Nations Forum

If you took part in a Nations war before, then you must have realized how shallow it is:
Clans declared war;
War begins;
Clans struggle to keep opponents off the ranking;
War last til end of round;
Everything back to normal in new round;
Nothing gained nor lost.

Are you sick of this? I sure am! War is dull, repetitive, and most importantly, meaningless! To avoid this in future wars, I would like to propose certain "guidelines".

I will lay out my ideas plainly:
-Clans that declared war should state their reason
-A winning condition must be proposed (E.G. the clan with the highest tech member wins)
-A war period should be set to avoid prolong conflict (E.G. 5, 10, or 15 days)
-A form of forfeit should be compromised so that the war serves a purpose (E.G. the disband of the losing clan)
-Targeted clan can have the option to accept or reject the challenge.

Simple, right? With a winning condition and forfeit in mind, players would have to work hard to ensure their victory.

Let's look at an example:
Shinji of SM declared war on IC;
Shinji propose that the winning condition is comparing only Shinji and Korgrath for the higher tech;
IC's SAs agrees;
Shinji propose that the war last til the end of round;
IC's SAs agrees;
Shinji propose that the forfeit is the disbanding of clan;
Korgrath disagrees and suggest that the forfeit is the relieve of one of the losing clan's SA;
Shinji agrees;
War commence;
War ends with SM as the winner;
ChaoticLaw is relieved from IC;
Everyone lives happily ever after.

I'm pretty sure I made things clear, but if there's doubts or ideas, please feel free to share! :)

And if you feel that this is not possible, please explain why, in a non-flaming manner. Thank you.

no

shallow wars are what makes this game fun!
lol

Or an in built war system....Can set the condition when entering war (like how it is won, how long it shall last etc etc)

Well tarsonis21 could add a feature in nations that has a U.N. type room or functions with a special chat for SAs from clans.

Conditions to be in U.N. is that the clan must be in exsistence for more than 1 year consisently.But must have had atleast 5 members that entire time to be eligable.

To start out the clans we have known for awhile will be grandfathered in
example:SM,IC,AVENGERS,CHATTAN,7TH

Now a clan can have a 20% SA of delegates into UN,for evey 10 members.....they can have 2 SA in.

Now tarsonis could have a voting system in place for these delegates in UN room....with a certain % for war(all delegates get vote in UN)....than it will allow said parties to war.....now the normal attacking we do now will be dropped massively....only allowing terrorists type acts without approval of UN.

With vote of war,a time constrant is voted on in proposition,allowance of turns for each clan in war is based on size of each clan and duration.Losing clans pay a form of penalty like a voting power on UN for following round,or ruling SA must be demoted to admin....thus kicking them out of UN seat for following round of war.

Every round a vote will be done for leader of UN,every member of UN must vote or lose seats for that round if they do not.SA delegate may be replaced by clan at any time except for any not eligable from previous said penalties.

Winning clans of war should get a system bonus of x ammount of dollars to each account to use on market to buy things.

Now as far as tarsonis being able to do such things i do not know.....but it will cause more loyalty in clans and could force some diplomatic flare for the game,unlike we have ever seen.

also make a flag available in UN for said delegates adding UN to the clan flag....thus adding more history to nations by having these flags immortalized and more of a sense of respect for them.

by giving reward in game to buy market goods,it may also make war worth while.

I like your ideas, Beat. But set a better winning condition. Maybe I haven't read the other posts (Cept Jing's "no"), and maybe this has been mentioned or I haven't been clear in thought, but I read the member with the highest tech wins.

Uh, that's pretty bad. Basically that member will be pissed off forever. lol

@Red - Maybe I should make my proposal clearer:
The winning condition(s), the war duration, and the forfeit must be compromised. That means, the clans involved can discuss and come to an agreement what the winning conditions are. If they'd like, they can even set it so that whoever claims #23 slot on the ranking wins, or something like that. Be creative. Or not.

Hope that clears Red and everyone else's doubts.

@SANDMAN - your suggestion is well thought, but the whole point of me suggesting my idea is to prevent loading the admins with extra work. My system wouldn't require any additional coding; just more communication between players, which will (supposingly) improve the community relation.

@Jing - I'll sell my soul to WARBEAST and have you massed til the end of your Nations day.

some good thoughts, however in real life,the UN HAS NEVER, nor could we, legislate the length of a war. But I agree there should be some rewards and penalties for winners and losers, as well as benchmarks to measure who won and who lost....maybe also the members of the Un who were VIPS could shut out the losers from buying anything on the market for a round, kind of like an embargo.

What your saying sounds like a “play date” war.

What we need is to have some clans actually hate other clans. – remember the UA and X thing – we were really after each other. Frankly both sides enjoyed it in the end.

