War

I have an idea that i think would make the game a more balanced environment between war players and econ players.

here goes...


This idea could change the destructiveness of war moderately active peaceful player(s) suffer, when set upon by an aggressor(s).

It doesn't involve changing the war engine.

Essentially, it revolves around the concept of an aggressor needing to apply "political pressure," to an intended target, before they are able to declare war. If you dont apply political pressure, you simply can not "win" a country.

Without political pressure you can declare and war but not attack any pop targets, nor paint, nor nuke. You can Only attack military or economic targets, conventionally.

Once a player has the first pressure applied on him/her, a 48 hour window begins where other players may Apply political pressure to either side, aggressor or defender.

i like the concept, but it seems a bit unwieldy

shrug

So this is just basically prolonging the time after war decs to beginning of war? Seems a bit odd to dec and then fight 2 days later.

I do like the political pressure idea - but perhaps instead of for each country, it could be between presidents?

orbiter-It is unwieldy now because I wrote it fast and its in its infancy. its a loose concept geared towards keeping players longer and happier while still letting other players war but with a larger handicap. but, don't worry, skill will always win;)

EO-Yes it creates a period of time where the players can prepare for the on coming threat before that threat can actively declare.

Its basicaly a handicap to let the defender "catch up."

Also, I believe this will result in much larger, and more equalized wars then we see now. All players on the world will have the luxury of the initial 48hours to decide if they want to get involved.

If they want they can jump in with political pressure before that 48hour window closes, even one minute before the 48hours closes, they can declare the next minute, on what ever side they choose.

Then the 32 hour wait begins until the shooting starts.

A

This is f**ing complicated but I like it.

Attractive ideas:
1) A level of war where you can only attack military (and economic) targets, vs another level of "all-out war" where you can attack civilian targets and capture territory.

2) A longer wait from initial dec to when the fighting starts. The surprise offense does have a huge advantage currently, thus causing great instability in the game--temptation to attack first, or else to hide in permaWP. Coupled with lower cost of offensive weapons and ammo compared to defensive, at least on FB. A few RL days will definitely tilt the pendulum toward a healthier balance between offense and defense.

I think you have more in mind here but I can't quite figure it out.


These ideas would help things on the war world(s). Anything that helps you fit time-intensive wars into your real life will make the war game better. This

Not sure what I think of the whole concept, as you've said Barney, it's in it's infancy so it's a little hard to wrap my head around it, however I completely agree with allowing people more time after declaration, I proposed something regarding that previously which seemed to be liked but the conversation got off topic...as usual...lol.

Anyway, I like the longer time period, although I'd like to see it as optional, decided by the defending player, if they're available now and want to go, let them start fighting. Give the defender even more options and a chance to set their own schedule somewhat.

Also, how about allowing the defender once declared upon reactivate at a 20% rate instead of 10%...or even double the mil spending space or both. Give them a chance to 'catch up' as you put it.

I definitely like the more time for defenders to prep. Also the 20% reactivation is a good idea.

Good points.

let me try to simplify.

Barney and vicious decide we want to kill laguna.

we set up our forces then we hit the phase one war dec.

This puts laguna on 48hour notice he is about to be declared on.

During that 48 hours he can try to talk us out of war, build def, take some c3's to position him self offensively against our more distant war slaves and try to recruit help for his side.

During that 48 hours yankee decides he will help laguna and declares phase one war dec. he does this 24 hours into the 48hours which began counting down when v and i phase one war dec'd laguna.

No one else shows up for either side.

The 48hours ends.

Then another 24hours begins. barney and V can now declare phase 2 war(real war) on laguna and yankee. Or they can declare on us if they decide to do so.

If no decs in that 24 hours the phase one expires. and back to

I should shoot you with my banana-gun, I should shoot you right now!

haha, well I was thinking I should say no one in the example above was aware of this idea. I had an epiphany and just wrote it out.

This a good idea, but still not enough time for the defender to build up, if he was playing econ. He would only supposedly have defensive weapons, and it would take way to long to purchase enough weapons/ammo to fight back with.( do you see how long it takes to build a navy? which they would probably need to attack the opponent with).

This idea would work if a player was playing econ/military becauses chances are he has offensive weapons. This would only give enough time to re-activate weapons.

If a player chooses to play econ, he will buy no weapons. More spending space and greater re-activation percents are still not enough for an econ country to prepare for war.

Each world is a war world and people need to be prepared to at least defend themselves(like the docs mentioned). Or use WP.

I think the only way around this would be for countries to have the option of econ or military. If they choose econ, the

barny, i apologize for my hasty criticism, i wont comment until i re-read the thread, and i'm a bit busy atm.

although, one thing that would be a cool change, is instead of the 4 game month wait, it be an even 24 or 48 hours.

no apology necessary.

the increase in booster's is a good idea. Also, the 20% def reactivation. how about those and some of what is mentioned above?

Granted an econ player would be in trouble, but the time allows players to bring old alliances into play, which would change the dynamics of a war greatly. It may give the aggressor pause for a number of reasons.

Just the fact we are discussing the idea of tilting back towards peaceful players is a good thing, i believe.

