Attacking and Beiging Allies

[Alex]

This is something that I wanted to bring up for discussion, as I'm undecided on the issue.

 

War slot filling is against the rules, and by war slot filling I mean declaring war on a nation but not attacking them so that they can't be attacked by someone else. This is a good rule and ought to remain in place.

 

Now, do the nature of our game mechanics, you could attack an ally and beige them, which would not fall under the war slot filling rule. However, this prevents other from declaring war on the nations, which could be thought of as cheating.

 

Now my thoughts on the issue are:

 

1) Using the beige system to prevent your allies from being attacked doesn't seem fair.

2) On the other hand, you do have to beat them down and win the war to beige them. That means the target nation is going to have to sell its military, or receive a lot of damage and killed units just for (up to) 5 days of protection. They're also going to get looted by their ally.

 

The other important thing to consider is that it's going to be incredibly difficult to determine when someone is declaring and winning a war to prevent someone from being attacked, or just because they want to attack the nation.

 

I'm leaning more towards allowing this behavior, as I'm not sure how we can not allow it. Perhaps a rule in place that would prevent you from attacking nations in your alliance would help, but then allied alliances could just attack each other.

 

Feedback?

[Aslan]

Topic moved to Game Discussion.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Due to the mechanics of the game, they should be allowed. Even if this thread has an impact, are you sure that it's gonna stop?


EDIT: unless you disable the ability to declare war on a person in the same alliance as you.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Morgan Fraser

[Shellhound]

The point of war slot filling is to make it where they can't be attacked, this is essentially the same thing.

[SAI-40]

Honestly, I think it'd be smart to keep it from happening. Threes no reason an ally can send back what they've looted, and it would be an unfair way to make sure someone doesn't do more damage to the nation if they know a war is coming.

 

That, and I think all alliances have rules against it anyways, it's not going to hurt anything.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

The point of war slot filling is to make it where they can't be attacked, this is essentially the same thing.

 

Honestly, I think it'd be smart to keep it from happening. Threes no reason an ally can send back what they've looted, and it would be an unfair way to make sure someone doesn't do more damage to the nation if they know a war is coming.

 

That, and I think all alliances have rules against it anyways, it's not going to hurt anything.

 

Whats the problem with allowing it? It's teamwork. o/

[Placentica]

 

1) Using the beige system to prevent your allies from being attacked doesn't seem fair.

2) On the other hand, you do have to beat them down and win the war to beige them. That means the target nation is going to have to sell its military, or receive a lot of damage and killed units just for (up to) 5 days of protection. They're also going to get looted by their ally.

I agree with 1, but disagree with 2.  In my opinion, you don't win wars by beiging your opponents.  You win them by keeping a target staggered by keeping them out of beige or by staggering them before they hit beige.  Looting an ally is just like aiding your own alliance so it's really a nonissue.  Generally if you are trying to beige a member nation they won't have much military to lose either, so it's really an excellent exploit to save a nation from real war.  5 days is a long time to build up a proper military as well and no one can blockade a nation while it's on beige.  The blockade issue is the biggest problem and why it's such an exploit.

 

We are at a place where ground attacks really don't do much damage compared to other attacks.  So the loss of infra is very minimal, like 100-150 as we see here: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3537&display=war

 

So I do not think this type of behavior should be allowed.  I think if allies attack allies they shouldn't be allowed to beige them and they also should be warned for war slot filling and have the wars deleted if necessary.

[Clarke]

 

 

Perhaps a rule in place that would prevent you from attacking nations in your alliance would help, but then allied alliances could just attack each other.

 

It's not unknown of alliances to attack it's own inactive members when the become inactive, the alternative is kicking them and allowing the same to happen anyway.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Diabolos

[Atzuya]

It should be noted that generally, you'd need two days at minimum to beige someone, and in times of war it's more than enough time for the opponents to notice this and pile on the attacked nation. Five days of war protection is good, but I think it's way too risky and costly compared to just beefing up the nation and prepare for defensive war.

 

Imo we should allow this thing, it's ripe for comedy value

[Tenages]

Well the first thing that should be done, is putting in place a hard-coded game mechanic to prevent alliance mates from attacking each other. Want to raid an inactive member? Fine, kick him and raid him. There is no legitimate purpose being harmed by stopping alliance mates from attacking each other.

 

And this tactic of beiging members that you don't want other alliances hitting seems to me to be a classic example of war slot filling, it's mean to serve the exact same purpose. 

 

But at minimum, you should be prevented from attacking your own alliance mates.

[Greatnate]

I agree, the fact that you can declare war on an alliance mate it weird and should be removed. There's no legitimate use, other than raiding your inactives before others raid them, which is questionable behavior at best.

[naTia]

I think if you are attacking somebody in the same alliance, what kind of alliance is it? War slot filling or not, it defeats the purpose of being in an alliance. Either one person leaves, or it doesn't happen at all.

[Grillick]

I'm literally shocked that this is even a question.

