Samoht

Adjusting the war-feature

86 posts in this topic


As of now, in this game, you can't steal resources from another nation, even if you won the war against it. This should/could fix it.

The idea is actually not only mine. One of the other experienced players in this game (Jazter) and I, had a conversation about this and then he mentioned something that made me think a lot..

- It was very simple, but yet very good. I then i thought about it, and this is what i think could fix the problem:
 

When annexing: Will be explained after the "Idea for stealing resources".


"Idea for stealing resources":

- "Stealing resources": You cant really do that because the nation can just move their resources to another nation during a war.

This is how it could/should be:

Make it an option to steal 10% of a nations resources after 3 won battles.

(Make it 3 instead of 5, because 5 won battles with Gearhounds will cost you 5000 uranium, which is probably more than you will get in return from winning the war.

3 won battles with Gearhounds will cost you 3k uranium, and its more possible to get that amount back, instead of 5k uranium, when winning a war, when you choose the option to steal resources.

- By using "3 won battles" in this, you make it worth attacking a nation, cause youre almost sure about getting the used uranium back, if winning the battle. - And then you will also get 10% of the nations : Money, Food, Power, BM, CG, Metal, Ammo and fuel = You will actually make a profit from winning the war, without it being too costly for the losing nation.

Now you probably think: "But you can still send the resources away when you have lost 2 battles and realize that youre gonna lose the war".

Solution: (I will use my nation and your nation as an example).

- You decide to declare war on me. The moment you do that, i got a stockpile of resources in my nation.
The very moment you declare on me, the game calculates 10% of all my resources and type it down in a message which is sent to ME (The defending nation).

Now i know the excact amount of resources you are capable of stealing from me. (That amount of resources will be "LOCKED" to my nation, which means i cant:
Use it for my population (food, Power and CG), i cant trade that "locked" amount of resources away and i cant use the locked amount of "fuel, ammo and uranium" in wars or military training).

- This will secure that the 10% of resources will ALWAYS be kept in my nation to be stolen, if i loose the war and the aggressor chooses the option to steal my resources).

If 10k food, and 5k ammo is "locked", as an example, and you end up with only 5k food in total stockpile in your nation during the war, then the outcome would be like if your nation has 0 food = losing population (Because the "locked" amount of resources cant be used).
And if the ammo reaches 5k, which is the excact amount that is "locked", then the outcome would be as if it has reached 0, which means you cant meet the demands of military upkeep etc.

Then you maybe think: "But what if 10 nations declares on me, then ALL my resources are "locked" and i cant do anything."

To fix this, the following can be done/implemented:

- Make the MAXIMUM number of declarations on a nation to 3. (That will MAX "lock" 30% of that nations resources).

Then you maybe think: "Then i will just have 3 friends to declare on me, and then my enemies cant do anything about it".

Solution:

- To avoid that, make wars EXPIRE if no new division have been sent within 48 hours after the last finished battle, and make the war expire if no division have been sent within 24 hours of declaration.

Also make it impossible for nations in the same alliance to declare on each other - and the very moment the attacking nation joins the alliance that the nation he declared on is in, make the war expire immediately. (To secure no one just leave the alliance, declares, and joins again).

- When a war expires, make a cooldown/countdown of 2 weeks before that nation can declare again on the same target (to avoid "fake" declarations) - UNLESS the war have a winner. -Then immediate declaration is allowed.(To secure real wars can still be fought intensively without lots of waiting-time/pauses, and to make it possible for nations to annex/steal resources from a nation, multiple times in a row, just as it it possible to do that now).

- The maximum of 3 declarations pr. nation should also prevent a nation from being totally ripped of within i short period of time.


When it comes to annexing: Make it 4 won battles before you can demand annexation instead of 5 as it is now.
And increase the amount of land you get to a permanent 10-15%, every time you annex a nation.

The reason for this:

It costs you 5k uranium with GH's to win 5 battles. Even more if the score ends up 5-3 or something like that. - Then you could end up using 8k uranium in just 1 war, which is VERY VERY much.
The outcome from a won war is to low (Last time i annexed a nation with 65m population i got about 1700km2 land). (When doing missions and using both Expand borders and Colonists, i can regain that land in 1 week easily).

