Jump to content

RFC: Duels


Sigrun Vapneir
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've actually been thinking about posting this for a few years now, but I think with Tywin and TidyBowlMan's  recent agreement perhaps the time has finally come that it no longer constitutes flamebait. Let's establish a duelling tradition here!

 

If rules are established beforehand and agreed to, the actual economic damage done by duels even at very high NS levels can be quite minor. And the positive benefits to morale of allowing them should be quite obvious. Each of us that wants to see this happen must make some effort to promote this inside of our own alliances or it will never work. Most are in big alliances and sometimes big alliances seem like they cannot stand to shed a single NS without making it into an existential struggle but once they see that they stand to lose far more in defections than in battle damage I think most will adapt.

 

So, there are two key concepts to make this work.

 

The first is consent. No one should be involved in a duel against their will. No declarations should be made without both parties posting their agreement. For obvious reasons it's a good idea for these things to be planned and scheduled, and for both parties to collect taxes shortly before they begin.

 

The second is rules. No easy buttons is the obvious start. Nukes should never be launched in a duel.

 

Beyond that, the level of violence can be tuned to whatever the two parties will agree to. The least expensive duel would involve only ground attacks and additionally involve a prohibition on possession of tanks. For the attacker, because tanks destroy infra, for the defender, because if the attacker can use no tanks and the defender can, in a one-on-one duel, the attacker is pretty much screwed. So no tanks on stock for either nation period. With those rules you can have great fun for a week and see virtually no loss of pixels whatsoever.

 

Or you could allow everything but nukes, or anything in between. The important thing is to spell it out so that no one gets butthurt later over a misunderstanding. Naval attacks? Cruise missiles? Air Force, is in, ok, but let's only do dogfights. Or we could allow bombs too, it's only a little more expensive, and really all down to personal taste and calculations.

 

Alliances, if they want to coöperate with this idea but are afraid of excessive damages or hassles, could easily impose their own rules here. They could allow members to duel, but require notification in a particular form (to avoid mistaken counter declarations) and require the rules meet certain standards (to prevent whatever they define as excessive loss of pixels.) They could insist the agreement include a clause allowing alliance leadership to shut the duel down early in case of war or whatnot. Whatever they need to feel comfortable with this, within reason, should be doable.

 

Anyone ready to agree with me on this one?

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Reasonable prohibitions in a duel:

1) no nukes
2) no killing spies
3) no destroying nukes
4) no others should attack on the duel

Everything else goes I say.

E: 5) no destroying money

 

Agree on 1. I see no point to 2. If spies are allowed at all, killing spies is actually one of the least damaging attacks?

 

3. Makes sense. Dont launch em, don't touch em. Not yours, not mine. 4. obviously correct. 5. I think that's up for agreement but I really dont see any reason to object to it.

 

@Pansy it's all just pushing a button. If you allow CMs you get a bit more xp and lose a bit more infra, no more casualties unfortunately, therefore not my preference either but I am trying to allow for everyone.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spies are expensive as hell, and destroying money is expensive. For me I'd say duels are more of how much damage you can do with ground aircraft and cms, not trying to destroy someone's WC which is the only reason spies and destroying money are used during war.

Edited by Hamilmania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spies are expensive as hell, and destroying money is expensive. For me I'd say duels are more of how much damage you can do with ground aircraft and cms, not trying to destroy someone's WC which is the only reason spies and destroying money are used during war.

 

20 spies cost me 2million. One succesful destroy money mission is 10million. Destroy spies is a relatively small concern.

 

If you are just going for maximum gain and minimum loss, I guess you would have to buy CMs and allow those to be spied.

 

Personally that's a bit gamey, I'd rather just say spy or not, but it's all open for negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pansy it's all just pushing a button. If you allow CMs you get a bit more xp and lose a bit more infra, no more casualties unfortunately, therefore not my preference either but I am trying to allow for everyone.

it's more it is a pointless destruction item in the same way a nuke is, nothing is stolen, and it take up no skill or luck, and just destroys tech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no because at least changing defcon and gov all have in impact in GAs for example, all other spy attacks are either useless or are used to kill a warchest.

 

OK so post your duel rules including spying - defcon or government preference?

 

Personally I am thinking defcon or threat level instead, but it's really your individual call what you want to expose yourself to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hamilmania, gifted raider, forgets about the ever-elusive "Change DEFCON Level" spy op.

well thank you for the compliment, goons trained this raider well :P at least their guide helped tons . also I just forgot to mention it , I obviously know the reasons to use change defcon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like it could be fun. The question arises, though, on how the terms of a duel would be enforced, and by whom. Since a duel is necessarily 1v1, and would be set up on a personal basis, it would probably be up to the duelists themselves to pick a trustworthy foe. This would mean that long time rivals or enemies may not duel, which I think would be more entertaining than buddies.

But yeah, the idea is solid, and I think it has potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruler the white

For one thing a duel adds a risk to the alliance. Alliances need to make clear whether they want to allow it for their members. It adds risk because if a duel goes bad by someone going against the rules that would seem an act of aggression upon that member.

Edited by Hamilmania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that in the instance a duel goes bad (against the predefined terms) the the alliance of the duelist that broke the terms would be obligated to treat said member as a rogue in order to avoid a war. 

 

There could be stipulations written that in the even of a breach of terms the offending nations alliance would be subject to "X" in financial/technical reps or even "X" days of war.  That would give some incentive to alliances to monitor the duels and to be more selective with whom they allow to participate. 

 

 

But come on that's really just taking the fun out of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree to a duel with Sigrun Vaporizer!

 

 :. Declare War on another nation

Declaring Nation: Confederatio Aesir (Sigrun Vapneir) Declaring Nation Strength: 118,231.086 Declaring Nation Rank: Ranked #917 of 9,696 nations Defending Nation: Afro Pick (master hakai) - You cannot declare war on this nation because they are not within your range of nations to declare war on. View your My Ranking screen to find nations within your range. Defending Nation Strength: 39,391.032 Defending Nation Rank: Ranked #3,360 of 9,696 nations

 

Please buy infra!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's more it is a pointless destruction item in the same way a nuke is, nothing is stolen, and it take up no skill or luck, and just destroys tech.

 

Let's not kid ourselves here, warfare in CN isn't exactly rocket science. No matter which way you cut it. Nor is it intended to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...