Jump to content

'Turtling' (not buying troops, etc., during wars)


Crymson

Recommended Posts

While the concept of turtling to try to conserve some of your nation's resources might not be "realistic", neither is the idea of building your nation up from being a third world country by buying "technology", selling off all of your technology, and suddenly having lost all the benefits of that technology and being a third world country again (and doing this over and over again). Certain parts of this game may not be "realistic", but you're also not running a real country.

This guy is basically doing the only thing he can to change the outcome of the war at all. You want him to attack you so that you may slaughter him faster, he wants to make the war as drawn out as possible for you. It is not a mockery of the war system.

Nations in the real world that attack a peaceful and honestly, defenseless country will face terrible scrutiny from the global community and probably stop or slow down their attacks anyway lest they raise the anger of other heretofore peaceful nations.

The aggressor in a war should not complain when the war takes longer than he'd like, especially when the defender's actions guarantee that you will suffer as little damage as possible. Happy hunting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Turtling is a tradeoff: you take less damage, but at the cost of crippling your own ability to fight back, or get out of anarchy. It might not make sense but it is a very good piece of gameplay balance to prevent a dogpile being instant ZI.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Changing it will just make the already one-sided wars of CN, even more one-sided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter. It means he can escape damage DURING that war. It shouldn't be so.

He does not escape damage during the war. Your cruise missiles, aircraft, and nukes can still hit him. And you can also raid him once a day. Deploy just one single soldier and no tanks and you can get in a raid once a day, steal some tech, cash, and destroy a little infra.

But so far as his anarchying himself to deny you a target, so what? This is a valid defense strategy and, obviously, it is working.

Asking Admin (which is effectively what you're doing) to grant you the right to damage someone is phail.

You think it's unfair that he's resisting your attacks and he thinks it's unfair that you're attacking him.

Thus we call it "war".

If you don't like how he refuses to be a target for you, then pick another target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can stop right there ;). In the real world, war costs a huge amount of money; it's nonsensical that in CN war can be profitable at all. Things should be destroyed in all attacks, not stolen.

Actually, wars can reap plenty of benefits IRL. Consider the German invasion of Poland: while I'm sure it cost the Nazis considerable amount of capital creating their tanks, planes, and paying their soldiers they still gained massive amounts of land and the ability to essentially strip everything of value from the occupied people. Or even considering a city-state of 108,603 people, invading another city-state of the same size and pillaging everything of value would probably gather up a net gain. Especially if that city-state has no soldiers defending its lands.

On the subject of making a weak nation weaker I have two things to say. One is that, if they really strive to protect their assets, perhaps they should have worked harder to make their alliance invulnerable to a situation where they are being triple-teamed. That's how international politics often works: the weak get crushed and the strong prevail. Secondly, it may be wise to perhaps give a larger bonus to a defending nation being triple-teamed (not too large a bonus, but perhaps just make it beneficial to actually fight back instead of crawling into the fetal position) or even just lessening the effect of war on a nation altogether.

With wars becoming more and more one-sided and more and more permanently damaging to an alliance, maybe what the whole system needs is simply a toning down of the war system altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if someoen is truly bill locked and has no cash or way to recover, then they aren't turtling, they are dead.

However, when you dismiss all your soldiers, and refuse to defend your people and cities while sitting on a good sized war chest and lobbing cm's and nukes, you shouldn't be rewarded. This is Turtling.

I understand that teh little guy needs something to give himself a chance. but turtling doesn't do that, it just prolongs it. It DOES make a mockery of teh battle system, and I'm sure that Admin didn't intend for nations who wound up out numbered to choose to NOT fight.

During teh BAPs debacle recently, they DID have 6 war slots on each of them. They came out of Peace Mode and declared on three targets each, and were then declared on themselves. Nearly ALL of them quickly had zero soldiers and some decent warchests, and began just lobbing CM's and Nukes with relative impunity. By not "defending" their nations they saved Millions each day in losses to their war chests, they reduced their infra loss by 100 or more, and they reduced their max tech and land loss significantly.

Edited by Lord Levistus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well as long as the defender has no real chance to fight back, i see little need to change anything.

First you should keep in mind: what he does will in no way make him WIN this war. He only makes it as most expensive as he can, which is pretty valid. Do not forget that if you dislike the losses, you should just have not attacked him after all. It was YOUR decision to declare war on him and it was YOUR decision to create a scenario he can NEVER win. If we would see more "fair fights" out there, turtling would most probably not an issue. But since most wars are nothing more then just slaughtering a single opponent 10:1, you cant blame the victim of using the only tactic they have left to at least make it costly for you.

This is a good post. I agree entirely.

I would be fine with my targets turtling if there was a new game feature of something along the lines of: You can't retaliate in war in any form unless you have at least 1 soldier. It makes perfect logical sense, seeing you're gonna need soldiers to fire those CMs anyways. >>

I also agree with this statement. In order to do damage at all, you should have at least one soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Give me opinions on this idea, please.

