Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cazaric

Disable casualties for intra-alliance wars

Recommended Posts

The end of a round is the time when inter-alliance wars become pointless, and everyone just starts to hit anyone they want - random nations, people they have a grudge with, friends who they can really enjoy fighting.

 

Often those friends will be on the same AA as yourself. Neither of you will want to leave the alliance to fight, but you do want the joy of the battle. However, with casualty counts being important to the awards, and an intra-alliance war providing casualties only to one alliance, this is dangerous.

 

Perhaps you could disable casualties during wars between members of the same alliance? This way we could hit our allies without worrying about breaking game rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or better yet, make it so if you disable XP, it also cancels all casualties/damage stats earned for that war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would pretty much cover it all well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intra-alliance wars only have rule-breaking purposes.  Otherwise, all an intra-alliance war does it needlessly burn warchest and NS.  We may as well simply block intra-alliance wars from occurring, and have the game administration take people who leave their AA and declare wars on former alliance mates on a case-by-case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intra-alliance wars only have rule-breaking purposes.  Otherwise, all an intra-alliance war does it needlessly burn warchest and NS.  We may as well simply block intra-alliance wars from occurring, and have the game administration take people who leave their AA and declare wars on former alliance mates on a case-by-case basis.

Some SE alliances do attempt rounds to teach warring to newbies or people not fine tuned on game mechanics, like me.  They would just have to ensure to separate between multiple alliance groupings or stay on none?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some SE alliances do attempt rounds to teach warring to newbies or people not fine tuned on game mechanics, like me.  They would just have to ensure to separate between multiple alliance groupings or stay on none?

 

I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for NDO.  NDO takes on people who want to learn (as I think most alliances do); we usually aim for a full-contact war with another AA (either offensive or defensive in nature) before the nukes start falling to get people oriented to the war aspect and to get some initial XP.  People who set their alliance affiliation to "None" are universally raided.  Last round, NDO found out the hard way that even dividing off a "noob AA" will still result in their being raided, as too few people read the OWF to know that despite the differing AA they were still considered full members of NDO.  It'd be impossible for an alliance to prevent raids on members temporarily on "None" or in a micro-sized training AA; this makes these strategies impractical and thus they're rarely attempted.

Edited by Nick GhostWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intra-alliance wars only have rule-breaking purposes.

 

I completely disagree here. My favourite part of the endround is fighting my friends, because the war is nothing but a test of strength, and amusing for all. I know the Krabz guys are the same, as they enjoy hitting each other. Being in an alliance with someone means you're not going to be fighting them during the middle of the round. The endround is a chance to change that.

 

When I declare on a friend at the end, my intentions are not to break the rules. It's to have fun with my friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I completely disagree here. My favourite part of the endround is fighting my friends, because the war is nothing but a test of strength, and amusing for all. I know the Krabz guys are the same, as they enjoy hitting each other. Being in an alliance with someone means you're not going to be fighting them during the middle of the round. The endround is a chance to change that.

 

When I declare on a friend at the end, my intentions are not to break the rules. It's to have fun with my friends.

 

That's a fair point.  Perhaps we could do a moratorium on intra-alliance wars, period, until 1 week before the end of the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good arguments both ways.

 

I decided to make a slight change to the prizes for round 39. The casualties race has been replaced by the most destructive war. In order to count as the most destructive war, XP must be enabled for the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh god really bringing most destructive war back? let's take a few steps back in time why don't we. you want to talk about collusion to win?

also you are awarding strongest alliance as an award still. that is based off alliance score which is so very flawed as total nations regardless of their strength weighs the heaviest on this.

you may as well make the award for biggest alliance because all would agree here that alliance score is not at all a true representation of strength at all.

It's also not just the award, but the qualifier as to who wins the awards from the winning AA that needs to be changed.

Edited by StevieG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also. why are you removing an alliance award and replacing it with individual award?

now there is only 1 alliance award. and all you need to do is recruit the most nations to get that.

you are seriously going backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also. why are you removing an alliance award and replacing it with individual award?

 

I've re-added the alliance award "Top Two Nations By Most Attacking Casualties In The Alliance With Most Soldiers Killed" (I did not remove the newly added "Most Destructive War" award). I'll continue to re-think the award categories for future rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about re-thinking how "most destructive war" is calculated from being weighted towards infra/tech to war assets destroyed?  The formula for NS clearly lays out what navy and planes are worth in terms of NS.  Tank NS values differ whether they're deployed or not, but what if the destruction of a war as it pertains to a flag were calculated on the NS value of soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships destroyed instead of infra/land/tech?  i leave CM's out of this because this would be extremely easy to exploit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×