Popular Post Shakyr Posted January 22 Popular Post Share Posted January 22 Can we please change it so that nations cannot declare wars if they do not have a significant amount of miltiary units (Soldiers, Tanks, Ships, Navy). Preferably greater than 50%, as they should be able to rebuild that much during Beige Protection. Additionally, if they sell off all the above military units at any point during a war, that is taken to mean they have given up and victory is declared immediately for the other nation(s), preferably without sending them into Beige Protection. It seems counter to the entire war mechanic that nations can sit around in Beige, not using the time to actually rebuild their miltary, only to declare war again when they leave Beige and maybe have enough resources to fund a nuke or missile. The entire war mechanic has become a joke and gameplay is now just nuking other nations, while inflating the food market. 8 2 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 4 minutes ago, Shakyr said: Can we please change it so that nations cannot declare wars if they do not have a significant amount of miltiary units (Soldiers, Tanks, Ships, Navy). Preferably greater than 50%, as they should be able to rebuild that much during Beige Protection. Additionally, if they sell off all the above military units at any point during a war, that is taken to mean they have given up and victory is declared immediately for the other nation(s), preferably without sending them into Beige Protection. It seems counter to the entire war mechanic that nations can sit around in Beige, not using the time to actually rebuild their miltary, only to declare war again when they leave Beige and maybe have enough resources to fund a nuke or missile. The entire war mechanic has become a joke and gameplay is now just nuking other nations, while inflating the food market. Yeah let's kill all possible counters during losing wars. That's what the game needs. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 21 minutes ago, Shakyr said: Can we please change it so that nations cannot declare wars if they do not have a significant amount of miltiary units (Soldiers, Tanks, Ships, Navy). Preferably greater than 50%, as they should be able to rebuild that much during Beige Protection. Additionally, if they sell off all the above military units at any point during a war, that is taken to mean they have given up and victory is declared immediately for the other nation(s), preferably without sending them into Beige Protection. It seems counter to the entire war mechanic that nations can sit around in Beige, not using the time to actually rebuild their miltary, only to declare war again when they leave Beige and maybe have enough resources to fund a nuke or missile. The entire war mechanic has become a joke and gameplay is now just nuking other nations, while inflating the food market. I have a better idea. Let's make it impossible for larger nations to declare wars on smaller nations. Why have this unfairness? Actually, hell, let's prohibit Eclipse from hitting other aas. 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanko1987 Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 What a perfect way to destroy profitable raiding and raiding as a whole and perfect plan to destroy the ability of having to defend yourself and counter during dogpile wars and removing the losing side ability to fight back with nukes and missiles. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted January 22 Author Share Posted January 22 See this is why I don't like posting in Game Suggestions and what will likely kill the game. If you can't post anything constructive, then don't post. Quote No Spamming - Simply stating how that you like or dislike an idea is not providing any constructive content to the thread. If you don't like an idea provide reasoning and facts. Posts like: "no" or "I don't like this" will be considered spam and will result in a warn. 5 hours ago, Sketchy said: Yeah let's kill all possible counters during losing wars. That's what the game needs. You say it would kill all possible counters, then list every single possible counter that I am killing. The way things currently are with wars, it's not even worth trying to Beige cycle nations. Just pile up the Beige time and they'll be back attacking you within a week. No attempt to even rebuild military during their Beige time, it's just declare, throw a nuke or missile, get Beiged again and repeat. There is nothing fun about that, on either side of the war. Instead of just saying "No I don't like this", how about actually understanding where I'm coming from and coming up with alternate suggestions to better improve the game. 5 hours ago, Black Oily Men said: I have a better idea. Let's make it impossible for larger nations to declare wars on smaller nations. Why have this unfairness? Actually, hell, let's prohibit Eclipse from hitting other aas. The game already restricts down declares. It's actually smaller nations who have been given more freedom to declare war on larger nations. 