Make war wins actually count

[Pax]

Disclaimer: I suggest some solutions to the problems I see. Just because you don't agree with the solutions does not mean that the problems don't need addressed, so please at least comment alternatives if you feel they're necessary.

 

After a discussion in IRC about the advantages and disadvantages of the current war system, I think something needs addressed:

There is no incentive to 'win' a war. Period. We have a war system that includes winning as a factor, but we don't have a way to win. Every major alliance, etc. actually agrees that it's a detriment to 'win' unless it's in a very specific situation (the last possible moment of a war, normally, and even that is iffy)

 

Basically, my thought is that if we're going to have a war system that actually includes a 'win' function, there needs to be an incentive to winning that war. Right now we get a small chunk of money, send the 'losing' nations to a tactically superior protective ground, and get a little 'you did it' sticker to put on our shirt.

 

On another but similar note, we've got very little incentive to war but a lot of damage done by it (build up for a month for it? you might actually have just a little bit of money left afterwards, if you're lucky). This ties in because the more penalties we impose for losing a war, the less incentive there is to actually war - at least, that's the opinion so far.
 

My suggestion is that we do the following two things:

1) Upon winning a war, your opponent goes onto forced beige until X time the war was declared.

-I stress those points because combined, they mean that the faster you win the war, the longer your opponent is beiged - and the longer your opponent is beiged, the less damage they can do to your guys. Beige is not available as an option, ever, meaning that it's not tactically superior to be on beige.

 

2) For the duration of this forced beige, you as the victor gain X percent of your opponent's total resource and regular income (this amount taken out before both tax and consumption to prevent it from being nullified by high tax or high consumption)

 

-This not only provides a tangible benefit to the nation that wins, but to the alliance as well. It hinders the nation's ability to rebuild for a short time, and lets the attacker gain some money from their war that will probably all go towards warchest and nation rebuilding anyways.

 

I left both the time and the income stealing / occupation percentage as X because no matter what amount I say, half the people will whine about it being too much and half will whine about it being too little.

 

In my opinion, 10 days after war declaration is a good time for the forced beige - because it still gives them some protection past the war declaration, gives a few days of the occupation even if the win is late in the war, but doesn't go for an extremely long time if the war ends early (even in a fairly fast paced war it's probably like 1 week tops of losing some income)

 

As for the percentage taken, that's much harder to say and it's most likely the point that everyone is going to yell at me about. I would personally say ~35%, because that way the provided income isn't just hilariously low to the victor - but it also shouldn't entirely destroy your nation, even if you do have fairly high upkeep costs on your units/improvements/etc

 

 

As for why I think this is the best way to improve the war system, it's because I think that providing benefits for the victors is a much better way to promote war than the previous ideas of reducing penalties for everyone (I wouldn't argue with like a 1/3 reduction in all damage taken in wars, because I think they go way too quickly in PNW, but that's another topic for another day).

 

The people declaring normally plan to be the victor (whether it goes that way or not) and offering benefits for them doing so means that more people will want to declare war. Providing penalties for losers, however, means that the current victory system isn't a joke like it currently is, and that there's an incentive to fight hard and actually try and win. It also means that people might actually start to keep militaries and warchests instead of just spending all their money the second they get it, meaning that the wars might actually become meaningful and more long-term things

 

 

 

 

All that said, I'll open up the forum for everyone's comments about how horrible an idea this is and how I need to go die.

[Ayayay]

It's not winning a war, it's forcing your open to beige and looting them and their alliances bank in the process. To think or act like it means otherwise is a waste of time. Only raiders and losers are incentivised to beige their opponents, no one else (although the latter group could be debated).

 

The beige system is not designed for, nor should it be used(or changed to be used), in an alliance war.

Edited March 25, 2015 by underlordgc

[Pax]

It's not winning a war, it's forcing your open to beige and looting them and their alliances bank in the process. To think or act like it means otherwise is a waste of time. Only raiders and losers are incentivised to beige their opponents, no one else (although the latter group could be debated).

 

The beige system is not designed for, nor should it be used(or changed to be used), in an alliance war.

 

I don't see why your post and mine need to contradict (sans the part where you directly said it shouldn't be changed to be used in alliance wars - obviously that's a direct contradiction)

 

The current beige system is not useful in alliance wars, at all. I've said that much.

 

Right now wars are not very beneficial in any way, and people talk a decent amount about ways to promote war (as well as making ground battles more useful). Using a system that promotes alliance wars by providing benefits to the victors while providing some actual detriment to the losers could do that, as well as making the beige mechanic not so useless on a scale of anything that isn't raiding.

