Jump to content

Make war have real stakes


HeroofTime55
 Share

Recommended Posts

Give nukes a 50% chance to destroy a city.  Not just the infra but to actually delete a city.  Make people think twice and have a real reason to go to war.  Would make the game actually interesting. Meaningless wars after every NAP expires is a boring gameplay loop.  There has to be real consequences.  Maybe interesting politics will actually develop then.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 19

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HeroofTime55 said:

Give nukes a 50% chance to destroy a city.  Not just the infra but to actually delete a city.  Make people think twice and have a real reason to go to war.  Would make the game actually interesting. Meaningless wars after every NAP expires is a boring gameplay loop.  There has to be real consequences.  Maybe interesting politics will actually develop then.

Lmfao, we dont wanna scare people so much to go to war that this turns into CN 😂

But seriously, this has disastrous consequences. Cities are the main permanent investment in this game, killing them means people lose their progress quite easily, especially with how easy it is to use nukes, you're gonna make Wampus c10 soon enough.

  • Upvote 1

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:

I read the title of the post and I was excited for a second because I finally thought that if you died in PnW you would die irl

But tbh as a proud ally of The Immortals (and Lord Tyrion) I'm in favor of nerfing all loser weapons (nukes/missles/soldier suicides)

how can there be loser weapons if there isn't even a loser in war?  oh no, you killed all my planes, guess i better wait it out and then just rebuild to my previous level after there's white peace and another fricking 3 month NAP

to be clear, i am down for giving immense triumph attacks on land, air, and navy a chance at destroying cities as well.  !@#$ it, make everything have a chance.  as long as people can't just wait out a war and then rebuild right back to where they were with 0 investment or effort.

  • Downvote 1

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JadenStar10 said:

Lmfao, we dont wanna scare people so much to go to war that this turns into CN 😂

But seriously, this has disastrous consequences. Cities are the main permanent investment in this game, killing them means people lose their progress quite easily, especially with how easy it is to use nukes, you're gonna make Wampus c10 soon enough.

this is the idea.  old CN before the game died was hella fun because s*** had consequences, survival was at stake, wars mattered.  politics was interesting.  when people posted a DoW they articulated reasons for doing so, instead of the indecipherable diarrhea that passes for a DoW in this game.  PnW is boring and for losers.  It doesn't have to be.

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the suggestion of making war  more harsh to the loser. I also love the fact you have fought 85 wars(losing 41 of them)in 829 days. You are losing another set of wars now. You are the perfect person to give advice in this scenario.

 

Let me ask you this, would you be willing to flip a coin over losing a city if you get nuked? If not, what else do you recommend? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zurg said:

I love the suggestion of making war  more harsh to the loser. I also love the fact you have fought 85 wars(losing 41 of them)in 829 days. You are losing another set of wars now. You are the perfect person to give advice in this scenario.

 

Let me ask you this, would you be willing to flip a coin over losing a city if you get nuked? If not, what else do you recommend? 

I'm willing.  But I also recommend other smaller probabilities for other types of attacks to destroy a city.  Obviously, all should only be implemented after this war concludes and we have another boring fricking NAP and whatever.  Nothing that impacts the current war.  But YES, the loser should face consequences, and it also must be costly for the victor to deliver those consequences.  Yes, please, make it matter.  Just make it fricking matter.  I have no investment in this war, it's boring.  I know my survival isn't on the line.  I'll fight, I'll try to do as much damage as I can, but it doesn't matter at all, lol.

  • Downvote 1

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HeroofTime55 said:

this is the idea.  old CN before the game died was hella fun because s*** had consequences, survival was at stake, wars mattered.  politics was interesting.  when people posted a DoW they articulated reasons for doing so, instead of the indecipherable diarrhea that passes for a DoW in this game.  PnW is boring and for losers.  It doesn't have to be.

I dont want early CN, where EZI was rampant, people crying and bawling over nukes, etc.

CN is a dead game, dead for a reason. This game thrives, that tells you something.

CN is boring as hell, last war I fought was in January of this year, and it lasted a round.

PnW has much better politics then wherever CN has ended up.

Though I would not mind early CN politics (minus the "outrage" over a nuke), I do slightly agree with you there about politics, it is much more multifaceted (atleast in the earlygame) this has nothing to do with your suggestion. Stop Red Herring in an attempt to justify your sorry excuse of a suggestion.

Your suggestion really only encourages people to defensively hug eachother and devolve the game into Bipolar world.

A state PnW was recently in, and i am sure does not want to go back to.

CN was until one side became triumphant and no one cared to keep the game alive anymore by signing treaties upon treaties with eachother to pixelhug their infra and tech.

Thats what PnW's future looks like with the permanent city destruction, a bipolar world of pixelhuggers.

  • Upvote 1

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CN died because the admin was absent and refused to make updates to the game.  Tell me, what has Alex recently done?  Added a field for National Animal?  Oh boy, groundbreaking stuff.  I am certainly not comparing today's CN with today's PnW.  But old school CN was miles better than PnW today.  The question is how to improve this game, here and now.  The answer is to stop making war consequence-free.  It simply is not damaging enough. 

PS: PnW is never not going to be a bipolar world no matter how much people want to dress it up like that.  There's nothing inherently great about our "multi-polar" world if all those "poles" are really the same group bound by secret treaties and they just dogpile targets of their choosing who haven't figured out yet that it's not really multi-polar at all.

