Then my apologies if I have misjudged your time in the game.

The one month time, that was an arbitrary amount of time off the top of my head, I thought I had mentioned that at the start of the debate. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. Anything else could be considered. Two weeks, 1 week??

The point of this debate is, revamp the war scenario. Stop the use of wars as an add on to the general play. Make it what it should be, a last ditch super threat. Make it more menacing. If need be, tweak the other end of stuff. make a war a minimum of 48 hours even if the defending alliance has surrendered. In the real world, peace talks take place, an agreed time passes and then hostilities cease. "11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month". Not with immediate effect.

So, if a war lasts three weeks, one side surrenders, before things cease completely, 24/48 hours pass regardless of the war having been ongoing already at this point for three weeks. Likewise, when those hostilities have come to their conclusion, no more combat for that minimum time frame, whether that is a week, two weeks, a month, then that can be decided upon.

War rules may and will be used as an exploit method, no matter how well written they are. Today some use it just to bash another player, but with OZ' suggestion it could be used to avoid conflict, as king pointed out. Rewriting the rules is hard, and if needed it should be done in a forum discussion, voting each of the laws proposed. That said, I agree that as they are now wars are treated as something more trivial than they should.
Still, this is a war game. We can't just make them something unthinkable.
How about some sort of penalty for the losing part? Perhaps some sort of payment defined by the reason that started the war. So, if a member from alliance A disrespected a member from alliance B and a war is lost by B, that said member is kicked from the crew. Or if alliance A loses, the member from A who took offense is dismissed from it. In a war started for profit, the loser would have to pay a given amount of res to the winner, that sort of thing. That would make you think twice before going to war while making it something more serious than just a victory mentioned in the forums.

I think the standard war rules are adequate, wars are useless. Typically no need to hit any location more than 3 times consecutively. The issue is rule manipulation by people in a position of trust, that also have vested interest in outcome of war. That's the elephant that seems to be in a different room.

I would love to see bells and whistles, automatic tallies and a war score board with extra stats.

Fleethound said, "I would love to see bells and whistles, automatic tallies and a war score board with extra stats."

Well, as useful a comment as per usual. Thanks for the input I don't think.

Fleethound said "I think the standard war rules are adequate, wars are useless. Typically no need to hit any location more than 3 times consecutively. The issue is rule manipulation by people in a position of trust, that also have vested interest in outcome of war. That's the elephant that seems to be in a different room.".

Wars are not useless, they justt need to be made a threat again. Also, this gives protection to those players who DO NOT have this supposed "vested interest".

As for your elephant? Perhaps you have mislaid it?

Well FleetHound, I know many players that would disagree. Of course you would have to be more specific to discuss it openly.
There is a discussion happening here, proposed by Zorg, specifically about war rules. IF you think people manipulate the rules actually in force, why don't you offer an alternative? Perhaps something that people in a position of trust can't bend?

A war is generally made between two alliances who have beef with each other. In my opinion, one of the main reasons why wars are not a threat any more is because a lot of the top players are either in the same alliance, or have developed friendships or a peace treaty among themselves. Back in the day, there was so much competition, among the top 50-60 players that drama would cause wars to develop. For example, AZG :Vs: ~V~. Because of the separation among the top players and the friendships many of them have developed, this drama has become few and far between.

In the Xtreme Universe, we just had a war between Valhalla and Azguard. Many people complained that Valhalla did not make a very strong effort to deal some damage. However from what I saw, they appeared to have a strategy to let Azguard come to them. When Azguard would make an attack, it seemed as if Valhalla would make an attempt at ninjaing the incoming fleets. In the end, Valhalla gave Azguard a run for their money until the very last minute when Gozar was able to save the day and crash a fleet that would ultimately win the war.


This is an idea that I have come up with that I believe might not ever happen, but would make things very interesting.


Each universe would have its own tournament where all the players are divided up into even alliances. These alliances would then be put into a grid where they would compete with each other for a set amount of time. At the end of each round, one of these alliances would win and move onto the next round. The winning alliances would face each other until an alliance eventually won the whole shabang.


Is this possible? Yes. is it probable? Probably not. However, it would bring a lot of competition back into the zorg community.

I like the idea, but as you say, improbable. There are too many conflicts, personal issues. There would be no way that you could get players together like this.

If you could opt out, go in to a separate competition, then yes, you may get some takers. BUt that would detract from the main servers. The only thing to do is have a tourny competition on a more regular basis.


But back to the war issue. How we go about suggesting how to make war fairer, if you could ever do this. How to make war a thing of great threat and something that will not be entered into unless as a last resort?

Exactly. That was my main point of my first idea. (To create a new server for each universe for a tournament) but as you said it would detract from the actual game. Perhaps the winning alliances getting 10.000 rubies as a whole would intrigue players to participate.

It sure as hell would, lol. Rubies are a commodity, the game's bread and butter, unfortunately, that is quite a considerable amount. It would be nice, I don't think it would be economically viable though.