[Crymson]

We all know of the irritation 'turtling' causes. 'Turtling' occurs during war, and constitutes an enemy nation selling all of its troops so that it cannot be ground attacked (aside from the once-per-day defeat alert). At the same time, turtling nations are able to launch cruise missiles, aircraft attacks and nuclear missiles anyway, while remaining immune to ground attacks. Needless to say, it is troublesome that turtling nations can inflict nearly as much damage upon their opponents as their opponents can on the turtling nation despite the fact that the turtling nation has no troops to defend itself.

It has been brought up by some that turtling is necessary in case of utter defeat in a war. While I disagree, I can see some merit in that. However, should one turtle one should also be unable to fight back. Here is what I propose:

Quote

-Nations below the anarchy threshold (troops at 20% of total population) cannot launch ground attacks, cruise missiles, aircraft attacks or nuclear missile attacks.
-Nations which have been involved in a ground attack (defensive--including defeat alerts--or offensive) in the last 48 hours cannot disband troops.

By this system, nations would be unable to launch any attacks at all if they do not buy troops. If they wish to launch air attacks, etc., then they'll be forced to buy troops; this will, in turn, make them vulnerable to ground attacks.

Currently, nations which have launched any ground attacks in the previous 48 hours are unable to disband troops. I propose that this be amended to include defensive attacks, as otherwise nations could simply every other day (troops can only be disbanded once per 48 hours) buy troops, launch air attacks, cruise missiles, and (if applicable) nuclear missiles, and then disband their troops before an opponent could respond with ground attacks.

Please signal agreement or disagreement with this idea; if you agree, say why; if you disagree, say why. Actual opinions are important, in addition to v votes. I added an 'indifferent' option because I've noticed that people who don't really care are, when given only yes/no as choices, likely to pick 'no,' and this skews the vote.

I believe the implementation of this suggestion would greatly improve the war system and at the same time not require any significant changes in the war system.

As a final note: I feel this would also fix the nuclear warfare system somewhat. At present, nuclear warfare--when used--largely replaces conventional warfare. Were the war system changed to reflect this suggestion, troops would be a necessity in order to launch nuclear weapons and as such ground warfare on those using nuclear weapons would be possible.

This post has been edited by Crymson: 27 February 2008 - 01:28 AM

[Timberland]

I agree with this idea

[Duke William I]

Yes. This is a illogical way to fight war.

[morewasabi]

Duke William I, on Feb 26 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

Yes. This is a illogical way to fight war.

How is causing the maximum damage to the enemy while taking the minimum damage yourself illogical?

[Methrage]

Quote

-Nations below the anarchy threshold (troops at 20% of total population) cannot launch ground attacks, cruise missiles, aircraft attacks or nuclear missile attacks.

I disagree with the suggestion, all it takes is one nuke to wipe out all of someone's troops and that shouldn't prevent them from launching a counter attack.

[Crymson]

Methrage, on Feb 26 2008, 11:37 PM, said:

I disagree with the suggestion, all it takes is one nuke to wipe out all of someone's troops and that shouldn't prevent them from launching a counter attack.

Troops can be easily bought back.

[chefjoe]

HELLZ YES!

[JoshuaR]

No, if one sells all their infra, then they deserve all the other benefits they might receive.

[Crymson]

JoshuaR, on Feb 27 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

No, if one sells all their infra, then they deserve all the other benefits they might receive.

This concerns selling of troops, not of infra.

[Duke William I]

morewasabi, on Feb 27 2008, 12:34 AM, said:

How is causing the maximum damage to the enemy while taking the minimum damage yourself illogical?

It is not in how the system is but the system it self. That is illogical that i with no ground troops can deal as much damage to you as you could to me. When you have 100s more troops.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Nations that are "turtling" have already lost. Do we need to keep piling stuff on top of that?

[der_ko]

Arcturus Jefferson, on Feb 27 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

Nations that are "turtling" have already lost. Do we need to keep piling stuff on top of that?

Of course, the losers are obviously ruining the game for the winners.

I cannot support this suggestion since turtling is necessary given the unbalanced warsystem we have today. A nation who is attacked by 3 larger nations can never fight back. His airforce will crumble and usually he can't afford to buy new planes all the time. Once his airforce is gone his infra will be destroyed very rapidly and with his infra levels dropping like a stone he soon won't be able to buy enough soldier and tanks to succesfully ground attack his enemies (Which is already very difficult since he only gets one deployment against 3 enemies). What he's left with is CMs and nukes and in non-nuclear wars the winners will just eat 2 CMs a day. Apparently this is too much for them to handle so they want to remove that ability aswell.

Seriously, wars aren't suppose to be without damage just because you happen to outnumber the enemy 10 vs 1.

This post has been edited by der_ko: 27 February 2008 - 03:03 AM

[Saber]

Derko, that is not unbalanced. Nation that is fighting 3 other nations, who are fighting only 1 wars, is bound to happen. Even in RL it would happen, it's not unbalanced, it's BALANCED. It's unbalanced that 1 guy can turtle up, not buy troops and thus eliminate part of offensive capabilities that his attackers have. Not only that, but he can launch attacks as well (I am not sure, but I believe you can have large number of forces deployed overseas).

Can someone explain to me, how would a country with no troops, and in state of anarchy, manage to launch successful air, CM, and nuclear assaults? In best case scenario, that nation would fight a guerilla war against the occupier, which is simulated by costs of attacks against the nation.

This doesn't make people unable to attack, it only requires them to buy 20% of troops before doing so. In my opinion, this is very logical, as you should be able to control your country, before you can launch offensive attacks.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Quote

Can someone explain to me, how would a country with no troops, and in state of anarchy, manage to launch successful air, CM, and nuclear assaults?

How can a nation only have 25 nuclear weapons? The game has plenty of limitations and abstractions of reality to make it playable.

[Gene L]

I agree, and add to the OP suggestions made here:
http://forums.cybern...s...st&p=427495

[der_ko]

Saber, on Feb 27 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

Derko, that is not unbalanced. Nation that is fighting 3 other nations, who are fighting only 1 wars, is bound to happen. Even in RL it would happen, it's not unbalanced, it's BALANCED. It's unbalanced that 1 guy can turtle up, not buy troops and thus eliminate part of offensive capabilities that his attackers have. Not only that, but he can launch attacks as well (I am not sure, but I believe you can have large number of forces deployed overseas).

Can someone explain to me, how would a country with no troops, and in state of anarchy, manage to launch successful air, CM, and nuclear assaults? In best case scenario, that nation would fight a guerilla war against the occupier, which is simulated by costs of attacks against the nation.

This doesn't make people unable to attack, it only requires them to buy 20% of troops before doing so. In my opinion, this is very logical, as you should be able to control your country, before you can launch offensive attacks.

If you believe there is nothing wrong with the current warsystem when a nation being dogpiled can't even fight back (with your suggestion fighting back = suicide) then I dunno how argue with you. This is a game after all and games should be fun for everyone, not just for those who stomp those weaker then themselves. You can argue about realism all you want, but it won't change my opinion the slightest. Realism is never an excuse for poor gameplay and your suggestion would certainly make gameplay worse.

Why can my nation only own 25 nukes? Why can I only build one nuke a day? Why can I only launch one nuke against a nation each day? Why can't I launch 50 CMs against an enemy on any given day? Why can a third world country sell me tech when I have a very advanced nation? The list goes on of things that are highly unrealistic, but is needed to make this game playable and with the current warsystem turtling is necessary to allow the underdog to at least fight against his attackers before he is eventually ZI'ed.

This post has been edited by der_ko: 27 February 2008 - 07:12 AM

[_GunneR_]

Funny how those in support are in alliances currently fighting a war against a group of "turtlers".

Perhaps i won't go so far as to say it is bias but calling for change at the time of action is riddled with poor judgement. A war is not fought with rules in place but with a goal in mind and a desire to reach said goal. If someone has a pile of missiles they should by all means have the right to fire them (Civilians can press red buttons too, (though i do think nations at zero infrastructure should be barred from launching air attacks or missiles)).

Currently the war system is not perfect, but the proposed change only further worsens that, adding unfairness to it's problems.

[Tyrion]

In terms of gameplay this would be very negative. There is little enough way to defend yourself from attack already without further shifting things in the attackers favour.

And aside from that, it doesn't make sense. Why should nations without a ground force be unable to launch missiles and scramble aircraft? If they have the missile and the aircraft, why do they need soldiers and tanks to be able to use them? There are many, many more 'unrealistic' elements of gameplay.

[Chalaskan]

der_ko, on Feb 27 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

If you believe there is nothing wrong with the current warsystem when a nation being dogpiled can't even fight back (with your suggestion fighting back = suicide) then I dunno how argue with you. This is a game after all and games should be fun for everyone, not just for those who stomp those weaker then themselves. You can argue about realism all you want, but it won't my opinion the slightest. Realism is never an excuse for poor gameplay and your suggestion would certainly make gameplay worse.

Why can my nation only own 25 nukes? Why can I only build one nuke a day? Why can I only launch one nuke against a nation each day? Why can't I launch 50 CMs against an enemy on any given day? Why can a third world country sell me tech when I have a very advanced nation? The list goes on of things that are highly unrealistic, but is needed to make this game playable and with the current warsystem turtling is necessary to allow the underdog to at least fight against his attackers before he is eventually ZI'ed.

I consider many things IC realistic. Point is IRL or OOC....a nation very well could be jumped with those odds. 3 VS. 1

However, having an ability to employ a strategy is also a probability.

[Joe Kremlin]

_GunneR_, on Feb 27 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Funny how those in support are in alliances currently fighting a war against a group of "turtlers".

Any change wouldn't be made until after the war anyways.