Off the deep end
Master
515 posts
1,427
Seen 31st August 2023
Solaris
6th September 2021, 06:21 PM
I've had a problem with the war system for awhile now. I like the idea of a new system with the Invasion System but I think it should coincide with the current war system, while drastically altering said system into something more realistic and reasonable.
Declaring War
Currently, the war system has to have the signatures of the leaders of both sides, as well as having admin approval. I don't think this should be the case. People (including myself once or twice I think) have abused this system time and time again, refusing to sign because they fear they will be defeated, or they know they will fall. However such a thing should not be up to the defender, as the aggressor should be able to invade anyway.
Instead I think it would be better if the invader would still have to put in for a war on the page, however the other signature would be removed. However the war would still need admin approval. Because I don't think it would be great for the South to be invaded at 3:33 am.Oh god I just gave CZ an idea.. It will be up to the admin to decide if the war terms are fair and the other side can fight within reason. Rather than having the defender pretend they can't make the battle so the battle gets forced on the 3rd day. The admins are still in the picture for this very reason, if the defender actually has something to do on a certain day and no forces of theirs can show up, however such a scenario is unlikely.
Tldr: Aggressor signs and makes war, Admins approve, defender does not sign.
The War
The war will be fought with the terms that the admin signed off on, game admins will judge the war and should be completely impartial to the battle or battles.
The war should end once the admins decide the force has been defeated, or the aggressor/defender surrender.
However a there should be 2 types of surrender, the unconditional surrender and the conditional surrender. Unconditional surrenders will have the winner decide what to do with the spoils, whilst conditional surrender requires the winner to negotiate with the loser, or continue fighting.
Victory
Victory will mostly be decided on how the war was fought, unless a surrender was announced.
I think there should be several types of victory, as declaring a total victory when both sides were equal is just plain unfair.
Decisive Victory
A complete decimation of the enemy, having quite fewer losses than the enemy, while destroying their forces. Most likely accompanied with an unconditional surrender.
Enemy has 200% more losses than the victors
Victory
The victor has triumphed over the loser in the war.
Enemy has 75% more losses than the victors
Draw
Both sides have an equivalent amount of losses or an amount that does not surpass 20% more losses for either side.
WE MUST KEEP THE MEAT GRINDER GOING
Extra Ideas
I think it would be cool to have a total count of army sizes and how much losses in proportion to their total size amassed during the war, but that would require a lot of work from the admins that I don't think is feasible.
Multiple phases in the war: A battle phase and an occupation phase, battle being ofc battle and skirmishes in the war, occupation being the area being held by enemy forces.
But yeah.
Declaring War
Currently, the war system has to have the signatures of the leaders of both sides, as well as having admin approval. I don't think this should be the case. People (including myself once or twice I think) have abused this system time and time again, refusing to sign because they fear they will be defeated, or they know they will fall. However such a thing should not be up to the defender, as the aggressor should be able to invade anyway.
Instead I think it would be better if the invader would still have to put in for a war on the page, however the other signature would be removed. However the war would still need admin approval. Because I don't think it would be great for the South to be invaded at 3:33 am.
Tldr: Aggressor signs and makes war, Admins approve, defender does not sign.
The War
The war will be fought with the terms that the admin signed off on, game admins will judge the war and should be completely impartial to the battle or battles.
The war should end once the admins decide the force has been defeated, or the aggressor/defender surrender.
However a there should be 2 types of surrender, the unconditional surrender and the conditional surrender. Unconditional surrenders will have the winner decide what to do with the spoils, whilst conditional surrender requires the winner to negotiate with the loser, or continue fighting.
Victory
Victory will mostly be decided on how the war was fought, unless a surrender was announced.
I think there should be several types of victory, as declaring a total victory when both sides were equal is just plain unfair.
Decisive Victory
A complete decimation of the enemy, having quite fewer losses than the enemy, while destroying their forces. Most likely accompanied with an unconditional surrender.
Enemy has 200% more losses than the victors
Victory
The victor has triumphed over the loser in the war.
Enemy has 75% more losses than the victors
Draw
Both sides have an equivalent amount of losses or an amount that does not surpass 20% more losses for either side.
Extra Ideas
I think it would be cool to have a total count of army sizes and how much losses in proportion to their total size amassed during the war, but that would require a lot of work from the admins that I don't think is feasible.
Multiple phases in the war: A battle phase and an occupation phase, battle being ofc battle and skirmishes in the war, occupation being the area being held by enemy forces.
But yeah.
On strike
Alatar
130 posts
242
Seen 30th May 2023
Midnight
6th September 2021, 09:13 PM
As far as fighting wars go, a surrender is never offered. The end of the war always feels extremely cheated. I think surrender should be touched on a whole hell of a lot more. Also, I think there should be a massive tone down on the "terms of war". It feels like, in every single war, there's always some he said - she said about who broke the war terms. I think there could serve to be a strike system - breaking a term of war from either side could be given a warning, and perhaps after 2 warnings it decides who wins. This would also allow for Strategic War Crimes in battle, using your 2 strikes as a last resort perhaps. This obviously wouldn't work for things like Spawn Killing.
In addition, Spawn Killing should just be impossible. Why can you get attacked from spawn? In OldCP the spawn killing was fixed, and I feel like P3D might also have something to fix the spawn killing problem.
The army count could be done as well - make it the responsibility of those fighting the war to list what counts as their army. It makes it easier to decide a winner, too, because there are several occasions where the ends of war don't feel like the ends at all.
In addition, Spawn Killing should just be impossible. Why can you get attacked from spawn? In OldCP the spawn killing was fixed, and I feel like P3D might also have something to fix the spawn killing problem.
The army count could be done as well - make it the responsibility of those fighting the war to list what counts as their army. It makes it easier to decide a winner, too, because there are several occasions where the ends of war don't feel like the ends at all.
aaaaaaaaaaalatar