A measurable Victory in war....?

[Wolf359]

I originally went to post this in The Rooks war victory thread - but since that contains a poll specifically to do with his suggestion, I've decided to create a new thread...

Another (and easy) way to determine victory would be to make it that if a players def drops below a certain level (determined by player size/stats at the start of the war, and their ability to recover (UP/Naq production)) for a certain amount of time (again - determined by state of account at start of the war, and recovery ability), then they are effectively captured due to having no defence (the enemy breaks through etc), and can play no part in the remainder of the war.

They then become a POW and can take no further part in it - their realm is put into Protective Custody until the end of the war. The winner is the alliance who either:

a) captures the entire opposing alliance

or

b) captures the most members of the other alliance (based on respective alliance sizes) within the time limit of the war.

There could be an option during the war for a POW/realm to be released from custody in return for a payment of resources - or as a POW exchange between the warring alliances, or as a condition of surrender. Equally - some form of tribute could be paid for release of POWs at the end of the war - whether this is in terms of resources (there would have to be sensible set limits based on the individuals/alliance capacity to produce such resources), or an enforced 'in-game' NAP.

There could then be other options built in to enhance the game - such as covert or joint military/covert operations to free POWs and captured realms - but that is getting a bit more complicated.

It's just an idea that popped into my head - based loosely on rules others have came up with for their own private battles - it needs a bit of work, but I'd be glad to hear any thoughts.

[cloak]

The coding will be incredibly hard but it sounds good

[weilandsmith]

what about production of realms in POW status? shouldn't resource production be redirected to the the person or alliance that "captured" the realm?

[Casshern]

would this not be giving to much of an advantage to the alliance that strikes first

[weilandsmith]

would this not be giving to much of an advantage to the alliance that strikes first

that's the way it is. those who strike first and succeed get the plunder.

that's why the armies around the world always want to strike first.

[Evilevi777]

love the idea, but what all would the POW status come with, of course you couldn't attack the alliance holding you prisoner, but what about other players, would it be a no attack status or just on those in the alliance that captured you?

[Lore]

would this not be giving to much of an advantage to the alliance that strikes first

I fully agree. This is far to exploitable.

Look at it like this, if an alliance is all from one country and all have jobs that keep them away from the game for 3 or 4 days, or even during the week. Maybe they play the most active on weekends. Or their days off are mon and tuesday. If the opposing team ever picks up on theses details they can be used in a way that undefendable. Secondly, what time frame are we looking at? if its 24 hrs or less I feel its to harsh because many people are not active every 24 hrs. If its 48 hrs I think its useless becaus 48hr after att, then 48 hrs of ppt, then 48 hrs after att, the 48 hrs of ppt, means the option is null and void as it can be stopped.

Just some faults is can see. Maybe make it a war type option, IDK

[Lore]

love the idea, but what all would the POW status come with, of course you couldn't attack the alliance holding you prisoner, but what about other players, would it be a no attack status or just on those in the alliance that captured you?

Another problem would be friendly alliances capturing their own friends for protection.

[TheRook]

love the idea, but what all would the POW status come with, of course you couldn't attack the alliance holding you prisoner, but what about other players, would it be a no attack status or just on those in the alliance that captured you?

Another problem would be friendly alliances capturing their own friends for protection.

yup I too believe it would be too easy exploited as it stands because you can force your allied alliances into protection and if there are 2-3 who dont lose their defences on either side they could just keep everyone else sat as a POW and be protected from hits etc...

if you can work around that I think its a nice idea as another war "type" like planet stealing... a POW war

TheRook

[Wolf359]

would this not be giving to much of an advantage to the alliance that strikes first

I fully agree. This is far to exploitable.

Look at it like this, if an alliance is all from one country and all have jobs that keep them away from the game for 3 or 4 days, or even during the week. Maybe they play the most active on weekends. Or their days off are mon and tuesday. If the opposing team ever picks up on theses details they can be used in a way that undefendable. Secondly, what time frame are we looking at? if its 24 hrs or less I feel its to harsh because many people are not active every 24 hrs. If its 48 hrs I think its useless becaus 48hr after att, then 48 hrs of ppt, then 48 hrs after att, the 48 hrs of ppt, means the option is null and void as it can be stopped.

