Total War/All-Out War. Another Aries idea

On another thread I suggested some ideas about war to make a few things more fair (like being able to dec at any war level up to yours for war positioning and the temporary war protection change) and more accessible (like dropping your own war level protection). What I admitted is that the game currently lacked much motivation to war or open your countries up to the possibility of war in the first place. I think this idea can change that and is intended simply to be a "spark" to get things going.

This feature would allow you to declare Total/All-Out war on a player. To do this, you and the country you declare this on would need to meet these requirements:

1. You are at least war level 3.

2. Your country has at least a population of 21 million.

3. Your war situation index is at least 90.

Keep in mind, this can be declared regardless of war level difference, temporary war protection, or any

PvP as it should be!

More Q/A:

4. Can I participate in the Total/All-Out war with more than one country?

Sure. The more the better. Keep in mind, the restriction on the gold coin awards based on your opponent does not multiply by the number of your participating countries. If you won versus 240 coins of opponents, that is still the maximum award of that criteria.


5. My side won the Total/All-Out war but my participating country/countries were lost. Do I still get gold coins for our victory?

-No. You do not win coins if you lost all participating countries. If you lost some, but not all, your maximum award, second criteria, is calculated based on your surviving countries.

This would be a good addition to the war element of the game. A chance to win a few coins and perhaps a chance to grind a few axes with others that you currently coundnt because of war levels. Especially because both parties are agreeing to war regardless if the game says they cant. would be a very cool feature imo.

I don't agree with all of the details but the general idea is good. It would encourage PvPing.

What would you change? We are here to discuss this.

BUMP

Questions:

For the initial week, is the war actually being fought, or is just a time frame for the choosing of sides? How much lead time is there between the finalization and the onset of actual hostilities? Be kind of cheap to wait the other side to go off line, and then attack.

What would be the effects of a cease-fire or truce amongst the participants? Should be a mechanism to deter this - otherwise the entire war is pretty pointless.

What are the consequences of secondary effects? i.e. My country is not participating, but is still being affected by radiation clouds rolling across my borders. Can my non-participating country still contribute towards the war effort of one side or the other via the direct sale of war materials? Or sending defensive forces to a non-participating country that is part of the empire of a participating country, freeing up defensive assets for the war?

Will there be a limit on the amount

For the initial week, is the war actually being fought, or is just a time frame for the choosing of sides?

-War does not start until the week delay is over. This is instead of the typical delay that occurs when declaring war on a player but is counted when Total War is first accepted. Theoretically, players could wait until the time is almost up and become a participant with the conflict to start very shortly after.

How much lead time is there between the finalization and the onset of actual hostilities

-The "Total War" starts one week after it is first accepted. This is the total amount of lead time. The original participants and anyone else who joins will all be aware of when the start of hostilities is though all participants are not finalized until the war starts.

What would be the effects of a cease-fire or truce amongst the participants?

-There would be no game-mandated end of hostilities. Attacks w

Think there should be another standard included.

Example: my country meets all the conditions. At 37 Million population, the reward would be 17 gold coins. Not a lot, but easily in excess of the trouble it would be to take it over.

Just to state the obvious, the reason automation is set up initially is to protect us noobs from ourselves.

The standards are too easily reached, and could lead to a lot of abuse. Low gold coin awards could rapidly stack up. I see from the documentation that several features were changed because of player abuse.

Instead of a gold coin award based on the country's population, how would an award based on the total weapon systems destroyed per side be? With a minimum defensive index added into the equation. While the units wouldn't al have to be destroyed to take over the country, it would provide a speed bump. And help to ensure an actual fight.

That would help to ensure

At 37 Million population, the reward would be 17 gold coins. Not a lot, but easily in excess of the trouble it would be to take it over.

-There are two criteria. What countries you participate with and what you face. If you participate with a 37 million pop country, your potential reward is (37-20) times 4 or 68 coins on that side of the ledger.

The standards are too easily reached, and could lead to a lot of abuse. Low gold coin awards could rapidly stack up. I see from the documentation that several features were changed because of player abuse.

