Total War/All-Out War. Another Aries idea

On another thread I suggested some ideas about war to make a few things more fair (like being able to dec at any war level up to yours for war positioning and the temporary war protection change) and more accessible (like dropping your own war level protection). What I admitted is that the game currently lacked much motivation to war or open your countries up to the possibility of war in the first place. I think this idea can change that and is intended simply to be a "spark" to get things going.

This feature would allow you to declare Total/All-Out war on a player. To do this, you and the country you declare this on would need to meet these requirements:

1. You are at least war level 3.

2. Your country has at least a population of 21 million.

3. Your war situation index is at least 90.

Keep in mind, this can be declared regardless of war level difference, temporary war protection, or any other factor. The above is it. Total/All-Out war would then need to be accepted by the other party to go into effect. No accept, with a pop-up that again asks "are you sure", and the Total/All-Out war does not happen.

What does Total/All-Out war mean?

1. Participating countries can be declared on by everyone, regardless of normal restrictions. War level, war protection, simultaneous war limits etc. are all ignored accept they must be at least war level 3.

2. For the first real week, other countries/players can choose a side and declare Total/All-Out war on a side as long as they meet the original requirements, war level 3, 21 million population, and war situation index over 90. They then are bound to the war in the same manner the original countries are. This declaration does not have to be accepted by the receiver of the declaration, it happens automatically. All Total/All-Out war participants are always in an active state of war with all members of the opposing side.

3. If a country participating in the Total/All-Out war is conquered, the country is released to the GM with all its assets.

Countries involved in the Total/All-Out war that defeat all opposing Total/All-Out war participants receive a gold coin award. This award is the LESSOR of:

1. Four times the population of the opposing side, in millions, minus 20 million per country. For example, if you faced a 30, 40, and 50 million population country you would get 30+40+50= 120 - 60 = 60 times 4 = 240 gold coins. Or, in another way, their populations, in millions, over 20 million times 4.

2. The population of your participating county in millions minus 20 million times 4 or your population above 20 million, in millions, times 4. So, your 80 million population country could earn up to 80 - 20 = 60 times 4 = 240 gold coins depending on the countries that opposed you in the Total/All-Out war.

For purposes of the awards, the populations should be counted at the time of Total/All-Out war declarations. The Total/All-Out war would last one real month or until a winning side emerges.

FAQ:

1. Can I participate in the Total/All-Out war if I am not "officially" part of it?

-Yes. You are free to declare war on any of the participants, who lack any protection from this. You can also be in feds with participants and contribute to fed air defense.

2. If I am not part of the Total/All-Out war and I take the country of a participant, I get the country right?

-Nope. Sorry, if you take the country that is a participant of a Total/All-Out war the GM still takes the country even if you are not part of that Total/All-Out war. Since they had a war situation index of 90 plus when they started the Total/All-Out war, your conflict was not in an advanced stage anyway when they committed to the Total/All-Out war.

3. I am part of this Total/All-Out war and countries outside of it are declaring on me and may conquer my country. Other countries are defending my opponents. That's not fair.

-Tough. All is fair in Total/All-Out war. You should have read the fine print.

PvP as it should be!

More Q/A:

4. Can I participate in the Total/All-Out war with more than one country?

Sure. The more the better. Keep in mind, the restriction on the gold coin awards based on your opponent does not multiply by the number of your participating countries. If you won versus 240 coins of opponents, that is still the maximum award of that criteria.


5. My side won the Total/All-Out war but my participating country/countries were lost. Do I still get gold coins for our victory?

-No. You do not win coins if you lost all participating countries. If you lost some, but not all, your maximum award, second criteria, is calculated based on your surviving countries.

This would be a good addition to the war element of the game. A chance to win a few coins and perhaps a chance to grind a few axes with others that you currently coundnt because of war levels. Especially because both parties are agreeing to war regardless if the game says they cant. would be a very cool feature imo.

I don't agree with all of the details but the general idea is good. It would encourage PvPing.

What would you change? We are here to discuss this.

