Jump to content

Remove higher upkeep costs for being at war


Aisha Greyjoy
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Aisha Greyjoy

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..... :rolleyes:

 

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.

  • Upvote 4

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<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

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..... :rolleyes:

 

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.

uHQTKq6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<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

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.

uHQTKq6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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&#39;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 by Fox Fire

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<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

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).

aphelion3_zpsonpnqy10.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..... :rolleyes:

 

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.

  • Upvote 1

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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&#39;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 by Micheal Malone
  • Upvote 2

duskhornexceptional.png.d9e24adf7f0945530780eee694428f27.png

 

He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the grown ups handle the grown up discussion. You just found your big boy undies.

"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

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

  • Upvote 1
UedhRvY.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

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.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.