Passed War Declaration

[DeletedUser]

Personally, I do not agree with this idea. While encouraging wars is always a good thing in a war game, I am against anything that would lock two alliances into any sort of conflict. It is open to abuse as a means to protect each other, as well as prevents other alliances from using a major war to make quick grabs of small areas of the involved parties. While tactics like that are necessarily honorable, there is absolutely no reason they should be prevented from happening. Being involved in a war and keeping your un-involved neighbors out of the fight is one of the hardest parts of diplomacy. This idea would completely ruin that aspect of the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

I can see the enthusiasm, so might be missing something...but what is the point? It's not like you can't have a war as it stands. Wars atm are more complex and risky because others may take the opportunity to have a pop...and that seems to be a realistic part of the politics and strategy of the game. So can you give a brief explaination as to why it is an improvement.

 

[DeletedUser]

One thing you could include is the option to reach a truce agreement meaning that the war is cancelled and nobody takes the winners rewards or losers penalties

 

[Aicy]

I think the ideas great, it would make the game much more interesting.

 

[DeletedUser]

I very much like the idea and am also fond of the hole truce idea as well

 

[DeletedUser]

I LOVE the overall concept.

Like any super-meticulous concept such as yours, much needs to be worked out in terms of numbers, percentages, and whatnot for balance that can only look so good down on paper but when in place may need quite a bit of time or testing for balancing.

EDIT after reread...yes, the changes of your nation into a "war machine" are great, but as ceyx pointed out, abuse can occur with a locked alliance struggle.

 

[DeletedUser829]

I LOVE the overall concept.

Like any super-meticulous concept such as yours, much needs to be worked out in terms of numbers, percentages, and whatnot for balance that can only look so good down on paper but when in place may need quite a bit of time or testing for balancing.

EDIT after reread...yes, the changes of your nation into a "war machine" are great, but as ceyx pointed out, abuse can occur with a locked alliance struggle.

Thanks for the feedback.

That's why I put in the -30% luck automatically.

The person attacking in or attacking out of a war would know this. This drawback also exists when doing regular attacks, however it is now guaranteed.

Because of this people can and would attack in/out of a war, but the losses would be too great for some people.

If you have suggestions add them, however, in all matters of war, attacking someone outside of your current war has always been "taboo". Seeing as Grepolis doesn't have an active morall method, -30% luck seems right.

 

[DeletedUser2524]

This is a GREAT idea. It would add more stratagy and make the game more lifelike.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't really care for this idea. It can be exploited entirely too easily.

 

[DeletedUser]

I like the ideal..

Of course a few things will need to be worked out..Which always needs to be done in any ideals..As ideals can't just go straight into play..

 

[Aicy]

I'm going to suggest this idea to be moved into the development discussions page, its been a while after all.

 

[DeletedUser829]

I've asked.

 

[DeletedUser]

Moved to development discussions. One week to discuss, before a vote is held.

Please ensure that the first post in this thread includes the up-to-date version of this idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

I myself quite like the idea, and i havn't read the other people post.. yet..
but anyway i think that:
there is too many effect
the effects of going into war need to be more balanced.

 

[DeletedUser]

im going to vote no for this. gangbang wars should still be a viable strategy and this kind of protects from that.

While the frontliners in the war might enjoy some of the aspects here i feel the rear lines (supporters) would be bored as well.

 

[DeletedUser]

I do like the idea but uona has a valid point. If you implement this their still should be a way to have multiple alliances attack one alliance. Otherwise you take away from the realism of the game and a crucial element of stratagy.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is an excellent idea, I support it 150 percent!

 

[DeletedUser]

I see some stuff wrong with this> A smaller alliance will just not fight back if a larger alliance is attacking them to start a war, because the small alliance know they'll lose, and if they don't gain the right amount of BPs, then no war happens.

 

[DeletedUser829]

Synario - that is correct.

If a larger alliance wants to war the smaller one, the smaller one will have to kick it up a notch - a huge notch.

It would not be benificial for them to do this.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think this is a solid idea. The only problem I have with it that resource production decreases 30% due to war. Normally, war simulates the economy much WW2 did for the US economy and got them out of The Great Depression. Other then that, I like it.