BUMP

Questions:

For the initial week, is the war actually being fought, or is just a time frame for the choosing of sides? How much lead time is there between the finalization and the onset of actual hostilities? Be kind of cheap to wait the other side to go off line, and then attack.

What would be the effects of a cease-fire or truce amongst the participants? Should be a mechanism to deter this - otherwise the entire war is pretty pointless.

What are the consequences of secondary effects? i.e. My country is not participating, but is still being affected by radiation clouds rolling across my borders. Can my non-participating country still contribute towards the war effort of one side or the other via the direct sale of war materials? Or sending defensive forces to a non-participating country that is part of the empire of a participating country, freeing up defensive assets for the war?

Will there be a limit on the amount of materials a country can receive via space or direct trading from other accounts? Otherwise, it's going to be extremely lopsided with the veteran contingent against newer players. What is the maximum number of participants per side?

Not sure about Number one In Faq. Seems like it should be totally seperated out from the regular war mechanics. ie two people decide to have a war, and everyone comes. They aren't risking as much as the initiating participants. Perhaps anyone joining in should put as much as risk as they did.

For the initial week, is the war actually being fought, or is just a time frame for the choosing of sides?

-War does not start until the week delay is over. This is instead of the typical delay that occurs when declaring war on a player but is counted when Total War is first accepted. Theoretically, players could wait until the time is almost up and become a participant with the conflict to start very shortly after.

How much lead time is there between the finalization and the onset of actual hostilities

-The "Total War" starts one week after it is first accepted. This is the total amount of lead time. The original participants and anyone else who joins will all be aware of when the start of hostilities is though all participants are not finalized until the war starts.

What would be the effects of a cease-fire or truce amongst the participants?

-There would be no game-mandated end of hostilities. Attacks would be possible until there is a victorious side or until the end of a real month. If there is no victorious side, there are no gold coin awards. If someone wishes to have a truce, they could open up real diplomacy in the game or on the forum to end the shooting and let the war expire but the game would not enforce the treaty.

My country is not participating, but is still being affected by radiation clouds rolling across my borders.

-Same as any other war.

Can my non-participating country still contribute towards the war effort of one side or the other via the direct sale of war materials?

-Of course. You could also declare a war of your own against any of the participants. Remember, if you reduce the war index of their country to zero, the country is released to the GM however.

Or sending defensive forces to a non-participating country that is part of the empire of a participating country, freeing up defensive assets for the war?

-You can even move fed defense to defend a participating country. No restrictions here.

Will there be a limit on the amount of materials a country can receive via space or direct trading from other accounts? Otherwise, it's going to be extremely lopsided with the veteran contingent against newer players.

-No limits. This is Total War. Make friends with some vets.

What is the maximum number of participants per side?

-No limits. There is a theme here.

Not sure about Number one In Faq. Seems like it should be totally seperated out from the regular war mechanics. ie two people decide to have a war, and everyone comes. They aren't risking as much as the initiating participants. Perhaps anyone joining in should put as much as risk as they did.

-No risks, no rewards. Remember, only participants get the gold.

Think there should be another standard included.

Example: my country meets all the conditions. At 37 Million population, the reward would be 17 gold coins. Not a lot, but easily in excess of the trouble it would be to take it over.

Just to state the obvious, the reason automation is set up initially is to protect us noobs from ourselves.

The standards are too easily reached, and could lead to a lot of abuse. Low gold coin awards could rapidly stack up. I see from the documentation that several features were changed because of player abuse.

Instead of a gold coin award based on the country's population, how would an award based on the total weapon systems destroyed per side be? With a minimum defensive index added into the equation. While the units wouldn't al have to be destroyed to take over the country, it would provide a speed bump. And help to ensure an actual fight.

That would help to ensure the award was actually earned, instead of just farmed, as the C3's are.

At 37 Million population, the reward would be 17 gold coins. Not a lot, but easily in excess of the trouble it would be to take it over.

