Verified:

Makinso Game profile

Member
2908

Oct 25th 2011, 13:22:16

Just a silly idea I had.


We all have something against these early wars atm apparently it seems. Wouldn't it be an option to do like a -50% civs killed per hit penalty for the first week of the set and a -25% civs killed per hit for the second week or something along those lines.

Idea needs some more thought just worth considering if you're looking to stop early wars.

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9478

Oct 25th 2011, 13:32:22

Meh early war doesn't bother me. If you go to war early you make yourself vulnerable to other alliances as you're not growing as they are and once the war is over you'll get raped.

crest23 Game profile

Member
4666

Oct 25th 2011, 13:48:03

@Makinso, Requiem just stated the penalty for early wars. When the a war is over, you get raped.
The Nigerian Nightmare.

Rockman Game profile

Member
3388

Oct 25th 2011, 15:27:56

Originally posted by Makinso:
Just a silly idea I had.


We all have something against these early wars atm apparently it seems. Wouldn't it be an option to do like a -50% civs killed per hit penalty for the first week of the set and a -25% civs killed per hit for the second week or something along those lines.

Idea needs some more thought just worth considering if you're looking to stop early wars.


By "we all", you mean all of SoL?

Some people like early wars. I'm one of them. Just because you lack the skill to balance growth with killing doesn't mean that everyone hates early wars. It just means that SoL needs some better strategy advisors.

Marshal Game profile

Member
32,589

Oct 25th 2011, 16:43:54

doubt there'll be much raping on loser besides winner(s) of war since pacts prevent that.
Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....

Chewi Game profile

Member
892

Oct 26th 2011, 1:15:29

This would make early suiciders really annoying.

Kalick Game profile

Member
699

Oct 26th 2011, 15:24:55

Marshal is correct, but that is more a fault of the pacting system in Alliance than a game mechanics issue.

Rockman Game profile

Member
3388

Oct 26th 2011, 15:28:22

Originally posted by Kalick:
Marshal is correct, but that is more a fault of the pacting system in Alliance than a game mechanics issue.


Not really. If you're netting, why would you want to provoke an alliance that already lost a war? The damage they can do with their restarts is not worth the land you can get from farming them. And if you're not netting, what respect can you get for picking a fight with an alliance that already lost one war this set? In neither case is it worth it for an alliance to pick a fight with the loser of a war.

Marshal Game profile

Member
32,589

Oct 26th 2011, 18:34:50

and next set that farming alliance might get (I'd say chances are quite high) fs'd due farming so not that worthy unless is willing to take that risk.
Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....