By making it 4 won battles for an annexation you can (if youre good/lucky) end up using "only" 4k uranium pr. annexation. Its still a lot, but a little cheaper though + you get a little more land pr. annexation = Worth it a lot more, than it is now.

It requires 17500km2 urban area to reach Tier 10. So you can say that all nations who have reached Tier 10, got at least 20000km2 land in total. And some of the biggest nations in this game got over 50000km2.

- Lets say the average Tier 10 nation got 30000km2 land. Then 10% is 3000km2 land (Which is what you will get from an annexation with the new numbers ive used).
That is what you will get "in average" when annexing a Tier 10, with the new numbers. - That's still more than 1k uranium used per 1000km land gained (And 1000km land i can get in 3 days in the game) - So i dont think these numbers are unfair at all


(Ive tried to change everything EXCEPT for the units and their hourly upkeep, so that @Stian dont have to worry even more about the imbalancing when it comes to resources and money. By changing the structure of the wars instead, he dont have to worry about that at all).


I have given this A LOT of thoughts, and honestly believe this would make the war/battle aspect of the game, a lot better and WAY more interesting.
By making wars more benefitial, the diplomatic aspect of the game will also get a boost without a doubt = WIN-WIN!!


Everyone that reads this, please UPVOTE  or DOWNVOTE this and leave a comment, so there is an overview of opinions on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, probably a few tweaks here and there as well as a few more limitations. I would love to see something like this implemented 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the persons who downvoted it make a comment about WHY they don't like this?
- Or will the community continue to stay negative towards everything, instead of actually contributing by commenting the post with constructive critisicm instead?

@Vigilante@Typer57@Chairman ??
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Samoht said:

Could the persons who downvoted it make a comment about WHY they don't like this?
- Or will the community continue to stay negative towards everything, instead of actually contributing by commenting the post with constructive critisicm instead?

@Vigilante@Typer57@Chairman ??
 

Because of the horrible advantage the attacker has. If the attacker has a decent alliance and coordination, he/she can simply have 5 people attack at the same exact time at the start of the war! Within 24 hours the war score is 3-0, and no defense could be reached in time. A so-called "Blitzkrieg"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention, war is supposed to be MUTUALLY destructive. All this does is convince the entirety of Petram to enter world war.

edit: Another issue: If this is implemented, nations can just live on the bare minimum, importing resources when needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion for war that I've discussed with Typer and Chairman is to have wars affect GP - winning gives you 5% of opponents GP.

(sorry for repetitive replies, I'm on phone)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xealo said:

Because of the horrible advantage the attacker has. If the attacker has a decent alliance and coordination, he/she can simply have 5 people attack at the same exact time at the start of the war! Within 24 hours the war score is 3-0, and no defense could be reached in time.

Finally.. Constructive  critisicm! Thank you - and i actually mean that! :)

You got a point.. And thats excactly why i wanted peoples opinion, so that the small things i forgot about could be mentioned, and we together could find the best solution. Cause right now, the feature does not work at all.

But im sure the thing you mentioned Xealo, is something that can be fixed with a little rule or 2 to prevent that from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but this could still be gotten around by living on the bare minimum - Just not collecting from factories or importing when needed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Xealo said:

Maybe, but this could still be gotten around by living on the bare minimum - Just not collecting from factories or importing when needed 

Well then there is still other options in a war, such as "annexation"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Xealo said:

My suggestion for war that I've discussed with Typer and Chairman is to have wars affect GP - winning gives you 5% of opponents GP.

(sorry for repetitive replies, I'm on phone)

Ive debated that specific thing too with other players and thats a fine idea. But who really cares about GP? - There should be more than that as a reward.. Or else this game is just a fancy resource collector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Xealo said:

Because of the horrible advantage the attacker has. If the attacker has a decent alliance and coordination, he/she can simply have 5 people attack at the same exact time at the start of the war! Within 24 hours the war score is 3-0, and no defense could be reached in time. A so-called "Blitzkrieg"

As an example:

You can limit the participating nations in this way...