3 hours ago, Stanko1987 said: What a perfect way to destroy profitable raiding and raiding as a whole and perfect plan to destroy the ability of having to defend yourself and counter during dogpile wars and removing the losing side ability to fight back with nukes and missiles. How would it destroy profitable raiding? Outline the gameplay and how it would be affected. Then maybe try to understand where I'm coming from and offer suggestions. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Wellington Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Very good suggestion. Wars now drag on which doesnt benefit the losing side nor the winning side. With this suggestion wars would be more dynamic and not the borefest they are now. @Alexwhat do you think and what do you plan with the war mechanics in the next 6 months or so? 1 2 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 5 hours ago, Shakyr said: See this is why I don't like posting in Game Suggestions and what will likely kill the game. If you can't post anything constructive, then don't post. You say it would kill all possible counters, then list every single possible counter that I am killing. The way things currently are with wars, it's not even worth trying to Beige cycle nations. Just pile up the Beige time and they'll be back attacking you within a week. No attempt to even rebuild military during their Beige time, it's just declare, throw a nuke or missile, get Beiged again and repeat. There is nothing fun about that, on either side of the war. Instead of just saying "No I don't like this", how about actually understanding where I'm coming from and coming up with alternate suggestions to better improve the game. The game already restricts down declares. It's actually smaller nations who have been given more freedom to declare war on larger nations. How would it destroy profitable raiding? Outline the gameplay and how it would be affected. Then maybe try to understand where I'm coming from and offer suggestions. 1. Eclipse dogpiled the Rose sphere, meaning that due to the overwhelming number of nations attacking, Rose was slotted and zeroed during the first round. There is practically no way for them to fight back against a larger ally. Since wars are pretty straightforward, a coordinated, larger alliance will always win. However, there is a way for a dogpilled aa to deal damage back, and these are nukes and missiles. This has being a common practice for a very long time. If your suggestion was to be implemented, every gw would end in 3 days (unless the attacking side would just keep hitting dead nations, while they do nothing). Re-milling during beige makes no sense at all, since a much larger alliance/sphere would just zero them again, without taking much damage (eventually completely depleting the defender's resources, and not affecting the attackers). 2. Raiding during NAPs often involved no military, unless it's some organised group of pirates who his some small micros (which is usually not even the best way). So it's fair to say that ur suggestion would kill all piracy. (since war piracy would not be an option either, since every war will last for 3 days, and then a prolonged NAP will be signed) 3. Right now, even smaller aa's or even solo nations can "war" larger aa's and protected nations through nuke turreting. This ofc is done without mill and with minimal warchest. If your suggestion was to be implemented, no smaller alliance would have any power at all. ;tldr This suggestion is pretty much equivalent to removing war mechanics altogether. I understand how a member of such farmville like Eclipse would want this, however even Eclipse people will be opposed to this idea as a whole in their majority. Without war, this game is utterly boring... You just look at how ur money come into ur account every day, and do nothing. Edited January 22 by Black Oily Men 4 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleazar Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 11 hours ago, Shakyr said: Can we please change it so that nations cannot declare wars if they do not have a significant amount of miltiary units (Soldiers, Tanks, Ships, Navy). Preferably greater than 50%, as they should be able to rebuild that much during Beige Protection. we already have war range based on nation score (city count, military units, project and total infra) unless Alex and the moderators are willing to remove that and we will get C30 raids C5 as often as possible. 11 hours ago, Shakyr said: Additionally, if they sell off all the above military units at any point during a war, that is taken to mean they have given up and victory is declared immediately for the other nation(s), preferably without sending them into Beige Protection. surrender option may be a good idea, but it might be more optimal if the surrender option equals 14% of the loot from resources and cash when war is declared. so for example if I'm declared raid on you when you hold 100 million and you surrender. I'll get 14 million automatically as "surrender" without beige protection? seriously .. that means when another player manages to defeat you, a second later there will be another player attacking and of course there is no time to rebuild the defeated military. beige aims to give players a "breath" or "pause" while fighting. 