Multiplayer Hub - Online Game Forums
http://www.multiplayerhub.com/board/

Reworking the -1%/turn
http://www.multiplayerhub.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5932
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Baldilocks [ 06 Sep 2019, 05:09 ]
Post subject:  Reworking the -1%/turn

I'm relatively indifferent to the new -1%/turn penalty for declaring wars. However, I fear that the defender could take advantage of this by never accepting peace. I personally think this could be solved by making it so that the penalty is removed as long as an attempt for peace has been made (i.e. a ceasefire or peace request sent).

This could also work well for if both defender and offender are loosing 1%/turn, since in theory the person worse off will be the one requesting peace/ceasefire.

The poll is a list of ideas I made to gauge what you guys want since knowing peoples opinion will definitely help with help noblemaster decision make for the next update :^^:

If you have any other suggestions that's what the reply section is for ;)

Author:  noblemaster [ 06 Sep 2019, 13:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: Reworking the -1%/turn

I first thought (B) was a good idea. However, players will attack another nation, gain some new territory quickly and then send the peace request.

If the defender rejects, which is probably likely as they want to re-gain the lost territory, on the other hand the attacker will have all the penalties wiped.

Author:  Nekonyo [ 07 Sep 2019, 20:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: Reworking the -1%/turn

Noblemaster, that's true

noblemaster wrote:
I first thought (B) was a good idea. However, players will attack another nation, gain some new territory quickly and then send the peace request.

If the defender rejects, which is probably likely as they want to re-gain the lost territory, on the other hand the attacker will have all the penalties wiped.


I have seen some players telling me. I don't want to peace him because he attacked me and conquered all lands except my king (fortified island or good spot to defend) and request me some protection or money.

I think most times it is a valid strategy to fight until the very end and I don't like the proposal of avoiding the penalty. The attacker reaps what he saws. If you declare war to a player, you will have to fight him until the very end or both agree in peace. It doesn't matter if his king or last land is surrounded by other lands and you can't get your troops there. Trade province or ask your ally to abandon it. And if he protects your enemy "the protector of your enemy is your enemy".

The -1% penalty isn't very harmful when it is a surprise attack when you kill your enemy first or second turn after war starts. But the longer the war the worse for you, a super long war of 100 turns in a huge map means a huge difference.

In fact, I keep thinking that when two players want to fight to get first or make an attack after hundreds of turns of total alliances. They can agree to fight each other, therefore no penalty is needed because there is no attacker. Instead of the classic gang I'm first you are second.

My vote is: I like -1% penalty, but I want to add mutual agreement wars

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 10 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/