-There are two criteria. What countries you participate with and what you face. If you participate with a 37 million pop country, your potential reward is (37-20) times 4 or 68 coins on that side of the ledger.

The standards are too easily reached, and could lead to a lot of abuse. Low gold coin awards could rapidly stack up. I see from the documentation that several features were changed because of player abuse.

-I put a lot of checks in there to minimize any potential abuse. You missed some key points in your other posts. Try an example of abuse and see if it holds up within the rules of Total War. If you believe it holds up, post your example. Remember, losing participant countries are released to the game. Much assets are at risk for the gold coin award. The idea is that the coins are just gravy in addition to settling a score with an opponent.

Instead of a gold coin award based on the country's population, how would an award based on the total weapon systems destroyed per side be? With a minimum defensive index added into the equation. While the units wouldn't al have to be destroyed to take over the country, it would provide a speed bump. And help to ensure an actual fight.

That would help to ensure the award was actually earned, instead of just farmed, as the C3's are.

-Again. Give me an example of how coins would be "farmed". Careful not to overlook the systems I described in the original post. Key points to consider is that loosing countries are released and that any "pretend" fights are difficult as participant countries are open to declaration of war from anyone of at least war level 3.

My apologies. Missed the 4x. So a bigger reward.

Abuse: Player creates a country and spends a couple of hours reaching the correct war level, and population - latter part from gold coins received from advancing game levels and the population transfers from raiding C3s. Then lists the country for Total War.

Not sure how many folks would participate in for that amount, or how the winning side's awards are split up.

Player A destroys his initial defensive forces and leaves the account alone, and goes back to his main account.

At the commencement, he launches attacks, just like he was raiding a C3 - but with no defenses in the country at all.

2 minutes later, he gets the gc on his main account.

If the game was a lot more active, or the players online was hidden, it'd be a bit more difficult to arrange a declaration with the launch of the war time initiating when most folks in that world are offline.

Going with an award based off of the total amount in billions of weapon systems destroyed on each side (at 12 billion per gold coin) would be a lot more elegant.

It would also prevent someone joining in the war, and not participating, from receiving an award.

*should read 12 billion worth in SC$*

Please, get more specific with your example. I see you are going with someone running multiple accounts. How big exactly are they making these countries and how do they get so much pop in a few hours?

Also, do you think this is repeatable? The game is active enough that if I see this done, I will collect the coins off their main if I see this done on a world I am on. I have all week to notice a total war declared (which should be implemented in a way to be as visible as possible) and choose to participate myself. I don't believe I would be the only one.

We'll again. Give us more details on this.

I don't believe you would be the only one either. But that is not to say you would or wouldn't have to. You might have gone on vacation. I didn't notice a mandatory number of participants per side.

And at the risk of offending the veteran community, some of the stuff that happened in the past, wasn't limited to a single player. Nor did it happen in a vacuum. Having a small country declare, and then seeing a few dozen federations on the other side, all with large military forces could be off putting for anyone wanting to come in. Would you risk almost certain annihilation to gain 68 gold coins?

On the flip side, should you join them, you also receive the gold coin award. Even if all your forces stayed at home. That's going to be tempting, no?

At that stage, you wouldn't even need to posit a multiple account. Just a player that likes his fed mates, and is willing to take it for the team for a while.

We are changing the example. Very well.

If I read it right, you are saying a total war could be declared on a willing country that is to be sacrificed. To reach your gold number, a single country is on one side and has 37 million pop. You are saying the other side has some pile of countries from feds looking to cash in 68 gold coins per player.

This could turn out a few ways.

1. The scenario plays out with no further changes. Remember, the 37 million pop country is released to the game. For this cost, each participant on the other side could receive up to 68 coins each, assuming that they too risked countries of, at least, similar size. If this goes without a hitch, I would call this a demonstration of power. No one got rich off it. Each victorious player put up valuable countries free from any kind of war protection.

I see nothing wrong with this. This method requires sufficient military strength and is no more lucrative than other ways of earning coins. Repeating this process requires the continual building of countries to be sacrificed and maintaining sufficient military power.

