Feuersturm Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1304037839' post='2701550'] Basically measures to reduce post-war reconstruction, where it can take major alliances around 8-12 months to bounce back. [/quote] And that is IF there are no reparations whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckmanero Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 tl;dr, boring thread is boring and nothing new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) The main problem is that the players who can do something can see the problems, but carry on doing the things that are causing them. Edited May 4, 2011 by Prime minister Johns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1304474164' post='2705638'] The main problem is that the players who can do something can see the problems, but carry on doing the things that are causing them. [/quote] Is that a hint that GPA's going to do something about it? But yeah, sadly, the way to win is to do nothing for longer than anyone else. My opinion on moralism is that if you don't like moralists... then be even more of a moralist than they are. It's the path NpO took, and it's got them into a lot of fun and trouble. Many alliances are far from typical moralism, but they still have a set of morals they stick to. CoJ has their brand of morals, GOONS has theirs, NPO has theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 A big problem is simply the war system. It's really not all the fun to get triple teamed. If you limited wars to 1v1 or something then I think we'd see way more wars, since they'd be less costly, longer lasting, and more strategic. But then again I really love triple teaming someone and coordinating around the nuke, so I wouldn't support a 1v1 war system. I think if everyone saved a decent warchest then we'd have way more wars since you could just rebuy your infra post war. Tecumseh from UPN is a classic example. It was great to fight him and he knew he's just rebuy (and let me know ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1304571811' post='2706641'] I think if everyone saved a decent warchest then we'd have way more wars since you could just rebuy your infra post war. Tecumseh from UPN is a classic example. It was great to fight him and he knew he's just rebuy (and let me know ). [/quote] I don't think that's the case. Wars would just be extended until the enemies warchest was depleted, as is often the case now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feuersturm Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1304586246' post='2706744'] I don't think that's the case. Wars would just be extended until the enemies warchest was depleted, as is often the case now. [/quote] And is one of the reasons why we did not get peace without the 30 day term (our upper tier has too much money left intact) Large warchest, long war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I doubt that's really the case. My guess is many of your uppers don't have good warchests and thus extended peace mode was the only option (that and some other things that prob. would just get all you guys' panties in a bunch). At least in my history of fighting NPO nations. I'm sure it's improved after your Karma stomping, but still below average. Can't really buck that in a mass-member alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1304571811' post='2706641'] A big problem is simply the war system. It's really not all the fun to get triple teamed. If you limited wars to 1v1 or something then I think we'd see way more wars, since they'd be less costly, longer lasting, and more strategic. But then again I really love triple teaming someone and coordinating around the nuke, so I wouldn't support a 1v1 war system. [/quote] The system as it is actually gives an [i]advantage[/i] to people getting ganged up on. Any good alliance would be able to cause more total damage during a curbstomp (strategic victory) than the alliances beating down on them. It's just that most nations don't fight back when getting curbstomped. The no reps morality actually makes it nearly impossible to 'lose' a curbstomp with a decent sized warchest. If anything, the problem is that in a war, both sides lose so much. Edited May 6, 2011 by MrMuz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 The problem is that somewhere along the line people forgot how to be interesting. This game is about politics not about the built in war function. Be dynamic, take risks try something new. Being afraid to do those things is what causes stagnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 I like where moralism is a problem and the solution is an all powerful governing body designed to make everyone play fair. Yeah, that'll work [i]great[/i]. I'd only agree to this if I get to run the super fairness comission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.