Serious War discussion

[Disorder]

Nation member caps?

[pron]

Member caps will just lead to 5 nations jumping another nation instead of just 1 nation vs. 1 nation.

[Soviet Russia]

We may totally remove AA, GA, AR and bombing from peace-time attacks. That way, there'd be no more suicidings. Because, suiciders do not mind how much turns they would waste, 5 turn attacks just make it harder, thats all. So, they'd be forced to strike as a non-nation state OR by declaring war.

We all remember that USSR was not a 'so much great' nation and unfortunately, when we got enought members and strenght, we divided into two (then 4, )

Anyway, listen guys, it was my first nation and our aim was always "warring and getting higher". Warring was not a way to disturb others, but it was a path to remove netting nations out of the way.

Unfortunately, we do not have much newbies today. And that means less illegal attacks. That is what %99 of those netters understand from the "reason of war": It is 3 and more SAs. And only n00bs do that. That makes no sense to me, why should I wait for a n00b from ABT to strike me with 3 SA for a war? How could that be 'acceptable', 3SA or 4SA or 5... its just bull****, it makes no harm, plus means gb protection.

I do not have right to speak for the war nations; but for many warrers, REASON of WAR is "getting rid of other strong nations". Thats all, thats very simple. Can't we beat you by netting? Then we'd try killing. Very legistimate.


And you should be so glad because as I could see, war nations (LoR and WLF) seek for WORTHY enemies. ICN could be argued; but in most cases, they attacked strong nations.

If I WERE there leader of WLF or LoR, you can be sure, I'd raze the stockers and jumpers. THAT'd harm the game. You should thank to Z and DBoz because they refused every suggestion by me to kill those 1-2 member stocker nations.

[Will]

There are several ways to attempt to solve the problem of warring, as well as simply leave it alone. The first and most obvious is to ban it outright. Not only will this drive away the warrers, it will have the effect of removing at a stroke jets, agm, bombers and ships (until the very end of the set) from the game. Without war attacks infantry whoring will be the norm even more than it is now. Even spies will be severely curtailed, as why bother hitting the target with a ton of spyops when you can invest the turns in grabbing or cashing, which will do far more for your score?. Also, unless it is classed as suiciding, making a string of destructive spyops on a state will have no real consequences, since you won't be able to kill/hobble the state in retaliation except genocide ops, which is a massive waste of turns for any netting state, even more so if the target is a casher.

War can be limited in some ways, but most of these will have ways of getting round them as has been noted above. You can create a nation member cap, but then you will get multiple versions of the same nation. You can remove nations, but in my opinion this will kill the game faster than any war. Nations and the diplomacy between them have been around so long that removing them is in my view unthinkable. Limiting a nation's ability to declare war based on the members in that nation may stop suiciding, but any competent and determined war nation will be able to muster the numbers to get around it.

I am convinced that the single biggest stumbling block to the war/net balance isn't the structure of the game or the specific rules attached to warring, but the mentality of players. As long as there are people who are hell bent on war, they will either find ways to war or if they are literally banned from warring ie all war attacks removed, then they will quit. Not only will this harm the playerbase, but it will lead to a game in which there is no risk for any state. The first state to get top with a decent edge in infantry will (barring exteme bad luck ie a string of red turns) win the set for certain. No state will be able to grab them. They will be able to grab anyone they want, even triple tap without fear of serious retaliation. Does anyone seriously think this will benefit the game? Even the most hardened netter will eventually tire of this and war will return, possibly to a significantly reduced player base.

We can change the written rules as much as we like, but the only way to truly solve this problem is to come up with solid unwritten rules known to every nation leader on when it is acceptable to war, and if you can't find a reason to war then you'll have to net for the set. I am a committed warrer, and while I dislike having to net when I can't find good war reasons, it is preferable to seeing people quit over pointless wars that ultimately can only lead to the death of the game.

[totte]

The problem with the game today is simple when the player base was higher war just for the sake of war was ok.

But now the player base is to small for it and at the same time in a sense people are to thin skined.

There is no diplomacy no retal policys to spark wars so for warers it´s more troublesome to find targets to war or rather to find reasons for war.


The comunity is pro netting mostly so of course when a war just for the heck of it is declared these days you know you will be flamed on the forums thus shouldnt act so suprised about it as we tend to see. because you should´ve learned by now...

And we see this set for example lor looking to war but they dont want to war abt because they are friends sky cause they got spanked alot lately so they pick another nation.

This is a problem if you want to be a war nation you cannot have friends in that sense with the current player base you either keep all options open or you dont war simple as that and i would say people seam abit simple minded today the unwritten rules of say no double taps in top 10 etc.

If you want to war you need to be abit more creative with how to do it the comunity as such is today pro netting and thus "no reason wars" is not liked,
so what you need to do is provoke a war so you do say a double tap in top 10 or some such or make a retal policy thats not aceptable to others.

On the other hand if your in a small nation or just dont want to war be smart about it talk to other nation leaders make allies so that if
you do get hit you will not stand alone against a bigger nation. Diplomacy is a tool in the game use it.

biggest problem of the game atm is the attitude of it´s players far to much energy is spent flameing eachother on the forums.

Now does my post provide any solutions? no it doesnt it mainly points out things that need to change only with a bigger player base will
this game truly get anywhere! dont be hardcore this way or that way only.
compromise abit for the better of the game if we as a comunity continue in the way we are now i personaly dont see a point in mr p wasteing his time.

[Disorder]

Create a netting option for nations.. Thus, preventing any state from tag jumping and that nation from going to war, along with a member cap.

