Change Beige mechanics so any immense triumph advances the Beige counter

[Ogaden]

Currently in almost every war the superior force deliberately avoids "Beiging" their opponents to deny them the 5 day breather nations get from being redeclared on due to being decisively defeated in war.  Currently only 6 immense ground victories count towards Beige or total victory and surrender.

 

I think this is not working as designed.  I think any immense triumph should advance the "beige clock", and any victory by the nation that's losing should stop the "beige clock".

 

I propose the following:  Any type of attack advances the "beige clock".  Non-intercepted Missiles count as an immense triumph and Nukes count as 3 immense triumphs but no longer auto-beige.

 

So a nation where say, one nation consistently loses on the ground but consistently wins in the air and at sea, neither party would beige the other, no matter how many ground victories are won.  Like Japan, being nuked twice will force a surrender and beige if the nuked nation cannot win any victories to stop the clock.  6 immense air strikes or naval victories could cripple a nation as much as being invaded and compel their surrender as well, such as Yugoslavia in the Kosovo war.

 

So if I blockade a nation and then airstrike them 5 times, and they cannot win even one victory in the air, on the ground or at sea, they have been totally defeated.  They should be beiged and "surrender" (I get a percentage of their stuff).

[Kadin]

NO. I can't disagree with this more. Airplanes should not beige people because then it becomes impossible to do any sort of real infra damage.

 

How many times does this have to be suggested?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Kadin

[Eric]

I feel like this is the type of suggestion that comes out of people who lose wars...

 

Putting that aside...

 

But where would the spirit of wars go? After all, airstrikes exist for a reason - to destroy infra which is actually an excellent strat in war. Sheepy likely intended for this, or he would have done it when the game was made. And dosen't getting nuked once automatically put you to beige?

[Ogaden]

The whole point of beige is to protect nations that have lost wars.  The fact that airstrikes and naval victories don't count towards nations losing is a loophole, not WAD

[Atzuya]

I still remember how beige system was partially made to reduce GA's looting effectiveness in raid, I guess that time has long passed

 

This suggestion would severely hamper any attempt to damage enemies, be it their infrastructure or military capabilities. When anyone could have five days war protection right off the bat after six measly attacks, there is little point in militarizing before the war happens. I can just sit here with zero military, and when the war actually broke out I can rest easy knowing that I'll get beiged shortly no matter what the enemies are doing, then after beige I'd come out fully militarized thanks to five days of protection. Staggering tactics to keep the enemy at their lowest military would be outright impossible short of emptying their stash completely.

[Ogaden]

I still remember how beige system was partially made to reduce GA's looting effectiveness in raid, I guess that time has long passed

 

This suggestion would severely hamper any attempt to damage enemies, be it their infrastructure or military capabilities. When anyone could have five days war protection right off the bat after six measly attacks, there is little point in militarizing before the war happens. I can just sit here with zero military, and when the war actually broke out I can rest easy knowing that I'll get beiged shortly no matter what the enemies are doing, then after beige I'd come out fully militarized thanks to five days of protection. Staggering tactics to keep the enemy at their lowest military would be outright impossible short of emptying their stash completely.

Yes it would change wars where an alliance can turn things around if they get ambushed and arm up, and nations that are defeated in the first round of war can come out swinging in the next round.  It would add strategic depth to wars and make them more interesting and challenging.  I don't see adding difficulty to alliance wars as a bad thing.

 

It would mean that nations will have the opportunity to rebuild their destroyed military after being decisively defeated, but that's good, not bad.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Ogaden

[Kim Jong-Il]

NO. I can't disagree with this more. Airplanes should not beige people because then it becomes impossible to do any sort of real infra damage.

 

How many times does this have to be suggested?

 

If you should lose a war, you arent fit to fight another nation. There are these things called ships, missiles, and nukes that also do this fun thing called heavy infra damage, so planes adding a beige counter isnt the end of the world

Edited August 27, 2015 by Kim Jong-Il

[Kim Jong-Il]

Although i agree partially with what you're saying, I dont think missiles and nukes should affect any beiging besides the auto beige nukes already have. I think it should be that airstrikes and navy battles have a triumph limit like ground attack, so that at some point they need to decide to beige the opponent, switch to missiles/nukes, or let the war expire, which would give the losing nation time to rebuild and fight back. I think that 3 missile hits (not blocks) should also auto beige.