[Livius Clades]

Never would have thought to do this but now... I'm joking, but I'm pretty this tactic has never crossed people's mind and if it has. *Slow Clap* I applaud you clever but cheeky bastards.

[SoS]

Like you said, it's hard to tell the difference between raiding an inactive and cheating. You should err on the side of caution and make it impossible to attack an alliance mate. If an ally attacks, then the intention is clear.

[Kim Jong-Il]

I think that people could abuse this system. Say I attacked a nation in my range from my alliance, but pm'd them and agreeing that I will send all loot of war back to them, so they can go to beige and reconstruct their losses, so now no one can attack them for days. I'd still allow it, but if someone reports a case that looks like it could be people doing this, I think you could just look at the situation and decide whether or not you could reset them for it. 

[Kim Jong-Il]

I agree, the fact that you can declare war on an alliance mate it weird and should be removed. There's no legitimate use, other than raiding your inactives before others raid them, which is questionable behavior at best.

 

Well, irl there are double agents, so I say let it stand as is

[Dwynn]

I'm torn on this subject. First, it takes two days to beige an opponent minimum. So, part of me says "if they can't organize and attack an opponent in two days, their loss"

 

I can kind of see how some might see it as unfair, but it's not warslot filling, the damage is being done (has to be in order to send them to beige).

 

Personally I say let it play out.

 

The more rules that go into place about "cheating is XYZ or ZYX or ABC, or CBA" the more convoluted the whole game gets. I'm also against placing a restriction on war between members. Some alliances might choose to do something of the sort to coordinate war games, etc.

 

And, bringing it back to the top, if the people who want to complain that they couldn't get an attack in on an opponent in two days... get your crap together.

[Alex]

The point of war slot filling is to make it where they can't be attacked, this is essentially the same thing.

 

Except the target nation is going to take infrastructure damage and have part of their military killed.

 

I'm torn on this subject. First, it takes two days to beige an opponent minimum. So, part of me says "if they can't organize and attack an opponent in two days, their loss"

 

I can kind of see how some might see it as unfair, but it's not warslot filling, the damage is being done (has to be in order to send them to beige).

 

Personally I say let it play out.

 

The more rules that go into place about "cheating is XYZ or ZYX or ABC, or CBA" the more convoluted the whole game gets. I'm also against placing a restriction on war between members. Some alliances might choose to do something of the sort to coordinate war games, etc.

 

And, bringing it back to the top, if the people who want to complain that they couldn't get an attack in on an opponent in two days... get your crap together.

 

I more or less agree with you, mostly because it's going to be near impossible for me to determine every instance of "war slot beiging", or whatever you want to call it.

 

I think we more or less have an agreement that declaring war on your own alliance mates doesn't need to be a game feature, and will likely clear a lot of this up anyway. It's going to be a little trickier trusting someone from a different alliance to attack your nations and beige them and give the stuff back, etc. Plus, as you guys have mentioned, it takes a while to get someone on beige. Other nations should be able to attack within this time period.

[Kurdanak]

Welp, I just now found this thread.

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3863-questionable-actions/

[Clarke]

Welp, I just now found this thread.

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3863-questionable-actions/

At that time there was no war on the table so those actions had nothing to do with avoiding war.

Your alliance said itself there was no war, you say they avoided war is laughable since we're a peaceful alliance and were told we were not a target in a war. 

[Kurdanak]

At that time there was no war on the table so those actions had nothing to do with avoiding war.

Your alliance said itself there was no war, you say they avoided war is laughable since we're a peaceful alliance and were told we were not a target in a war.

Let's not turn a thread on game rules into a politically heated discussion, shall we?

 

That was a prime example of what is being discussed, and therefore worth linking.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Kurdanak

[Clarke]

Let's not turn a thread on game rules into a politically heated discussion, shall we?

 

That was a prime example of what is being discussed, and therefore worth linking.

You claim it is avoiding an upcoming war, that sounds political as it implies there is a war that is being planned that they're avoiding.

Those nations never fought wars much for ages, can we really claim they're avoiding war if there is no clear person they're avoiding fighting.

[Kurdanak]

You claim it is avoiding an upcoming war, that sounds political as it implies there is a war that is being planned that they're avoiding.

Those nations never fought wars much for ages, can we really claim they're avoiding war if there is no clear person they're avoiding fighting.

Again, this is a thread on game rules where this type of discussion isn't warranted. Sheepy responded to that thread, and I was satisfied with the change that he put in place. Case closed.

[Shellhound]

You claim it is avoiding an upcoming war, that sounds political as it implies there is a war that is being planned that they're avoiding.

Those nations never fought wars much for ages, can we really claim they're avoiding war if there is no clear person they're avoiding fighting.

Considering you got a member from SK who in his app said "didn't like the war preparation" or something to that effect, and then shortly thereafter you begin to beige inactives then yeah I think that's clearly what's going on. You might want to play dumb and pretend that you had no idea about this to cover your incompetence in building up your alliances military but it's not very believable.