At the moment, a nation cannot disband troops if it has launched an attack in the last two days. How about the following?

-Any nation involved in ground combat in the last two days cannot disband troops.

-Nations with troops below the anarchy threshold (soldiers at less than 20% of population) cannot disband troops.

-Nations cannot disband troops past the anarchy threshold.

This will solve the problem of turtling, at least for awhile (provided cautious attacks are used), and it's realistic also; after all, why would a nation disband its own army in a time of war or deliberately cause itself to descend into anarchy?

and/or

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

This, if done alone, would prevent turtling nations from doing any damage at all. This seems a fair trade-off, and in conjunction with the first idea I think it could fix a lot of problems in the war system; nations couldn't deliberately turtle, and once turtled (all troops killed), they couldn't do any damage.

Edited by Crymson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the second option Crymson.

The first suggestion seems to remove the option of turtling altogether and I feel as though it is a useful military strategy. Instead, I feel it is a little weighted in the wrong direction and needs to be balanced. Suggestion #2 seems to fix this problem in a more effective manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not whining about it.

On topic, I agree, the concept of not fighting decreasingdamage to your nation is absurd - if anything, having 0 soldiers should increase the damage you take.

Quit whining.

Also, OP. Get over it. Just play the damn game and stop trying to change it to suit your needs.

It's already bad enough that three people are fighting one guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A way to fix this would be to allow turtleing but make it impossible to counterattack without having at 5% soldiers to man & service the aircraft and to launch cruise missiles. this would allow for attacking while turtling and make it possible for one or perhaps two successful attacks to take place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Crymson's idea a lot regarding limiting troop dismissals; it's a quick and easy change, I think, that would add to the realism. Not only that, but it would do away with the accidental over-dismiss anarchy. Nations under surrender terms could lower their troops to the absolute minimum without accidentally anarchying themselves. There is an issue then of what happens should you buy infrastructure, but that's somewhat outside the scope of this discussion.

While I like that idea, I propose an alternative:

-Lower the amount of infra destroyed in the defeat alert to 7.5% or a maximum of 10.

-Lower the amount of tech destroyed in the defeat alert to 2.5% or a maximum of 5.

-Lower the cash destroyed to 2.5% or a maximum of $2.5 Million.

-Attacking Nations may capture 5% or a maximum of 20 miles of land.

-Allow all attackers to get in one defeat alert each for a maximum of 3 total on the defending nation.

This will only require changing the parameters slightly and adding a new function for capturing land. Realistically, it makes sense: a nation is being curbstomped by three stronger foes and employs 'scorched earth' tactics. They destroy all infrastructure, technology, or anything of worth in the land they retreat from, yet the attacking armies acquire land.

Further, the infrastructure levels will take less of a hit while the cash and tech levels will be drained slightly faster, which gives less incentive to turtle as you stand a better chance of lasting longer while raiding money during ground attacks than you do continuously bleeding money while turtling. Nations who choose to fight back will see more of an effect on their infrastructure level, dropping them out of their attackers' level more quickly and allowing them to stand a better chance against subsequent opponents.

I am against disallowing cruise missile or aircraft attacks based on troop levels. Often an infantry battalion is accompanied by air support, but the two may also be controlled by entirely different wings of the same nation's military.

I would also be curious to investigate using Guerrilla Camps in this regard to make them somewhat useful. Maybe a Guerrilla camp could now have the following statistics:

Guerrilla Camp - $50,000.00 - Reduces citizen income -8%, increases defending land forces' strength +3%, reduces chance of defeat alert -4%.

I say "defending" soldier strength because tanks have differing attacking and defending strengths, I'm not sure if soldiers do. But a tiny bonus to the defender, especially if tied into guerrilla camps (which would serve the purpose of a real life guerrilla, only being useful in defense). But I'm not sure exactly how simple that solution is. I think changing the defeat alert parameters is a much easier and more effective solution, and the guerrilla camp suggestion is just to see if anyone else thinks that it's a viable idea. It would also make them somewhat more useful than they already are, which is almost entirely useless. :D

Edited by Gene L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel fun of the game should never take a hit due to realism. No matter how hard we try, we can never reach what could be considered an "acceptable" degree of realism. Therefore we should concentrate on keeping the battle odds fair, and ensuring the fun of this game.

In such, I believe that if a nation decides to reduce the damage to its self, by turtling, it should also reduce or eliminate the damage it can do. Taking away the incentive to turtling at all, would only succeed in removing it as a wartime strategy, instead I feel consideration should be taken in tweaking the system to even the odds.

My two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who turtle have already lost, can't you see? For most people, when outgunned 3v1, turtling is the ONLY option they have to discourage their opponents from totally destroying them. Quite frankly, removing turtling or changing the current war system to discourage it would shift the power even MORE towards the alliances who can muster up the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when 0 soldiers are reached, the nation should have a "militia" defence, which would still enable enemies raiding abilities on land and tech etc, but would also result in a reduction in attack effectiveness (if only for tanks).