-I put a lot of checks in there to minimize any potential abuse. You missed some key points in your other posts. Try an example of abuse and see if it holds up within the rules of Total War. If you believe it holds up, post your example. Remember, losing participant countries are released to the game. Much assets are at risk for the gold coin award. The idea is that the coins ar

My apologies. Missed the 4x. So a bigger reward.

Abuse: Player creates a country and spends a couple of hours reaching the correct war level, and population - latter part from gold coins received from advancing game levels and the population transfers from raiding C3s. Then lists the country for Total War.

Not sure how many folks would participate in for that amount, or how the winning side's awards are split up.

Player A destroys his initial defensive forces and leaves the account alone, and goes back to his main account.

At the commencement, he launches attacks, just like he was raiding a C3 - but with no defenses in the country at all.

2 minutes later, he gets the gc on his main account.

If the game was a lot more active, or the players online was hidden, it'd be a bit more difficult to arrange a declaration with the launch of the war time initiating when most folks in that world are off

Going with an award based off of the total amount in billions of weapon systems destroyed on each side (at 12 billion per gold coin) would be a lot more elegant.

It would also prevent someone joining in the war, and not participating, from receiving an award.

*should read 12 billion worth in SC$*

Please, get more specific with your example. I see you are going with someone running multiple accounts. How big exactly are they making these countries and how do they get so much pop in a few hours?

Also, do you think this is repeatable? The game is active enough that if I see this done, I will collect the coins off their main if I see this done on a world I am on. I have all week to notice a total war declared (which should be implemented in a way to be as visible as possible) and choose to participate myself. I don't believe I would be the only one.

We'll again. Give us more details on this.

I don't believe you would be the only one either. But that is not to say you would or wouldn't have to. You might have gone on vacation. I didn't notice a mandatory number of participants per side.

And at the risk of offending the veteran community, some of the stuff that happened in the past, wasn't limited to a single player. Nor did it happen in a vacuum. Having a small country declare, and then seeing a few dozen federations on the other side, all with large military forces could be off putting for anyone wanting to come in. Would you risk almost certain annihilation to gain 68 gold coins?

On the flip side, should you join them, you also receive the gold coin award. Even if all your forces stayed at home. That's going to be tempting, no?

At that stage, you wouldn't even need to posit a multiple account. Just a player that likes his fed mates, and is willing to take it for the team for a while. <

We are changing the example. Very well.

If I read it right, you are saying a total war could be declared on a willing country that is to be sacrificed. To reach your gold number, a single country is on one side and has 37 million pop. You are saying the other side has some pile of countries from feds looking to cash in 68 gold coins per player.

This could turn out a few ways.

1. The scenario plays out with no further changes. Remember, the 37 million pop country is released to the game. For this cost, each participant on the other side could receive up to 68 coins each, assuming that they too risked countries of, at least, similar size. If this goes without a hitch, I would call this a demonstration of power. No one got rich off it. Each victorious player put up valuable countries free from any kind of war protection.

I see nothing wrong with this. This method requires sufficient military strength and is no more lucrati

1. Disagree completely. Where's the risk? It's a complete farm. No risk should equal no reward. While the stated reward is small, it adds up. Do it for 10 countries on one opposing side, 680 gold coins. Pretty soon you're talking about real money. Not necessarily per individual player, but out of W3C's pocket. The game already has gold coins awards in place without artificially inflating them. While it requires the constant building of sacrificial lambs, I'm pretty sure that eventually every federation will have them - and a threat of real all out war if they are tampered with.

2. Yes. IF you choose to do so. You Reference last line above.

3. Yes. If that plays out. Woe for the rest of the community if you veterans decide to constantly play as a block. Or to respect each other's farms. See last line in 1 above.

I'd rather remove the IF's. Call me a cynic, but I've played enoug

"The idea is that the coins are just gravy in addition to settling a score with an opponent." Then why not remove it entirely?

I think you are out of touch with the state of the game to be honest. Many players long for the type of scenarios that you are afraid of.

