STOC O Club 2 Go! | VG2 Technical Discussions


STOC O Club Forums

The War Bonus Loop Hole

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Attacking Supply Lines 
Author: TOC-Tacitus (Lieutenant JG) 
Posted: 07/04 03:03 PM 
 








Quote:
I think it would be much more interesting if, say, the Romulans could send a few cloaked ships across the neutral zone to sack a Federation convoy, in the hopes of disrupting the supply lines


There are already provisions for this in VG2. Annexing a hex with a trade route in it disrupts the trade route and costs the empire losing the trade route.


 
Author: Spikeas (Captain) 
Posted: 07/07 12:29 PM 
 
Without requiring a subjective influence to determine what is a Cold war, how it should be enforced, and how/why to impose penalties...I have a more reasonable solution.

Don't impose ANY penalties for long distance wars. On the flip side, don't give any benefits either. Remove this reason for debate...

How?

1. Eliminate the -50% production for being at peace.
2. Increase the "war bonus" to 10bpv/hex vice 5bpv/hex.

There. Nobody gets slighted, and thats about as much incentive to declare war on your neighbor as can get.


 
Author: TOC_Bearslayer (Fleet Captain) 
Posted: 07/07 06:52 PM 
 
That is about as KISS as it gets.

I am in favor of this type of change.

Now, can we get it changed? How will we go about it?


 
Author: TOC_Kestrel (Captain) 
Posted: 07/10 03:12 AM 
 
I thought that there was already a penalty for being in a long distance war: a -1 per turn on your civil support. The Races doing this will suffer a lowered civil support which if they let go to long could pontentially put them in a bind if and when they do go to war with a neighboring Race. And yes the parties did benefit initially from this action but will have to pay later to keep their civil support high enough to prevent hurting production, most likely at a critical time during a "real" war for survival. I think leaving the war bonus and penalties the way they are, has and will lead to imaginative and flavourable storylines, like the well thought out "Kzerstats" incident by Davey. I for one will not declare war on anyone without some type of "cassius belli"(honorable reason for war), weither it be construed or legitimate.


Eliminate the peace penalty, Keep the long distance wars 
Author: toc_z_axus (Fleet Captain) 
Posted: 07/10 01:48 PM 
 








Spikeas wrote:
Without requiring a subjective influence to determine what is a Cold war, how it should be enforced, and how/why to impose penalties...I have a more reasonable solution.

Don't impose ANY penalties for long distance wars. On the flip side, don't give any benefits either. Remove this reason for debate...

How?

1. Eliminate the -50% production for being at peace.
2. Increase the "war bonus" to 10bpv/hex vice 5bpv/hex.

There. Nobody gets slighted, and thats about as much incentive to declare war on your neighbor as can get.



I also favor this solution, although I think the 10 bpv bonus (the equivalent of a minor colony production) is too much. It will be simple and easy to moderate, and it's culturally neutral. I see no downside other than perhaps a need to make a one-time-only production grant to correct the economies of those who have endured one or more turns of "peace penalty" (mostly the Feds and Hydrans), and to a lesser extent those who have endured war penalties/costs. (This can be fairly easily calculated just by going through each turn status report. If a consensus can be reached on this then I recommend a non-movement "time out" turn, so that truces and/or new wars can be declared, production points applied, etc., strategic balances reconsidered, etc. and then move on as normal. )

I reject and refuse to dignify the claim that those races who have declared war against a long distance enemy have acted dishonorably. If you believe this to be true then initiate JAG action.

I think we should keep the ability to declare/wage long distance wars as is without extra penalization. This is necessary for maintenance of alliance and peace treaty obligations if nothing else. Empires should always keep in mind that a cold war is still war. While fleet movements to contact with the enemy may not be possible, covert options to inflict pain on your long distance enemies still exist, such as influencing diplomatic standings, production grants to neighboring enemies, or perhaps even covert ops with the Moderator via pirates or something.

If there are to be penalties imposed for long distance wars I suggest maybe -2 domestic support per turn for non-adjacent enemies (vs -1 for adjacent enemies), as the domestic population would be less likely to support war against a distant enemy, as opposed to an enemy at front gates (figuratively speaking).

With respect to domestic support penalties I think these should be applied in a fixed manner and not made arithmetically progressive (-1 per turn instead of -1, -2, -3... etc), although the penalty could perhaps double every ten turns (-2, -4, -8, etc) if the goal of the moderator is to discourage warfare. To some extent this is based on my opinion that the 15 production points/per diplomatic support point/shift costs are too high. (I think it should cost 10 points to boost each point foreign support, and cost 5 points to boost each point of domestic support but that's another topic) But at the same time I think impediments to warfare should be minimized, given that this is supposed to be a wargame, that there should be battles and conflict to make it interesting.

