W3C - should it be possible to end wars before one country is conquered

In our current war game, wars frequently continue until one side wins and takes over the country.
sometimes wars end because no one attacks the other for some time, and war ends automatically.

It is now suggested, and we have it on our plan, to allow wars to end before total destruction. The losing party will then pay a compensation to the winner and will be war protected for some time, before a next war can take place.

There are many possible solutions for this and possibilities to end wars without reaching a zero war index.

we are looking for some simple rules that will govern such a scenario.

We think that both parties should be able to ask for the war to end.
such request can be invoked once the war has progressed and the war index of at least one of the parties declines under some thresh hold value.

All war activity should then pause.

what happens next should depend on the war index of both the parties.
but surly, there are more parameters/conditions that will determine any possible outcome.

hi Andy,

have you seen my proposal? Link

I have. Please copy it in here so it will be part of the discussion.

Put it to a vote.

Lets see were this goes. I understand Lord Mndz point. I struggle with the concept of the winner paying restitution for winning a war he may or may not of started. I look forward to a healthy debate. I am sure the resolutions put forth will be solid.

Rob

Is possible for the game could pay the cost automatically? We can argue that it wouldnt be fair for the the victor to pay anything for winning a war.

I differ with the suggestions by MNDZ and Joel
1. I do not think that the current security council is always an honest broker. The numbers of people involved is currently too small and they may have some foreign interests. It will also delay a fast conclusion.

2. I do not think the having the winner pay compensation will be a very popular idea.

3. The proposal is not a guarantee that a request to stop the war, will succeed in really stopping it.

4. I do not think Simcountry should be financially involved. It is started by players and should be settled between them.

Here is my suggestion:

If the war ends before one country is defeated, there are three parameters that are important at the time the war ends:

1. Who asked for the war to end
2. What was the war index of both parties.
3. The value of assets of both countries that we think is relevant to the financial follow up.

Depending

hi Andy,

what is your opinion around looting? most of the wars are not meant to take cash( as cash can be removed to cash account outside of countries ) or country, but to take population, weapons, materials.

looting proportion could be based on diference between war indexes as well. instead of paying cash loser of the war could propose proportion for looting and winner could take (or not to) assets based on that proportion.

If the compensation depends on assets, then the value of weapons, ammo etc. will translate into an amount in compensation.

you can loot the weapons and ammo, or take out their value in cash and use the cash to purchase what you want.

Taking out population is a different matter and can be part of the equation.

I see an additional problem if you have a very rich empire, letting a low asset country fight the war and then there is little to win and the empire keeps all its assets. There must be a minimum compensation to make sure it is substantial.

I think we should have a formula to quickly compute the amount due.
in addition the numbers of population to relocate
and maybe, additionally, the empire to look at although we should allow for all kinds of strategies to be developed around it to reduce the damage for the empire?

if i being a rich empire would make an outpost to attack someone and lose i would just drop that country without paying any compensation. in the other hand nobody will attack most cheap countries from the empire as whole empire will fight back. which means rich countries will be attacked to get bigger compensation or to take them over. it is also unlikelly situation that attacker loses the war, in 99% cases victim is the attacked player.

there is another thing, players have multiple countries and wars are many against many, so option could be to stop all the wars betweeen players not just between two countries.

Im not saying im opposed to the proposal of mndz, it seems a good step in the right direction, but if the victor wins X and the loser losses less than X, it could be an incentive to war against each other back and forth because the profitability collectively is more than X. Please keep in mind. Again, im not opposed, because everything is better than the current incentivizing war system to wipe off (potential) paying costumers.

Hi Andy, as you mentioned in earlier conversations about this, simply offering a gold reward of 30 + GCS. Instead of taking over a country. You'd have a choice between accepting GC or taking over the country. However, if Gold Coins are accepted instead of a total takeover, the loser should lose something. What if the losing country had to pay a stipend to the winner. 100B a month for (x) amount months. Not so much that it drastically affects the economy but not so tiny that they don't feel the pain of losing. The Number should reflect the size of the economy. Maybe charging the leader country this fee would be better. Also, for those X amounts of months, the President should be prevented from canceling the country or changing the country's leader. I believe that this will create a renewed interest in war.

I think it would be really fun if the involved warring players could come to an agreement like gamecash fee (in loans), GC fee, pop transfer, profit share for X months, etc. But thats probably hard to code in and also prone to misuse.

Also if you keep open the option to take over a country, looting should be the better option or take overs should be prohibited completely. Otherwise why loot if you can just takeover? Or to allow take over only if the victor agrees.

Again i just believe taking over countries endlessly is not sustainable.

A Country minimum for war could also be used. For instance a person that has 3 countries could be prevented from losing the countries. The Winner can only take the other option unless the empire has more than 3 countries.

it is difficult.. i remember in my war with tspx I took over 40+ countries and 3-4 great players left the game. under my proposed conditions i would have looted them only, and for sure they would have planned something for me as a revenge.

if you think from higher level perspective, we want more wars with less consequencies. that means smaller armies, more war engagements and limited gain from wars. based on that it is clear that countries should be very hard to take over, but looting/raiding wars should be daily thing.

neutralsc, i am thinking more or less the same - taking over now is simple and only choise, but if that would be complicated and incolve cost/dependencies on security caucil etc. then looting would be a natural choise.

I don't understand the problem you're trying to solve. I can't think of a player who attacks new players, (are there any?) and you can't fight each other because you all have hundreds of trillions worth of military assets.

Ethelred, this is another topic and it can be improved by giving new players better and cheaper defence/offence combined with less value from looting. the conditions should not detract new players from fighting each other but should encourage to.

I only ever fought PVP for players for being asshats.

Those were the spectacular wars that crashed the servers.

Most of my warfare was looting inactive players or farming c3's.

Both of which were fun and profitable hobbies.

If you brought back C3 raiding that would be awesome.