234 posts
|
Post by sirscarf on Feb 5, 2015 9:17:37 GMT
Basically, the problem of war chains is significant, but it only exists because of the 'one defensive war' limit.
So, why not make it possible for two nations to declare war on any given nation? Then, it would be impossible to make unbreakable war chains. It's still abuseable, but it would help at least somewhat.
|
|
55 posts
|
Post by edr on Feb 5, 2015 9:46:06 GMT
Usually, if you even attempted a war chain, you were deemed a faggot by the community and reported to Dumsod.
And it doesn't even solve the problem, just try to coordinate with six nations total and you'll still have a chain.
|
|
|
|
Post by lm_Brian on Feb 5, 2015 10:22:02 GMT
Usually, if you even attempted a war chain, you were deemed a faggot by the community and reported to Dumsod. And it doesn't even solve the problem, just try to coordinate with six nations total and you'll still have a chain. I think the idea is that since you can still only attack one person, no group of nations can completely cover its own tail. The problem is that rumsod is continuing his periodic comas, so no changes can be made until he comes back for 2 days and noone can be reported and banned no matter what we do. |
|
28 posts
|
Post by Papaya Man on Feb 5, 2015 10:48:00 GMT
Pretty sure rumsod is still thinking how to even absolutely identify (since there are cases of legit warshielding) OR prevent warshielding. This was brought out to his face countless of times already so there's no need to spam him that. Let's just trust him on this one like we trusted him to balance ME, and he actually did it perfectly.
Not like warshielding is a really big problem in itself, if he declares war on nation X, nation X just has to destroy him right? If nation X can't destroy him, that either means he receives insufficient help from his alliance or he's/alliance is just weak and has no right to complain.
|
|
95 posts
|
Post by andyrewwer on Feb 5, 2015 11:49:38 GMT
I think he means chains like this
A, B and C are friends but scared of war.
A war deccs B
B war deccs C
C war deccs A
None of them attack ever, and none can be attacked either
|
|
234 posts
|
Post by sirscarf on Feb 5, 2015 17:37:27 GMT
I think he means chains like this A, B and C are friends but scared of war. A war deccs B B war deccs C C war deccs A None of them attack ever, and none can be attacked either Exactly; it can make entire groups invulnerable. But, if you needed two nations to cover your ass... Then those nations can't cover each other, so they're vulnerable to attack, like imbrian said. It doesn't totally prevent war shielding, but it should blunt it significantly. After all, you only can declare war on one guy at a time, under this idea. |
|
234 posts
|
Post by sirscarf on Feb 5, 2015 18:21:31 GMT
I think the idea is that since you can still only attack one person, no group of nations can completely cover its own tail. The problem is that rumsod is continuing his periodic comas, so no changes can be made until he comes back for 2 days and noone can be reported and banned no matter what we do. Exactly; nobody can completely be invincible; there would always be at least a target to fight against. Spyfucking can only go so far, after all. |
|
29 posts
|
Post by obongothemighty on Feb 5, 2015 18:37:48 GMT
I think the idea is that since you can still only attack one person, no group of nations can completely cover its own tail. The problem is that rumsod is continuing his periodic comas, so no changes can be made until he comes back for 2 days and noone can be reported and banned no matter what we do. Exactly; nobody can completely be invincible; there would always be at least a target to fight against. Spyfucking can only go so far, after all. Dicho esto, los espías pueden hacer un daño tremendo. Especialmente este temprano en el juego. That said, spies can do tremendous damage. Especially this early in the game. |
|
28 posts
|
Post by Papaya Man on Feb 5, 2015 21:32:39 GMT
I think he means chains like this A, B and C are friends but scared of war. A war deccs B B war deccs C C war deccs A None of them attack ever, and none can be attacked either What I said is practically the same; like the tail of the main guy is located at some shitty GDP (~400) since he dec'd at the start of the game. Even if they reach the tail and kill it after some infuriating weeks of trying to lower their GDP, they won't remove the shield. They're not really an issue unless the head attacks and if they do, what I posted earlier applies. |
|
95 posts
|
Post by andyrewwer on Feb 5, 2015 22:39:59 GMT
I don't understand your point then. The point of this is that with as few as 3 guys you can make an invincible nation, like this guy: blocgame.com/stats.php?id=49454 (no alliance, in top 10 GDP). |
|
28 posts
|
Post by Papaya Man on Feb 6, 2015 5:16:20 GMT
I don't understand your point then. The point of this is that with as few as 3 guys you can make an invincible nation, like this guy: blocgame.com/stats.php?id=49454 (no alliance, in top 10 GDP). Err, even 2 nations could do that if the tail is irrelevant Only difference is that their style is more efficient since even the tail can be at a high GDP without being touched. Not like it's any different to the head being invincible while leaving the irrelevant tail vulnerable Once again, they're not really an issue unless the head/they attack and if they do, what I posted earlier applies. If they don't even attack, they'll just turn out to be an irrelevant nation with low territory or just a mere $$ supplier that doesn't attack relevant targets. |
|
1 posts
|
Post by Lord Bog on Feb 6, 2015 6:34:54 GMT
What if there were penalties for not taking an aggressive action against the person you declared war on in X number of turns, or something of that nature? Like ending the war automatically if niether party makes any attacks the other.
|
|
234 posts
|
Post by sirscarf on Feb 6, 2015 8:49:51 GMT
What if there were penalties for not taking an aggressive action against the person you declared war on in X number of turns, or something of that nature? Like ending the war automatically if niether party makes any attacks the other. Now that.... THAT is a based idea! Or maybe there could be a growth/approval/qol/whatever penalty for simply being in an aggressive war? Maybe it wouldn't start immediately, of course, but after a solid week of war you really *should* have won or peaced out. Or lost. |
|
95 posts
|
Post by andyrewwer on Feb 6, 2015 9:00:23 GMT
I think a war timeout after 5 days if there is no attack/bombing etc is fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by linksith on Feb 8, 2015 17:52:38 GMT
|
|
