Going to war cost

[Elemental_FIRE]

I realize that there is a 24 hour commitment.

How about we make it though that if 2 players are at war with each other, it takes up some of their income, since war is costly, even during cease fires. When at peace, there is a higher income. Of course both are really small, and it is cummulative. Lets say for every 100 friends there is a 1% bonus.

[god]

I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...

no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense

[Elemental_FIRE]

Okay, remove the part where you get an income bonus.

This idea was to slow down farming.

[god]

and why would we want to do that?

I <3 my farms

[Balhaar]

I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...

no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense

setting war just for naq..how dishounerable. in my and my alliances opinion it is abusing the system of war. War is meant as such. ALL OUT WAR!!

[Elemental_FIRE]

So war should have consequences.

If people want money they dont just randomly killing people and looting their wallets do they? There are consequences if they do that.

[CthulhuSpawn]

I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...

no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense

21 damn.....I have to agree with god on this one man, the idea is stupid.

[Cmdrproger-Reborn]

I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...

no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense

To quote Brian the dog, "god. is. pi553|)!!!"

I wish I had the patience to find farms...

[psychotic terrorist]

just like KGC he sent war on me just for my naq. what a loser!!!

[god]

I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...

no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense

setting war just for naq..how dishounerable. in my and my alliances opinion it is abusing the system of war. War is meant as such. ALL OUT WAR!!

give me some time and Ill probably get over it
.
.
.
.
ok, that was enough... I'm over it

[Lord_Olokun]

You go to war to get naquadah so that is the point. If I had no naquadah in the bank then I can't go to war then even if I have 1000000 turns?

[MAsterp]

this isnt the best idea i have heard lately

[the arbitrator]

i like the idea and make sense, but it wouldn't work in the game at all, it would unbalance it to much.

[Wolf359]

Well, the error in the argument is that it already costs more if both sides are set to war because more troops are lost and more damage is done to weapons.

So, if somebody sets you to war, there are 3 ways to protect yourself:

1. Threaten them

2. Try Diplomacy

3. Set them to war to increase their attack costs.

[Elemental_FIRE]

Well a lot of people attack me for naq and set me to war.

Yet, if I counter by setting to war destroying everything they have but not taking a single naquadah, I'm considered a jerk. Hmmm... I think the meaning of going to war is getting lost.