My reason being that militia normally are either guerilla fighters or used in urban warfare which often incurrs higher tank and soldier losses than open battles.

Edited by Ivegottheskill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I got this message from a nice member of the GPA today. This is somebody who, upon being attacked and anarchied, immediately sold off all of his troops and has been contenting himself with lobbing cruise missiles twice a day. I'm sure this issue has been brought up repeatedly, but,

needless to say, it's annoying that the guy's decision to NOT defend himself is actually REDUCING the damage that his nation takes in this war; instead of eating damage from six ground attacks per day (assuming three nations attacking him, which is currently the case), he takes only damage equivalent to two successful attacks. Thus, he is sustaining infrastructure damage in the amount of 40 per day, rather than the possible maximum of 120, for a differential of 80; were he involved in three offensive wars and three defensive wars, the differential between his actual damage sustained from ground attacks and the maximum would rise to an incredible 200!

It's very frustrating, and it makes a mockery of the war system.

The message:

Of course, only the part in bold lettering is pertinent to the question at hand.

Regardless, I--and, I'm sure, many others--feel this needs to be addressed. The problem is that I don't know how it could possibly be addressed without a significant overhaul of game mechanics.

Let's brainstorm a bit.

Wow that sucks man. I always knew GPA couldn't fight, this just confirms it.

As for your brainstorm part, I'd suggest a system that the moon has in place when all troops are destroyed - simple infra destruction (say 10 infra per attack).

Edited by AllYourBase
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight - you're going three-on-one against a nation and you're complaining that they are making it difficult and going against the spirit of the game?

Grow up and get on with it.

like many others you're missing the point and think this is about greed. It is not.

I'm more than willing to fight all teh way down to ZI when my time comes (again), infact the thought of turtling, even to my benefit boggles my mind. It makes zero sense, and even from the defender's standpoint, how much fun is it to not even try to fight back? Sure, i'll get my butt handed to me, but atleast I'll try to do some damage on my way down. The turtling tactic just means you last longer, not that you fare any better.

A nation should not benefit from refusing to defend itself.

...that is the point of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like many others you're missing the point and think this is about greed. It is not.

I'm more than willing to fight all teh way down to ZI when my time comes (again), infact the thought of turtling, even to my benefit boggles my mind. It makes zero sense, and even from the defender's standpoint, how much fun is it to not even try to fight back? Sure, i'll get my butt handed to me, but atleast I'll try to do some damage on my way down. The turtling tactic just means you last longer, not that you fare any better.

A nation should not benefit from refusing to defend itself.

...that is the point of this thread.

That all depends on your definition of 'defence'. Surely a defence is no more than an action that seeks to eliminate or limit the damage done to you? If turtling is the option that most nullifies damage done, then I do not see why it isn't a valid defence. You may choose to go down guns a-blazing like a firework - that is entirely your choice and that should be respected. Equally however should an underdog nation decide to go the slow route (like a candle) then that is entirely their choice as well. 'Fun' is determined by the person enjoying it - perhaps a nation feels that it would have far more fun exasperating its attackers than quickly handing over the results of patient work as war spoils to the attackers. (And no, I'm not implying that its an issue of greed. It is an issue of a defending nation grimly deciding between the lesser of two 'evils').

From a game play point of view, I feel it is a completely legitimate defence. From a RL perspective, turtling and its effects may not seem entirely logical/realistic - but there are many things in RL that a defending army can do which aren't part of CN. For example there are guerilla forces on most continents whose fighters just melt into the landscape/normal population, and have not yet been eradicated by modern armies with overwhelmingly superior weaponry and sophisticated technology.

At least even if a nation turtles, they will eventually still be worn down by their attackers (providing nothing happens in the meantime to change the circumstances); the attacking nation(s) doesn't have to worry about being bogged down (and even forced to retreat) by a seemingly unwinnable operation with outgunned, outnumbered and 'outcashed' (yay I made up a new word lol) guerillas - as happens in RL.

Plus who knows, something might happen in the long drawn-out affair of turtling, which the turtling nation could greatly use to its advantage. It might be highly unlikely, but so is winning the lottery. In addition to guerilla warfare which CN doesn't really cover; in RL, anything from 'acts of God' to friendly fire, to domestic opposition etc could turn the tide against the attacker. As it stands, if a nation is outgunned, its really just a matter of patience for the attacker(s). 'Sod's Law' and Lady Luck won't really come to the defending nation's rescue.

Just my two cents. And thanks Crymson for an interesting thread!

NB: My comments above are purely from a game play point of view, and have nothing to do with the specific operation Crymson is involved in.

EDIT: Out of interest, is 'turtling' a funky new phrase coined by Crymson or was it already around? :P

Edited by Lapu Lapu
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.


×
×
  • Create New...