Proposed Beige Change

[Viselli]

1-4 are the problem 5 should be the only one implemented as it gives incentive for winning wars and makes attackers consider before letting a war run down. In terms of the others 

1. This takes away beige cycling which is the only chance a smaller alliance has of beating an alliance of larger numbers or city size. If after every round things reset in terms of military size the people with the largest military win. 

2. This enables people who want to extend their beige time to hit inactives or those that can't fight back knowing the war would end soon and as point 1 states, defenders win in a tie. 

3. Just like in number 1 this prevents beige cycling, which is a bad thing. 

4. This is aimed directly at the portion of the player base that raids. This is bad and should not be implemented. 

5. This one I'm fine with as it gives incentive to win. 

 

 

[John M Keynes]

After a thorough examination of all the OP's proposed changes to Beige, these are my following comments on the issue:

1. Ok, This one is alright; currently, there is no winner when a war expires, so if you have more resistance, you will receive the victory. However, if you are losing the war and it expires, you will receive Beige time. This would make it harder to enforce an efficient beige cycling policy.

2. Ok, What's going on here?; So the war pretty much expires if your sitting on your opponent and don't perform an attack. Since your war will end in Beige anyway, you will be forced to beige. This would not be great for the winning side of a war since as stated in #1, all wars will end in Beige. However, this will be good if you are losing a war and you want more Beige time, meaning you will receive Beige time regardless.

3. Ok, This one infuriates me especially as a retired raider; Let's say you get beiged and you want your defensives to also beige you so that you can deposit and end your other wars. This will trigger Beige Stagnation, meaning your Beige will be stuck unless your opponent beiges you or peace out. Since I have wars still left to finish, my opponents can come online and defeat me or my wars will simply vanish, meaning I can lose out on potential loot. This would certainly make beige cycling harder to enforce.

4. Ok, This one also infuriates me since leaving Beige early shouldn't be punished. If I'm at Beige for 5+ days, I have more than enough time to rebuild all of my military. However, if I want to leave Beige and want to counter or go stat-padding, my military units will be 10% less effective for 12 turns. 

5. Ok, I'm kinda happy with this, unless it is switched the other way around. If I were to beige my opponent, I would be able to build 25% more military units for the remainder of the day. If I'm zeroed, I won't receive a boost. It would also give you an incentive to beige your opponent. However, it would also make beige cycling harder to enforce. Also woah, if I win all of my offensive wars, I would be able to rebuild all military in one sitting? Might consider putting a cap on that or depreciating the bonus for each war won.

Note: Numbers correlate with the number order of the OP's proposals and may also reflect the opinions of my alliance and our allies.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Key

[Prefontaine]

43 minutes ago, Viselli said:

1-4 are the problem 5 should be the only one implemented as it gives incentive for winning wars and makes attackers consider before letting a war run down. In terms of the others 

1. This takes away beige cycling which is the only chance a smaller alliance has of beating an alliance of larger numbers or city size. If after every round things reset in terms of military size the people with the largest military win. 

2. This enables people who want to extend their beige time to hit inactives or those that can't fight back knowing the war would end soon and as point 1 states, defenders win in a tie. 

3. Just like in number 1 this prevents beige cycling, which is a bad thing. 

4. This is aimed directly at the portion of the player base that raids. This is bad and should not be implemented. 

5. This one I'm fine with as it gives incentive to win. 

 

 

The point of these changes to remove beige cycling. 

[Ketya]

We should definitely try 1-3. I don’t think there will ever be a solution that satisfies everyone here, but 1-3 could get us a bit ahead. 

[Kalachthefirst]

If this can make this game more fun I am ready to support it.

 

[Zim]

On 3/15/2022 at 1:59 PM, Prefontaine said:

 

1. All wars end in beige. If the war would expire, the nation with the most resistance win. If the resistance is tied, the win goes to the defending nation.
2. If no attacks happen by either party in 20 turns, the war ends.
3. Beige timers do not begin reducing until all defensive wars have ended.
4. If a nation leaves beige early, their units are 10% less effective in offensive wars for 12 turns.
5. If a nation wins a war, that nation can produce an additional 25% units for the remainder of that day. This number stacks but is always calculated off of the base 100% unit production levels.

Sorry for the bit late involement, but honestly these changes don't look to bad from a raiders perspective, atleast without counting 4. 
Being punished for leaving beige early will always be a no for me. Wars need to give the advance to the one who attacks first, so to encourage people to fight and declare wars first. 

Point 2. will be annoying, and encourge suicide attacks(will fortify be counted as an attack?), it make it more annoying to attack inactives while also fighting wars with active people, or just been flatten by counters. 
But we can live with it. 

Point 5. would work, even if 25% is a bit much, and it stacks... it frankly sounds extremely broken. 

The rest i agree with, as being an improvement.