11 hours ago, Shakyr said: It seems counter to the entire war mechanic that nations can sit around in Beige, not using the time to actually rebuild their miltary, only to declare war again when they leave Beige and maybe have enough resources to fund a nuke or missile. The entire war mechanic has become a joke and gameplay is now just nuking other nations, while inflating the food market. it's a guerrilla tactic, a situation where they've lost militarily and all they do is destroy as much enemy infra as possible using missiles and nukes. there's no other way. you might be surprised if some micros or nanos can give a blow damage on larger alliances by this method. "we win, we loot. we lose, we nuke" food radiation might be annoying, then why don't you farm/buy food during peace time? thanks to NAP for giving a breath of fresh air to some players where they can prepare everything before going into the next battlefield. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KindaEpicMoah Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 14 hours ago, Sketchy said: Yeah let's kill all possible counters during losing wars. That's what the game needs. Not like Singularity counters anyways Heyo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted January 22 Author Share Posted January 22 3 hours ago, Eleazar said: we already have war range based on nation score (city count, military units, project and total infra) unless Alex and the moderators are willing to remove that and we will get C30 raids C5 as often as possible. Nation Score only limits who you can declare war upon. It does not limit you from declaring even when you're not in a state to conduct war (zero military). 3 hours ago, Eleazar said: surrender option may be a good idea, but it might be more optimal if the surrender option equals 14% of the loot from resources and cash when war is declared. so for example if I'm declared raid on you when you hold 100 million and you surrender. I'll get 14 million automatically as "surrender" without beige protection? seriously .. that means when another player manages to defeat you, a second later there will be another player attacking and of course there is no time to rebuild the defeated military. beige aims to give players a "breath" or "pause" while fighting. It's to stop abuse and players able to exit and enter Beige at will, by selling all their military and "surrendering". It does not change the normal mechanics, where if you are actually defeated, you are sent to Beige. It was actually a part of my original point, that players do not seem to be using Beige to rebuild. They simply exit Beige with zero military and declare war again. 3 hours ago, Eleazar said: it's a guerrilla tactic, a situation where they've lost militarily and all they do is destroy as much enemy infra as possible using missiles and nukes. there's no other way. you might be surprised if some micros or nanos can give a blow damage on larger alliances by this method. "we win, we loot. we lose, we nuke" It's the only tactic I've seen in global wars, so it's more "we got hit bad, we turret". I rarely see anyone double buy military, coordinate targets, etc from the opposing alliances. 3 hours ago, Eleazar said: food radiation might be annoying, then why don't you farm/buy food during peace time? thanks to NAP for giving a breath of fresh air to some players where they can prepare everything before going into the next battlefield. I farm during peace and war, ask my alliance. The inflated food market is the only thing I enjoy about global wars. The reason for my comment was more a jab at global radiation solely targeting food (but that's a discussion for another topic). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Wellington Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 6 hours ago, Black Oily Men said: 1. Eclipse dogpiled the Rose sphere, meaning that due to the overwhelming number of nations attacking, Rose was slotted and zeroed during the first round. There is practically no way for them to fight back against a larger ally. Since wars are pretty straightforward, a coordinated, larger alliance will always win. However, there is a way for a dogpilled aa to deal damage back, and these are nukes and missiles. This has being a common practice for a very long time. If your suggestion was to be implemented, every gw would end in 3 days (unless the attacking side would just keep hitting dead nations, while they do nothing). Re-milling during beige makes no sense at all, since a much larger alliance/sphere would just zero them again, without taking much damage (eventually completely depleting the defender's resources, and not affecting the attackers). 