaller nations have a extremely huge advantage, they can hit you but you can't hit them.  Even with just one less city.  So all they'd have to do is build up a massive military and 3 hit me.  And I'd be defenseless to counter it, even with max milt.  Games like these have never been about war ranges, but alliance(s) vs. alliance(s).  (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is a good example unlike what Diablos said.  It shows that even with large war ranges you can still easily beat alliances that have much larger nations than yours.  You just need more alliances and coordination.  It's called the drag-down method, just take a big nation down to your swarm of smalls.  A larger nation won't be able to counter it b/c that larger nation can't hit the smaller ones.

 

Just saying, I know this is a suggestion, but if you are afraid of a big owned a smaller nation you could make war ranges +25%/-25% and either -/+10 spots or not any spots at all.  Then you equal the playing field and don't penalize good nation builders.  I don't expect it to be changed right now.  In the future, I believe this exploit will lead to a change though.  That's how many nations are in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), they won't grow, because they can easily handle larger nations due to their warchest/national wonders.

 

For me, the #2 is just same same level of fairness/unfairness as #10.  They all have 6 cities.  In that regard you could also change war ranges to -0%/+75% if you are concerned with bigs hitting smaller nations.  And in terms of fairness make it so that only one alliance can attack another alliance, not 1v1 at first followed by two more when the fight looks too fair, lol.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Placentica

[Ayayay]

Let's say Placentica could declare war on nations 10 ranks below him. Let's also say that, in this hypothetical, the nations' scores aren't what they currently are. Maybe the #10 nation is 500 score below Placentica. Would it be fair for him to be able to declare war and utterly destroy him, then rinse and repeat with whoever is next at #10? This could go on forever, with no one ever able to reach his score and he would essentially be the hegemon of the game. People would try not to get in his war range.

You don't even need to be hypothetical, that is exactly what happened in Alpha with Saru and The Endless. Saru was the largest nation in the game and was completely destroying the top nations in The Endless. Eventually one or two other top 10 nations joined Saru and they proceeded to beat The Endless down with no real worries. 

 

In fact, IIRC, that was one of the arguments used to change the war system from -33%/+66% to -25%/+75% as Saru just barely able to declare on two of the nations with his score.

[Alex]

You don't even need to be hypothetical, that is exactly what happened in Alpha with Saru and The Endless. Saru was the largest nation in the game and was completely destroying the top nations in The Endless. Eventually one or two other top 10 nations joined Saru and they proceeded to beat The Endless down with no real worries. 

 

In fact, IIRC, that was one of the arguments used to change the war system from -33%/+66% to -25%/+75% as Saru just barely able to declare on two of the nations with his score.

 

I'm sure you remember better than I, since I don't play, but yeah it's a perfect example of why we have +10 ranks but not -10 ranks. I hate to penalize anyone for being good at the game, but we can't allow them to sit at #1 forever.

[Vincent]

But having -10 doesn't mean they will forever sit at number 1