PDA

View Full Version : Nation-Wars Resurrection V1.08 (Changes for Next Set)



Mr President
06-28-2009, 16:45
There is now a new option called "Surrender" for those who are warred and wish to get out of it. But there is a price to pay when you surrender....

Nation A declares war on Nation B.

After 36hrs, Nation B has the option to surrender. (little button show up in in foreign relations)

If Nation B surrenders they lose 25% of there National Army and 25% of the total in the Nations bank.

Nation B is now in Surrender Protection for 96hrs from other nations and 168hrs from Nation A.

Nation B cannot declare war against Nation A for the rest of the set after surrender has been declared.

This new feature allows nations to get out of war, but still pay a price for doing so.

We have tried to tie up most of the main loopholes, but yes i'm sure there are still a few of them that can be found. If nations abuse this new feature, immediate actions will be taken against them. Punishments will be sever.

Times and %'s may have to be adjusted as we move forward. This is a starting point. And as always, if this new feature does not work out, it can and will be removed. But i do like this.. I think nations have the right to surrender instead of hoping the other nation declares peace on them.

Enjoy!

Crimson Shadow
06-28-2009, 17:58
One possible loophole.


Nation B cannot declare war against Nation A for the rest of the set after surrender has been declared.

What if Nation A redeclares war after 168hrs and then when Nation B starts their CS, Nation A declare peace forcing them to take either 5 turn attacks or wait until war is redeclared? By having it that way, Nation A has a huge advantage because then they control the strike times of Nation B. Nation B should be allowed to declare war on Nation A, if and only if, they declare war first.

Missionary
06-29-2009, 07:34
i think the option to declare war after surrendering should still be there. what if nation A starts to hit nation B's allys? nation B cant declare to help there allies. seems abit daft to me there.

also whats stopping everyone in nation B removing there money from the bank before they surrender?

nice idea so far Mr.P :thumbup:

nosejam
06-29-2009, 07:39
i think the option to declare war after surrendering should still be there. what if nation A starts to hit nation B's allys? nation B cant declare to help there allies. seems abit daft to me there.

also whats stopping everyone in nation B removing there money from the bank before they surrender?

nice idea so far Mr.P :thumbup:

It's not what's in the members bank, it's what's in the taxbank.

MAGGIO
06-29-2009, 09:56
I think a big part of this feature is one that is not listed in the specs. Its is one that turns cant be spent on.

FA! You have 4-7 days to make arrangements if you really dont want to war anymore. If you cant do that then your the creek etc...

Also remember that NO ONE IS FORCING your nation to even use this option.

Plenty have been blind sided and get involved in a war they didnt want. This option allows them to continue playing the set with out restarting 3 times.

The intent is not to continue a war later in the set, its to end the war and continue with the set.

pcgluva
06-29-2009, 10:51
i think the nation that declared a surrender should be able to declare war again after a certain time or for an additional % loss

Shabaz K
06-29-2009, 20:41
what would happen if Nation A, B, declare on nation C, only so to drain Nations C resources or to hit it?

Mr President
06-29-2009, 20:49
here is my thought.

The only reason Nation B can't declare against Nation A for the rest of the set is to prevent an immediate surrender just to build up more and then nation B hitting Nation A cause they knew there intent.

When a nation surrenders it should be due to the facts:

1) They fought back but are getting badly beaten and surrender is the only way out.

2) they just don't want to war

3) The attacking nation forces a public surrender in order for the fighting to completely stop.

Things can be change and made so Nation B can declare against Nation A after an even longer amount of time other than 168hrs....

Again, like i mentioned this is a starting point. It's perfectly ok to tweak things as we move forward.


@ Crimson, what you stated is a known loophole but it's also considered abusing the new feature.. So the attacking nation risks losing there nation if they abused it like that.

Crimson Shadow
06-29-2009, 21:06
@ Crimson, what you stated is a known loophole but it's also considered abusing the new feature.. So the attacking nation risks losing there nation if they abused it like that.

I'm not sure how easy the coding would be for this, but I did recommend making it so that Nation B could declare if and only if Nation A redeclared first.

MAGGIO
06-29-2009, 21:10
also one of the reasons for this declaration could be so that a nation can make an official declaration or pact for the rest of the set and not be able to go back on empty promises.

Missionary
07-01-2009, 09:37
well the way i see it is, im gunna use last set for an example.

WLF vs LoR, instead of it hapeneing the way it did if WLF surrendered after like 1 day instead of the next 3-4. thats 3-4 days less of LoR warring, so they move on.

NS + SLOB vs LoR, LoR war them 3-4 days earlier due to getting bored. SLOB took like 2-3 days to make attacks back. so they use the feature and surrender. NS follow suite maybe a day later cos they are getting hammered.

week or so left of the set left, what do LoR do. follow up on the previous wars after the time is up or go on to hit what ever other nations are left knowing that none of the previous nations they have warred can do anything about it because they cannot declare back.


EDIT:: i like the idea, just not the part that the surrenderd nation cannot declare for the rest of the set.

MAGGIO
07-01-2009, 09:59
The only thing I am thinking is that if you actually surrender then you need to really contact your enemy and let them know THEY WON, and you dont want any more this set.

Using last set (only from my perspective) LOR vs WLF, LOR came out and stated that they had "no choice" but to kill restarts to protect their members. You know what they were right, and I complete understood were they were coming from. With WLF you know its on and they will pop out of a shadow to get a kill or two.

WLF knowing they could not be effective enough vs time spent decided not to play the rest of the set.

(just a theory)

kenshin44
07-04-2009, 15:52
well the way i see it is, im gunna use last set for an example.

WLF vs LoR, instead of it hapeneing the way it did if WLF surrendered after like 1 day instead of the next 3-4. thats 3-4 days less of LoR warring, so they move on.

NS + SLOB vs LoR, LoR war them 3-4 days earlier due to getting bored. SLOB took like 2-3 days to make attacks back. so they use the feature and surrender. NS follow suite maybe a day later cos they are getting hammered.

week or so left of the set left, what do LoR do. follow up on the previous wars after the time is up or go on to hit what ever other nations are left knowing that none of the previous nations they have warred can do anything about it because they cannot declare back.


EDIT:: i like the idea, just not the part that the surrenderd nation cannot declare for the rest of the set.

Make it so a nation can't war the surrendered nation for the remainder of set vice versa.

MAGGIO
07-04-2009, 23:32
and let LOR net...pfft

but seriously why do you want that option

Satan666
07-06-2009, 01:49
Like you said, let LoR net for once.