EE PatronJan 28th 2011, 21:55:00
so now that I have more time, I'd like to give this a true response.
1) I like the idea of your war weariness, mostly the general idea that as war goes on there should be some penalty. The immediate benefit after a FS is that even if the larger players who are able to break die, the 30% drop would allow a reasonable CS.
2) Balance would of course be delicate, and I could foresee a smaller alliance who wishes to attack a larger alliance being hurt by such a change. The dilemma would be that the smaller alliance would be devastated in a FS regardless, and now their FS would be weaker. I guess some part of me would hope that the change would be made such that the attacking alliance still has some benefit to hitting first, but just not the decision maker it seems to be today.
3) I like the idea of increasing the civ loss rate as a war rages on, especially given the bonus for population boost that was implemented.
4) If the goal is to encourage LGs why not have it affected by war weariness? a) This could have an interesting feedback for players who farm untags 40+ times a day. Now they will need to worry about retals that much more. b) Outside of farming, typically players make a few grabs a day and the war weariness would be minimal, less than the randomization in attacks already. I think that seems reasonable.
5) I'm not sure I know what you mean by bonus civs.
6) I think the 15% war weariness loss for FA is nice. For the most part, outside FA won't be too affected but assuming that the war weariness is displayed with military spying, it could be an interesting way to confirm suspicions of help.
It all definitely adds a good bit of new dynamics to war, but as I'm typically a netter, it would be prudent to hear some thoughts from others who predominantly war.
1) I like the idea of your war weariness, mostly the general idea that as war goes on there should be some penalty. The immediate benefit after a FS is that even if the larger players who are able to break die, the 30% drop would allow a reasonable CS.
2) Balance would of course be delicate, and I could foresee a smaller alliance who wishes to attack a larger alliance being hurt by such a change. The dilemma would be that the smaller alliance would be devastated in a FS regardless, and now their FS would be weaker. I guess some part of me would hope that the change would be made such that the attacking alliance still has some benefit to hitting first, but just not the decision maker it seems to be today.
3) I like the idea of increasing the civ loss rate as a war rages on, especially given the bonus for population boost that was implemented.
4) If the goal is to encourage LGs why not have it affected by war weariness? a) This could have an interesting feedback for players who farm untags 40+ times a day. Now they will need to worry about retals that much more. b) Outside of farming, typically players make a few grabs a day and the war weariness would be minimal, less than the randomization in attacks already. I think that seems reasonable.
5) I'm not sure I know what you mean by bonus civs.
6) I think the 15% war weariness loss for FA is nice. For the most part, outside FA won't be too affected but assuming that the war weariness is displayed with military spying, it could be an interesting way to confirm suspicions of help.
It all definitely adds a good bit of new dynamics to war, but as I'm typically a netter, it would be prudent to hear some thoughts from others who predominantly war.