Bring on the hate folks – it’s a war game, don’t pussyfoot around and arrange friendly wars between clans – one clan should just take it upon themselves to whack the crap out of another clan.
(Nirvana Vs SM was fun – Nirvana Vs 7th was still better then nothing, shoot, SM and 7th should get some friends together and get a bit of revenge. Both of their clans got messed up fairly badly in the wars they should be looking to even up the score.)

I’m doing a tec round this time, but I’ll tell you, if nations slips into another period where we have months upon months without a serious war again I’ll bring back UA. And UA will go after one or more clans.

So to sum up – we need more hate. Someone get WB back here – we can all mass him. (what was that war 65 to 15?)


Disclaimer:
My thoughts and opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinions of my clan – Chattan.

One thing that bothers me with the oil use,the oil should have a very low consumption on vehicles when not battling or defending.Because in fighting you use up more because your going in force(also transporting food for troops).But when not engaged in battle you only use a small fraction of oil for basic movenment of planes and such within your nation.

Aircraft carriers should be implemented for the transportation of military to a certain target,and take x amount of time.Taking x ammount of turns to move ground troops and vehicles before attack.

With that being said a world or nations map should be constructed to show current movement and position....giving estimates on attack days.Each symbolized by current clan or abbrev.

Thanks for clearing my doubts. lol

I think Blake should get off his butt and make a war function.

Pic:
"So to sum up – we need more hate. Someone get WB back here – we can all mass him. (what was that war 65 to 15?)"

...LMFAO!

"@Jing - I'll sell my soul to WARBEAST and have you massed til the end of your Nations day."

pfft
get in line, there are already about 3 peeps who wanna mass me during my raise.

btw if pic brings back UA..
i'm in!

War is determined in game:

Use a war meter. War meter measures total land gained vs. total land lost by the clan.

Meter available on clan page.

Set a standard, for example: First clan with a 100 land lead will get the win.

Terms for loss can depend on the clans involved.

MAKE IT BENEFITIAL for a war:

ie: every attack causes 1 more land to exchange.

This would encourage more wars.

WAR (VICTORY) is determined by WHOM SURRENDERS first!

Warbeast said it best but I want to chime in.

You don’t need meters or friendly agreements –you can tell who the loser is. It’s the guy who “whines and cries” and who then gives up or “pays tribute” on the forums – or whose nation or clan gets crushed.

War is boring.

Did some of you read the first post at all? :(

I don't care about hate, in-game war functions, or whatsoever! I just hope that there's meaning to war! Pic, WARBEAST, get this straight: NO ONE IN NATIONS SURRENDERS!

Just look at the previous two rounds, with Nirvana versus SM and Nirvana versus 7thC. Nirvana was obviously the victor comparing the end-of-round tech, but, did SM and 7thC said anything about "we lost the war; we surrender"?

People wouldn't admit their defeat unless reality smite them in the face. All I was proposing is that a winning condition should be arranged, so that there won't be any sore losers!

Now, if we are to introduce forfeits as well, that would totally bring meanings to war. If those two Nirvana wars had forfeit that the losing clan is to disband, then you wouldn't be seeing SM and 7thC anymore in Nations! Imagine the chaos in that! (chaos == fun :)

if that clan disband, then they just make another one and the players would just join that one.

but say nirvana won sm's battle(which they did). Sm disband. nirvana comes in to take the members. so do other clans. nirvana get 50 members now. we have a total of 82 active known members in NN clans. nirvana declare war on DK. DK loses due to nirvana's superior numbers. DK's ranks join nirvana. Move on the IC. Nirvana wins. IC disband. IC members = Nirvana members. Repeat till we're all one big happy clan who just techs and never attack anyone until someone leaves us. then we mass the crud outta them. they leave because the game is getting boring.

BTW: you can't just accept a clan war or decline. if you decline, we'll still mass the crud outta ya!
Don't you just love the hate?

the end ^^

and don't say it won't happen, humans are sheeps. NN players are no exception.

AND THAT is where my thought came it - you gain more attacking in a war!


Here's a completely radical thought that would change the entire face of Nations.

It's twofold.

1: All players that are not currently in clans are "assigned" to the smallest clans, to balance out the numbers. Any time a new Nation is created, they are assigned to the smallest clan.

2: Clan size is capped at 5 SAs, 25 Total members.

3: Players can only switch clans, not leave and become "clan-less". They may only join clans with less than 25 members.

4: If a nation is "Destroyed" (i.e. 0 land remains), he must restart in a new clan.

5: Nations inactive for 4 days are deleted.

6: Formalized Clan War system. That would be up to the discretion of the Admins how it would work. As well, a win/loss record would be kept on site, giving more incentive for a clan to fights wars.



THIS is a work in progress, btw.

Yes, BEAT i read your original post. After reading all comments here I say that I agree with Pic's and WARBEAST's posts and thoughts. I play this game because it is a wargame. And before any one opens their mouth about tech I'll say this: 1. Tech aids your ability to wage war and 2. Why is there an attack option?

/beats Beat

ZOMG!! TEH ZERGY!!