Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Surrender terms for wars in Illyriad
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Surrender terms for wars in Illyriad

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 4.00   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Sir A View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sir A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Surrender terms for wars in Illyriad
    Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 20:05
At the risk of sounding like a troll and probably angering a lot of my allies/enemies/neutral players in the process I am going to make a suggestion about surrender terms in Illyriad wars. 

When an alliance surrenders they should be the ones that receive reparations.  So the "winning" side of the war pays the "losing" side of the war gold/res after the war is over so they can rebuild.  

I realize how crazy and even unrealistic this suggestion sounds since the losing side of a war has always had to pay reparations since...forever.  So I do not really expect anyone to agree with this but I thought it would be worth putting it up for discussion since Illyriad is so different from other games in this genre.  Here are a few reasons why this *could* be a good tradition to start in Illyriad.  

1. Generally speaking the side that surrenders has already endured more losses than the other side so having them pay reparations is kind of like beating a dead horse.  

2. Would make players/alliances less scared of PvP since they would know that if they lose a war they would not be crippled by having to pay reparations after they have already lost towns/players. 

3. Players would be less inclined to hold grudges for months/years.

4. The winning side of the war would not gain so much power so they would not easily be able to dominate the server for years (which is one of the causes of this big server war right now in my opinion) thus making the game more balanced.  

5. This could work for Illyriad since it is so different from other games in its genre.  Think about it; there is no end game in sight and we are already known as one of the "nicest" and most helpful communities since we give instead of take from new players and it seems to work out in everyone's best interest.  So why not apply this to alliance warfare?  Its kind of like the wining side saying "Good fight mate, here's some things so you can rebuild, see you at the rematch!"  

I was going to post why this *could* be a bad idea also but I'm sure some of you can come up with way more reasons than I can so I will leave that up to you guys to discuss.  And I know there are many good reasons not to do this but personally I think more good would come of this than harm.  

Like I said I know this is pretty unrealistic even for Illyriad because there is no way that most alliance leaders on the winning side would ever agree to pay the losing side since it is not profitable or even logical for most players.  Also some players on the losing side might even be offended by someone even making this suggestion because of pride etc.,

But to both sides I just have this to say; this is a game and even if you have spent hundreds of $ on it the whole point is to have fun.  Please don't bring greed or pride into a game because that ruins the whole point of it being a game that you play for your entertainment.  We have enough greed/pride in real life and I think most people use this as an outlet to escape some of that stuff.  Some people play because they are bored and just like the GC community, some love strategy games and this should not really affect war strategy since all reparations would be made after a war is over. 

The only players that I think this would hurt is the ones that use an online game as a way to become "rich" or "powerful" because it makes them feel better about themselves and their shortcomings in their real life which is not really healthy at all if you ask me.  It's normal for human beings to get attached to something after having it in their lives for months/years but I hope that attachment is to the relationships formed with other people and not the pixel cities or gold on your screen.  If you are insulted by what I just said I'm sorry but that's what I think.  

Lastly, everything I have said is my own personal opinion and is by no means endorsed by my alliance.  I have absolutely no say in surrender terms for any player or alliance but am merely making a suggestion since there seems to be a lot of greed and wounded pride in this and past wars.  
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 20:54
I have said something similar in the past.  This would never occur in reality, but it makes a lot of sense.  One of the main problems is that it would disincentivize the party that is winning from wishing to end the war, since it might be cheaper for them to just have the war continue.

Personally I think it would be more fun if prior to a war there were agreed-upon parameters for what it means to "win" and what the consequences of "winning" or "losing" would be.  Some people would probably find this to be annoyingly bureaucratic though.
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 20:54
Perhaps the winners should require the losers to transfer their advanced resources, so they cannot rebuild troops. The winners would then supply the basic resources necessary to rebuild cities. Letting a defeated enemy keep a full military stockpile seems like a terrible idea.
Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aurordan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 21:51
I gotta say, as someone who enjoys his politics and role playing, this sounds like the lamest idea ever.  We have tournaments for soft-core, low stakes PvP.  That's not really the purpose of wars.   I would maybe get it if there weren't so many neutral/non-PvP alliances all over the place and people were being trapped in conflicts, but they mostly aren't.   
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Deranzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 22:07
So what is the point of winning .?. "Oh, we fought and we finally won ... here guys, we will pay for your trouble and do not mind our damages and expenses ... " LOL 

This is the most unreasonable thing I have ever heard ...
Back to Top
Miklabjarnir View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 07 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 73
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miklabjarnir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 03:05
This sounds like the Marshal plan. Of course, people who want to fight more wars will not go for it. Grudges and desire for revenge do not thrive when the winner treats the loser decently.

I think a better solution would be to make the cost of offensive warfare more realistic. In the pre-gunpowder era, succeeding in a siege was a very iffy thing. An army far from home could run out of supplies long before any besieged city. Sieges would take months, not days. They would also lose part of the army every day away from home - to disease, accidents, hunger and desertion. 

A change in that direction would balance the situation between the winners and losers, and might also make the winners more likely to offer decent terms in order to limit their own expenses.
Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 03:09
This would be a good idea in a community that cares about the game, but we need to come to terms with the fact that Illy has changed for the worse.
Sure, we still feed the newbs because sending basic res to dozens of players every day has no effect on fully built accounts.

The part that has changed is the destruction of accounts, the trolling in gc, the revenge and all around negative feelings that take root in most games that become stagnant.

Are the devs to blame for hyping up new updates and then not bringing them out? Are the vets responsible because they're bored and just want to have 'fun', regardless of consequences?

Who really knows anymore.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 05:37
Originally posted by Sir A Sir A wrote:

Like I said I know this is pretty unrealistic even for Illyriad because there is no way that most alliance leaders on the winning side would ever agree to pay the losing side since it is not profitable or even logical for most players.
it's unrealistic mostly because of the way the majority of illyriad policy makers approach war and peace. the threat of crippling reparations is used as a deterrent to conflict, and peace with former opponents is ensured by depriving them of the means to field a credible force (via forced razings and penalties in res and gold). for all its friendliness, illy's dominant approach to inter-alliance relationships is mired in theory x.

assisting a defeated opponent in rebuilding is only appropriate in certain situations. it will be much easier to scoff at this suggestion than to assess how the conditions might be created that would make it effective.
Back to Top
ES2 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ES2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 12:25
Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

This would be a good idea in a community that cares about the game, but we need to come to terms with the fact that Illy has changed for the worse.




Who says? You?

I long have preferred Illyriad to it's first year than the cold war climate it faced for such a long time, imo, it is far better in recent times than it has been for a very long bit.
Eternal Fire
Back to Top
Sir A View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sir A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 16:00
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I have said something similar in the past.  This would never occur in reality, but it makes a lot of sense.  One of the main problems is that it would disincentivize the party that is winning from wishing to end the war, since it might be cheaper for them to just have the war continue.

Personally I think it would be more fun if prior to a war there were agreed-upon parameters for what it means to "win" and what the consequences of "winning" or "losing" would be.  Some people would probably find this to be annoyingly bureaucratic though.

Yeah I know this would never occur in reality and honestly don't expect anyone from either side to take this suggestion seriously (not even sure that I can lol) but was just curious to see where some people stand.  Its way too nice even for Illyriad, and also the fact that some alliances are choosing to fight until their total destruction means that they don't care what the terms are.  Its just annoying that some of them choose to cry in GC about their cities getting wrecked when they chose to fight to the end.  You would think someone who chooses to fight to the end has come to terms with what that means but I guess not everyone has.  So lets keep fighting and see what happens.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.