Immense Triumphs

[George Clooney]

Currently only ground attacks that result in immense triumphs push the "surrender meter" one notch.  As we know, 6 such victories consecutively results in a defeat and a move to beige for the defeated nation.

 

I propose a change such that ANY 6 consecutive immense triumphs (ground, air, sea) would result in a defeat.  Aside from being more realistic, it will make it less likely that players will essentially sit back and slowly destroying target nations instead of trying to pursue victory as is common now.

[naTia]

I think the reason for this is so that one person doesn't just win by constant air attacks. If I happen to be on more, I can just get off enough air attacks to win, while the other person can only ground attacks and lose, even if he is winning.

Edited December 13, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Prefontaine]

Currently only ground attacks that result in immense triumphs push the "surrender meter" one notch.  As we know, 6 such victories consecutively results in a defeat and a move to beige for the defeated nation.

 

I propose a change such that ANY 6 consecutive immense triumphs (ground, air, sea) would result in a defeat.  Aside from being more realistic, it will make it less likely that players will essentially sit back and slowly destroying target nations instead of trying to pursue victory as is common now.

 

There's no benefit to winning a war against someone. Getting beiged helps the nation your fighting rather than hurting them. Having that result happen no matter what the result would make it almost impossible to cause damage during war without missiles, and those with missiles would then effectively ONLY use missiles.

[RagnarBuliwyf]

Unless the mechanic that means you can't declare on the same nation when a war expires & the beige effect of war win are removed, this would only make war uninteresting and ineffective.

[Reagan]

The idea of beige after the triumphs is to give the defeated a chance to breathe without being totally annihilated. Alliances have learned how to effectively keep targets engaged without allowing them to hit beige, thus circumventing the intentions of the mechanic.

 

The 5 day expiration rule is also meant to prevent utter destruction of a nation, but also easily circumvented.

 

So what are the proposals that will allow nations to be soundly defeated, while preventing them from being driven to the point that it's not worth playing any longer?

[Prefontaine]

The idea of beige after the triumphs is to give the defeated a chance to breathe without being totally annihilated. Alliances have learned how to effectively keep targets engaged without allowing them to hit beige, thus circumventing the intentions of the mechanic.

 

The 5 day expiration rule is also meant to prevent utter destruction of a nation, but also easily circumvented.

 

So what are the proposals that will allow nations to be soundly defeated, while preventing them from being driven to the point that it's not worth playing any longer?

 

I like the idea of giving incentive to winning. Made a suggestion a while back about you effectively tax their land by a percentage that decreases 1/5 each day after the war.

[naTia]

I like the idea of giving incentive to winning. Made a suggestion a while back about you effectively tax their land by a percentage that decreases 1/5 each day after the war.

 

I am worried that this would make it too hard for the beiged person to get back out of a state of destruction.

[Vincent]

Those who sits back hopelessly are normally those who lost their ground forces and has no air force to fend off the attackers who are chipping mercilessly at their infras. But anyway there is no need to change it, if is going to lead to worse scenario than this.

[WISD0MTREE]

I like the idea of giving incentive to winning. Made a suggestion a while back about you effectively tax their land by a percentage that decreases 1/5 each day after the war.

 

Maybe a "Winner" award just for bragging rights. 

Edited December 14, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Georgi Stomana]

I like the idea of giving incentive to winning. Made a suggestion a while back about you effectively tax their land by a percentage that decreases 1/5 each day after the war.

Like occupying their territory? That actually sounds cool.

[Vincent]

 

 

 

Maybe a "Winner" award just for bragging rights. 

 

 Just bragging rights?  they rather damage the enemy as much as possible and then brag about that instead. 

[Prefontaine]

Like occupying their territory? That actually sounds cool.

 

Basically. Winning takes ground attacks, so to mean each ground attack that adds to the victory point is like you pushing further into the lands. Once you win, you start pulling back, making money off their land while leaving. Think of it as looting. The more your forces are pulling out, the less they have to loot from.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

It wouldn't make sense because you can't occupy a country only by using air and ships.

[Codonian]

I propose a change such that ANY 6 consecutive immense triumphs (ground, air, sea) would result in a defeat.  Aside from being more realistic, it will make it less likely that players will essentially sit back and slowly destroying target nations instead of trying to pursue victory as is common now.

I'm against this, That would take out the ability to actually DAMAGE the opponent. 

[George Clooney]

There's no benefit to winning a war against someone. Getting beiged helps the nation your fighting rather than hurting them. Having that result happen no matter what the result would make it almost impossible to cause damage during war without missiles, and those with missiles would then effectively ONLY use missiles.

 

Disagree unless the target nation simply lacks air or navy force, at which point Immense Triumphs are automatic.  It would however force you to manage the forces you send in, such that you would be going for less than Immense Triumphs.  

 

FYI: From the perspective of realism, a nation being relentless bombed and its cities reduced to ash or starved into submission via a blockade with its port cities being destroyed would surrender fairly quickly.  If that doesn't fit your gaming objectives, sorry.

 

However, I do like the idea that victory in a war would result in some land going to the victorious nation from the defeated nation.  The mechanic could be set up such more land would go to the victor in the case of a victory through ground Immense Triumphs, since--realistically speaking--the victorious nation will have occupied a significant amount of land and or taken strategic objectives inside the nation.

 

I'm against this, That would take out the ability to actually DAMAGE the opponent. 

 

See above.  Also, it would mean that everyone would need to have better balanced militaries.  Currently it's possible to build up a large tank force and simply blitz opponents who may totally outclass you in every other measure.  It's a bit of a loophole that hopefully this will address.

[Sailor Jerry]

I find all these whining threads extremely hilarious it the fact they are started by those who either didn't prepare properly or are getting their asses handed to them on a silver plater. None of the folks making these threads would have made them if they were on the winning side ofthe current situation. So.....now back to the OP......six immense triumphs regardless of type of attack......what a joke. An attacking nation starts with 6 battle points......so 2 ground attacks. Ground attacks only needing 3 battle points each and only needing 4 more ground attacks, thats only 12 more battle points that would be needed in order to gain a victory and thus beigeing your target opponent in roughly 24 hours. So, what happens when an opponent gets gets beiged and a victory is declared? The war is over in a day! How much damage could really be done to a large nation with 6 ground attacks.......not enough to do squat.

 

I laugh at this idea.........laugh, laugh, laugh!