Every player who posted here can see clear the disadvantage in the current system. these changes would directly make every poster here work harder in war. face it war is fast and easy at this point for the 5% of us who understand priorities and are given the great advantage of setting up and executing war dec's on other players with different styles.

When WE declare on them you should understand they aren't thinking, I need to get

I like the option for econ or military, but I think this would give the war lords an econ sanctuary without any cost association. Im not sure how that would work.

Im trying to find a balance where most players can be happy most of the time, while growing the player base.

I think the above statement is viable While still keeping aggressive style large scale war an option.

We need to find a handicap for the econ and marginally active players. the highly active and highly aggressive players have too large an advantage at this point.

If the 10-15 of us who truly know how to fight were to get together and decide to kill a world who could stop that? No one, and that is wrong and its why this game is becoming unstable.

Like play style draws like players. When the war players get together they war, typically on the econ or "middle of the road" players.

LOL, look I know Ive grown soft in my old age,

If we had more players, then the econ players could do what Rome did & hire mercs - countries that don't get a Jones for stealing from other players or destroying their hard work for profit, but like to fight for the hell of it. nothing stalls an attacker better than suddenly coming under attack by a third party. Looked into buying out Keyman's countries on WG & just fighting - & then found out you cant attack for 21 months lol. Still maintain that it takes too long to build an army. MOB's advantage is 3 years of stockpiling military, it takes a good year to become an avarage military power. Someone said that a war world that runs 10 times faster than LU would occupy the war fiends. Build a strong military in 3 real months - one month in WP & fight fight fight. Recovery wouldn't be so impossible. Just rambling thoughts

Hordo, you can build a very potent army in 3 real game months. If I spent a whole year, I would have the strongest military.

Of course there should be a middle ground, there are a few fairly simple tweaks that I think would go a long way.

Extended declaration time - your idea is good, my original idea was to give the player being declared upon the option: Start war immediately, start war in 4 game months or start war in 8 game months...but more time is still reasonable, I guess I just wouldn't want it forced on myself if someone declares on me.

Classification, Econ or Military - The president is classified, not the country. That in addition to limiting the mil assets to say, 10T, in any given country would eliminate the warlords from using it to hide and build...plus make it costly to switch from one to the other, either with a GC cost or a very long waiting period before one can declare war...like 1-3 real months. Econ players are continuously protected but pay an additional cost, less than or equal to the current WP costs, probably equal though...as

well, i don't like how war would become a popularity contest, though. but i do like the concept of giving new players more time to react, and possibly find (hire?) some friends

although, as far as giving econ players some protection, you may really want to revisit the war engine.

today, i took down 99 I wings, with 3k fighters. If presidents where allow to set up their own targeting for weapons, units, or wings. It would make certain aspects to war much different..

also, limiting the total number of units that could be created per Game month, in the above example, my 3k fighters flew 33 missions in about 1 game day. I don't think my country has enough war hospitals to rehabilitated my drug addicted pilots!!!

as far as limiting number of units created per GM. it could be limited based on the number of bases. for instance, each offence base would allow you to create 5 units per month (for exampl

WB your mind is going blank because your head is full of shite.

Nice thread Barney.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

thats what i have to say

i guess a possible issue with barny's pressure idea...

you may have a personal enemy, who can now involve themselves, in everything you do. they can declare war in your favor, to steal your kills, they could declare war against you... the person could follow you around, and would have 24-48 hours, what ever it is, to involve themselves, and their would be nothing you could do about it.

in fact, i think we can all think of some one, that would find herself a reason to be involved in every war on a planet...and she would have plenty of time to.

She stole one today.

although i guess their'd be a couple of ways around the issue i mentioned above.

the initial presidents involved in the "pressure," would be able to remove another president from the conflict, who enters their side, that they didn't want involved... but some one would still be able to join the side against you, every time you do something... or at least try

and/or the initial president of either side would get the country, if they won, reguardless of who got the last shot. although because so many countries might be involved, that may not work. just a thought that could be worked.

funny you make mention of people getting involved in things that don't concern them. That is exactly what the mob has done repeatedly.

EO delares war on UC on behalf of GREF.
Because they 'harbored' me too long.

I see the first GREF war as a continuation of revenge attacks from AF members against John L. And the second war as a continuation of the first war directly trgeting me for supporting John L.

None of which had anything to do with EO or the UC harboring me.

You guys have constantly declared on countries I have decd on took the last shot and laughed away. Now I give you a taste of your own mmedicine, and I 'stole' one today, lmao.

Again we are faced people doing things then ,yet being opposed to others following suit. Hypocritical conversation at best is what this is. No different than the c3s issue, WP issue, or any other issue you bring up.

Seems to me you guys want to

Good points orbiter. I remember when JoJo stole one from me;P

Remember that JoJo? LOL. Was one of the funniest lines, something like..."dont bitch Rubble. You just got out played."

The option to remove unwanted help, before war, sounds better then the initial president getting the countries.

this is likely too cumbersom an idea. The GM dont seem to have the ability to code the game full time.

Likely need some simple solutions.

Would be nice if the defender had 2.5 times the spending space during the initial 1.5 days waiting for the war to go active.

Would be nice to have what ever def you have inactive, as long as you had 50% active when you were dec'd, become active by war start.