Just some faults is can see. Maybe make it a war type option, IDK

It wouldn't really be exploitable because it would be something built into the current in-game war system (as you hinted at) - and the advantage doesn't really go to whoever strikes first because of the time allowed to regain the def limit.

It would also be that war would have to be declared AND accepted for any of this to work - if the alliance declaring attacks prior to the other side accepting, then they would effectively be lowering the required defence level their opponents need to maintain - making it easier for them to stay above the limit. Alternatively, there could even be an agreement of what time the war begins.

Would it be difficult to code? Maybe, but it's mainly about percentages so it shouldn't be too difficult - and I don't think it would be the most complicated coding within SGW.

Because it is built into the war system - it would only allow the opposing alliance to capture players. Captured players would not take any further part in the war, and my initial thought is that they would not be able to attack anyone else either (I'm basing and justifying that on, at the moment, I'm viewing these as limited duration type wars). However, as mentioned before, there is the possibility of missions to liberate anybody captured, and there could also be the possibility of a new covert stat - possibly 'stealth' which could be used by the POW in an attempt to escape - this would probably be limited to an as yet undetermined amount of attempts per day.

What happens to a POWs realm when they are captured? Good question. Initial response would be to say it falls within the temporary grasp of the captor. However, another thought would that the realm would have to be captured separately - and this could involve motherships. In order to take custody of the realm, the captor of the POW must send their mothership out on a capture mission. Success here would be determined by 2 factors:

a) the mothership has sufficient stats (as yet undetermined - but probably determined by the size of the realm to be 'captured') to maintain control of the realm (I'm assuming that the POW mothership is captured along with the POW);

and

b) the enemy mothership gets their before a friendly mothership.

If a friendly mothership gets there first, then that players motherhsip takes temporary custody of the realm. They will not be able to make significant changes to the realm or train/untrain troops sell weapons etc, but they would be able to divert resources, produced from the time they take custody, to anywhere else within the alliance. They would not be allowed to put the realm on PPT, but they could put it on vacation mode.

In friendly custody, the realm would produce maximum resources.

In enemy custody, the realm would produce 40% - 60% of resources (randomly), due to the unwillingness of the population.

Whichever gets there first - a mothership has to be in attendance to maintain control (and this includes for maintenance of vacation mode - the friendly MS would effectively enter vacation mode too (enemy control would not allow vacation mode)).

If the opposing sides so wish, they can attempt to wrestle control of a POW's realm away from each other. In the hands of a friendly realm, resource output would remain at it's normal level (in this case the opposing realm would still be able to raid/steal naq). In the hands of an enemy realm

One thing this means is that the role of the mothership becomes much more important and alliances/individuals will have to decide whether they want to keep motherships available to capture enemy/friendly POW realms, or whether they should keep sending them off to 'look for planets' to keep them safe.

As for people who cannot be there the whole time during the war - that simply encourages better planning - and because this wouldn't kick in until both sides agree - if they know they are going to be away, they can opt out in vacation mode (or ppt initially of appropriate).

[TheRook]

the income/up production "stealing" (a set % which the other (not stolen)% will be the captured persons up/income) for those captured as POW's could work quite well if it just gets added in with the POW's still being able to fight and attack but will have to bribe their freedom (they can get the naq from someone else via broker and "bribe" for their freedom)

The payment would be based on a % of that persons income which gets LOWER the longer they are captured

So if you stay as a POW your funding them on the turn but also the longer your captured the cheaper the bribe for freedom so its a tough situation...

Could make it more hard work for those who capture POW's by their acts not being condoned by the nox and while they have that POW(s) they will not be protected by nox or defcon setting.

just adding possible ideas. (just because everything deserves input which can hopefully make it smoother and more likely to get implemented )

Good luck Wolfie

TheRook

[Wolf359]

Cheers for the input bud - I like it!

In all honesty - I think I was on autopilot when I typed that last post - it was 03:30 am, I was tired, and ideas were coming almost faster than I could type!!

[TheRook]

Cheers for the input bud - I like it!

In all honesty - I think I was on autopilot when I typed that last post - it was 03:30 am, I was tired, and ideas were coming almost faster than I could type!!

I know what you mean that was the same process as my suggestion they just kept flowing and afterwards with peoples inputs it got refined into what it is so I hope the same people pick up on your suggestion and help tweak it and refine it to be an awesome beast of a suggestion

I'l lahve another think later