 

EDIT: I also think that the 12 MAP max should not exist. There shouldn't be a cap, or to put it in better turns, the cap should be the max MAP you can get in the entire length of the war

Edited August 27, 2015 by Kim Jong-Il

[Ogaden]

The way I see it, 6 immense triumphs in a row of any kind, with no successful retaliation of any kind from your opponent, you've won.  Like in little league, they should call the game at that point, you won, you don't need to keep smashing the guy's face in.

[Kyoko]

Yes there should be a limit on how much damage you can do to an opponent.

[Zhen]

Yes there should be a limit on how much damage you can do to an opponent.

There is. It's called the opponent's maximum infrastructure.

[Nabilah]

There is. It's called the opponent's maximum infrastructure.

 

lol

[Jose Rodriguez III]

There is. It's called the opponent's maximum infrastructure.

Amazing post, Did not see coming

 

xD

[Alex]

At first my thoughts were along the lines of Kadin's, but I do see the merit in Ogaden's thoughts. It would certainly allow wars to take a little longer before one side wins, and help reduce the ridiculous beatdown effect that makes wars not as much fun and disincentivizes global wars like this entirely.

 

I think this suggestion has merit, not because I think people should be protected from having infrastructure damage done, but simply because this kind of a buffer would make wars a little more appealing as less damage is done. The obvious counter to this is that you could, perhaps, double the average length of an alliance vs. alliance war and end up with the same amount of damage done, but having it spread out over a longer period of time would likely make the losing nation(s) less likely to just up and quit or be as discouraged.

 

We'd need to consider the consequences of a change like this in player behavior, though. I think it would lead to less nations using Vacation Mode as a peace mode, it could possibly increase the amount of gasoline/munitions used in wars, and I'm sure it would have other unintended and unforseeable consequences.

[Kadin]

At first my thoughts were along the lines of Kadin's, but I do see the merit in Ogaden's thoughts. It would certainly allow wars to take a little longer before one side wins, and help reduce the ridiculous beatdown effect that makes wars not as much fun and disincentivizes global wars like this entirely.

 

I think this suggestion has merit, not because I think people should be protected from having infrastructure damage done, but simply because this kind of a buffer would make wars a little more appealing as less damage is done. The obvious counter to this is that you could, perhaps, double the average length of an alliance vs. alliance war and end up with the same amount of damage done, but having it spread out over a longer period of time would likely make the losing nation(s) less likely to just up and quit or be as discouraged.

 

We'd need to consider the consequences of a change like this in player behavior, though. I think it would lead to less nations using Vacation Mode as a peace mode, it could possibly increase the amount of gasoline/munitions used in wars, and I'm sure it would have other unintended and unforseeable consequences.

If you want to make war more appealing, then this isn't the way to do it in my opinion. Instead of trying to reduce damage, why not reduce the cost? An increase of improvement slots would go a long way toward making war more appealing as well.

[Alex]

If you want to make war more appealing, then this isn't the way to do it in my opinion. Instead of trying to reduce damage, why not reduce the cost? An increase of improvement slots would go a long way toward making war more appealing as well.

 

I don't mean to stifle your ideas in any way, shape, or form, let's just try to keep this thread about Ogaden's suggestion. You're free to suggest your own ideas in a new thread

[Kadin]

I don't mean to stifle your ideas in any way, shape, or form, let's just try to keep this thread about Ogaden's suggestion. You're free to suggest your own ideas in a new thread

[Conroy]

Yes it would change wars where an alliance can turn things around if they get ambushed and arm up, and nations that are defeated in the first round of war can come out swinging in the next round.  It would add strategic depth to wars and make them more interesting and challenging.  I don't see adding difficulty to alliance wars as a bad thing.

 

It would mean that nations will have the opportunity to rebuild their destroyed military after being decisively defeated, but that's good, not bad.

If an alliance is unprepared for war then it's their own fault. They either failed in the political side of the game or they lack the skills to manage their alliance effectively, and the game shouldn't be catered to them because of it. Wars in this game are first fought and mostly won on the political field through containing/managing information, getting support, and isolating your target as best you can. If your enemies manage this and prep themselves without you noticing or getting word of it in time, then you deserve to be at a disadvantage that your negligence put you in. 