[Mr President]

There are several ways to attempt to solve the problem of warring, as well as simply leave it alone. The first and most obvious is to ban it outright. Not only will this drive away the warrers, it will have the effect of removing at a stroke jets, agm, bombers and ships (until the very end of the set) from the game. Without war attacks infantry whoring will be the norm even more than it is now. Even spies will be severely curtailed, as why bother hitting the target with a ton of spyops when you can invest the turns in grabbing or cashing, which will do far more for your score?. Also, unless it is classed as suiciding, making a string of destructive spyops on a state will have no real consequences, since you won't be able to kill/hobble the state in retaliation except genocide ops, which is a massive waste of turns for any netting state, even more so if the target is a casher.

War can be limited in some ways, but most of these will have ways of getting round them as has been noted above. You can create a nation member cap, but then you will get multiple versions of the same nation. You can remove nations, but in my opinion this will kill the game faster than any war. Nations and the diplomacy between them have been around so long that removing them is in my view unthinkable. Limiting a nation's ability to declare war based on the members in that nation may stop suiciding, but any competent and determined war nation will be able to muster the numbers to get around it.

I am convinced that the single biggest stumbling block to the war/net balance isn't the structure of the game or the specific rules attached to warring, but the mentality of players. As long as there are people who are hell bent on war, they will either find ways to war or if they are literally banned from warring ie all war attacks removed, then they will quit. Not only will this harm the playerbase, but it will lead to a game in which there is no risk for any state. The first state to get top with a decent edge in infantry will (barring exteme bad luck ie a string of red turns) win the set for certain. No state will be able to grab them. They will be able to grab anyone they want, even triple tap without fear of serious retaliation. Does anyone seriously think this will benefit the game? Even the most hardened netter will eventually tire of this and war will return, possibly to a significantly reduced player base.

We can change the written rules as much as we like, but the only way to truly solve this problem is to come up with solid unwritten rules known to every nation leader on when it is acceptable to war, and if you can't find a reason to war then you'll have to net for the set. I am a committed warrer, and while I dislike having to net when I can't find good war reasons, it is preferable to seeing people quit over pointless wars that ultimately can only lead to the death of the game.

This is a great post and exactly what I was hoping for in a reply.. I'm not trying to impugn anyone else comments, but really what needs to change is the members. I do like the idea of maybe allowing nations to chose warring or netting with pluses and benefits to each but that's another story.

I do still want to hear more replies cause there are lots of good ideas out there that still need to be heard. But as Will stated, it's not so much the game that needs to change as it is the members. People need to think outside of their own box. I wish I was able to increase membership to 500 members overnight cause that would really help with most of our problems.. But i can't. So until that happens everyone must think long term effects on warring decisions.. And on the flip side of that, those who do get warred need to have a little more understanding as well.. I know it sucks logging on to a dead state, but when you rebuild and kill.... that is the sweetest victory!

[Will]

I'm sceptical of the idea of "designated netting nations" if this is brought in 90% of nations will choose it, leaving only a tiny handful of warrers, who will get tired of fighting each other very quickly and either net or quit.

[Disorder]

I'm sceptical of the idea of "designated netting nations" if this is brought in 90% of nations will choose it, leaving only a tiny handful of warrers, who will get tired of fighting each other very quickly and either net or quit.

The UN could appoint 1 safe nation... ummm.

[BeeNo]

will had a great post. i knew the game pretty well, but early when i was starting out as a leader i had planned a war. got hit by antons nation, ns, and vT, so few players survived the FS from these 3 nations that we weren't even able to mount a CS. compounded by the fact that we were infiltrated by spies that month it was really frustrating. you can't shelter new leaders/nations/players. this was a wake up call for me as a leader to the organization of these other players and nations. i was much more selective as to who i let into the nation. ABT has 4 new players this month, but we got them all on pure strats, and i believe if it came to war they would be able to help, and i would plan to get them evolved even if they missed strikes i would leave targets for them. if they go inactive for a month they are removed from the nation. we did this for a N player last month and guess what he rejoined us again this month and hasn't missed a turn.

when xELDx was a smaller nation, and i knew there was a large warring nation out there, you better believe i went out and made some alliances in case we were warred. you can choose alot of routes to this game. but if you want to remain neutral and net it usually takes some work from your nation leader to keep you safe diplomatically. taking warring out of the game would simply kill the fun of it. that being said no i don't want to die, and it can be very frustrating to be warred/suicided. but part of the challenge of this game is avoiding that.

most fun war i had was EX vs xELDx, and believe it or not i could of taken a retaliation and maybe secured the top spot that month after i was AA'd. but i was really happy and excited to see the amount of support the nation showed me by everyone showing up to war.

i really hope it doesn't drag me into trouble for saying it but i will not quit if i'm attacked. i will regroup and do whatever i can to win the war and then finish the month as best i can. when dak came back in vindication we won our 1st month back in overall networth by just a hair, and gnorf had been suicided from the top spot. he finished 7th that month after being killed over a week into the set. now that to me was as big of an accomplishment as winning the month. he didn't give up on his nation, and we still won the month. dak was a good mix of netters and warrers, you know what the players who liked to war in dak did during peace times? they carried out retaliations and protected the netters/new players in the nation. there is a role that states who like to war can play even at times of peace besides suicides/destructive spy ops.

i guess i haven't really given any major solutions, but i hope this adds to the discussion. i hate losing, in warring or netting. but i will always try to finish the best i can with the time i have available.