Actual feds whose members cooperate for an actual goal? This is rare. Most feds do nothing other than offer game advice. You talk about 10 players cooperating to attack an 11th to generate gold. Most feds cannot count 2 members of at least war level 3. I would bet none, zero, zip, can muster 10. In short, your scenario cannot happen in the current state of the game. If this suggestion generates interest that starts this activity, it would be a huge, huge, success.

Actual diplomacy? This is pretty rare too. Spend a little time on the forum and the world forums are pretty silent. About a month ago, one of the largest wars was fought in possibly a year on LU. Almost no one knows about it.

The ability to remove war level protection already exists. Check your war page. I suggested it. However, it was

I liked your suggestion in the main. I am also happy to know that I'm not so out of touch that most players would resort to massive cheating in the game at the drop of a hat. That tracks with my experiences in the game prior to coming back this time.

I think we'll continue to differ on whether that qualifies as a success or not.

I also think that with the gold coin award you posited, and with the premise that this would be widely accepted, that W3C would never implement it.

That would quite simply be the death knell of anyone actually purchasing gold coins longer then a trip into the forum or being contacted via in game messaging. Packages with premium membership excepted.

"In short, your scenario cannot happen in the current state of the game." I didn't notice a limit on the amount of time this game change would be active. You'd have to plan it for not only the current crop of players, but al

I guess I need a baseline of your understanding of the game.

It was not too long ago, that for very little effort, you could be rolling in cash by raiding the set defenses of a computer opponent. Defenses that would never change, that offered no challenge, and was repeatable until the button mashing numbed your fingers.

With very little knowledge, a short guide would be sufficient, players could generate $40 trillion in an hour (being conservative). This amount of generated wealth dwarfed what was possible to be made in any other way in the game. This game cash could then been converted into gold coins.

I understand you came back to the game. Did you play during this time? If so, did you do this and did you consider it "cheating"? If not, would you imagine this activity to be "cheating"?

Next to this you have a scenario that you consider "cheating". One in which it requires the followin

What I would consider cheating is someone breaking the terms of service. ie... having only 1 account.

The scenarios I outline above, consisted in the main, of players constantly creating accounts to abuse the feature you suggested.

Having a fed mate donate his country, and spending the time to bring another one up from scratch, I would not consider cheating. But good strategy. Several problems there: Having an active federation of maximum number doing so on a constant basis. 80x25 gold coins divided by your example of 1.5 months, or a steady income of just over 800 gold coins per month for the participating federation. What does that work out to in real cash? And how is the administration going to recognize which is which?

The actual number of players in the game would act as a brake on the amount of times this could be done.

Raiding c3s for unlimited amounts of cash and transferring that into gold coins was not

You did not say in the last post that the scenario is a continuation of your multiple account theory. If one were to be willing to run multiple accounts, would it not be far easier to take a c3 and sell it to a newb multi account than do anything that would be suggested in this thread? I would also bet it is less likely an active fed member would cheat in this way. Cheaters tend to be more solitary and more likely to be called out if they socialize with other players.

"80x25 gold coins divided by your example of 1.5 months, or a steady income of just over 800 gold coins per month for the participating federation. What does that work out to in real cash? And how is the administration going to recognize which is which? "

I think it is possible that Titan on LU has the most war level 3+ players as federation members anywhere at 7. At that number, and with some very good vets, it is crazy powerful compared to any other federation i

"would it not be far easier to take a c3 and sell it to a newb multi account"

Posits another player running a multiple account, and who is foolish enough to buy a beginning c3. I wouldn't purchase a beginning c3 for 300 gold coins, far easier to take it over. Unless, of course I was trying to help a fed mate who needed the gc. I understand a lot of abuses in the past where in transferring gold coins and assets.

On that I think we are talking about 2 different things. The gaining of gold coins and the transferring of them to another player or account.

You are imagining the math of 25 active players which would be incredible.

Any game feature would have to be designed on what is possible, not just on what is current. Why spend the time to introduce a feature that is only going to be active for a short time? I didn't notice a time limit on your suggestion. And yes I have noticed the dearth of activity