Defense resources use

[Sir Scarfalot]

I was surprised to learn that when an attack is a failure, the defender does NOT in fact use all the resources that his military would seem to require.

 

That isn't good for game balance, I believe. If the defenders' entire battle upkeep or at least a real part of it is required per defense, then that gives underdog nations an actual option for costing the winner heavily, though not so much as to make war impossible, unwinnable, or unfair. With 50 troop or 3 aircraft attacks happening often enough, the current maladaptive culture of air raiding until expiration would no longer be so effective and more fun strategies would become effective enough to be usable. This would make the game better, for both winners and losers in war.

 

Though I might be biased, I do think that adding in a higher cost for defenses would make the game more interesting and playable.

 

(Remember, this isn't the politics section, please consider my suggestion on its own merits and refrain from offtopic discussions)

[Atzuya]

It was made this way to deal with the 'underhanded' strategy where someone can send you 1 single plane against your whole air fleet so you'll use up the full amount of gasoline and munitions. The enemy would only lose a handful of stuff, but you'll spend potentially hundred thousands of cash in resources. In this situation even if you have the sheer advantage of numbers, you'll lose a lot of your stockpiles in one war (I believe this happened quite a lot back then in Alpha)

[Valakias]

^

[Sir Scarfalot]

It was made this way to deal with the 'underhanded' strategy where someone can send you 1 single plane against your whole air fleet so you'll use up the full amount of gasoline and munitions. The enemy would only lose a handful of stuff, but you'll spend potentially hundred thousands of cash in resources. In this situation even if you have the sheer advantage of numbers, you'll lose a lot of your stockpiles in one war (I believe this happened quite a lot back then in Alpha)

Yes, but wars quickly become imbalanced in a bad way. Once a nation begins losing, they might as well ragequit since they have literally no options left for meaningful play. This discourages activity and therefore enjoyability, even for the winner since constantly grinding air raids isn't fun, it's a chore.

 

If a nation had to use a small but significant fraction of their standing forces per each defense operation, then underdog nations can still cause damage to the enemy resources, which encourages A. the underdog to remain active and engaged, B. wars to be fought to more rapid beige instead of long and spiteful sieges, and C. nations in general to focus more on resources instead of pure military. All of these things would be better for everyone, whatever their fortunes in war happen to be.

[Wayne]

Stupid idea.