CAPT Z-Axus


 
Author: warpertoo (Fleet Commander) 
Posted: 07/10 08:30 PM 
 
TOC-Z-Axus Wrote:
*************************************************************
I see no downside other than perhaps a need to make a one-time-only production grant to correct the economies of those who have endured one or more turns of "peace penalty" (mostly the Feds and Hydrans), and to a lesser extent those who have endured war penalties/costs. (This can be fairly easily calculated just by going through each turn status report. If a consensus can be reached on this then I recommend a non-movement "time out" turn, so that truces and/or new wars can be declared, production points applied, etc., strategic balances reconsidered, etc. and then move on as normal. )
*************************************************************
I'm really trying to be nice....I really am....but after all the griping I did at the beginning of this VG about the Klingon Empire being so weak in terms of ships...and pretty much being told "tough live with it." I take exception to the above. I have worked to make the Klingon Empire what it should have been at the beginning...a threat...even if we are not a true threat...we are obviously on the minds of those who were once in a postion of total supremacy.

Z speaks of "balancing" things out...I beg to differ that throwing literally thousands of bpv to the federation and Hydran Kingdom will prove to be just the opposite. For there is no doubt where the new federation ships will be deployed...and the Hydran Kingdom only has two borders to deploy to...the end result will be the Klingon Empire being relegated back to square one.... This is totally unacceptable. I will not accept being "penalized" for others not having the foresight to plan for the future. All this amounts to is a supremely big strategic blunder.


 
Author: TOC_Kestrel (Captain) 
Posted: 07/10 09:07 PM 
 
Z-Axus brought up a good point that I overlooked in my prior post on this subject. Even though I was not in charge when the Roms went to war with the Mirak, I did do many of the things that Z-Axus wrote about in trying to inflict some "pain" on my far away enemy. I made bpv gifts to races on that side of the Galaxy, invested heavily in popular support in many different races, both positively and negatively, and I have also spent some time looking into the subject of involving Pirates to harass my opponents.


Peace Penalty vs. Economic Compensation 
Author: toc_z_axus (Fleet Captain) 
Posted: 07/10 09:47 PM 
 
I think two questions/issues need to be resolved here:

1. Should the "peace penalty" (-50% production for being at peace) rule be eliminated?

2. Should empires be compensated for economic loss suffered during any turn prior to the present in which they endured a "peace penalty," and should empires be compensated for economic loss/expenses for any turn (prior to the present) in which they endured "war penalties"?

CAPT Z-Axus


 
Author: TOC_Bearslayer (Fleet Captain) 
Posted: 07/10 10:05 PM 
 








warpertoo wrote:

I'm really trying to be nice....I really am....but after all the griping I did at the beginning of this VG about the Klingon Empire being so weak in terms of ships...and pretty much being told "tough live with it." I take exception to the above. I have worked to make the Klingon Empire what it should have been at the beginning...a threat...even if we are not a true threat...we are obviously on the minds of those who were once in a postion of total supremacy.



Warper,

In regards to the begining of the VGII, you and I are on the same page. Especially after all the effort to meet the dead-lines given, hashing out details between myself, my XO, and all the fleet commanders as they were assigned. Then to have all that work thrown out for the Turn 0 set up we received? No, I was not happy with the begining of the VG at all.

But at least we got the VG started again.










warpertoo wrote:
Z speaks of "balancing" things out...I beg to differ that throwing literally thousands of bpv to the federation and Hydran Kingdom will prove to be just the opposite. For there is no doubt where the new federation ships will be deployed...and the Hydran Kingdom only has two borders to deploy to...the end result will be the Klingon Empire being relegated back to square one.... This is totally unacceptable. I will not accept being "penalized" for others not having the foresight to plan for the future. All this amounts to is a supremely big strategic blunder.



As I pointed out before, I am not looking for special treatment, so I agree with you here. I am not looking for a hand out. Just a chance.

At this point, without any changes, I HAVE to go to war, just to have a chance to survive. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, I have to make up the difference somehow.

If I can have full production without having to declare war, even in the current state of the Hydran Kingdom, I can have that chance.


Re: Peace Penalty vs. Economic Compensation 
Author: TOC_Bearslayer (Fleet Captain) 
Posted: 07/10 10:11 PM 
 








toc_z_axus wrote:
I think two questions/issues need to be resolved here:

1. Should the "peace penalty" (-50% production for being at peace) rule be eliminated?

2. Should empires be compensated for economic loss suffered during any turn prior to the present in which they endured a "peace penalty," and should empires be compensated for economic loss/expenses for any turn (prior to the present) in which they endured "war penalties"?

CAPT Z-Axus



IMO,

1) Yes

2) No, if the majority still thinks that the Hydrans & Feds should still get this bonus, make it something reasonable. One or two turn's worth of production at most, b/c Warper has a valid point.
STOC O Club Forums!