Attacking and Beiging Allies

[Clarke]

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.

Then why did you link a politically motivated thread?

[Kurdanak]

Then why did you link a politically motivated thread?

I saw what I interpreted as a rule violation, so I reported it with my interpretation. That's how you file a game report, Diabolos. Whether you believe me or not, not everything has to be petty politics. Edited December 12, 2014 by Kurdanak

[Grillick]

I saw what I interpreted as a rule violation, so I reported it with my interpretation. That's how you file a game report, Diabolos. Whether you believe me or not, not everything has to be petty politics.

Wrong Kurdanak. Everything is political because Man is a political animal. And all politics is petty.

 

QED

Edited December 12, 2014 by Grillick

[Memph]

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

 

 

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.

What if the nation's allies declare 3 offensive wars to beige? That hasn't happened yet (only 1 and 2 defensive slots were taken on the two instances that have occurred so far) but it could.

[Masterbake]

Attacking allies to prevent damage is poor sportsmanship.  Also the fact that beiging someone only happens with ground attacks and ignores all other damage from other sources is really not at all smart in the first place.  I would use another word but I don't want to get warned over what should be completely obvious to a 2 year old child with half a brain.  Either you are going to protect someone from a huge beatdown or you are not.  If you are not just remove beige altogether.  It seems that the only reason to include only ground attacks is to make it like some other game which it is not.  This 'loophole' has been used by everyone but it is still wrong.

[Alex]

Still brainstorming here, what if we adjusted how beige worked at higher nation levels. Perhaps your beige time is reduced as you increase in nation score? 

[Grillick]

Am I the only one who remembers that beige after ground attacks was added so the attacker could end a war early if he chose to? The system is not broken; it just needs a new name so people stop !@#$ing about "I don't want to 'win' my wars!"

[SoS]

The unintended consequence is that GAs aren't used much.

 

How about beiging takes more attacks in larger nations? Like 1 additional per 200 points?

[Masterbake]

The unintended consequence is that GAs aren't used much.

 

Exactly.  How about a nation is beiged after losing 'x' amount of strength or infra instead?  'x' being a %.  If that means new really small nations are beiged easier all the better.  With unlimited GA's wars would be over quicker and with more damage.

[WISD0MTREE]

 Perhaps your beige time is reduced as you increase in nation score? 

I'm not that sure about this here. On <another game>, we asked the opposite question because people had 5 days, but could only possibly get about 122,000 troops in that time period. It would have been almost impossible to train them all in that time, too. Here troops and other units cost money that higher levels should be getting, but there is the manufacturing limit. Plus with missiles and stuff, you deal more damage at higher levels. 

[Masterbake]

Honestly I do not get why you have to wait to build troops in the first place.  That seems lame.  WMD's sure but ordinary weapons..  Lame.  After someone Pearl Harbors you,  you are screwed in this game.  Not even worth fighting back as that keeps you score higher so higher nations can keep staggering you and keep you in a state of rubble all the more. 

[Alex]

Honestly I do not get why you have to wait to build troops in the first place.  That seems lame.  WMD's sure but ordinary weapons..  Lame.  After someone Pearl Harbors you,  you are screwed in this game.  Not even worth fighting back as that keeps you score higher so higher nations can keep staggering you and keep you in a state of rubble all the more. 

 

The whole point of limits on manufacturing is that you prepare your army beforehand, if you don't want to get "Pear Harbor'd" you ought to keep a strong air force on hand at all time. It forces you into the guns versus butter predicament, which is an important aspect of gameplay. Do you want to keep a big military on hand always so you don't get crushed when war time comes? Or do you keep a minimal military and focus on economic development and pray no one attacks you?

[ELPINCHAZO]

There should be a simple solution to this 'Disallow attacks between alliance mates entirely'

 

 

If these people feel the need to beige their inactive members then they should be forced to kick them first. Otherwise this is just exploiting.