2. Raiding during NAPs often involved no military, unless it's some organised group of pirates who his some small micros (which is usually not even the best way). So it's fair to say that ur suggestion would kill all piracy. (since war piracy would not be an option either, since every war will last for 3 days, and then a prolonged NAP will be signed) 3. Right now, even smaller aa's or even solo nations can "war" larger aa's and protected nations through nuke turreting. This ofc is done without mill and with minimal warchest. If your suggestion was to be implemented, no smaller alliance would have any power at all. ;tldr This suggestion is pretty much equivalent to removing war mechanics altogether. I understand how a member of such farmville like Eclipse would want this, however even Eclipse people will be opposed to this idea as a whole in their majority. Without war, this game is utterly boring... You just look at how ur money come into ur account every day, and do nothing. Youre making arguments pro Shakyr. The tactics you describe may seem like a favor towards the little guy in any given war but it actually reinforces the inbalance between the two sides. Plus its not like your way of playing the game, being toxic, a bit racist and trolling helps to make PnW a nice place for new players (and old). But hey, keep things exactly the way they are and expect changes! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 3 hours ago, Arthur Wellington said: Youre making arguments pro Shakyr. The tactics you describe may seem like a favor towards the little guy in any given war but it actually reinforces the inbalance between the two sides. Plus its not like your way of playing the game, being toxic, a bit racist and trolling helps to make PnW a nice place for new players (and old). But hey, keep things exactly the way they are and expect changes! Lmao. You see, one thing I don't understand is why specifically Eclipse members crying on forums that war is bad... If ya all hate war as much, maybe tell your gov to stop hitting other people or everyone might think ya all actually enjoy fighting. Look, you can do whatever, falsely accuse me of being racist or call me toxic, but the truth is that it's people like me who make this game fun. Without us, and without war (as you all try to suggest) the game has no conflict whatsoever. The game has no content without it. It becomes no different from a clicker game by principle. So yes, you can talk all u want, but if this "idea" of urs was to realise, no one would play pnw anymore. Not even you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, Black Oily Men said: You see, one thing I don't understand is why specifically Eclipse members crying on forums that war is bad... I've never once said that war is bad. Also if you want to discuss politics, go post elsewhere. I want to improve the war system, so that it is not simply a month of nuke turreting, 3-4 times a year. Constructive feedback is always welcome. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Shakyr said: I've never once said that war is bad. Also if you want to discuss politics, go post elsewhere. I want to improve the war system, so that it is not simply a month of nuke turreting, 3-4 times a year. Constructive feedback is always welcome. Your idea of "improving the war system" implies killing that very war system. If you struggle to understand how the game works and the basic consequences of potential changes, perhaps it is you who should go post elsewhere. The problem here is not the current war system, that could be improved (not in the way you describe), but it is pretty solid. The problem here is that you don't like losing (whether it's infra or just a matter of pride). Edited January 23 by Black Oily Men 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Wellington Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 7 hours ago, Black Oily Men said: Look, you can do whatever, pointing out im racist and toxic, but the truth is that it's people like me who make this game fun. Youre not any fun in this thread, thats for sure.. War is nice. Good wars are even better. Shakyr proposes to shorten the wars which would make the long NAPs unnecessary and the entire war part more easy. Combine it with a surrender option at a certain infra level after a certain amount of time and this game could improve. Im especially curious to Alex's actual plans because this otherwise would all be idle chatter. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanko1987 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 22 hours ago, Shakyr said: See this is why I don't like posting in Game Suggestions and what will likely kill the game. If you can't post anything constructive, then don't post. You say it would kill all possible counters, then list every single possible counter that I am killing. The way things currently are with wars, it's not even worth trying to Beige cycle nations. Just pile up the Beige time and they'll be back attacking you within a week. No attempt to even rebuild military during their Beige time, it's just declare, throw a nuke or missile, get Beiged again and repeat. There is nothing fun about that, on either side of the war. Instead of just saying "No I don't like this", how about actually understanding where I'm coming from and coming up with alternate suggestions to better improve the game. The game already restricts down declares. It's actually smaller nations who have been given more freedom to declare war on larger nations. How would it destroy profitable raiding? Outline the gameplay and how it would be affected. Then maybe try to understand where I'm coming from and offer suggestions. Oh man, i don't know whether you are being serious or just trolling, and i literally have mixed feelings whether to laugh or just nod my head as shocked and annoyed. But anyways