 

This suggestion would also make it much harder to deal with raiders and rogues. They can be more bold with who they target with little to fear, cause what can you do about it? Beige them with limited damage and let them come back later. Lets go back to when Apeman went nuke rogue on BoC, imagine that with this war system. He would have been able to come in on 5 targets, nuke them, get beiged, build back up and go again. This would have greatly extended the duration he could have dealt major damage to BoC and reduced damage to his own nation considerably.

[Ogaden]

If an alliance is unprepared for war then it's their own fault. They either failed in the political side of the game or they lack the skills to manage their alliance effectively, and the game shouldn't be catered to them because of it. Wars in this game are first fought and mostly won on the political field through containing/managing information, getting support, and isolating your target as best you can. If your enemies manage this and prep themselves without you noticing or getting word of it in time, then you deserve to be at a disadvantage that your negligence put you in. 

 

This suggestion would also make it much harder to deal with raiders and rogues. They can be more bold with who they target with little to fear, cause what can you do about it? Beige them with limited damage and let them come back later. Lets go back to when Apeman went nuke rogue on BoC, imagine that with this war system. He would have been able to come in on 5 targets, nuke them, get beiged, build back up and go again. This would have greatly extended the duration he could have dealt major damage to BoC and reduced damage to his own nation considerably.

That sounds like a ton of fun for Apeman

Yes you can't win a multi week long war in the first hour of combat if this change was made, that is a good thing, not a bad thing

[Conroy]

You don't win wars in the first hour, you win wars by planning it out ahead of time, prepping, and managing your alliance well. Starting the war can certainly give you the edge, but look at t$ against Rose right now. Also trying to brush over my rogue argument doesn't solve a big problem in your suggestion. If your trying to add more strategy to the combat system/wars your other defensive MAPs thread is the way to go. 

[Ogaden]

Why is ease of roguebusting a positive?  What about the Rogue's fun?  All a rogue has is skill and whatever stockpile of arms they've accumulated, an alliance always has a ton of advantages (more resources, more people, more everything).

 

One bad round of war should not doom an alliance and put them at the total mercy of their opponents, an alliance should be able to turn things around if they can get organized and armed up and beige gives an outmatched alliance the chance to turn things around, it makes wars more challenging and more interesting.

[Phiney]

Maybe if you reduced beige to 3 days with this, but the real problem would be that war would become much more boring, as you'd fight for two days, wait for 5, fight for 2, wait for 5.

 

Dull.

[dmjohnston]

I very much disagree with this idea. The ability to bash the guy's face in is the whole point. Honestly, if you guys aren't using the game mechanics efficiently, that's on you.

 

Prepare for war, defend yourself if/when it comes.

 

I always keep my nation 1 day away from full militarization if there is any possibility of an attack. This includes a war chest to survive blockades. It's not complicated.

Edited August 27, 2015 by dmjohnston

[Ogaden]

Maybe if you reduced beige to 3 days with this, but the real problem would be that war would become much more boring, as you'd fight for two days, wait for 5, fight for 2, wait for 5.

 

Dull.

 

That's assuming every opponent you fight you can't land any attacks on or they can't land any on you at all, even missiles.  A successful attack of *any kind* would reset the victory clock.  Wars where even one area (air, sea, land, missiles) you can get victories in, the war wouldn't end until it expired.  If you are winning quick victories, you would rapidly move on to the next target, if you're getting your ass handed to you in two days, you have a few days to rearm.

I very much disagree with this idea. The ability to bash the guy's face in is the whole point. Honestly, if you guys aren't using the game mechanics efficiently, that's on you.

 

Prepare for war, defend yourself if/when it comes.

 

I always keep my nation 1 day away from full militarization if there is any possibility of an attack. This includes a war chest to survive blockades. It's not complicated.

 

This isn't about me, I have won almost every war I've fought, this is about the people on the other end of me

Edited August 27, 2015 by Ogaden

[Phiney]

That's assuming every opponent you fight you can't land any attacks on you at all, even missiles. A successful attack of *any kind* would reset the victory clock. Wars where even one area (air, sea, land, missiles) you can get victories in, the war wouldn't end until it expired. If you are winning quick victories, you would rapidly move on to the next target, if you're getting your ass handed to you in two days, you have a few days to rearm.

 

 

This isn't about me, I have won almost every war I've fought, this is about the people on the other end of me

I'd expect the new losing tactic to become do nothing and go to beige, don't send missiles as you're hurting yourself more. If they did indeed send missiles, nothing changes as the war will just last the full 5 days and you won't beige them at all, you'll just wait for one of their missiles to land.