War Declaration System

[moorer]

Okay, I can understand why this system was introduced but, in its present format it can prove to be an incredible millstone around an alliance's neck.

In previous rounds we have seen the scenario where, eventually, the rank 1 ally reaches a virtually unassailable position due to sheer size. The war declaration was introduced to give smaller alliances a chance of toppling the top alliance by delaying the return of the target alliances injured troops.

This idea worked fairly effectively in the toppling of Enigma earlier in the round.

However I am now looking at a situation where an alliance has had war declared against it by two bigger alliances. Under the system the smaller alliance can only declare war against one of the bigger alliances. This means that it is having to fight the other bigger alliance with the additional handicap of having a 120 tick return on any troops it loses whereas the bigger alliance only has to wait 18 ticks.

This cannot be a scenario that the system was designed to propogate.

I would suggest that an alliance be allowed to declare war against any bigger alliance that declares war against it.

Furthermore where an alliance has multiple declarations against it, I believe some account must be taken of the combined values of the declaring alliances and a graduated level of injury returns be used. So (purely for example) if declaring alliances total value is less than twice the target alliance's then the full 120 ticks apply but if say their value rises to 2.5 times then the rate of return drops to 80, if 3 times it drops to 40 etc etc.

[WackyJacky]

If an alliance has declared war against your ally then the injured % should be higher. If I attack an alliance larger then myself I should be given a higher injury %. Didnt really bother spying so I came back to 3 tril lost and 500 bil killed. Now there were 2 defenders there. The alliance value was higher then mine and yet I am getting 40% or lower injury back (Dont feel like calcing it.)

[Davis]

Wacked what did your post have to do with his suggestion/gripe? just wondering... also I agree its not really fair to the alliance that has 2 declarations upon it yet it only gets the benefits of one declaration on one of them, and the con's on both of them yet they both get the benefits on that one ally. it should be looked into.

[DarkSider]

Imo war shouldn't need to be declared by both alliances. One declares war and then it's a state of war between the 2. And it would be even better if you had diferent types of declarations, adds a bit more to the strategy you want to adopt in war.

[moorer]

Yes Darksider I agree with your point on a declaration not really needing to be made by both sides for a war to be in effect.

However the main gist of that part of my gripe was the inequity of a bigger alliance getting its injured troops back quicker than a smaller alliance simply because the smaller alliance couldn't declare war against the bigger alliance because the current rule only allows an alliance to declare war against one alliance at any given time. This means situations can arise where an alliance can use the declaration to gain an unfair advantage in my opinion.

[Augustus]

The solution is simple, allow only 1 decleration against an alliance. Also I think that delayed injury returns should only apply to alliances officially involved in a war. This would remove the incentive for all these solos or other alliances to get involved.

[moorer]

The solution is simple, allow only 1 decleration against an alliance. Also I think that delayed injury returns should only apply to alliances officially involved in a war. This would remove the incentive for all these solos or other alliances to get involved.

Too open to abuse. Two "friendly" alliances could just declare against each other and thus prevent a "hostile" alliance making a legitimate declaration against either of them.

As far as I am aware the intention was that the delayed injury return would indeed only apply to losses caused by an alliance that had declared war against you. The problem we saw in the resistance war is that when you have 50+ mobs sent at you in a mix of allies who have declared war against you, allies that haven't and solos, the injury return rate seems to be applied to all losses irrespective of whose units actually inflict the losses. Maybe the rule should be extended to say that any attackers who join in such a "mixed" mob should all face 120 tick returns on their losses. This would make people think a little more before joining such attacks.

[Augustus]

The solution is simple, allow only 1 decleration against an alliance. Also I think that delayed injury returns should only apply to alliances officially involved in a war. This would remove the incentive for all these solos or other alliances to get involved.

Too open to abuse. Two "friendly" alliances could just declare against each other and thus prevent a "hostile" alliance making a legitimate declaration against either of them.

As far as I am aware the intention was that the delayed injury return would indeed only apply to losses caused by an alliance that had declared war against you. The problem we saw in the resistance war is that when you have 50+ mobs sent at you in a mix of allies who have declared war against you, allies that haven't and solos, the injury return rate seems to be applied to all losses irrespective of whose units actually inflict the losses. Maybe the rule should be extended to say that any attackers who join in such a "mixed" mob should all face 120 tick returns on their losses. This would make people think a little more before joining such attacks.

Oooh! I like! Sounds like a good deterent for all the gang bang alliances that were abundant last round :D

[mrmongo]

heh yeah i was on the recieving end of the resistances last round and it was harsh with 5 alliances all giving us long injurys and we could only dish it to 1 of those 5 alliances. Maybe that if you can have 1 main ally at war and then if others declare against you then they get injury delays against them aswell.
It kept the round going all round but was a lot of time to commit. and gradually fizzled out to a lude win. something needs adressing there oh and Augustus im p-solo this round if you want a nap, rob is aswell. ill leave it to you

[Charlie_B]

Moved to suggestions as i think that's the prevalent theme of the thread.

I wasn't involved with any alliance wars last round, but I can sympathise with those who suffered this problem and I see no reason not to allow alliances to declare war against any bigger alliance that declares war against it.

[Augustus]

I wasn't involved with any alliance wars last round, but I can sympathise with those who suffered this problem and I see no reason not to allow alliances to declare war against any bigger alliance that declares war against it.

I must have missed something. How does a small alliance declaring war on a larger one solve anything? Or are you saying that as things stand they're fine?