i am going to address all your points now, 1. What you are proposing is that a player has to be 50% or more militarized in order to be able to declare wars, and also that nations that are involved in 3 defensive wars that are stronger than the player who is defending itself has all it's units wiped out becomes an automatic defeat, eliminating the 100 resistance down to zero before the nation is defeated, also proposing to get rid of beige protection blocs. By introducing your proposal, you are literally, A. Destroying the players ability to be able to fight back using other forms of tactics such as guerilla warfare, nukes and missiles B. Also eliminating the players ability to be able to counter against the attackers C. Eliminating the alliances who are on the dogpiled side from even fighting back through means of nuke/missile turreting in order to inflict maximum damage to the dogpiler coalition D. Eliminating and completely destroying raiding as a whole (You say it would kill all possible counters, then list every single possible counter that I am killing.) That has been answered through Point 1, with sub points from A-D. (The way things currently are with wars, it's not even worth trying to Beige cycle nations. Just pile up the Beige time and they'll be back attacking you within a week. No attempt to even rebuild military during their Beige time, it's just declare, throw a nuke or missile, get Beiged again and repeat.) Well that's the whole point, what is the point to rebuild military only to have your military destroyed repeatedly over and over again if being on the side of the coalition who is getting dogpiled. The only way to fight back is through destroying as much infrastructure as possible through nukes and missiles in order to make it very expensive for the other side who holds every bit of advantage from numbers in low, mid and high city tiers as well as having superior military over the opponents who have inferior military units. So the only way to fight back is with guerilla warfare inflicting maximum damage and making the war become very expensive to the dogpiller. (There is nothing fun about that, on either side of the war.) The game is called Politics and War for a reason, not Politics and Pixels. Instead of just saying "No I don't like this", how about actually understanding where I'm coming from and coming up with alternate suggestions to better improve the game. Obviously, pixel huggers do not like this but that's too bad, what your suggesting is will completely destroy the game and create a mass exodus. The game already restricts down declares. It's actually smaller nations who have been given more freedom to declare war on larger nations. Well Duh!! How is it fair for a C50 such as yourself being able to down declare on a nation that is C20? That would definitely be unfair and unbalanced. How would it destroy profitable raiding? Outline the gameplay and how it would be affected. Then maybe try to understand where I'm coming from and offer suggestions. It will destroy profitable raiding because it will remove the ability of the player from declaring wars if they are under 50% militarized. Profitable raiding is only maxing out soldiers because they are cheap to use and very cheap to build and also allowing players to be able to down declare much easier by keeping their score as low as possible, with your proposal, it would take away our ability to raid and make raiding become super expensive and unprofitable. 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanko1987 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Nation Score only limits who you can declare war upon. It does not limit you from declaring even when you're not in a state to conduct war (zero military). Zero military means able to still fight back through nukes and missiles, obviously you are complaining is because your infrastructure is getting destroyed right now in the current global war between Eclipse and Rose. It's to stop abuse and players able to exit and enter Beige at will, by selling all their military and "surrendering". It does not change the normal mechanics, where if you are actually defeated, you are sent to Beige. How is that abuse?? Please explain, decommissioning units has always been a tactic and strategy in wars on this game, why let all your units be destroyed and lose all your resources when you can decommission them and prevent units being destroyed and able to salvage it least 75% of your resources used to build units in the first place. Also, it is the players choice whether or not they want to remain in beige or immediately get out of beige and continue fighting through nuke/missile turret. You obviously have a problem with it because as previously mentioned, your infrastructure is getting destroyed and as a C50 to rebuild back to 2500-2800 or more becomes pretty expensive, well that's what happens during war. It was actually a part of my original point, that players do not seem to be using Beige to rebuild. They simply exit Beige with zero military and declare war again. Again, that is the players choice whether or not they decide to remain in beige or exit the beige. This is not yours to decide for them. It's the only tactic I've seen in global