Pol Pot Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 in wars in real life, soilders often take towns and cities in war. i think, to make the game more intresting and realistic, we should be able to capture infra from people we hit on a win. maybe when we win a battle. the formula for capturing should be like the battle damage one, expect that people lose only 10-30% of the damage the battle damage formula does. this will be an intresting change. currently, most people go for just missiles in war, with this it will incentivise people using ground attacks more...maybe tanks get bonuses for damage as well thoughts? capturing cities could be intresting as well 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 ...no Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pol Pot Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 ...no why not? if you're going to say no, explain why. not just no or it looks stupid. wars will be more intresting. you should be able to command your soilders to capture or destroy on attacking in ground attacks as well, maybe capturing results in higher loses for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Warburg Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 How about capturing a city until war ends. No one gets a free city and encourages war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor (Old Account) Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 I actually like the idea of capturing a city. How about, say I could capture a city and then get the revenue from that city while the war is going on? Quote "That ain't Cologne, that's the smell of success." 17:00 <•Sheepy> I don't want you to leave the game 19:20 <•Pubstomber>: Man, I really wish Rose had allied BoC a couple months ago when we had the chance instead of picking Vanguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Suggested, more or less, a long while back: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3588-some-changes-to-beige-war-system/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pol Pot Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 Suggested, more or less, a long while back: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3588-some-changes-to-beige-war-system/ that addresses the city part. if people don't want that, that is fine. but what about the infra, that seems like a reasonable thing to capture. i can't see any problem with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamea Arano Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 No. 1 Quote Terms of Service | Wiki | Contact Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pol Pot Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 No. why? your point is? explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Capturing land would be even better tbh Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pol Pot Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 ¨Viktor?! What are you doing!?!¨ 'Just capturing infrastructure' ¨But those are metal pipes!¨ 'Yes Olav! These glorious steel tubes will do great things for our nation!' I think what I already said basically sums everything up. how? all i see is a joke about steel tubes. nothing there about why this wouldn't work in game. nobody is even addressing my point, they're all just going "NO!". Funny people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pol Pot Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 But that would be stealing from everyone. Surely people stealing for their own gains is not something a good communist would do? Shame on you for destroying your own ideals! Giving to the rich and stealing from the poor? Disgusting. Wow. i am putting in a thing to make this game more realistic and intresting. in war, things are captured, it's what happens. but hey, if you can't actually come up with something good other then awful arguements like that i better not waste my time. i have yet to see an actual arguement on the problems with this yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Infrastructure capture makes sense, and land too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 The problem is that the more an attacker is able to steal, the more the game turns into a rich-get-richer curbstomp fest where someone will be able to snowball out of control through military prowess. It is realistic, but in the end it becomes unfun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphman Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 in wars in real life, soilders often take towns and cities in war. i think, to make the game more intresting and realistic, we should be able to capture infra from people we hit on a win. maybe when we win a battle. the formula for capturing should be like the battle damage one, expect that people lose only 10-30% of the damage the battle damage formula does. this will be an intresting change. currently, most people go for just missiles in war, with this it will incentivise people using ground attacks more...maybe tanks get bonuses for damage as well thoughts? capturing cities could be intresting as well I cant rationalize this. What would they actually be doing. Picking up roads and bridges and putting it in your nation? Quote Leader of UPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phrogg Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 I suggested capturing cities back in Alpha. I believe the same logic use to decline that applies here. There is room for rampant abuse in the form of using smaller nations as city and infra farms and just paying them back. Resulting in ultra-cheap infra and cities for massive nations. 1 Quote was important; now retired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 I cant rationalize this. What would they actually be doing. Picking up roads and bridges and putting it in your nation? It would only make sense from a realism standpoint if you were capturing the land, too. You capture the land with a road on it, and you also capture the road. Although, if you're pushing hard for realism, the issue of geographical contiguity also comes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 No, because if this gets implemented, the 99%ers are dead straight away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored now Leafing Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 No, because if this gets implemented, the 99%ers are dead straight away And the downside? but seriously with all the hubbub over them guys i hardly think this is a compelling argument against it. I should not have to point out the the word NO all by it's lonesome is not an argument and using it on a guy who is ether a troll or needs to step outside his communist death camp er i mean University campus and see how the rest of the world lives is the height of laziness. As for why i would oppose this idea the game is not setup for capturing stuff from other nations as it is now we may have spots on a map but it is functionally little different then if we all resided on our own little islands that have no definitive location, and as for capturing land that was briefly brought up that would also be a bad idea as that along with cities are the only things at the moment raiders can not raid out of existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I have 2000 infra I attack a nation I have 2001 infra My city is now unpowered fml 1 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I suggested capturing cities back in Alpha. I believe the same logic use to decline that applies here. There is room for rampant abuse in the form of using smaller nations as city and infra farms and just paying them back. Resulting in ultra-cheap infra and cities for massive nations. How come nobody saw this valid point from Phrogg? The way updeclare range works right now, a nation with 9 cities and 800 infra in each could easily declare on a nation with 10 cities and 1500 infra each. Not counting military assets but that's really easy to manipulate. The former can buy infra in $4,771 each, while the later needs $15,707 for each infra. Depends on what capture-to-destroy ratio you're thinking, this would pave a way to one hell of a sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet deal 10/10 suggestion would support and +1 like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 No. Capturing cities, are you kidding? Also, "just missiling" illustrates a lack of knowledge about the current war system post-missile nerf. Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicca Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Its a nice idea and I agree partially, it would be a mess due to border issues and land issues....the screens that show up. Just the ability to tax that city untill it is gained back. 75% of the resources and cash produced goes to the attacker 25% to the owner. The Owner needs to win a battle to regain the city. (I am still on beige so i dont know the war module too well) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Gordon Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 in wars in real life, soilders often take towns and cities in war. i think, to make the game more intresting and realistic, we should be able to capture infra from people we hit on a win. maybe when we win a battle. the formula for capturing should be like the battle damage one, expect that people lose only 10-30% of the damage the battle damage formula does. this will be an intresting change. currently, most people go for just missiles in war, with this it will incentivise people using ground attacks more...maybe tanks get bonuses for damage as well thoughts? capturing cities could be intresting as well Support. Instead of destroying infrastructure we should capture it. When we capture it we can then choose what city it goes to. 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.