Alveron Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 We could infra-bomb before resistance was implemented. Now, we have no choice, except now we have little to no chance of beiging someone that is active. I like the idea of consecutive fortifying decreasing the amount of resistance added with each fortify. One other option would be to prevent consecutive fortifying. Have it so that you can only fortify once, until you are attacked. Then you can fortify once more. Attacked again? Fortify again. This way beiging could actually happen, as the attacker could save up until 12 MAPs, launch three Naval Attacks, and then the defender could only fortify once. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Lannister Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 We could infra-bomb before resistance was implemented. Now, we have no choice, except now we have little to no chance of beiging someone that is active. I like the idea of consecutive fortifying decreasing the amount of resistance added with each fortify. One other option would be to prevent consecutive fortifying. Have it so that you can only fortify once, until you are attacked. Then you can fortify once more. Attacked again? Fortify again. This way beiging could actually happen, as the attacker could save up until 12 MAPs, launch three Naval Attacks, and then the defender could only fortify once. And why would anyone choose the fortify option then? apart from a very minor use of buying time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alveron Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) And why would anyone choose the fortify option then? apart from a very minor use of buying time... Buying time until you can double buy or your alliance members can come in to aid you. Endlessly fortifying shouldn't be a strategy. Fortifying should be a tactic. Edited January 9, 2017 by Alveron 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Lannister Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Buying time until you can double buy or your alliance members can come in to aid you. Endlessly fortifying shouldn't be a strategy. Fortifying should be a tactic. Why not? Why can't it be a strategy? Why can't one choose to sacrifice their infra? Strategy is all about what you make it to be, there's no written set of rules on what can, and can not be. For example, I really wanted to infra bomb this guy recently, but I had to quash all my plans because I knew he wouldn't fortify, and I couldn't bomb him really as his resistance was nearly ending, so I had to set aside the whole plan. Now when you've a resistance setup going where you really can't have much of a solo infra bombing run thanks to the resistance feature, I think fortify makes sense. I would have been so glad had that person fortified. If someone wants to fortify, infra bomb then. If they don't, take their resources. Pretty simple. Just buying time for a little bit and having a complete mechanic for it is really a waste of a mechanic. Sure, it might help you rarely, but that's about it. People are all sad right now that they aren't being able to get the loots, news for them, they wouldn't anyway. People would just transfer resources/cash outside their nation and go away from the game for a few days after losing. Right now, it actually provides incentive to come back, get some strategy going, and perhaps win the war that way. The only reason one takes the added infra damage to them is because of the safety net that they will be safe from beige. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alveron Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Why not? Why can't it be a strategy? Why can't one choose to sacrifice their infra? Strategy is all about what you make it to be, there's no written set of rules on what can, and can not be. For example, I really wanted to infra bomb this guy recently, but I had to quash all my plans because I knew he wouldn't fortify, and I couldn't bomb him really as his resistance was nearly ending, so I had to set aside the whole plan. Now when you've a resistance setup going where you really can't have much of a solo infra bombing run thanks to the resistance feature, I think fortify makes sense. I would have been so glad had that person fortified. If someone wants to fortify, infra bomb then. If they don't, take their resources. Pretty simple. Just buying time for a little bit and having a complete mechanic for it is really a waste of a mechanic. Sure, it might help you rarely, but that's about it. People are all sad right now that they aren't being able to get the loots, news for them, they wouldn't anyway. People would just transfer resources/cash outside their nation and go away from the game for a few days after losing. Right now, it actually provides incentive to come back, get some strategy going, and perhaps win the war that way. The only reason one takes the added infra damage to them is because of the safety net that they will be safe from beige. You should probably learn to read. I never said endless fortifying couldn't be a strategy, I said it shouldn't be. It makes the game even more dull and wars even more pointless. >Just buying time for a little bit and having a complete mechanic for it is really a waste of a mechanic. Sure, it might help you rarely, but that's about it. It would give you six more turns for your alliance to help you or to buy troops. Twelve hours is a fair amount of time to have friends why out the opponents' military. >People are all sad right now that they aren't being able to get the loots, news for them, they wouldn't anyway. People would just transfer resources/cash outside their nation and go away from the game for a few days after losing. Hard to do that when you're blockaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 If you make it so that fortify doesn't prevent a person from getting beiged, you have removed the purpose of fortify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaryllis Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I don't think fortifying is that bad of an idea and no it doesn't make a nation industructable there is the obvious infra bomb the person is signing up for and if they stretch the war out until expiration you don't get the safety net of rebuilding your military without being jumped on again that beige provides. Now I do think it needs to be tweeked. How about considering making fortifying cost more MAP. 4 or 5 sound like a good amount. Quote Nerd To The Core Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Lannister Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 You should probably learn to read. I never said endless fortifying couldn't be a strategy, I said it shouldn't be. It makes the game even more dull and wars even more pointless. >Just buying time for a little bit and having a complete mechanic for it is really a waste of a mechanic. Sure, it might help you rarely, but that's about it. It would give you six more turns for your alliance to help you or to buy troops. Twelve hours is a fair amount of time to have friends why out the opponents' military. >People are all sad right now that they aren't being able to get the loots, news for them, they wouldn't anyway. People would just transfer resources/cash outside their nation and go away from the game for a few days after losing. Hard to do that when you're blockaded. Yes, and that's why I said why can't it be in response to your shouldn't be. It's a perfectly reasonable strategy, you're sacrificing your infra for resources. Decisions decisions. I've had to make them a lot this war. Secondly, this will only be applicable on the 2-3rd day of the war when you're about to be beiged. Having a complete mechanic for just buying this time seems a waste of a mechanic. If anything, at that point, you would want to get beiged instead so you can rebuild and join in on the war on other people properly. No, it's actually not hard to do so. You mostly know when you're beaten or about to be in war. The only way it is possible is when the enemy is very smart about blockading, which you guys have not been FYI and never were in past either, most of you ran a no ships policy - some still do.. Even then, anyone with some sense can use his ships to get his resources out and fold, like I've and so many other people have in the past. So really, you still won't get anything. I don't think fortifying is that bad of an idea and no it doesn't make a nation industructable there is the obvious infra bomb the person is signing up for and if they stretch the war out until expiration you don't get the safety net of rebuilding your military without being jumped on again that beige provides. Now I do think it needs to be tweeked. How about considering making fortifying cost more MAP. 4 or 5 sound like a good amount. This will still defeat the purpose. If you can't escape a beige, why would you want to fortify? That's signing up for more infra damage and then getting beiged anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Legit question. Why is everyone proposing fortify do less for each consecutive use as opposed to, say, adding a random amount between x and y resistance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willam von Waldreich Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 How cute.....your first post ever.....and you waste it on complaining about the war system. Instead of replying to one of the many threads that are currently out there already discussing this very issue, you decided to start your very own thread.....well I'm sure it will get addressed now.....and even fixed. Play the game a little more than 15 days before !@#$ about the mechanics of it. Don't be a dick. That is what drives players off from games. If you don't have anything nice to say then keep it to yourself. Quote The United States of Belveria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felkey Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 Don't be a dick. That is what drives players off from games. If you don't have anything nice to say then keep it to yourself. I don't take these things personally. Not to continue to beat a dead horse but could we also just cap the number of fortifications per war? That way if used say during the middle of a war it could still be used to prevent beige (therefore as tywin pointed out, it still has a purpose). But you would still have to have some fighting capacity to protect yourself the rest of the time. It's a bit of a middle ground? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 because no one likes RNG So, should we remove it from battles altogether? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Maybe it should be changed so that when the war expires the nation that has the lower resistance will be defeated. Also lowering the amount of resistance increased by fortifying will help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Maybe it should be changed so that when the war expires the nation that has the lower resistance will be defeated.This has been mentioned before and it's an absurdly bad idea. It would enable a situation where a nation with no military and no resources would win the war, looting the opposing nation, simply because they've fortified (and maybe nuked at the last minute, to drop the other nation's resistance down). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.