wars, so it's more "we got hit bad, we turret". I rarely see anyone double buy military, coordinate targets, etc from the opposing alliances. If the issue is about pixels being destroyed, nothing is stopping people from leaving the alliance that are currently being affected in an alliance war or global war, in other words war dodging and continue to farm/raw production. I farm during peace and war, ask my alliance. The inflated food market is the only thing I enjoy about global wars. The reason for my comment was more a jab at global radiation solely targeting food (but that's a discussion for another topic). I don't know how to respond to this comment, but all i cay say is, you seem to be within a small percentage of people who are currently complaining, where as 99% of the players seem to be happy. 8 hours ago, Shakyr said: I've never once said that war is bad. Also if you want to discuss politics, go post elsewhere. I want to improve the war system, so that it is not simply a month of nuke turreting, 3-4 times a year. Constructive feedback is always welcome. This is not improving the war system, your proposal will kill it instead. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwazi Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 This has to be a troll post right? If we implement the 50% war declaration proposal, any leverage for smaller alliances and blocs would be removed. Using the current conflict as an example Eclipse could sit on Rose forever, with no incentive to peace out. Or any larger alliance could just sit on a smaller one, which would have no recourse. This would greatly benefit established nations and alliances, and be a huge detriment to new players and new alliances. Larger alliances would use this to bully smaller ones into disbanding or merging. WIthout a rework of the war mechanics, I would forsee this driving new players away and killing the game. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleazar Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 12 minutes ago, Gwazi said: This has to be a troll post right? uh, maybe you're wrong haha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwazi Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 You can't blame me for thinking it could be. It's a really bad idea for the vast majority of the game. We'd just end up in an arms race with alliances merging to become the most dominant, with no influx of new alliances to provide alternatives. Considering that being a gov position in an alliance is half the game we need more alliances and not less. Don't get me wrong, I am all for reworking the war mechanics to incentivize rebuilding military and more conventional fights, but not at the cost of removing the only recourse small alliances have against larger ones. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rageproject Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I’m not reading all of this… but war is part of the game. We don’t need drastic changes to stuff to balance war mechanics. Some minor adjustments could “solve” a lot. I feel like we have this convo a lot and go no where… Am I right? Turretting isn’t unfair. It is simply part of the strategy in war because the “winner” has been decided within days. Nations can defend themselves with projects and spy ops. There are risks involved and it does take some skill even to manage to buy weapons daily and successfully turret. We could make war declaration ranges based on city size, not raw score. Larger nations can only down-declare 25% of their size and smaller nations can up-declare 50% of their size. If your complaint is the unfairness of big nations declaring on small ones, I suppose this limits that. We’ve talked about the war length and beige length before. I don’t think it’s wrong to extend the beige timer to 3 days when losing a war. In non-alliance wars it gives a nation the chance to nearly rebuild completely if they choose before beige ends. In the war front, it certainly hinders beige cycling ability. It won’t drastically change war strategy overall, but maybe just balance the fight a bit more. In the spy ops front, i firmly believe ops should be limited to only those in war with one another and/or nations should be protected from spy ops during beige. The spy war is a brutally unfair one because nations are beiged and get no reprieve (or incentive) to stay in beige to rebuild anything. I’d enable “gather intel” as an option when not in war with someone but every other aggressive op should be reserved to combatants only. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 On 1/22/2025 at 8:46 AM, Shakyr said: Can we please change it so that nations cannot declare wars if they do not have a significant amount of miltiary units (Soldiers, Tanks, Ships, Navy). Preferably greater than 50%, as they should be able to rebuild that much during Beige Protection. This is already the case during wars sanctioned by alliances as a part of coordination unless the war has been decided in the 1st blitz and by war, I mean conflict involving killing/destroying enemy's military over profit, beige-loot. Also, huge-updecs are also prohibited when the opposing side hasn't been zeroed or be destroyed to the point, they are considered safe. Now, what you are suggesting is "to make this forced by game" to make it work I see balancing the rebuy time of military by minimizing it -1 day with every +5 city down-dec against the defender capped to 2 days (For ground units) and 3 days (For air and ships) (stackable) which should help the defenders who are competent and can coordinate to some extent of course if they are willing to fight while also adding an element of strategy for aggressors to choose carefully who to hit. On 1/22/2025 at 8:46 AM, Shakyr said: Additionally, if they sell off all the above military units at any point during a war, that is taken to mean they have given up and victory is declared immediately for the other nation(s), preferably without sending them into Beige Protection. This is too harsh and unnecessary especially that if they have sold the units already, they can be defeated easily, what's the need to not grant them beige in a losing war? On 1/22/2025 at 8:46 AM, Shakyr said: It seems counter to the entire war mechanic that nations can sit around in Beige, not using the time to actually rebuild their miltary, only to declare war again when they leave Beige and maybe have enough resources to fund a nuke or missile. Nope it doesn't, instead it makes fighting back even more punishable and waste of time which is already the case post 1st blitz for the losing side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleazar Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 On 1/23/2025 at 1:37 AM, Shakyr said: Nation Score only limits who you can declare war upon. It does not limit you from declaring even when you're not in a state to conduct war (zero military). some players (or perhaps more precisely raiders, pirates or whatever you call them) tend to use zero military and rely only on soldiers, 1 ship, missiles and nukes to carry out their actions (raiding or nuking). and back to basics, declaring war is not mandatory (unless the alliance asks you to do so for a specific reason). it is optional. On 1/23/2025 at 1:37 AM, Shakyr said: It's to stop abuse and players able to exit and enter Beige at will, by selling all their military and "surrendering". It does not change the normal mechanics, where if you are actually defeated, you are sent to Beige. It was actually a part of my original point, that players do not seem to be using Beige to rebuild. They simply exit Beige with zero military and declare war again. On 1/23/2025 at 1:37 AM, Shakyr said: It's the only tactic I've seen in global wars, so it's more "we got hit bad, we turret". I rarely see anyone double buy military, coordinate targets, etc from the opposing alliances. again, back to basics. war is optional unless your alliance asks you to. some players will exit beige without building their military for several reasons. probably the most common reason is to cut military costs during raiding or save resources when they are fighting and potentially losing badly (guerilla tactics). so they focus more on missiles and military. it is stupid idea if you build military for 6 days beige, consume all your resources (steel or aluminum) and burned it in just 4 - 6 hours when exiting Beige. On 1/23/2025 at 1:37 AM, Shakyr said: I farm during peace and war, ask my alliance. The inflated food market is the only thing I enjoy about global wars. The reason for my comment was more a jab at global radiation solely targeting food (but that's a discussion for another topic). as you understand, when war occurs and the losing party uses guerilla tactics (throwing weapons of mass destruction and causing radiation in almost every continent), food prices will skyrocket. and when peace time, it will go back down. this game is like an iceberg in the middle of the ocean, looks small on the surface but is very large below the surface. you have to prepare everything and predict what will happen in the future. either individually or as a group / alliance. anyway, wish you luck with your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 On 1/23/2025 at 7:05 PM, Gwazi said: We'd just end up in an arms race with alliances merging to become the most dominant, with no influx of new alliances to provide alternatives. Considering that being a gov position in an alliance is half the game we need more alliances and not less. Sadly, this is already the case as of now, micros/new alliances can barely scratch the surface against established alliances unless they merge successfully followed by established old known folks as their leadership. I personally think game requires more economic updates over war at this point to help new alliances to catch up, I have lost all the hope to ever see any significant recovery mechanics and raiding buffs for the losing side against dog-piles lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Robot Santa Posted February 1 Moderators Share Posted February 1 Hello all, Due to the high volume of reports on this thread, it is worth mentioning that respectful discussion can take place even when disagreeing. Please keep this in mind moving forward. Any rules found broken will, as always, be addressed on an individual basis. This is just a friendly reminder post. 2 Quote 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.