I think the new rules for mercenaries is good, but the bigger issue of what denotes a "Surrender" is still left up in the air. Does the victorious party need to accept a surrender (under the terms they have created) for a Surrender to be valid?

I agree with you that there should be some loss if you surrender, but I also say that if you lose something, that same alliance cannot declare war on you for a certain period of time (to prevent people taking advantage of surrender bonus)

i think that if you have pullemed an alliance to the point that they surrender they have lost enough. And to give a surrender condition will only allow the larger and more skilled alliances an opportunity to gain even more from it.

However, if there is a "condition of Surrender" there should be an "agreement of war", so the alliance that has had war declared upon them can have a 24 hr window to agree upon the war or just say no.

One thing I would really like to see is.. allowing both agreeing alliances to set rules of a "win" so it just doesnt drag to nothingness. For example, they could agree to a certain time limit, say 30 days. and whoever does the most damage is declared winner. OR set a damage limit, like whoever does 5billion dmg first wins. So long as both parties agree, or it just defaults to the standard war rules. This has been done on other similar games so dont see why it cant be done here.

But I think the problem is the fact that it doesn't matter who wins or loses, you have nothing to shoot for. Maybe if you could get like all the resources they produce for one day, evenly split up between your alliance.

Spankie wrote:i think that if you have pullemed an alliance to the point that they surrender they have lost enough. And to give a surrender condition will only allow the larger and more skilled alliances an opportunity to gain even more from it.

However, if there is a "condition of Surrender" there should be an "agreement of war", so the alliance that has had war declared upon them can have a 24 hr window to agree upon the war or just say no.

One thing I would really like to see is.. allowing both agreeing alliances to set rules of a "win" so it just doesnt drag to nothingness. For example, they could agree to a certain time limit, say 30 days. and whoever does the most damage is declared winner. OR set a damage limit, like whoever does 5billion dmg first wins. So long as both parties agree, or it just defaults to the standard war rules. This has been done on other similar games so dont see why it cant be done here.

Here is why that doesn't work....

Alliance A pummels weaker members of alliance Z. Alliance Z declares war on Alliance A.

After 24 hours, Alliance A surrenders. Alliance A then goes back to pummeling the weaker members of Alliance Z.

No conditions, no problem. Who cares? Alliance Z.

Alliance Z declares war on Alliance.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Utterly pointless.

In Zorg as in life, when a party declares war on another party it is to achieve an objective. The very meaning of surrender suggests giving something up or losing something. Without a condition of surrender, it is not a true surrender. It is simply abandoning the conflict.

As far as the limits for the war that you suggest, I don't think there is anything to stop two parties from agreeing on those kinds of conditions now. In the A~O vs. Memel war, I don't believe either side technically surrendered. They stopped the conflict on mutually agreeable terms.

In similar games and in Zorg, there is already a precedence for setting a condition of surrender. That was the case with ~V~ vs. AZG. Why are the rules being changed now?

What I am asking for is for it to be codified so that it is clear to all.

As far as the limits for the war that you suggest, I don't think there is anything to stop two parties from agreeing on those kinds of conditions now. In the A~O vs. Memel war, I don't believe either side technically surrendered. They stopped the conflict on mutually agreeable terms.

In similar games and in Zorg, there is already a precedence for setting a condition of surrender. That was the case with ~V~ vs. AZG. Why are the rules being changed now?

quoting directly from teh rules

-Players may not decide upon their own terms of war that are in violation of these rules.

as far as precedence, it was a bending of the rules by ~V~ , and the moderators didnt have the balls to say,, nope, cant do it like that.. Even tho i think it should be allowed, I also think we should make up our friggin minds which way we want it. Some alliances are restricted while others run rampant mainly due to the position they hold.

I might suggest doing a poll ( i dotn know how _) to have the members of the community decide. Sorry if you dont read the forums and dont vote, you'd be stuck with whatever those that do decided.

Spankie wrote:

As far as the limits for the war that you suggest, I don't think there is anything to stop two parties from agreeing on those kinds of conditions now. In the A~O vs. Memel war, I don't believe either side technically surrendered. They stopped the conflict on mutually agreeable terms.

In similar games and in Zorg, there is already a precedence for setting a condition of surrender. That was the case with ~V~ vs. AZG. Why are the rules being changed now?

quoting directly from teh rules

-Players may not decide upon their own terms of war that are in violation of these rules.

as far as precedence, it was a bending of the rules by ~V~ , and the moderators didnt have the balls to say,, nope, cant do it like that.. Even tho i think it should be allowed, I also think we should make up our friggin minds which way we want it. Some alliances are restricted while others run rampant mainly due to the position they hold.

I might suggest doing a poll ( i dotn know how _) to have the members of the community decide. Sorry if you dont read the forums and dont vote, you'd be stuck with whatever those that do decided.

I know Slash and Ista were both mods at the conclusion of the ~V~ vs. AZG war and if you are suggesting that they didn't "have the balls" to stand up to ~V~ in the forums, you don't know them very well. I can't see how you could have read one of Slash's posts and get the idea that he was afraid to stand up to anybody. Though Ista is more diplomatic, back him into a corner at your own peril. He never backed down from anyone, including Slash, his friend and alliance mate at the time including giving him warnings. So what forums are you reading?

As far as suggesting that it bended the rules, that is simply rewriting history. Nobody complained that it was incorrect. Why? Precedence. Vets of these types of games have seen it many, many times before. Now, that it is inconvenient and certain members of HF have requested terms, all of sudden the terms are too harsh.

As far as a poll is concerned, as much as we would like to believe that we influence the administration of Zorg, this is no democracy. I am sure they take into consideration what we say here, but by no means does popular opinion set the rules. A poll is a good way to get a feel for the opinions of the community, but that is about it.

ok, i have my opinion, you have yours. That is fine. I would like to see what I wrote implemented. Whether it will or not, well whatever.

I never even considered HF when I wrote it and frankly both alliances are causing me to just sit back and not read the posts. Intollerably, both sides are so pigheaded that ONLY thier own views are worth anything. Its disgusting. I dont think ill post on the matters mentioned any more as it is a brick wall issue depending on which side of the wall you are standing on.

Spankie wrote:as far as precedence, it was a bending of the rules by ~V~ , and the moderators didnt have the balls to say,, nope, cant do it like that..

What?

Khan wrote:As far as a poll is concerned, as much as we would like to believe that we influence the administration of Zorg, this is no democracy. I am sure they take into consideration what we say here, but by no means does popular opinion set the rules. A poll is a good way to get a feel for the opinions of the community, but that is about it.

Zorg gave me permission a while back to alter the rules of war to more fit the games needs, so long as they revolve around the core that was set by the administration. So yes, i can alter the rules to some degree.

One thing i would like to ask though, in your idea of losing something when a surrender is called, what exactly do you suggest they "lose"?

I like Spankie's idea and had a thought along those lines myself, i'll look into it some more and start a poll when i've come up with a few plausible ideas.

-Istalris-

Maybe points for the alliance. Considering the total points for alliances is incorrect anyway, adding or subtracting points for wins or losses could be cool.