First battle after declaration will be a 1vs1.
For the rest of the battles you can invite 1 friend into the battle both as the aggressor and as the defender. That gives the defender time to coordinate, and also give the people who wants a 1vs1 battle a fair chance to do that. (In the first battle)

Then 3 declarations would still be 3 different wars, so the whole war would still take a lot more than just 24 hours.. (You can still place divisions in allies nations as usual).

And like now , if there is more than 1 battle going on, the other battles will be queud. (Then you should just have the option to place 3 defensive divisions in your own nation).

- For every single division you should choose who it should fight. (Lets say Xealo and XPhade attacked me at the same time. Then i could choose 1 division who should fight the divisions Xealo send and place that division in DEFENSE FORCE SPOT NR 1, and select another division to fight the division XPhade sends in the DEFENSE FORCE SPOT NR 2 and so on...

(EDITED)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xealo said:

Because of the horrible advantage the attacker has. If the attacker has a decent alliance and coordination, he/she can simply have 5 people attack at the same exact time at the start of the war! Within 24 hours the war score is 3-0, and no defense could be reached in time. A so-called "Blitzkrieg"

Defenders have a big advantage. They pay negligible upkeep costs. They rarely lose units (pull them back when they are low and unhealable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xealo said:

My suggestion for war that I've discussed with Typer and Chairman is to have wars affect GP - winning gives you 5% of opponents GP.

(sorry for repetitive replies, I'm on phone)

I thought winning wars already gave you the other guys bonus GP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Samoht said:

Could the persons who downvoted it make a comment about WHY they don't like this?
- Or will the community continue to stay negative towards everything, instead of actually contributing by commenting the post with constructive critisicm instead?

@Vigilante@Typer57@Chairman ??
 

I have told you about hensilias bloodlust. You think a garentee of lots of recources would help that? What about KIA? This would make a new Hasaka and a second Great Multis War a heck of a lot easier for him. This would also put all banks at great risk. If someone can slip in a few victories before anyone notices, it an easy get rich quick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vigilante said:

I already worked out how one could easly rob a bank without being cought, I won't post it here for obvious reasons.

Keeping a bank at tier 1, which is where all banks in the game should be as no banks are allowed to develop and grow,  would prevent any attacks. Problem solved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Samoht

I dislike it for the sheer complexity of it. One of the things about Nations that I love the most is how free you are and how simple many things are. I agree that the way war works ought to be changed in some way, although I don't think it's very urgent. But with a system as complex as this where the creator has to out-think the exploiter, envisioning what could go wrong and what could be used differently than intended; some way will be found to exploit it (Hailfire seems to have already done so). With people like KIA out there and a game full of analytical thinkers something will go wrong. And anyway, so many rules ruin the fun.

33 minutes ago, fdas said:

I thought winning wars already gave you the other guys bonus GP

I haven't noticed any change in bonus GP when I annex inactives.

1 hour ago, Xealo said:

My suggestion for war that I've discussed with Typer and Chairman is to have wars affect GP - winning gives you 5% of opponents GP.

(sorry for repetitive replies, I'm on phone)

Heyyy...

That was my idea (I wanted 5% to be destroyed as well though, for a total of 10% bonus GP lost).

Maybe I'm the copier though.

 

 

 

Edit: Although maybe @Vigilante is talking about robbing a bank in real life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, President of Dynin said:

@Samoht

I dislike it for the sheer complexity of it. One of the things about Nations that I love the most is how free you are and how simple many things are. I agree that the way war works ought to be changed in some way, although I don't think it's very urgent. But with a system as complex as this where the creator has to out-think the exploiter, envisioning what could go wrong and what could be used differently than intended; some way will be found to exploit it (Hailfire seems to have already done so). With people like KIA out there and a game full of analytical thinkers something will go wrong. And anyway, so many rules ruin the fun.

I haven't noticed any change in bonus GP when I annex inactives.

Heyyy...

That was my idea (I wanted 5% to be destroyed as well though, for a total of 10% bonus GP lost).

Maybe I'm the copier though.

