The game was never designed for grand strategy

[Miley Cyrax]

And mechanics to facilitate huge warfare are what we need today in this current bloc vs bloc environment.

In large-scale alliance warfare, it is only who has more NS and who has smarter individual nations that MAINLY determines the battles. Of course, overall direction, like bank nations and aid chains is used, but this is becoming diminished as aid is becoming relatively small.

I think the game should have more customizeable ways for alliances to go to war, to make it more than just a bunch of individual players battling, so it would actually make sense for the generals of allied alliances to meet and plan a strategy that could give them an edge.

I am not smart enough to think of what changes could help in this area, but that's what you guys are for!

[Auctor]

you mean like peace mode?

[Miley Cyrax]

Lol... I am sure there could be more to an overall grand strategy than peace mode

[Malik Shabaz]

I think thats a good idea if it can be done.

[thaone]

Grand strategy does exist, this war has proved that very well.

On a global scale you can clasify alliances like: heavy hitters, normal strength, paper tigers, WAE

Or based on the average NS/ distribution of NS.

Taking this into account you need to assign alliances to cover other alliances while looking at treaties, NAP's and so on.

There were even talks about which alliances should be kept in reserve to cover late entrants from the other side, that's hardcore grand strategy imo.

The assignment of attackers on an alliance level is also based on which fundamental strategy you take.

-Are we going berserker or should we cover every active nation with 3V1 and wipe up the less active ones latter.

-How are we going to stagger the enemy, the first day after update? or maybe just the day before the first 2 wars are going to end.

-How much nations are we putting into peace-mode, as you keep those in reserve for a second wave.

I agree that in a curb stomp strategy doesn't matter.

But during this war strategy definitely mattered.

More people agree with me even before we started fighting:

[15:27] <@pezstar> Yeah. Crappy. It's definitely going to be a relatively even match.

[15:27] <@pezstar> Strategy will actually matter this time.

[enderland]

Your error in this assessment is that assuming both sides in this past/ongoing war were capable of using strategy equally. One side chose to use it, the other side did not.

You see the results.

[Miley Cyrax]

Some alliances are better. But this does not mean better grand strategy. This means on the fireteam level they are more organized and more competent individual players.

[enderland]

Some alliances are better. But this does not mean better grand strategy. This means on the fireteam level they are more organized and more competent individual players.

No.

Some alliances blatantly did NOT use strategy this war. Valhalla and IRON come to mind. Dropping the overwhelming majority of your alliance out of peace mode prior to the start of the biggest, and relatively most fair war in the past two years simply shows that no strategy was used.

From what I understand, almost no Karma alliances had any of their nations trapped in war mode during the war by staggers, which is funny because the hegemony started with almost all their nations in peace mode.

c est la vie I guess. Not sure why IRON did not learn their lesson as GOONS almost did this to them but meh.

[Chairman Cao]

I agree with Alden. There are and have been clear and significant differences in how well different alliances fare based on how organized they are. No doubt the Karma side was stronger to begin with but some Hegemony alliances are/were falling much faster than they should be. TPF has been hit hard but they're also being attacked by a hell of a lot of enemies - considering which they're holding out well. Other alliances on the same side however have taken far fewer and easier wars but still lost similar proportions of their NS.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Chairman Cao