Prefontaine Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I've brought this up before, I've mentioned it on the radio show, and look at any war with intelligent people winning it. Ending a war, and by that I mean winning a war with ground attacks, is a bad thing if you're the winner, good if you're the loser. Currently the only downside to being beiged from a war is the final attack hitting some resources and a small % from the alliance bank. Players will intentionally not beige someone so wars can continue, and they can inflict more damage. There's no reason that the correct tactic in winning wars should be not to win wars. The solution? Make getting beiged hurt some, or make it benefit the person sending them to beige more. How about this? The person who gets sent to beige from war loses 10% for each day left in forced beige (50% the first day, 40% the second, etc..) and those cash/resources goto the winner. Seems harsh, but it's effectively 5 days of having a 25% tax on your nation. Not that brutal, and gives incentive to actually win wars, because a war system where you don't actually win an war, and let them expire is fairly stupid. Winning the war? Careful, don't actually win any wars. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Winning the war? Careful, don't actually win any wars. This made me laugh out loud. You bring up a valid point. I agree. Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) how about we keep the 6 immense triumphs but get rid of beige all together.... Or make it so that only new nations are put on beige upon creation and once they leave beige by changing their color or being kicked off of beige after being on it for how ever long the protection period lets you stay on it for they wont be able to go back to it so therefore if they are defeated in war they wont be forced on beige thus leaving them exposed to more attacks. Edited November 13, 2014 by Dark Specter 2 Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 IIRC Sheepy brought in the winning war thing to stop raiders from milking a fat inactive nations or the lone lowbies dry to the oblivion. It was something to give the losing side a chance to recuperate so they can fight back on a better footing, not necessarily meant as a bad thing in the 1st place. CMIIW This suggestion would just bring back the problem from the grave. The losing side would have to pick between losing quite a handful of resources or bounce out from Beige and got declared war once more. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted November 13, 2014 Author Share Posted November 13, 2014 IIRC Sheepy brought in the winning war thing to stop raiders from milking a fat inactive nations or the lone lowbies dry to the oblivion. It was something to give the losing side a chance to recuperate so they can fight back on a better footing, not necessarily meant as a bad thing in the 1st place. CMIIW This suggestion would just bring back the problem from the grave. The losing side would have to pick between losing quite a handful of resources or bounce out from Beige and got declared war once more. You can't redeclare on someone within 5 days of defeating them, and if you're inactive, you seem to get kicked from beige to grey faster than the auto-beige 5 days. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 If you fear lowbies who got pounded from an unwinnable war getting hit by raiders right after then they should consider joining alliances that will protect them. 1 Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansarius Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I agree that it is an odd thing when you have to order your members not to win their wars. 2 Quote “Be your friend’s true friend. Return gift for gift. Repay laughter with laughter again but betrayal with treachery.”― Hávamál Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I've brought this up before, I've mentioned it on the radio show, and look at any war with intelligent people winning it. Welp, I'm out. Seriously though, this is a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Basically a good idea Prefontaine but there is one concern, what if it comes to a raid. Raiders love to hit unaligned nations /low level new nation. If we adopt this for raids then essentially we are rewarding the raiders more. Raiders love beige others and make off with whatever they can make off then hop on to their next victim. So this proposal will essentially reward the raiders with 25% more income and resources. Unless the game has a way to differentiate between a raid and a war. ( Whereby if is a raid, then this proposal wouldn't be applicable) or another way is those inactive nations gets deleted within 2 weeks instead of one month? Or another way to avoid people deliberately not sending the opponent to beige so as to maximise the damage done would be , perhaps revamp the war system whereby after every 2 continuous immense victory or successful airstrike/naval/missiles or nuclear attack, you need to followup with a ground war before you can proceed with the 3rd airstrike/ naval attack/missiles/nuclear attack. Then at least we know the most the winning side can deliberately choose not to send their opponent into beige would be another 10 air strike /naval attack, ( assuming the losing side did nothing except watching his nation getting hit , that is) Edited November 13, 2014 by Vincent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Saying that lowbies deserved to be beaten to a pulp unless they joined an alliance is bogus, as not all alliance can be bothered to defend their lowbies :/ You can't redeclare on someone within 5 days of defeating them, and if you're inactive, you seem to get kicked from beige to grey faster than the auto-beige 5 days. Ah yeah I forgot about the 5 days limit... Not sure about the second part though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAI-40 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I think the idea sounds fair, consider me in support. Saying that lowbies deserved to be beaten to a pulp unless they joined an alliance is bogus, as not all alliance can be bothered to defend their lowbies :/ If you're a low-tier nation, and your alliance isn't doing anything to help you, you need to find a new alliance. 1 Quote "They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers. But what's the real cost? ‘Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper. Why are we still paying so much for sneakers when you got them made by little slave kids? What are your overheads?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Excellent idea and I agree it needs some changing. Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Maybe increase the amount of the spoils the faster the war is won. If I "win" in 25 hours, maybe I get 50% more resourcs. If I "win" in 72 hours, maybe I get 25% less, 144 hours=50% less, etc. This also can emulate realism as in "we've secured the stuff you'd want to steal." Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted November 13, 2014 Author Share Posted November 13, 2014 Maybe increase the amount of the spoils the faster the war is won. If I "win" in 25 hours, maybe I get 50% more resourcs. If I "win" in 72 hours, maybe I get 25% less, 144 hours=50% less, etc. This also can emulate realism as in "we've secured the stuff you'd want to steal." I also thought of it as the winner is semi-occupying the losers lands and is looting some residual cash/resources as they withdraw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 That gives benefit to win quicker, and penalty to "not win' or "win slowly to drag out the damage". You're 100% right, its bizaare the best way to win wars is to not win, or win as slowly as possible. Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 how about the loser loses that percentage and the winner gets that percentage for as long as the loser is in beige. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 You guys realize that "winning" wars and beige were implemented to make raiding inactives more efficient, right? It makes sense that nations can (and often do) choose a strategy different from raiders when engaged in wars. The only change the system really needs is a change of the label for driving a nation to beige. 4 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 So you're saying instead of winning a war call it something like disabling a nation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iljohn Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I like the idea of gaining a small amount of its revenue our at least increase the amount you get when you war a war like increase the amount of money you can steal and be able to steal manufactured goods as well Quote (^。^)y-.。o○ (-。-)y-゜゜゜ this is how i make my cloud http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag291/petgangster/efb30519-f381-4330-a62b-11db0d2a058b_zpscilyk2rj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 So you're saying instead of winning a war call it something like disabling a nation.Precisely. There's no reason the game mechanics should tell us who "wins" anyway. Victory and defeat are just elements of spin. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Armstrong Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Your proposal makes a lot of sense from the perspective of individual players who are motivated to improve their nation above all else, which may be the case in skirmishes. Also, commerce and resource production/refining in nations being attacked may remain in tact or not too different from when they were not in a war so there would be more money and resources to take into account. In full scale alliance against alliance war these levers are less important. Commerce and resource production/refining is abandoned in favor of militarization. The drivers for a member of a winning alliance become access to key war resources (to strengthen your alliance's ability to keep fighting) and to do as much damage as possible to your opponent. War statistics I've seen here are focused on infra damage and military casualties. IMO these are where any incentives to beige sooner should impact rather than cash and all resources. Another approach could be an in-game "who is winning the war" metric that is calculated at the alliance level. The metric could favor an alliance that beiges faster as part of the equation. I also wanted to mention that beiging an opponent faster when there are no technical incentives in place can be an act of good faith from which to build good will. Enter the politics side of war... Edited November 13, 2014 by Tim Armstrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) like others have stated if you dont want to be raided then join an alliance. If you are being raided and your alliance isnt doing anything to help then you are better off joining another alliance that will help you. Now i still feel that we should remove the forced beige feature because it wont matter if you are an active or inactive nation coming off of beige protection because if you still arent in an alliance by then, then the raiders will attack you no matter what. If you are still an active player by the time you reach your final day on beige protection and havent joined an alliance and then get hit by a raider i believe that is on you and then the raider can just force beige you and then wait five days and just hit you again so with force beige protection on the results will still be the same if these active nations get hit by a raider and still decided not to join an alliance. If the nation went inactive by the time the beige protection ends and gets hit by a raider then the results will be the same as above. Basically these two types of nations will be bled dry by their raiders just one will be active and the other will be inactive. Yet the community prefers to defend the unaligned active nations and become aggressive towards the raiders for hitting these active nations while at the same time dont give a dam when the raiders hit the inactive nations. Now if we remove the force beige protection thus preventing nations from being put into beige upon being defeated then they can constantly be attacked by raiders or opposing nations through alliance wars. This will also apply to raiders. If we see raiders attacking active unaligned nations and feel disgusted by those acts we can just hit them knowing they wont be forced into beige upon being defeated and therefore can effectively stagger them either causing them to give up their raiding ways or make them leave the game (even though they tend to leave the game after throwing a tantrum when the community decides to strike raiders back). And at the same time alliances should be encouraging new active nations to join alliances and At the same time they prefer to see them apply to an alliance and wait x amount of days to accept just because you want to see how active they will be. Edited November 13, 2014 by Dark Specter Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Forced beige is a feature that was introduced so that a nation that is defeated in the war can rebuild without being exposed to further attack. IF we remove this, then the possibility is once you are knocked down they will continue hitting you and the possibility of rebuilding is practically NIL . That will only push people to quit the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Tipton Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Forced beige is a feature that was introduced so that a nation that is defeated in the war can rebuild without being exposed to further attack. IF we remove this, then the possibility is once you are knocked down they will continue hitting you and the possibility of rebuilding is practically NIL . That will only push people to quit the game. I agree. We want people to join the game, not leave. Beige is necessary. That being said, the system still needs to be changed so that winning the war is the goal. I am in favor of gaining a percentage of their income for a period of time after the war is over, and the faster you win the war, the more money you get from winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmad Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I understand your point, but I think the point of that is so the losing nations won't be completely destroyed. And like you said, some people will use other means of attacking as to not cause the defender to beige. Guess you could think of it as strategy, if the war is going good for you (money wise is my main concern) then keep it on as long as possible, however if it's not...get in your attacks in and end it. Edited November 14, 2014 by Emmad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.