J
John Galt
12 Oct 2019 22:10
Link
I think one of the biggest reasons in this game that people avoid war is the time commitment it takes. Getting involved in a PVP war requires many consecutive hours in front of your computer to achieve victory. Not being available due to real life is generally enough to cause defeat.
One thing I realized about my recent military strikes (see general forum) is how much fun a limited war game is. I think revamping the sneak attack system could do a lot for the war game. First of all, I think sneak attacks should be renamed to "Limited Strikes". The identity of the attacker should not be hidden. The limit of 2 attacks per month should be increased to 5. Any weapon system should be allowed to be used, as long as they are in range. Right now only LBCM and Cruise Missile Ships are usable in sneak attacks.
What would a change like this do for the game?
First of all, since limited strikes can occur anytime without any war declaration, it would force players to have defensive weapons deployed at all times, even when they are at peace. This will be good for the military, supply, and maintenance markets.
Secondly, it would provide players another way to push their foreign policy goals through military means that does not have to end in conquest of another country, and that does not require as significant of a time commitment as a full on war.
Thirdly, it slows down the pace of combat. Wars are fought over years, not a few hours. Limiting the number of attacks would add longevity to a conflict.
One thing I realized about my recent military strikes (see general forum) is how much fun a limited war game is. I think revamping the sneak attack system could do a lot for the war game. First of all, I think sneak attacks should be renamed to "Limited Strikes". The identity of the attacker should not be hidden. The limit of 2 attacks per month should be increased to 5. Any weapon system should be allowed to be used, as long as they are in range. Right now only LBCM and Cruise Missile Ships are usable in sneak attacks.
What would a change like this do for the game?
First of all, since limited strikes can occur anytime without any war declaration, it would force players to have defensive weapons deployed at all times, even when they are at peace. This will be good for the military, supply, and maintenance markets.
Secondly, it would provide players another way to push their foreign policy goals through military means that does not have to end in conquest of another country, and that does not require as significant of a time commitment as a full on war.
Thirdly, it slows down the pace of combat. Wars are fought over years, not a few hours. Limiting the number of attacks would add longevity to a conflict.