Broncos98 Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 As it currently stands, the CN war system is inherently flawed, at least as I see it. Nations are basically rewarded for being destroyed considering the 'strategy' of turtling. Once a nation is <1000 land, you can no longer attack with naval forces. Once a nation is ZI'd you can no longer damage them with air assaults. Once a nation's armed forced are decimated to 0 tanks and 0 soldiers you can no longer do damage with ground attacks. During this most recent conflict many nations were able to sit idle with no infra, no army, no navy, no airforce, and no land, yet still launch nukes....thus dealing out great amounts of damage while sustaining none outside of a small amount of tech. Imagine a real nation with zero defenses...they would be invaded and taken over instantly. I know we aren't playing with real nations, but the word simulator is part of the game title, no? I think something needs to be changed in order to prevent nations from being rewarded for not fighting back, not rebuilding armies, and basically losing everything intentionally as 'strategy' of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 Every war, whichever side would gain by making turtling less effective starts whining about it. To me, it invariably looks like the side that is winning is complaining that it's not easy enough to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncos98 Posted May 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 Very political answer...rather than focusing on the actual issue, you instead seem to accuse me of pursuing self-serving interests. I don't care who is doing it, winning side, losing side, me, you, it doesn't matter....it simply does not make any sense, does not fit any logical framework of a war simulator, and it greatly weakens the most interesting and exciting facet of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 [quote name='Broncos98' date='07 May 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1273247486' post='2290293'] As it currently stands, the CN war system is inherently flawed, at least as I see it. Nations are basically rewarded for being destroyed considering the 'strategy' of turtling. Once a nation is <1000 land, you can no longer attack with naval forces. Once a nation is ZI'd you can no longer damage them with air assaults. Once a nation's armed forced are decimated to 0 tanks and 0 soldiers you can no longer do damage with ground attacks. During this most recent conflict many nations were able to sit idle with no infra, no army, no navy, no airforce, and no land, yet still launch nukes....thus dealing out great amounts of damage while sustaining none outside of a small amount of tech. Imagine a real nation with zero defenses...they would be invaded and taken over instantly. I know we aren't playing with real nations, but the word simulator is part of the game title, no? I think something needs to be changed in order to prevent nations from being rewarded for not fighting back, not rebuilding armies, and basically losing everything intentionally as 'strategy' of war. [/quote] I've discovered that it's best if don't try to make any comparisons to real warfare. To make it even remotely like real war would require a tremendous amount of coding. I just look at the war system as an abstract thing and focus on the politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted May 8, 2010 Report Share Posted May 8, 2010 [quote name='Broncos98' date='07 May 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1273267095' post='2290615'] Very political answer...rather than focusing on the actual issue, you instead seem to accuse me of pursuing self-serving interests. [/quote] That's because invariably when this comes up, the people asking for it to be changed are winning a war, and it's taking them longer to win because the losing side is turtling. You are in IRON. You are asking because Gramlins is turtling. You know that, yet you accuse me of being political. Heck I'm rooting for you guys in this war. It is my opinion that the losing side is already losing, and that it shouldn't be made even harder for them and easier for the side that is winning. That will remain true no matter what alliances are involved. In your particular case, I want (and expect) to see IRON win against Gramlins. But you have to do it the same way everybody else has. You don't get to change the rules to make it easier for you to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncos98 Posted May 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2010 Please note that with the speed by which change occurs in CN, if any changes would be made, our war with Grem will long be over by that time. This is about future conflicts, not current ones. I realize I'm peeing into the wind by asking for change in CN, so I'll take my ball and go home now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 8, 2010 Report Share Posted May 8, 2010 It's broken, but removing it would make the war system even [i]more[/i] unbalanced in the opposite direction, which means it's just better to leave it as is than attempt to fix an issue that is actually fixing a much larger issue that would take a lot more work and significantly change gameplay to handle in another way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Calcium Posted May 9, 2010 Report Share Posted May 9, 2010 Suggestions for alterations to Cybernations can be made in the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showforum=57"]Suggestion Box[/url]. Topic closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts