Encourage Wars

[Grimmu]

Am I playing farmville? I mean no disrespect towards utopia, but I seem to have this feeling quite a lot lately. Why?

Because there are not enough war. Im playing in descent KD with good activity and reasonably well managed provinces. We have good communication and intel sharing. During wars we are organized. So everything is good to go, but we don't have a place to go. KD we wave shy away, even when we give them the declaration option. Sometimes we are attacked, but that never ends with war. Our King goes around and almost begs for wars. Still Nothing. And so I sit in my undead throne and remember the old glorious days of war hero. And make sure that my land is build and income steady. Sometimes I borrow scientists from others. Train some more army for parades, because I have no good enemy to attack. Not really very motivating..

So What to do?
I suggest that the lords of utopia would encourage more wars. Perhaps not by randomly throwing KD's of similar size and NW at each other (but then again with advance warning, why not), but rather by encouraging more aggressive waves. For example.


1. Wave of 10 is automatic declaration - Defend yourself! - War, even in game should not be begging for getting theirs or mine ass kicked (pardon my french).
2. Flash wars. Lets say we pair up 2 similar KD and they have 24 hours to get more war points. Who ever has more at the end - wins.
3. Blood moon. Similar to above, but instead of automatic war the blood moon promises more gains from similar KD and lowers the threshold for declaring


These are just some ideas. I am well aware that there are problems here and some more.. progressive leaders will probably find ways to take advantage of it. But in my humble opinion it is still much preferred to checking in twice a day and making sure my flower fields are blooming and cattle well fed.

Kind regards,
Your average Joe
The UD/WH

[Palem]

This is a strategy game, not a war game.

I agree that people are way too shy when it comes to warring, but forcing people into wars is lame, especially wars that may be completely unprepared for.

Also, did you want this in suggestions? Or did you just want to talk about the situation?

[Persain]

This is a strategy game, not a war game.

I agree that people are way too shy when it comes to warring, but forcing people into wars is lame, especially wars that may be completely unprepared for.

Also, did you want this in suggestions? Or did you just want to talk about the situation?

war game is a subcategory of strategy game...i.e. a strategy game that has wars. The strategy part determines how u play and what your goals are, but since waring is innately part of the game it is by definition a war game.

With that said i personally think the game shouldnt "force" wars on someone because warring is so damaging to a prov and you'd go from war->recover->war before you have the activity from leadership to war again. Added that to wars actually already having huge advantages to wining in terms of land/honor (and if they add back in science from winning) and you'd get people smashing the hell outa people who'd never have a shot at winning just to take the game to an autowin. In light of those concepts i'd love to see military losses outside of war go to about 10% of their current numbers so "geting waved" doesnt actually hurt but add that to a caped meter of about 15 points so if u want to "attack" someone back for their wave your forced into war. Either eat the losses and cf, hold ops for 2 days w/out hitting or wave back for war. It wouldn't stop people waving with massacres or learns as they'd still do typical damage/gains but it'd drastically force wars fast or let kds who cant war pump faster/who can war reap the benefits of being strong.

[Palem]

war game is a subcategory of strategy game...i.e. a strategy game that has wars. The strategy part determines how u play and what your goals are, but since waring is innately part of the game it is by definition a war game.

Having warring an an available or even inevitable path of play doesn't define a game as a war game. You wouldn't call the Civ franchise war games would you?

[Persain]

Having warring an an available or even inevitable path of play doesn't define a game as a war game. You wouldn't call the Civ franchise war games would you?

yea i'd call civ 5 a war game...it is however even further sub-categorized as a x4 game. Every @#!$@ calling utopia a non war game for such a long time has annoyed me for a while because it really is a wargame. Chess, utopia, civ 5, the "total war" series, all "deal with military operations of a fictional type." Strategy games that wouldnt be "military' would be more like monolopy, ticket to ride, powergrid, sim city.... Just because you can play utopia w/out needing to "war" doesnt mean its not a war game, the inter-kd diplomacy involved to avoiding going to war "in game' defines the game as much if utopia allowed zero in game talking and ever time u hit someone war was autodeclared.

Thing is MOST strategy games are war games.... i mean technically you define chess as a war game because the origins of chess were to simiulate battle with an oponent though movements on a board. go over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming and read through some of the definitions. Simplest definition is to pull it from the wiki and "A wargame is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional. Wargaming is the hobby dedicated to the play of such games, which can also be called conflict simulations." IF you go down even father, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargam...t_or_map_scale utoipa falls under the unit scale categorization part and would be defined as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy_wargame
i.e. "Wargames typically focus on a war or series of wars, often over a long period of time. Individual units, even armies, may not be represented; instead, attention is given to theaters of operation. All of the resources of the nations involved may be mobilized as part of a long-term struggle"

Every time 2 kds come into conflict they are either doing diplomacy or "War" the scale of the 'War' is sometimes just i want some of your resources (land/science/honor). Its also why the hostile meter and fighting outa hostile and gbp and whatnot have pissed me off for a long time. If i hit u 40 times and u hit me 20 we are defintally 'Waring' even if the in game stance isnt giving us a war. The result is just often we cf w/out using the in game "War" mechanics that force a post war cf. We have things like the hostile meter and "war stance" to provide what seems like a more "fair" fight, and to stop bullying. i.e. i know of no one that would suggest the 75% gains protection for war be removed or to force any two kds that hit eachother into an auto "War" because of how beneficial the actual "war" stance is.

I personally think that taking land/science/honor outside of war should be easier, while military losses should be drastically decreased to address that its a "game' and not real life. If you dont want to lose land/science/honor fight back, if you fight back with attacks/magic/theivary you are "waring" that person. However, if your unable to fight back ideally u shouldnt be set back days and days of pumping military/wpa/tpa. Its why prosperous has been near universally hated. Its not that its a giant sign "im not ready to war" like old fort stance was its that its a sign "you'll get good gains off me, and i lose all my military and dont actually get to prep". People dont mind being hit for some land/science/plunders a bit, its that u get hit 3 times in 24 hours and u lose 36 hours of leets. Its "easy" to war on 50 science v 100 science, its impossible to war at 50% draft to 80% draft since land based gains exist at all(it shouldn't be impossible to war at that compareative draft rates IF nw based gains exist AND econ v military+land was balanced "correctly...hint it never has been).

[Coldhearted]

Odds are you are waving smaller opponents, hitting them full army's home while they are in pump mode. While you shy from waving up in size vs opponents in war build. Also don't look at land size vs land size. Warring kingdoms only look at nw. Also you must always remember this is a time based game and people play from all over the world. So you might be waving in the middle of the night for the opposing kingdom. So their is no one online to war you.

[Grimmu]

Im just reflecting and thinking loudly.

[Elit]

So What to do?
I suggest that the lords of utopia would encourage more wars. Perhaps not by randomly throwing KD's of similar size and NW at each other (but then again with advance warning, why not), but rather by encouraging more aggressive waves. For example.


1. Wave of 10 is automatic declaration - Defend yourself! - War, even in game should not be begging for getting theirs or mine ass kicked (pardon my french).

This is going to kill game for half age. People naturally wave KDs they are sure can beat, so its will turn in big farm/killing fest.
I understand you want wars but not every one want to war nonstop. Good kingdoms plans his war with RL shedule too. Imagine if leaders cant be online next 2 days because they have something RL and you force KD to war. Its very bad!

I agree with Palem, Utopia is not WAR game but Strategy. Good kingdoms do what give better profit.

[Swagger]

We've already warred three times. Negotiate arranged wars or wave someone much stronger than you. Waving for war is a nearly dead art.

[Paradise]

OP's ideas sound like "force" war, not encourage war.

If you really are desperate for war, waving/Asking bigger kd (land/nw) for war is a good start.

[Korp]

You are incorrect Persain, neither Civ nor Utopia is a war game since the games MAIN purpose isnt to war and only war. You can in Utopia achieve things without ever warring anyone as well you can win in Civ5 without warring once. If Utopia would be a war game the main and only component would be to war.

[Persain]

You are incorrect Persain, neither Civ nor Utopia is a war game since the games MAIN purpose isnt to war and only war. You can in Utopia achieve things without ever warring anyone as well you can win in Civ5 without warring once. If Utopia would be a war game the main and only component would be to war.

yea, sure, might as well say utopia isnt a "video game" either because theres no video. Thing is civ and utopia are DEFINED to be a war game by the defintion of what a war game is. The fact that they incorporate more than just the battlefield into themselfs doesnt negate what they are. Diplomacy for example could be a win condition in both, but if u wanted a non war game with diplomacy for example go take a look at http://store.steampowered.com/app/245470/Democracy_3/

Thats why when the OP says "wars are to hard to get" i'd argue everytime he waves someone hes "waring" them. That is unless u call an army that invades to take something from you not a "War"....but that would be in conflict with human history and how english defines words. If u view the game that way you could argue that the mods should balance the game in that direction...i.e. such that any conflict is actually "War" unless someone "surrenders' without fighting back, in which case they should give up resources quickly and easily. If u tweaked the game that way, but kept in mind that it "sux" to always lose, so you "protect" what is required to fight someone tpa/wpa/military via massive reduced losses you'd end up with more "Wars" which people find very fun, but not the constant bullying.

[Korp]

yea, sure, might as well say utopia isnt a "video game" either because theres no video. Thing is civ and utopia are DEFINED to be a war game by the defintion of what a war game is. The fact that they incorporate more than just the battlefield into themselfs doesnt negate what they are. Diplomacy for example could be a win condition in both, but if u wanted a non war game with diplomacy for example go take a look at http://store.steampowered.com/app/245470/Democracy_3/

Thats why when the OP says "wars are to hard to get" i'd argue everytime he waves someone hes "waring" them. That is unless u call an army that invades to take something from you not a "War"....but that would be in conflict with human history and how english defines words. If u view the game that way you could argue that the mods should balance the game in that direction...i.e. such that any conflict is actually "War" unless someone "surrenders' without fighting back, in which case they should give up resources quickly and easily. If u tweaked the game that way, but kept in mind that it "sux" to always lose, so you "protect" what is required to fight someone tpa/wpa/military via massive reduced losses you'd end up with more "Wars" which people find very fun, but not the constant bullying.

Its a strategy game with warring elements. Thats one part of the game and doesnt define the whole game. If it was a war game they would advertise it as such but they dont since they advertise it as such but "Strategy rpg for hard core gamers" Repeating that Utopia is a war game and chant i like a mantra isnt going to make it one. What a worthless game Utopia would be if it was a "war game" cause it hasnt been necessarly at all to war to win previously.

[Palem]

While you might be correct in the strictest literal sense (which everyone knows is the best sense), I will still continue to "correct" people that come here and harp about how utopia is a war game. These people almost assuredly don't have the definition you're working with in the back of their mind. They almost always come here with the idea that the "objective" of the game is to build your prov/kingdom and then war other kingdoms and that is most definitely not true.

But I don't want to go too much about this since I don't want to derail OP's thread too much.

[Persain]

While you might be correct in the strictest literal sense (which everyone knows is the best sense), I will still continue to "correct" people that come here and harp about how utopia is a war game. These people almost assuredly don't have the definition you're working with in the back of their mind. They almost always come here with the idea that the "objective" of the game is to build your prov/kingdom and then war other kingdoms and that is most definitely not true.

But I don't want to go too much about this since I don't want to derail OP's thread too much.

my point is people who keep claiming its not a war game its simply a strategy game are missing completely how the game actualy works. Even way WAY back when people used "war stance" to simply avoid conflicts the game was a war game that disincentivized actual real conflicts in favor of mechanics that were actually designed to simulate war. The fact that many people dont think u need to war to "win" is true. Look at the real world, China hasnt been in "war" with any country in a long time but they use theif/magic ops to grow their econcomy ;).

Which actually goes TOWARDS the OP's thread. Hes saying its to hard to get into a "war" so you can go to 2/2, 3/3, 4/4, 2/4......on the little war tracker. Its a faulty way to look at the game since every time u come into conflict with someone you are effectively at 'war' even if the game doesnt define it that way. So to "encourage wars" in the sense of how they currently exist wouldn't actually be good for the game. You cant simply make the benefits from winning to great or you unbalance whats fun in utopia for alot of people in the diplomacy, outpositioning..... Nor can you simply make the game "instant war" every-time you attack someone because its a game that exists 24/7-365 and you would be burning out the player base and making it so that every 'War' is always simply who can wave the smallest not offically in a "War" the fastest.

If you want to encourage war, you need to acknowledge that the game is a 'War game' and that every time military(magic/theif ops too) gets involved both ways between two kds your "at war". BUT you need to limit the damage done by not being able to officaly enter the "War stance" due to real life issues. i again would argue that the only way to do that is anytime two kds "Fight" you push it to war. When not at 'war' you make "resources" like land/science/honor easily transferable and "somewhat valuable" while limiting the damage done to what it takes to actively fight someone as much as possible...i.e. military losses. I mean ultimately your right the objective isnt ONLY "build a prov and war other 25 man kds" but the fact that you use your military to force ANY object in utopia does mean that more "conflicts" should push into the war stance, and i personally think the game should balance around that.


@elit, i understand what your saying. war game is a subcategory of strategy game.....what your saying is akin to a pizza with pepperoni on it isn't really a 'pepperoni pizza' its "just a pizza" because the pepperoini only makes up a small subset of what defines it as a food.



Edit
@elit/palem/korp.
My "issue" is that how u define the game will effect the way u balance the game. I would personally agree with all 3 of you that fundementally changing the game to something like a tournament wouldnt be fun, but to ignor its a 'war game' and that many conflicts are really war does make people whose only object is to increase that # on their kd page cry constantly. And its NOT helpfull to say "oh i know theres war, and its a war game but its really not you just dont know enough" especially if they actually go and look up definitions and can easy say "errr it actually is a war game BY DEFINITION." Try saying, yes we know its a war game but the changes that XYZ suggest takes away from all the other parts of the game, and would make the game worse. If u want "wars' to be easier to get try making a suggestion/rant that doesnt diminish all the other fun part of utopia.