From what I understand by the war rules, the war starts at declaration but the bashing rule is lifted after 24 hours. That's it.


Quoted from War Rules:
"For two warring parties the bashing rule is removed, however, both parties must wait for 24 hours after the original declaration (forum time) before they can commence bashing. "

Marius wrote:From what I understand by the war rules, the war starts at declaration but the bashing rule is lifted after 24 hours. That's it.


Quoted from War Rules:
"For two warring parties the bashing rule is removed, however, both parties must wait for 24 hours after the original declaration (forum time) before they can commence bashing. "

Yes, that's correct. Your point is?

Isn't it real enough honestly? The only thing you want to add will try to eliminate a "denial" of a war. If you want realism, a peace treaty doesn't come in a war unless either one side receives what they declared war for, (in this case a bunch of res or a certain players fleet) or until both sides feel like they have either lost enough, or done enough damage.

A more viable option to get these results would be to eliminate a time limit for a war. The war will resume until both sides agree to call it off. At this point the winner would be declared by TD.

One amendment that could be made however. Instead of gauging who wins a war by the amount of TD, Why don't we add up the amount of res looted. This would eliminate pointless defense bashing (unless the alliances goal was to take down a players defensive stronghold.) So if a player makes this attack:

Attacker Loss: 1.250.000 Defender Loss:125.623.000
winnings Metal:48.269.465 Crystal:12.249.026 Deuterium:50.542.777
Debris Metal:26.987.236 Crystal:30.589.123

The looted res would be added up by using the merchant trading ratio. Just a thought.

EDIT::..


You could also make an alliance stat page that would automatically keep track of all of this. Similar to the way a players stats is kept track of. You could have a popup that would display the war they are in, and you could see each alliance's stats within the war. Also you could have wars declared within the game that you could set boundaries within the war, like time limit, or when a certain TD is reached, or even how much res looted will end the war.

mightyoz wrote:Declarations of War.
A war in game takes 24 hours from the point of declaration to the start of hostilities.
Can it not be the same in reverse, a party surrenders, for it to a complete halt then 24 hours must pass before the end of those hostilities? Much like it would in the real world, an agreed time passes before things cease?

24 hours seems like a good round figure, much like the declaration.

The way you said this, it sounds like you think the war does not start until after 24 hours. That is my point.

In answer to your first question. No, it isn't realistic at all.

Also, the point was to stop the ludicrous nature of wars being declared and immediately a surrender being issued.

It takes 24 hours from the declaration of war for the true war, bashing rule lifting, to come in to force.

What I am suggesting is that the same happens in reverse. 24 hours to pass before a closure to hostilities can occur.

If you really want to total up TD, so be it. But that should have no real meaning unless those terms are arrived at beforehand, where a finite time limit has been imposed. Again, not realistic is it?

To win a war, somebody surrenders, the other party wins. That's simple enough and easy enough. If neither party surrenders or can come to terms, the war should continue. Unless there is no real input in to a war, either side can petition for a closure to the war and the outcome would be a draw.

Marius wrote:

mightyoz wrote:Declarations of War.
A war in game takes 24 hours from the point of declaration to the start of hostilities.
Can it not be the same in reverse, a party surrenders, for it to a complete halt then 24 hours must pass before the end of those hostilities? Much like it would in the real world, an agreed time passes before things cease?

24 hours seems like a good round figure, much like the declaration.

The way you said this, it sounds like you think the war does not start until after 24 hours. That is my point.

No Marius. Apologies if you have not understood what we were talking about. Perhaps the clarity of my post is misleading.

What we are suggesting is new ways to improve the way that wars are implemented in game, clarify points, tweaking things etc. I now see what you mean from the previous posts.

mightyoz wrote:In answer to your first question. No, it isn't realistic at all.

To win a war, somebody surrenders, the other party wins. That's simple enough and easy enough. If neither party surrenders or can come to terms, the war should continue. Unless there is no real input in to a war, either side can petition for a closure to the war and the outcome would be a draw.

I agree with this logic. I don't think any alliance leader would want a stack of War losses due to them not wanting to participate in that said war.

also what stops a wont to be merc from joining a allaince at war just to help them then when it is over back out, i think during war neither of the warring allainces should be able to recurit or accept new members until the war is over. unless you are in the allaince when it starts you should not be able to join a said allaince, you can merc but not joi9n them

If that is a rule that needs to be implemented then sure, why not? But, again, we are going away from the realism aspect.