[Masterbake]

The whole point of limits on manufacturing is that you prepare your army beforehand, if you don't want to get "Pear Harbor'd" you ought to keep a strong air force on hand at all time. It forces you into the guns versus butter predicament, which is an important aspect of gameplay. Do you want to keep a big military on hand always so you don't get crushed when war time comes? Or do you keep a minimal military and focus on economic development and pray no one attacks you?

 

You have 3 nations with 45k hit you and you have 45K.  You can only buy 15k to replenish.  You are screwed.  Simply mathematics.  Make the rebuild 1/3 a turn then sure.  1/3 a day.....  Sorry it's lame.

[Saru]

There should be a simple solution to this 'Disallow attacks between alliance mates entirely'

 

 

If these people feel the need to beige their inactive members then they should be forced to kick them first. Otherwise this is just exploiting.

 

What about a civil war? 

[Grillick]

In a civil war, the rebel faction would have to, and should have to, create a new AA to wage the war under.

[Georgi Stomana]

Still brainstorming here, what if we adjusted how beige worked at higher nation levels. Perhaps your beige time is reduced as you increase in nation score? 

You could make beiging someone destroy a percentage of their infrastructure, ie "X Nation scored 6 immense victory ground attacks making Nation Y surrender. In the chaos of the surrender Nation X soldiers occupied Nation Y cities, looting, destroying and killing all they found. This resulted in ZYX infrastructure damage in Nation Y before they finally withdrew."

Edited December 23, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Ayayay]

In a civil war, the rebel faction would have to, and should have to, create a new AA to wage the war under.

But then a surprise civil war becomes...less...surprising.

 

Reconsiders his New Years plans

[Arthur James]

but the problem is, i like such idea of beiging it instead of others since the resource can't be "collected" into the bank.

[Clarke]

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?

 

Another problem is noobish members of our community mistaking attacking someone for the sake of attacking them with preventing them from being attacked by others. Considering beige expires faster on highly inactive nations then that is truly laughable, especially when the wars end after a full 24 hours.

[Dwynn]

Another problem is noobish members of our community mistaking attacking someone for the sake of attacking them with preventing them from being attacked by others. Considering beige expires faster on highly inactive nations then that is truly laughable, especially when the wars end after a full 24 hours.

We also have degenerate members of the community who wish to exploit the system in place simply because they feel like it. Feel free to keep bringing politics and insults to out of game threads and wonder why people don't like you.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Micheal Malone

[Clarke]

We also have degenerate members of the community who wish to exploit the system in place simply because they feel like it. Feel free to keep bringing politics and insults to out of game threads and wonder why people don't like you.

I feel like we're chatting about the same person, the guys who exploited the spying system to do ridiculous amounts of attacks against specific nations each day. 

And uses moderation as a weapon against other alliances as a political tool. 

[Ogaden]

I don't see how losing 6 consecutive ground attacks could possible count as avoiding damage, isn't that what some theoretical enemy would want to do? Also beige doesn't last very long, so it wouldn't even protect you in an alliance war, you'd just be caught in wave #2 anyways.

[Prefontaine]

I don't see how losing 6 consecutive ground attacks could possible count as avoiding damage, isn't that what some theoretical enemy would want to do? Also beige doesn't last very long, so it wouldn't even protect you in an alliance war, you'd just be caught in wave #2 anyways.

 

You lose somewhere between 10-50 infra on a ground attack so lets take the average, 30. 30x6 is only 180 infra. Compared to some wars which went above 1000-2500 infra loss at their strength level. Yes, it's a good thing. Also a key factor here is the money, his teammates stole millions, which they could either give back to him to rebuild the modest amount of infra loss, or use to fight the current war. Post war both of their inactive nations were in the top 5 for the alliance (I believe one was #1 or #2), now only in the top 7. That shows how effective missing one round of war was for them.

 

When you're winning an alliance war, you don't want to beige them generally.