Idea: Upon gaining 12 Military Action Points, lose resistance every subsequent turn.

[Zerkium]

I've experienced this once or twice: a nation that has a blockade will nearly finish the war and just do nothing until the war is almost over, so as to keep the blockade. 

 

A mechanic that might resolve this might be to lower 5 resistance points every turn after already gaining 12 MAPs. 

 

This would result in the winning nation that is stalling the war's end having to balance out the risk of risking losing via neglecting to attack and finish off the opponent. 

[BelgiumFury]

9 minutes ago, Zerkium said:

I've experienced this once or twice: a nation that has a blockade will nearly finish the war and just do nothing until the war is almost over, so as to keep the blockade. 

 

A mechanic that might resolve this might be to lower 5 resistance points every turn after already gaining 12 MAPs. 

 

This would result in the winning nation that is stalling the war's end having to balance out the risk of risking losing via neglecting to attack and finish off the opponent. 

I think blockade cycling is a good mechanic, i do not agree at all.

[Zevari]

5 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:

I think blockade cycling is a good mechanic, i do not agree at all.

While I do like the mechanic of blockading someone for all 60 turns of war (and think it's a solid strategy) I think there should be punishment for players who sit at max MAPS.

The way I view war resistance is the nations desire and ability to continue said war effort. If the aggressor or defender is not actively fighting even with max maps a system like a drain on their resistance to represent public pushback would make sense.

Plus it would also force players to put more thought into war and potentially making skill be a factor in wars. (Since co-ordination would be much more needed to prevent unwanted beige time for enemies and to keep them zeroed longer).

[Majima Goro]

I do like the sound of the idea but the execution might need a bit more thought. 

Firstly, what does actively fighting mean? Would it count as active fighting if I suicide 50 munition-less soldiers onto someone and get a UF so that I neither lower their resistance while at the same time am not at 12 MAPs.

Secondly, how would this affect inactive players? If I declare on an inactive nation, no matter how big or powerful they are and then just wait for the natural resistance decay to defeat them, would that be a valid strategy?
 

Third, what if I am unable to fight at all, i.e, say I'm caught in a blockade without any resources to make any military. I would not be able to fight back not because I don't want to but more of because I wouldn't be able to.

[Zevari]

56 minutes ago, Majima Goro said:

Third, what if I am unable to fight at all, i.e, say I'm caught in a blockade without any resources to make any military. I would not be able to fight back not because I don't want to but more of because I wouldn't be able to.

I mean regardless in this situation you were going to be beaten, so being beiged faster is going to beneficial to you. If the war ends quicker then you can gear back up faster to fight the next round.
 

58 minutes ago, Majima Goro said:

Firstly, what does actively fighting mean? Would it count as active fighting if I suicide 50 munition-less soldiers onto someone and get a UF so that I neither lower their resistance while at the same time am not at 12 MAPs.

Secondly, how would this affect inactive players? If I declare on an inactive nation, no matter how big or powerful they are and then just wait for the natural resistance decay to defeat them, would that be a valid strategy?
 

These are both good points, maybe if the system was based on the time since any resistance damage was done to a nation. So if you are intentionally failing battles when you could win, you would still take the decreasing resistance debuff. 

Also in regards to the second point, you can always set it up so the aggressor will lose resistance faster than the defender. But if the aggressor loses because of this system they don't get any beige time.

[hidude45454]

4 minutes ago, Zevari said:

These are both good points, maybe if the system was based on the time since any resistance damage was done to a nation. So if you are intentionally failing battles when you could win, you would still take the decreasing resistance debuff. 

Also in regards to the second point, you can always set it up so the aggressor will lose resistance faster than the defender. But if the aggressor loses because of this system they don't get any beige time.

Once you start going into the weeds like this generally it's already not a good idea.

This mechanic would have the very annoying consequence that nations on the defensive end will intentionally give up and stop attacking so they can stack large amounts of beige. So globals would both be very boring and very drawn out.

That, and I don't know why the game should punish people for winning a war.

[BelgiumFury]

On 12/17/2021 at 8:19 AM, hidude45454 said:

That, and I don't know why the game should punish people for winning a war.

All that needs to be said.
In addition to people that are winning would just need to spam fortify.