 

In other words, just because the beige mechanic is currently only useful for raiders doesn't mean it always needs to be only useful for raiders - and in my opinion, it really shouldn't be. Some people might feel the same way, and some might not.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Pax

[Dwemyrn]

Disclaimer: I suggest some solutions to the problems I see. Just because you don't agree with the solutions does not mean that the problems don't need addressed, so please at least comment alternatives if you feel they're necessary.

 

After a discussion in IRC about the advantages and disadvantages of the current war system, I think something needs addressed:

 

There is no incentive to 'win' a war. Period. We have a war system that includes winning as a factor, but we don't have a way to win. Every major alliance, etc. actually agrees that it's a detriment to 'win' unless it's in a very specific situation (the last possible moment of a war, normally, and even that is iffy)

 

Basically, my thought is that if we're going to have a war system that actually includes a 'win' function, there needs to be an incentive to winning that war. Right now we get a small chunk of money, send the 'losing' nations to a tactically superior protective ground, and get a little 'you did it' sticker to put on our shirt.

 

On another but similar note, we've got very little incentive to war but a lot of damage done by it (build up for a month for it? you might actually have just a little bit of money left afterwards, if you're lucky). This ties in because the more penalties we impose for losing a war, the less incentive there is to actually war - at least, that's the opinion so far.

 

My suggestion is that we do the following two things:

 

1) Upon winning a war, your opponent goes onto forced beige until X time the war was declared.

-I stress those points because combined, they mean that the faster you win the war, the longer your opponent is beiged - and the longer your opponent is beiged, the less damage they can do to your guys. Beige is not available as an option, ever, meaning that it's not tactically superior to be on beige.

 

2) For the duration of this forced beige, you as the victor gain X percent of your opponent's total resource and regular income (this amount taken out before both tax and consumption to prevent it from being nullified by high tax or high consumption)

 

-This not only provides a tangible benefit to the nation that wins, but to the alliance as well. It hinders the nation's ability to rebuild for a short time, and lets the attacker gain some money from their war that will probably all go towards warchest and nation rebuilding anyways.

 

 

I left both the time and the income stealing / occupation percentage as X because no matter what amount I say, half the people will whine about it being too much and half will whine about it being too little.

 

In my opinion, 10 days after war declaration is a good time for the forced beige - because it still gives them some protection past the war declaration, gives a few days of the occupation even if the win is late in the war, but doesn't go for an extremely long time if the war ends early (even in a fairly fast paced war it's probably like 1 week tops of losing some income)

 

As for the percentage taken, that's much harder to say and it's most likely the point that everyone is going to yell at me about. I would personally say ~35%, because that way the provided income isn't just hilariously low to the victor - but it also shouldn't entirely destroy your nation, even if you do have fairly high upkeep costs on your units/improvements/etc

 

 

As for why I think this is the best way to improve the war system, it's because I think that providing benefits for the victors is a much better way to promote war than the previous ideas of reducing penalties for everyone (I wouldn't argue with like a 1/3 reduction in all damage taken in wars, because I think they go way too quickly in PNW, but that's another topic for another day).

 

The people declaring normally plan to be the victor (whether it goes that way or not) and offering benefits for them doing so means that more people will want to declare war. Providing penalties for losers, however, means that the current victory system isn't a joke like it currently is, and that there's an incentive to fight hard and actually try and win. It also means that people might actually start to keep militaries and warchests instead of just spending all their money the second they get it, meaning that the wars might actually become meaningful and more long-term things

 

 

 

 

All that said, I'll open up the forum for everyone's comments about how horrible an idea this is and how I need to go die.

I made a post similar to this about a month ago, which went nowhere so good luck.

[Ayayay]

I don't see why your post and mine need to contradict (sans the part where you directly said it shouldn't be changed to be used in alliance wars - obviously that's a direct contradiction)

 

The current beige system is not useful in alliance wars, at all. I've said that much.

 

Right now wars are not very beneficial in any way, and people talk a decent amount about ways to promote war (as well as making ground battles more useful). Using a system that promotes alliance wars by providing benefits to the victors while providing some actual detriment to the losers could do that, as well as making the beige mechanic not so useless on a scale of anything that isn't raiding.

 

In other words, just because the beige mechanic is currently only useful for raiders doesn't mean it always needs to be only useful for raiders - and in my opinion, it really shouldn't be. Some people might feel the same way, and some might not.

I'm explaining what beige is and why calling it "winning" is disingenuous. Wars will happen and we don't need mechanics to encourage it, hate does a damn fine job as it is

Edited March 25, 2015 by underlordgc

[ataraxis]

Well, I don't know, maybe it's counterintuitive, makes storing money in the bank too safe of an operation, and needlessly prolongs wars?