 

The current system is exploited so much that several of the features are useless, so your statement really do not make any sense. The war system needs an overhaul.

 

And Hailfire do not have a solution at all. As stated , a bank at tier one can not be attacked.

 

The fact that KoP bank has been developed into a tier 3 nation with upgrades and metal production, is actually not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Samoht said:

The current system is exploited so much that several of the features are useless, so your statement really do not make any sense. The war system needs an overhaul.

 

And Hailfire do not have a solution at all. As stated , a bank at tier one can not be attacked.

 

The fact that KoP bank has been developed into a tier 3 nation with upgrades and metal production, is actually not allowed.

It isn't? I didn't know that. I will fix it right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have deleted all of the bank's factories, and have stopped growth. I will start it tier dropping as soon as I can figure out something to do with the food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can make it more simple if @Stian remove "defender retreat during battle" feature or change the feature become "both of attacker and defender can retreat during battle" (the last not funny at all). Then, inactive nation should deleted by the system for a week (or a month when pause nation). Also, highest tier should counted as highest tier he was ever reached, if I tier down to tier 6 (or even tier 1) for example, all nation still can declare war to me whatever their tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, henryfekok said:

We can make it more simple if @Stian remove "defender retreat during battle" feature or change the feature become "both of attacker and defender can retreat during battle" (the last not funny at all). Then, inactive nation should deleted by the system for a week (or a month when pause nation). Also, highest tier should counted as highest tier he was ever reached, if I tier down to tier 6 (or even tier 1) for example, all nation still can declare war to me whatever their tier.

The retreating "feature" should NOT be in the game.. That only makes the war take LONGER, which make the cost even more expensive, and the "profit" even smaller.

And its kinda funny to see the people who are talking about biasing, are all downvoting this idea.

Facts:

9 votes so far.

ALL of the 6 negative votes ALL comes from SPQR/KoP members who are at war and on the losing side atm.

ALL the positive votes comes from neutral people who arent a part of the war.

Speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Samoht said:

The retreating "feature" should NOT be in the game.. That only makes the war take LONGER, which make the cost even more expensive, and the "profit" even smaller.

And its kinda funny to see the people who are talking about biasing, are all downvoting this idea.

Facts:

9 votes so far.

ALL of the 6 negative votes ALL comes from SPQR/KoP members who are at war and on the losing side atm.

ALL the positive votes comes from neutral people who arent a part of the war.

Speaks for itself.

I'm not agree with:

  1. Max war. For attacker maybe 10 is reasonable number (because sometimes I have to waiting for next deployment and then decide to declare new war), or should be no limit (if delete inactive nation by the system applied). For defender, 3 war is enough (apply to nation, not to alliance)
  2. Winning score, should 5 or more, because I see and experienced about make 3 score at 3 waves attack. The defender is guaranteed to be a loser if winning score only 3.

I'm agree (modified) with:

  1. Locked resources. If he has 3 wars (1 war as attacker and 2 wars as defender) and he has 16k ammo, 15k ammo locked (based on your calculation). And then when someone attack him, his 1k ammo will be locked after 48 hours. So, he has 48 hours to provide more ammo or his units will be destroyed easily due to insufficient ammo after 48 hours. When he can't provide more ammo after 48 hours and he is defeated, system add ammo for last attacker annexation (5k - ammo available).

I'm agree with:

  1. war expiration.
  2. annexation value.

 

That's good about positive vote came from neutral people.

And about negative vote came from the loser, whatever the mechanic, loser is  loser then if they didn't move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Samoht said:

The retreating "feature" should NOT be in the game.. That only makes the war take LONGER, which make the cost even more expensive, and the "profit" even smaller.

And its kinda funny to see the people who are talking about biasing, are all downvoting this idea.

Facts:

9 votes so far.

ALL of the 6 negative votes ALL comes from SPQR/KoP members who are at war and on the losing side atm.

ALL the positive votes comes from neutral people who arent a part of the war.

Speaks for itself.

You asked them to downvote if they disagree; IDK what you are complaining about, they disagree you asked people who disagree to downvote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now