Serious War discussion

[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.

[pron]

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.

Which is why the negative component would need to be large enough that a nation would want to be able to be warred in order to secure top spot easier.

[Dogma]

I made a long *** post on this subject and it is now gone. Let me sit and pick it aprt again.

[Max Logan]

The idea to take away warring should be abandoned at it`s core! Warring is essential for the game and should be preserved!

No one nation should be safe from war either, the whole point is to be ready to defend and attack, as that`s the whole point. The problem we face is that people are too keen on netting. Me included. But as we can see only war bring more activity, else we are stuck at doing the same **** thing day and day.

If it comes down to it, I`d say we remove pure netting aspect from the game! If a nation decided to net, it cannot perform attack of any sort, SA included, and as such may be safe from warring. But this will most certainly kill the quality and skill of the game.

I would rather advice nations to take a month or two to try and do warring. Summer is coming, people might have more time, so it would be nice to have a summer warring period, to make people feel war and bring more fun and activity in the game!

Nations can make alliances and bad together to kill others. This may hit hard with die-hard netters, but maybe it`s a spark we need! Some little bloodshed, some little activity! Maybe even ask old members to come back and test it, have some fun! Maybe we will actually enjoy it, and start to take warring more serious.

I remember back in WoW when I first joined, warring was so much fun, there were no netting nations, maybe a small netting tag, but the other were all ready to war if they had to. In my first long term nation, CW, I enjoyed warring, fighting with other nations. Then I started a year or so switching between warring tags and it was fun! Until I banded up with Kenny and started our long term friendship which lasted until he left and now, when he came back, I rejoined as fast as I could, because I feel bonded, as we were through a lot during LoR and their under nations (WLF, D..something, and viets) constant war preasure. Same with Warlord, Fangz and E.

I really miss the commitment. As set before last when WLF suicided me, I just left, I felt no desire to fight back, screw it. I miss the commitment! I wanna have a cause!

So let`s find a cause, war for a reason - our nations. Maybe we will find that warring isn`t all just destructive, get rid of this netter mentality as Will said. Screw it, they declared without reason, let`s just ask someone to help us and strike back! If they don`t like it, let them ask for help!

I wanna suggest, staring next set, let`s leave the netting and start a Summer Warring Fest! Sounds like fun!

[Soviet Russia]

[Dogma]

I am putting this in here cause I want it to be seen and i want people to reply.

This post is not directed to one person... it is directed to all of you.

I'm not sure when or where things turned around but when i first started playing i died a lot.. Once i died i was eager to get back in the fight and kill someone else.. It was not uncommon for me to die several times during a set.
USA was in some pretty hairy wars through the years.. Ones where the odds were not in our favor and many states died to get it to what it is today. But now it seems when a war breaks out two things happen each time.. 1) there is always someone who quits 2) the forums light up with the exact same posts being made.. (wars are killing this game... this is unfair... ect ect)

First, you cannot remove war from the game. It is an integral part of the game and if it were removed we would have maybe 35 people trying to beat a few top netters.

Each time this happens I am faced with 2 choices.. We can take out warring from the game and then we lose all the warring members or we can keep it as it is and eventually lose all the netting members.. There really is no in between. There really are no longer any good reasons to war. This community is so tight that all the good reasons are gone. If we get new members they are well received and in no time they are a strong part of the community and nobody will war them like the don't there other friends.

Agreed,but with some players it takes a little more time to meet people and to get comfortable in the community as wee are such a close nknit group of peole. When new people come in, it useed to be that they were taken in by some group and taught how to get around in the game. How to make a state, how to use the different strats how to basically play well enough to make themselves proud till they can get to a point of improving. to me 15 days is not enough time to get comfortable enough in your nation of with the peole that you are in a nation with to be in a war with the likes of a LoR or WLF or a USA for that matter. Especially for new leaders who themselves are reasonably new players.

I honestly have no idea on how to fix this. I wish i did but i don't. So you all are going to have to tell me.

A fix cannot be programmed in, it must come form us.

I don't understand where the nation pride is anymore. It seems whenever something happens they don't like, they quit. They no longer work with other nations and begin a plot to revenge the situation or make the plot blow up in the enemies face. Where did all of that go? Is it cause everyone is so close now? Is it cause nobody cares anymore? I personally just don't get it.

Everyone has their own idea of how they wahnt to play the game, which is one of the best things about this game. It is just that there are certain people that think their way isbetter than someone elses way of playing and thier idea of fun is more fun than someone elses idea of what is enjoyable

People will spend hours playing call of duty and get killed by snipers over and over again and not quit.. But now in this game, you get killed and you quit. Yes i do understand there is more work involved in this game and getting back into the war takes a little longer but my point is still the same.

You can't compare the two types of games as they are totally different in there game play and their premise of the game.

Let's take the current war for instance. Do i think it's a fair war? not hardly. Would i have chosen to attack them? Nope.. But back in the day this happened all the time and everyone loved it and got back on the horse and seeked justice.. Now they don't.. Now they either quit or better yet spend a set suiciding and then talk about how the game is dying.

again, you can't program out the war part of the game. It used to be that natins would take a new leader under their wings and try and help them be a better leader. That doesn't happen here anymore.

[B]We have tried fixing this some. We made the war preparation times. We increased the amount of turns for war and none of it really did any good or fixed any of the problem..We also enacted the Patriot Act which did cut suiciding down to an all time low, but the members didn't like the admin interference. But really how can we fix how people want to play the game? Some want to war, some want to net. We can't have nation being protected from war cause that kind of makes the game invalid.
I don't want 2 server, one for warring and one for netting cause again that makes the game invalid. So what can we really do? Are we just wasting our time trying to keep this game going? [/B

Again, programming isn't gong to fix anything. Hte changes that have been made to the game now , were exceptional, it isin't the game that needs to change it's us



Maybe it's time we really take a strong look at what we want out of this game. Maybe it's time for a big change in it. Maybe it's time to just walk away.. I have no idea.. So if you would all be so kind to tell me exactly what it is you want that would be great. If you have ideas on solutions to the war/netting problem then list them out..

Before you reply or even think about replying, don't reply if your going to spam it up or start blaming everyone else for whats wrong with the game. I don't want to hear how everything is LoR's fault or WLF's fault. They enjoy warring. It's how they play the game. And as i have always said we can't limit people to how they want to play. (except suiciders cause well they just suck and have no respect for the game or anyone else.) Post your thoughts and your ideas.. It's time to really debate about this.

see above post. This game had evolved and there is no one person or group of people to change, I just think that the patience and the courtesy that we once had is gone