Edited by HeroofTime55

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think the current war system is pretty great. Though stakes are not as high as a real war, getting beiged is not a slap on the wrist either.

Nukes are nearly unavoidable (20% on Vital Defense System is very low), and giving 50% chance to destroy a city for each nuke is too much. On top of that, it adds more RNG to the game, in a way that I think is detrimental.

  • Upvote 1

Imperon Curator Uranato

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

Give nukes a 50% chance to destroy a city.  Not just the infra but to actually delete a city.  Make people think twice and have a real reason to go to war.  Would make the game actually interesting. Meaningless wars after every NAP expires is a boring gameplay loop.  There has to be real consequences.  Maybe interesting politics will actually develop then.

Bad idea! Toss in the trash!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nukes deleting cities is quite honestly a veeeeery bad idea, it would render every viable war strategy, absolutely pointless within a short amount of time. Imagine going through the effort of suppressing a specific score range of nations against all odds and the suppressed side just lobs warheads that knocks you and your friends down three tiers. War would be pointless and nobody would want to wage it. 50% chance is very high especially if you have more than two offensive slots filled and I think that's unfair to everybody who worked hard to even get past 20 cities.

Of course, wars IRL are pointless and nobody wants to wage them due to potential nuclear warfare ending most life on the planet, but P&W shouldn't be a reflection of that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2021 at 4:20 PM, HeroofTime55 said:

Give nukes a 50% chance to destroy a city.  Not just the infra but to actually delete a city.  Make people think twice and have a real reason to go to war.  Would make the game actually interesting. Meaningless wars after every NAP expires is a boring gameplay loop.  There has to be real consequences.  Maybe interesting politics will actually develop then.

This is great, not only will war destroy cities, it will also destroy the game.  I mean if you want to raise the stakes that is one way to do it.  First war ends the game.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Perhaps, change the OP's "city deletion" to something else. I suggest something non-permanent and easily attainable. I do not know the limitations of the game engine or the server so I am not sure if this would even be feasible. However, if population took time to build up instead of just appearing after buying infra, then nukes could hold more weight. I understand that would be a lot more calculations every tick though.

2. Adding to (1.) There is no real tie-in for the population in this game other than providing taxes. Soldiers don't come out of the pop counts; nukes may kill pops but doesn't mean anything; and the city improvements run themselves in a sense without workers. This could add some more depth to the management simulation side of the game if population requirements had to be met.

I am just tossing around ideas for discussion. Please don't flame me.

Edited by Kojema
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Kojema said:

1. Perhaps, change the OP's "city deletion" to something else. I suggest something non-permanent and easily attainable. I do not know the limitations of the game engine or the server so I am not sure if this would even be feasible. However, if population took time to build up instead of just appearing after buying infra, then nukes could hold more weight. I understand that would be a lot more calculations every tick though.

2. Adding to (1.) There is no real tie-in for the population in this game other than providing taxes. Soldiers don't come out of the pop counts; nukes may kill pops but doesn't mean anything; and the city improvements run themselves in a sense without workers. This could add some more depth to the management simulation side of the game if population requirements had to be met.

I am just tossing around ideas for discussion. Please don't flame me.

These are all excellent thoughts.  You could have proper population growth models depending on how much space there is to expand, birth rates based on health and pollution index + immigration, etc.  Migration from populated cities towards empty cities that have rebuilt infra because they were nuked.  Six months to a year to recover to pre-war levels?

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Destroying cities is a bit much but I have entertained the idea of nukes destroying land. Food producers would find the potential for their precious land to be destroyed a very dire thing.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My primary concern with your suggestion is like others have stated, having city deletion on the table will encourage more pixelhugging and war dodging. But I think you're getting somewhere when it comes to trying to nerf cities. A large portion of the game, if not the majority, views progress as having the most cities. Even among players who enjoy war, there's an incentive in the game to drag out peace time in order to have an ROI over war costs and be able to "grow". Getting more cities takes no effort whatsoever since you can simply copy and paste the city build that's generally agreed upon to be the best for your tier, and then sit around indefinitely. A far better measure of competence is war performance. But high tier nations have an obvious advantage over low tier nations when it comes to that. If we cap the number of cities you can have at, let's say 30, than once you reach that, you'll have no incentive to continue making money outside of buying enough warchest for your next war. People will then look to other ways of displaying their achievements whether it be alliance recruitment, bloc forming, trading to make money for warchest faster, and of course, war itself. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sri Lanka 001 said:

tell me you are a war dodger without telling me you are a war dodger

Who are you, again?  Are you suggesting that YOU would not be willing to fight if the stakes were higher?  I sense a lot of projection in this quip.  I have never dodged a fight, not in this game nor in any other.  Hell, the only reason I even joined in the first place was to fight NPO.  People who raid a lot of defenseless unaligned nations to inflate their "wars fought" and "wars won" scores like to talk a lot of crap.  All of mine are from alliance conflicts, more often than not of which I've not been on the winning side.

That said, my boredom is at an all time high.  So if I am not fighting as hard as I could, note that it is boredom, not cowardice.

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Boredom is part of the game. PnW isnt a 3d shooter. OP's idea of being able to destroy cities would indeed destroy the game like previous co players said. 

I for one an curious to the new player improvements Alex spoke about. Higher tier players own the politics part of the game already, lets see if the War part could be shifted more to mid and lower tier. 

So perhaps the more infra you have, the more likely its hit in a nuke attack? Anything above 2500 or so?

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
 Share

  • 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.