Do you think this would happen in reality?


Also, why shouldn't anybody be allowed to join an alliance at any point? The whole point of any war is to employ tactics that enable you to win. If this helps you to try and reach this aim, then go for it?

The better option, possibly, would be to do away with the mercenaries in their entirety. But again, this would not be realistic.

Think of wars in history. Adversaries have been known to switch sides when it suits. Ultimately in this game Alliance A. declares on Alliance B. The names stay the same, regardless of how many members each side has. The point is that you play to win, if you cannot and you wish to limit your damages, then you surrender.

I think a good idea would be, once a ceasefire is announced, 24 hours pass, then combatants from either side would not be able to attack each other in any way, shape or form for a specific period.

As discussed earlier, a war is declared,, 24 hours pass, the war begins in earnest. One side surrenders, 24 hours pass, a deadline is reached, the hostilities cease. Another war between these two factions cannot be entered in to for at least another month (That time period being off the top of my head). On top of this, as hostilities have ceased, perhaps either party may not be able to attack each other at all for that month. No raiding, no "border skirmishes", nothing at all? This would enable a rebuilding of any losses.

After this finite time period any more arguments, disagreements can be resolved via whatever means deemed fit (within the rules). Whether this is another war, that would be up to a specific alliance leader and their membership.

The upshot of this would be that alliance leaders would be more reluctant to declare war if they knew that they could not attack their enemy for at least one month, again, in any shape or form. This would perhaps be against their interests. So, no more wars declared just for the sake of it.

It would introduce a fairness to proceedings. Allow the side suffering a defeat and damage to rebuild.

If the side being declared against surrenders immediately, they would only have to endure a 24 hour period of attacks, after that they would have one month of nothing from their opposition. A grace period. If they could keep safe for that 24 hour period then all they would have lost is a little bit of face.

Much like the current bashing rules outside of a war. If an aggressor breaks this rule, attacks within this grace time period then, as it is with the bashing rules that already exist, a player or alliance could be sanctioned by the game administrators for breaching these rules? A defender could report them for this infraction.

mightyoz wrote:If that is a rule that needs to be implemented then sure, why not? But, again, we are going away from the realism aspect.

Do you think this would happen in reality?


Also, why shouldn't anybody be allowed to join an alliance at any point? The whole point of any war is to employ tactics that enable you to win. If this helps you to try and reach this aim, then go for it?

The better option, possibly, would be to do away with the mercenaries in their entirety. But again, this would not be realistic.

Think of wars in history. Adversaries have been known to switch sides when it suits. Ultimately in this game Alliance A. declares on Alliance B. The names stay the same, regardless of how many members each side has. The point is that you play to win, if you cannot and you wish to limit your damages, then you surrender.

I think a good idea would be, once a ceasefire is announced, 24 hours pass, then combatants from either side would not be able to attack each other in any way, shape or form for a specific period.

As discussed earlier, a war is declared,, 24 hours pass, the war begins in earnest. One side surrenders, 24 hours pass, a deadline is reached, the hostilities cease. Another war between these two factions cannot be entered in to for at least another month (That time period being off the top of my head). On top of this, as hostilities have ceased, perhaps either party may not be able to attack each other at all for that month. No raiding, no "border skirmishes", nothing at all? This would enable a rebuilding of any losses.

After this finite time period any more arguments, disagreements can be resolved via whatever means deemed fit (within the rules). Whether this is another war, that would be up to a specific alliance leader and their membership.

The upshot of this would be that alliance leaders would be more reluctant to declare war if they knew that they could not attack their enemy for at least one month, again, in any shape or form. This would perhaps be against their interests. So, no more wars declared just for the sake of it.

It would introduce a fairness to proceedings. Allow the side suffering a defeat and damage to rebuild.

If the side being declared against surrenders immediately, they would only have to endure a 24 hour period of attacks, after that they would have one month of nothing from their opposition. A grace period. If they could keep safe for that 24 hour period then all they would have lost is a little bit of face.

Much like the current bashing rules outside of a war. If an aggressor breaks this rule, attacks within this grace time period then, as it is with the bashing rules that already exist, a player or alliance could be sanctioned by the game administrators for breaching these rules? A defender could report them for this infraction.

i like the idea of not being able to attack after a war for a certain time frame. i second that motion.