Aisha Greyjoy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Being at war already is a huge expense, as you use munitions, gas, and lose soldiers and tanks who need replacement. You lose the benefit of the improvements that could have helped your economy as you stock up on factories and barracks, etc. Making each unit cost more in addition makes war even more expensive. Others are pointing out in another thread that war is too costly. Removing the added cost for being "at war" of higher unit maintainance would be one small step in the direction of improving that problem. Edit: Small steps are best! Edited January 15, 2015 by Aisha Greyjoy Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 War is supposed to be costly, dangerous, and ravaging. If it wasn't then it would be a 24/7 free for all here and diplomacy (aka the politics half) would be ineffective. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 There's too much disincentive for war. It's costly in: resources, upkeep, lost opportunity, destruction, economic penalty. That's too much. Somethings gotta give. War is supposed to be expensive, but not to the point the upper tier doesn't want to ever war. This is a simple fix on the cost side. I'd rather add to the reward side, but ya know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Adding to the reward side would be a better solution, but this is a minor adjustment to the costs that would be hardly noticeable, so I have no objection. 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 January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Agreed that this is a positive change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 OMG. WTF is with all these people complaining about the cost of war? Maybe we should just ask Sheepy to dumb ten billion into every nation. I mean, screw financing and actually having to spend money. We should just remove economics from the game entirely..... War in this game is not too costly at all. If you're too stupid to build up a warchest, that's your own fault. PLEASE! Do not even consider this Sheepy. The cost of war is just fine as it is. In fact, when I'm at war, I'm still making money. Granted, it's much less, my income doesn't go negative or anything. You all just need to learn what a WC is you damn noobs. 4 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiliam Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 War is costly. Deal with it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 OMG. WTF is with all these people complaining about the cost of war? Maybe we should just ask Sheepy to dumb ten billion into every nation. I mean, screw financing and actually having to spend money. We should just remove economics from the game entirely..... War in this game is not too costly at all. If you're too stupid to build up a warchest, that's your own fault. PLEASE! Do not even consider this Sheepy. The cost of war is just fine as it is. In fact, when I'm at war, I'm still making money. Granted, it's much less, my income doesn't go negative or anything. You all just need to learn what a WC is you damn noobs. Your nation is below 200 score, war isn't costly for you because you can't field a large military and when your infra is destroyed it's cheap enough for you to buy it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Your nation is below 200 score, war isn't costly for you because you can't field a large military and when your infra is destroyed it's cheap enough for you to buy it back. Oh.... I wasn't aware that costs shouldn't increase with size. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 They should, bUT the cost increase and the amount of resources you use (even with a good warchest) are a huge setback, as is the cost of infra damage. Overall I think a better idea would be to increase rewards instead of decreasing costs, I'll expand more on that idea once I get to my computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) They should, bUT the cost increase and the amount of resources you use (even with a good warchest) are a huge setback, as is the cost of infra damage. Overall I think a better idea would be to increase rewards instead of decreasing costs, I'll expand more on that idea once I get to my computer. And I disagree, because so far, I've found it impossible to NOT make money. Once again, you need to look at this in a long term perspective. The game hasn't even been running that long. The people who started in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) would have had this exact same problem. Perhaps your definition of a good warchest is not a good warchest at all. Surprise surprise! It takes actual saving and time to build a "good" warchest. The larger your nation gets, the larger your warchest should be. That's a given. So what do you mean by increasing rewards? Do you mean increasing looting? That's a completely stupid idea because you'll still end up with the same exact problem that everyone is complaining about, only in a different way. Thing is, I would much rather see war be too expensive than the opposite; war being too cheap. Edited January 19, 2015 by Fox Fire Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphelion Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If war cost is meant to be as it is, then another alternative is to make some aspects of war rewarding.It's about time to have that XP/Orb system in place.Or else all we'll have Politics&Neutrality as the trend in the next 2-3 years (no offense meant). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarBuliwyf Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 War does need to be incentive somewhat at the higher levels. Claiming an x amount of an opponents taxes back for X amount of days if you beige them, stealing land or something should be added to help make war worth jumping in-to. As right now there's no reason to go to war, because any alliance that sits it out well, "wins" the game as they get the extra growth over those who go to war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 OMG. WTF is with all these people complaining about the cost of war? Maybe we should just ask Sheepy to dumb ten billion into every nation. I mean, screw financing and actually having to spend money. We should just remove economics from the game entirely..... War in this game is not too costly at all. If you're too stupid to build up a warchest, that's your own fault. PLEASE! Do not even consider this Sheepy. The cost of war is just fine as it is. In fact, when I'm at war, I'm still making money. Granted, it's much less, my income doesn't go negative or anything. You all just need to learn what a WC is you damn noobs. It would be fine if it was a one player game, the point is that you become relatively weaker in relation to the other nations. And the point of this game is to compete with other nations. On a macrolevel this disincentivises any sort of meaningful alliance wide activity -- a part from massive curbstomps. Right now you win by not partaking in the game of politics/war. Which is ironic given the name of the game. If war cost is meant to be as it is, then another alternative is to make some aspects of war rewarding. It's about time to have that XP/Orb system in place. Or else all we'll have Politics&Neutrality as the trend in the next 2-3 years (no offense meant). Sums it up well. 1 Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollysho Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yeah I definitely do think war should cost something, but honestly there is just no incentive to go to war right now. Quote [22:36:30] <&CMDR_Adama> I want to be spanked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) And I disagree, because so far, I've found it impossible to NOT make money. Once again, you need to look at this in a long term perspective. The game hasn't even been running that long. The people who started in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) would have had this exact same problem. Perhaps your definition of a good warchest is not a good warchest at all. Surprise surprise! It takes actual saving and time to build a "good" warchest. The larger your nation gets, the larger your warchest should be. That's a given. So what do you mean by increasing rewards? Do you mean increasing looting? That's a completely stupid idea because you'll still end up with the same exact problem that everyone is complaining about, only in a different way. Thing is, I would much rather see war be too expensive than the opposite; war being too cheap. Look, I get that you think you have the game figured out, but how about we let the grown ups talk now, k? The war system is expensive, there's no if ands or buts about it. However, it is intentionally expensive. Sheepy built the inflated costs into the system to eat your money when you rebuild. It's a natural hard-coded reset. Having a warchest offsets some of the costs of war, however in order to have a large enough warchest to cover the costs of war, and the rebuilding of damages done (at levels other than the lower tier where Foxfire plays at building sandcastles), there would be literally one war every six months at MOST. And Foxfire, if you don't like me insulting your abilities or discounting your experiences in PW, perhaps using a bit of tact and discussion etiquette may help. Otherwise, enjoy playing with your bucket and shovel and we'll see how well prepared you are when you get a bit bigger. Edited January 21, 2015 by Micheal Malone 2 Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filthy Fifths Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Let the grown ups handle the grown up discussion. You just found your big boy undies. Quote "In an honest service there is thin commons, low wages, and hard labor; in this, plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power; and who would not balance creditor on this side, when all the hazard that is run for it, at worst, is only a sour look or two at choking. No, a merry life and a short one, shall be my motto." - Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts Green Enforcement Agency will rise again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Having a huge warchest would just make you a big fat target for potential attackers. Before the war is even announced, it's to be expected that there would be a lot of spy ops flung about. Once they see you have like... twelve million on hand, I can bet my ass they will stock up ridiculous amount of ground forces to pile up on you. And boy you will lose huge portion of that warchest no matter how prepared you are. Winning a surprise attack three against one is highly unlikely, even if you're twice the size of the attackers. Sure, you can put it on the bank, but then they have ships 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 21, 2015 Administrators Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'd love to see more incentives for war at higher levels, but I don't think this is the way to go about doing it. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link 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.