The Repercussions of War
•
by Alex Drex
Preface: This is partially a follow-up to my previous article, The Effects of Imperialism on Allied Nations. If you haven't read that article, I would suggest that you do so. Reading it will likely give this one more context and make more sense. Like I said, this will be a partial-follow-up. What I mean by that is that parts of it will pertain specifically to the aforementioned article, while other parts will be related but do not necessarily rely on the other article. Now, onto the article...
One of the main points argued in the comments of my article was that the game mechanics are set up to support and encourage imperialism. This is true, unfortunately. What, with free wars, automatically activated MPPs, and limited Resistance Wars per country, it makes longterm (almost permanent) occupation a breeze for some countries. These are all things that I've written against in the past, in detail.
While I still feel that the admins should read my article there, and implement some of those ideas (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), I'd like to take this article another direction.
What are the repercussions of war in eRepublik? Relatively nonexistent. Aside from new players becoming extremely confused about what is going on, or why their country doesn't exist; as well as some financial trouble the oppressed country faces there's really not much of an effect of war. Especially not for the aggressor nation. I think that is a problem. This is, after all, supposed to be somewhat of a simulation game. We all know what serious repercussions there are involved with war in real life. And while none of the repercussions could ever be even close to as serious as war in the real world, I think there should be some repercussions to war in the New World.
Breaking the chains of oppression.
Repercussions would do a couple of things. First of all, it would make the war module far more realistic. A real country cannot just declare war on a bunch of other people, get defeated, and then not expect punishment. Why wouldn't it be the same in a "simulation" game? Furthermore, repercussions would protect other countries from being annihilated by much larger countries, while not removing the larger countries' ability to do so, it just gives them more to think about, and to decide if it is truly worth it. Finally, having actual consequences of war creates more strategy. People have to fight smarter in order to ensure success. But they also have to decide if it is smart to fight in the first place. Also, this could provide another goal of warfare, not just the conquering of lands, but the liberation of the oppressed, etc.
Peace deal.
What would these repercussions be? Well, I propose that the peace proposal feature is edited. In the new feature, a country might demand a monthly payment from another country for peace (for a limited time, of course). Furthermore, the peace proposal would have an option to put a duration on it. This duration would be carried on through until the end, no matter what (well, not exactly). We often see peace deals worked out only to fall through come the next month and next government. With this change, the peace proposal continues even through the next government, until the time specified is reached. However, if one country truly wants to break a peace proposal, they would be able to do so. There would be some consequences of this. Perhaps the country who broke the peace proposal has to pay a fine to the other country. Perhaps the defending country gets a bonus in fights against the country that broke the peace deal.
These are just a few ideas. I'd love to read any ideas that you might have. Feel free to post more ideas/critique in the comments.
Thanks for reading, I hope you've enjoyed it.
Freedom Writers
Regards,
Alex Drex
Commander of the Socialist Freedom Party Bear Cavalry
Socialist Freedom Party Revolutionary Committee Member
Freedom Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Looking forward to reading ideas posted in comments.
Also, now that I think of it, I'm not entirely sure if this is much of a follow up. I suppose the previous article just gives a bit of background information.
Simple,realistic and applicable.I like your idea.voted ( :
yea we need more strategy and effects, not sure what they could be but currently its just boring 😐
Voted
War in eRepublik reminds me of the Star Trek episode A Taste of Armageddon, but in eRepublik, when a war happens, nobody dies.
I think there should be some type of reward for taking regions or conquering a nation, aside from resource bonuses. Maybe like a limited time bonus "card" that could be used (or saved) by the conquering nation that either aids the citizens with economy, health, or combat. Might add some small amount of strategy in the game, which it currently lacks. Maybe when countries go to war they can place that card wherever they can defend best against, but the enemy won't know unless it gets leaked. Might add some defense strategy too. Basically, creating a goal, other than just bragging rights.
Citizen 6 that would be even worse because "strong" countries would have 1 more reason too attack "weak" countries and that is what we don't want....
As for idea in article well it is great. I would also like to add that when signing that treaty between attacker and defender that there should be some kind of option where defender couldn't RW regions that are part of peace treaty because RW doesn't involve in peace treaty and it could be won and not breaking deal.
And tbh that is something that could be only done by negotiations and not by war. That would leave big flaw because not every country would sign some kind of deal.
Again idea is great to start with and you should make tread on forums : )
Hello, I would like to add some recent problem which somebody shouldnt notice😛
In past was system that you should buy licence of country where you had citizenship for just 5 golds. Since introduction of storages its now same cost as licence for abroad (20g). With system promoting own compoanies it means that all newbies born in occupied countries are SERIOUSLY damaged. The countries which under previous rules voluntarily merged with others (Czech Republic, Denmark) and payed licences now cant pay it. Thats not only unfair but also very short-sighted by admins because it limits chance of new players - Long-term occupied countries can hardly make Baby-boom because their newbies will have 2x worse start than of existent countries.
Great article.... but this is a war game- all other descriptions fail to understand the game dynamics
EAT MORE CHICKEN!
Voted
Perhaps we need an infamy and wargoal system. It could ballence things out.
V+S, I think another good idea is to have maybe a moral marker.This moral marker would only come into effect if a country wars with another without the other country agreeing to the war, in other words an unprovoked declaration. If both nations agree to the war then the moral marker should not be used. Now the idea behind this is pretty simple, the more the moral decreases the less attack the players can do to the opposing nation. The country on the offense (Away Nation) would have a decrease in moral the longer they stayed involved in the war. The defending nation would then have home territory, thus an increase in moral, as the war progresses on the homeland that nation should continually get increases as time went on. So the longer they remain in war with a said nation the more the moral decreases if your attacking. This would put a big damper on those Nations who just waltz in and wipe weaker countries because now hey have a fair shot at defending and makes these larger nations think about things a little more.
That was just a quick thought figured id throw it out there, i apologize in advance for grammatical mistakes lol
❤️ >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=%6e%61%6b%65%64%2d%67%69%72%6c%73%2e%6f%6e%6c%69%6e%65%2f%6b%6b%2f%78%6b%44%57%43%39%3f%73%6f%75%72%63%65%3d%65%72%65%70%75%62%6c%69%6b%26%61%64%5f%63%61%6d%70%61%69%67%6e%5f%69%64%3d1779651