War, War, War but no Surrender

[Fuzzyhead12]

so i have a problem right now with current politic systeme, its only War or allience, but why dont we are able to surrender?

What would be the conditions of surrender, well first, we need to make all ports except the capital open for a fight.

 

why? because some of them housing economic important goods, the primary resources for building ships.

 

in war there are 2 types of targets

 

Tactical Targets and Strategic Targets

 

 

Tactical Targets are pure Military, infantry, tanks planes, airstrips barracks and so on, in Navel action it would be Military ships and Forts (a small list )

 

Strategic Targets are Civillien targets, Factories, Cities, Economy, in NA Traders and Ports

 

To win a war you need to be able to push back the enmy forces into their territory (destroy Tactical targets) but at the same time you need to take over Ports to have a Bridgehead intpo the enmy territory, also you need to cut deep into the enemy economy so they cant produce ships, you need to hunt down traders and take ports with primary resources.

 

A nation counts as Defeated

 

As soon one Nation is able to push the enmy Nation in a situation where they cant supply their Towns, and Navy.

 

In that case (or earlier) the nation who got technically defeated can callout their surrender in wich they gain some Ports back and have 1 or 2 weeks no more wars with fought nation, and cant be attacked by other nation, untill the defeated nation call outs a war against another nation (of corse not the one who defeated them) of corse nation that got defeated are not able to be attacked. 

Maybe 2 defeated Nations would be able to callout a war to each other, if they havent deafeated eachother.

 

Player buildings should kept safe from the oposing faction

 

so, what you guys think? Would this be an addtion to the game? Tweaks? additional ideas? critic?

[Eishen]

I think a surrender system can be positive, but instead of an a objetive system to impose it ,  a voluntary surrender implemented in a similar  way as alliance/war polls...

 

 A single option for each nation marked as "at WAR"  ; surrendering Yes/No  .....with a result above a fixed % (i.e. 75%) your nation surrenders to this one AND his allies.....   what would this mean? You break all current alliances, lose all regions with a 50%+ the hostility treshold with the nations you surrender to and a forced alliance (a truce really but results would be the same) its imposed for two voting intervals.

 

why would a nation surrender?  

    Some (most?) times when the front crumbles the losing side will have recevied a crippling number of losses, and the remains would be unable to put a fight in the next region. The forced truce period allows you to rebuild your fleet and reconsider your strategy.

 

    Other times you can be assaulted in different fronts by different enemies (quite usual in this game with limited ally number)  , by surrendering to some of then  you can concentrate in other posible enemies (those not formally allied with your former enemy).

 

 

Why not an objetive to force surernder? mainly from a gaming perspective, having surrender imposed by the system/enemy on you can (will) be very frustating - many of us are from the "sinking all guns blazing" type -   , having it imposed by your fellow nationals would be frustrating too, but having someone to blame makes miracles.... you can try to convince them, or in a extreme event  change sides (instead of quiting playing) .

[Knobby]

I very much agree that this game needs a way to surrender, or at least an end to a war that is enforced by game mechanics for a set period of time.

We also very much need something between 'at war' and 'allied'. A neutral state that allows open world pvp but does not allow crafting of flags, or in the new system, the raising of hostility. Capturing ports should not be possible without a formal declaration of war.

 

I also think alliances shouldn't lapse between voting rounds to be honest.

 

To be honest I don't think the game will have much lasting interest without seasonal resets, allowing free nation swapping between seasons and maybe even a mechanism to shake up established alliances (new season means you can't ally the same nations as previous season).

[Fuzzyhead12]

I think a surrender system can be positive, but instead of an a objetive system to impose it ,  a voluntary surrender implemented in a similar  way as alliance/war polls...

 

 A single option for each nation marked as "at WAR"  ; surrendering Yes/No  .....with a result above a fixed % (i.e. 75%) your nation surrenders to this one AND his allies.....   what would this mean? You break all current alliances, lose all regions with a 50%+ the hostility treshold with the nations you surrender to and a forced alliance (a truce really but results would be the same) its imposed for two voting intervals.

 

why would a nation surrender?  

    Some (most?) times when the front crumbles the losing side will have recevied a crippling number of losses, and the remains would be unable to put a fight in the next region. The forced truce period allows you to rebuild your fleet and reconsider your strategy.

 

    Other times you can be assaulted in different fronts by different enemies (quite usual in this game with limited ally number)  , by surrendering to some of then  you can concentrate in other posible enemies (those not formally allied with your former enemy).

 

 

Why not an objetive to force surernder? mainly from a gaming perspective, having surrender imposed by the system/enemy on you can (will) be very frustating - many of us are from the "sinking all guns blazing" type -   , having it imposed by your fellow nationals would be frustrating too, but having someone to blame makes miracles.... you can try to convince them, or in a extreme event  change sides (instead of quiting playing) .

 

I very much agree that this game needs a way to surrender, or at least an end to a war that is enforced by game mechanics for a set period of time.

We also very much need something between 'at war' and 'allied'. A neutral state that allows open world pvp but does not allow crafting of flags, or in the new system, the raising of hostility. Capturing ports should not be possible without a formal declaration of war.

 

I also think alliances shouldn't lapse between voting rounds to be honest.

 

To be honest I don't think the game will have much lasting interest without seasonal resets, allowing free nation swapping between seasons and maybe even a mechanism to shake up established alliances (new season means you can't ally the same nations as previous season).

 

i realy like your ideas , these would suit the gameplay better then my original suggestion.

[Grundgemunkey]

surrender option if implemented could be a good tool  the nation you surrender to cannot attack your ships or ports . but can use your ports and maybe get a 50% reduction in resource cost .... maybe a waste of devs time to implement though why have a tool only french would use

[Eishen]

surrender option if implemented could be a good tool  the nation you surrender to cannot attack your ships or ports . but can use your ports and maybe get a 50% reduction in resource cost .... maybe a waste of devs time to implement though why have a tool only french would use

 

Thats the reason I suggest a "forced alliance" during the truce, it allows use of ports and prevents attacks....and it is already implemented so no wasted time..

 

As for you comment on use... I do not know who would be so CLEVER to resort to it , but IMHO US, Spain, Sweden and Netherlands have been in some moment in a position were it would has been useful to their interests

[Grundgemunkey]

Thats the reason I suggest a "forced alliance" during the truce, it allows use of ports and prevents attacks....and it is already implemented so no wasted time..

 

As for you comment on use... I do not know who would be so CLEVER to resort to it , but IMHO US, Spain, Sweden and Netherlands have been in some moment in a position were it would has been useful to their interests

 

but the attacking nation doesn't get any real benefit through forced alliance ......the rest of my post was just an attempt at a little humour

[Eishen]

but the attacking nation doesn't get any real benefit through forced alliance ......the rest of my post was just an attempt at a little humour

 

You have a point.... but  maybe adjusting the % on "lose all regions with a 50%+ the hostility treshold with the nations you surrender"  could suffice. The discount in resources seems quite un-historical...loot rights does not seem fit the age

[Rebel Witch]

Great idea, we desperately need this option and perhaps it could work as a vote just like in current politics in the game.

 

right now on pvp2, britain is being pummelled by a very affective pirate confederate and i have wanted britain to have the option to surrender because our home ports are over run and its hurting casual and new players, its gone on for weeks and no end in sight and more people just want it to end.

 

So maybe if we had the option to vote on surrender to an enemy somehow we could end unfavorable wars that are being perpetuated by one or two clans in the nation? at least its another option players have to affect change the majority wants.