2. I could participate. If I join the gang of countries on the one side, I too could earn 68 coins. For this, I risk war with anyone who wishes to settle a score with me.

On the other hand, if I join the weak side, note, that you are incorrect that if I were "to risk certain annihilation" my potential reward would only be 68 coins. Lets look closer.

Unfortunately, again, your scenario lacks details. You force me to insert them, therefore I argue that you must accept my details as long as they follow your outline. So, this gang of gold coin hungry players have a 120 million pop country, two 50 million pop countries, and a 30 million pop country (this guy would have only earned 40 coins in the first outcome). This means their side of the ledger is worth ((120+50+50+30) - (4*20))*4 = 680 coins. This means depending on what I choose to commit, I could earn up to that many coins if I destroy their four countries of 250 million total pop.

Again, I see this situation works too. An incredible incentive is offered for any warrior who decides to jump in with large countries of their own and take on the gang. The gang is now forced into a larger war but their incentives too have increased as they no longer simply face their sacrificial lamb.

3. I thought of this possibility as I was typing. Say I don't have time to war the gang but, at the same time, I don't wish them to benefit from their total war.

I could simply join the smaller side with a country of mine that I believe the gang is not capable of defeating. It is possible to mount a very powerful defense, especially if you get to choose where the war is to be fought. Several players would challenge your assertion of a "risk of certain annihilation". I am one of them.

This idea works because it makes conflicts more possible. Larger conflicts are made much more possible than the current rule set with the removal of any kind of game war protection for the participants.

1. Disagree completely. Where's the risk? It's a complete farm. No risk should equal no reward. While the stated reward is small, it adds up. Do it for 10 countries on one opposing side, 680 gold coins. Pretty soon you're talking about real money. Not necessarily per individual player, but out of W3C's pocket. The game already has gold coins awards in place without artificially inflating them. While it requires the constant building of sacrificial lambs, I'm pretty sure that eventually every federation will have them - and a threat of real all out war if they are tampered with.

2. Yes. IF you choose to do so. You Reference last line above.

3. Yes. If that plays out. Woe for the rest of the community if you veterans decide to constantly play as a block. Or to respect each other's farms. See last line in 1 above.

I'd rather remove the IF's. Call me a cynic, but I've played enough online games to know that letting the players police themselves doesn't really work out too well.

"This idea works because it makes conflicts more possible." Instead of giving out gc then, allowing a lower war level to declare on you (should you accept), being able to declare on a higher war level (should they accept), allowing yourself to terminate war protection, and increasing or completely jettisoning simultaneous war limits would all work. All this could set at the federation level as well. Anyone dc'd on a fed - dc's on all of them, regardless of strictures. At no GC gain.

Not trying to change the example, per se. Trying to cover more eventualities. One player solo, one player farmed, multiple players doing the same.

"The idea is that the coins are just gravy in addition to settling a score with an opponent." Then why not remove it entirely?

I think you are out of touch with the state of the game to be honest. Many players long for the type of scenarios that you are afraid of.

Actual feds whose members cooperate for an actual goal? This is rare. Most feds do nothing other than offer game advice. You talk about 10 players cooperating to attack an 11th to generate gold. Most feds cannot count 2 members of at least war level 3. I would bet none, zero, zip, can muster 10. In short, your scenario cannot happen in the current state of the game. If this suggestion generates interest that starts this activity, it would be a huge, huge, success.

Actual diplomacy? This is pretty rare too. Spend a little time on the forum and the world forums are pretty silent. About a month ago, one of the largest wars was fought in possibly a year on LU. Almost no one knows about it.

The ability to remove war level protection already exists. Check your war page. I suggested it. However, it was not designed to and does not encourage actual cooperation in federations, actual wars, and actual diplomacy.

The gold coin incentive is designed to spark interest in gaining military power and using it for a gain. This leads to fed cooperation, diplomacy, and possible conflict. These are the things the game currently lacks and desperately needs. Again, if the things you are afraid of actually occur, this will be the most successful feature introduced into the game in years.

edit: "While it requires the constant building of sacrificial lambs, I'm pretty sure that eventually every federation will have them - and a threat of real all out war if they are tampered with. "

This would be so awesome. The threat of "all-out war". The few war players left will be positively giddy reading that.

I liked your suggestion in the main. I am also happy to know that I'm not so out of touch that most players would resort to massive cheating in the game at the drop of a hat. That tracks with my experiences in the game prior to coming back this time.

I think we'll continue to differ on whether that qualifies as a success or not.

I also think that with the gold coin award you posited, and with the premise that this would be widely accepted, that W3C would never implement it.

That would quite simply be the death knell of anyone actually purchasing gold coins longer then a trip into the forum or being contacted via in game messaging. Packages with premium membership excepted.

"In short, your scenario cannot happen in the current state of the game." I didn't notice a limit on the amount of time this game change would be active. You'd have to plan it for not only the current crop of players, but also for it to be active during times when the player population (not accounts) peaks.

I am all for having a more active community. In chat, in the forums, and on the playing field.

I guess I need a baseline of your understanding of the game.

It was not too long ago, that for very little effort, you could be rolling in cash by raiding the set defenses of a computer opponent. Defenses that would never change, that offered no challenge, and was repeatable until the button mashing numbed your fingers.

With very little knowledge, a short guide would be sufficient, players could generate $40 trillion in an hour (being conservative). This amount of generated wealth dwarfed what was possible to be made in any other way in the game. This game cash could then been converted into gold coins.

I understand you came back to the game. Did you play during this time? If so, did you do this and did you consider it "cheating"? If not, would you imagine this activity to be "cheating"?

Next to this you have a scenario that you consider "cheating". One in which it requires the following.

1. Economic effort. At least, sufficient enough to create and mold a country with about 40 million population. With a starting country of about 15 million pop and decent worker transfers, this would average about a month and a half of effort.

To get the country and the worker transfers, this player would likely be war level 3+ and unless spending gold on war protection, would need to be prepared to defend the country from players in war level range. If successful, this country would be lost in the total war and this player would receive nothing in return.

2. Collaboration of an active federation. Once the country is ready, fed members need to be active to, at least, join the total war. Ideally, since they are putting up countries, of at least, similar size, they should be ready to defend themselves as anyone can join the war against them once they declare themselves as a total war participant. For the allure of a massive 80 coins each, the entire federation risks anyone else joining looking to cash in themselves.


Which sounds closer to "cheating"?

In the first scenario, I have my single country in secured mode, loot a handful of computer countries, and cash out in less than a few hours.

In the second. My fed mate spent a month in a half to build and protect a country. I organized my entire fed and opened up each member to an attack by anyone without restriction. The country is lost and each member gets 80 coins, if successful. If we lose, we lose big.

Staking my position. I see nothing wrong to offer a game benefit to participating in an active federation and making use of military power. Substantial rewards are available to play a solitary game, where it is not necessary to join a fed or speak with anyone. Right now, that is the game we have.

What I would consider cheating is someone breaking the terms of service. ie... having only 1 account.

The scenarios I outline above, consisted in the main, of players constantly creating accounts to abuse the feature you suggested.

Having a fed mate donate his country, and spending the time to bring another one up from scratch, I would not consider cheating. But good strategy. Several problems there: Having an active federation of maximum number doing so on a constant basis. 80x25 gold coins divided by your example of 1.5 months, or a steady income of just over 800 gold coins per month for the participating federation. What does that work out to in real cash? And how is the administration going to recognize which is which?

The actual number of players in the game would act as a brake on the amount of times this could be done.

Raiding c3s for unlimited amounts of cash and transferring that into gold coins was not cheating. It was a very poorly designed game feature. I note that now you can do neither. Launching your idea as a game feature, with the expectation that it would ultimately fail for the same reasons, I deem to be a poor reason for justifying it's inclusion.

On a secondary note, just to keep the conversation going..... How did you arrive the valuation of the gold coin award?

In my opinion the suggested buying price of a C3 is vastly overrated at 300 gold coins. Has anyone ever purchased a beginning country for that amount from the game?

I think a better valuation on the countries ....i.e. elimination the gold coin award multiplier would reduce the huge incentive to break the terms of service.

For example, side one has countries worth 40.60.and 80 gold coins. These are lost. The only gold coin awards are to the players who actually conquered them. Any other agreements needed on compensation could be worked out on the federation or player alliance level. 200 gold coins maximum for the war. Not multiplied by the number of participants on the other side.

You did not say in the last post that the scenario is a continuation of your multiple account theory. If one were to be willing to run multiple accounts, would it not be far easier to take a c3 and sell it to a newb multi account than do anything that would be suggested in this thread? I would also bet it is less likely an active fed member would cheat in this way. Cheaters tend to be more solitary and more likely to be called out if they socialize with other players.

"80x25 gold coins divided by your example of 1.5 months, or a steady income of just over 800 gold coins per month for the participating federation. What does that work out to in real cash? And how is the administration going to recognize which is which? "

I think it is possible that Titan on LU has the most war level 3+ players as federation members anywhere at 7. At that number, and with some very good vets, it is crazy powerful compared to any other federation in the game.

You are imagining the math of 25 active players which would be incredible. With that said, the math would be 25 players * 80 coins= 2000 coins total every 1.5 months or about 1350 coins/month (54 coins/month/player). These players would be premium and pay $4/month or $100/month as a fed.

So, the game cost is 1350 coins to earn $100/month from those 25 players. If I were a GM, I would take that return every day and twice on Sunday. On smaller feds, the game would do even better. Again, assuming they are unopposed/everything we discussed above. Let alone, how much more interesting the game draw would be with real feds, real diplomacy, and the "threat of all-out war".

"would it not be far easier to take a c3 and sell it to a newb multi account"

Posits another player running a multiple account, and who is foolish enough to buy a beginning c3. I wouldn't purchase a beginning c3 for 300 gold coins, far easier to take it over. Unless, of course I was trying to help a fed mate who needed the gc. I understand a lot of abuses in the past where in transferring gold coins and assets.

On that I think we are talking about 2 different things. The gaining of gold coins and the transferring of them to another player or account.

You are imagining the math of 25 active players which would be incredible.

Any game feature would have to be designed on what is possible, not just on what is current. Why spend the time to introduce a feature that is only going to be active for a short time? I didn't notice a time limit on your suggestion. And yes I have noticed the dearth of activity in many areas. We definitely need a bigger player base. Such a feature as you suggest could increase the activity level in one world, at the expense of decreasing it in others as players moved to a particular world.

The amount of gold coins we are using is highly variable. I also didn't note in your posts the qualification that participants would all be premium members. That could act as a limiting factor both on the abuse, and the effectiveness of your suggestion. The latter by limiting the participation pool. However, perhaps our math is different.

Using the current gold amount under discussion, 80 gold coins each works out to just under the 90 coins per 12 dollars. So paying 4 dollars to make almost three times the amount received per player. Membership has it's own benefit, you could calculate that minus the gold coins awarded, but I don't see the point. Said players are already receiving that benefit. As I said, highly variable. That comes from 3 countries in the participating pool. Raise it higher, and the ratio gets even worse.

You have stated there are risks in involved. i.e. that you could be declared on. What safeguards are there in place to ensure that you are? Hence my suggestion to limit awards by the damage actually done to weapon systems. Or some other benchmark to ensure there is indeed both risk, and effort to gain the reward. For example, the length of time one has served as president of the country or countries in question.

Further questions: if a country that lists itself for Total War, and is part of an empire, how does that work out? Will defensive airwings and stealth bombers still respond to attacks, if they are within range?

Is a country allowed to join a federation after the Total War is listed as available, or actually joined? Can a country be deleted at any point in the process?

These go towards the risk factor.

As I said earlier, I like the idea in the main. I will continue to try to poke holes in it, however. :P