Join the new world

What happened?

There used to actually be tactics and long-term strategies that needed to be developed in order for a successful campaign to be waged. Blocking attacks, Airborne units, Coordinating attacks, retreats... Now all we have is a numbers game. eRepublik is basically an even blander version of Risk.



Countries can create vast empires with little or no effort now... Hungary invading Russia and the United States would've been alot more difficult and by extension rewarding had they done it via the use of actual strategy. I know the Admins probably prefer it to be simpler, but it doesn't allow for exciting gameplay to develop in an otherwise browser-based text game. I know everyone's already given up on this game, but I mean, the answers are really simple.



The simple answer is to bring the Alliance aspect of things back to v1 (MPPs are only triggered if a country's original regions are threatened), but this is UNREALISTIC. What we have now is ALSO unrealistic, so you have to tread a middle path.

What made eRepublik Beta and v1 great was the strategic brilliance involved and the exciting gameplay that resulted. It was crazy, a text-based game actually had quite a lot of depth to it, and both PEACE and Fortis/EDEN generals coordinated brilliant moves and counters to the point where even though PEACE was superior, F/E was able to turn the tide.

Day 616, WW3 (US Soldiers raise the American flag over Kentucky after successfully fending off PEACE troops)



Day 619, WW3 (Artist rendering of Russian and British soldiers stationed in Kansas, decimating American troops)



Day 617, WW3 (Battle of Chisinau, Hungarian and Ukrainian soldiers firing at Romanian positions)



Day 611, WW3 (Battle of Hawaii, Indonesian and Japanese forces enroute to launch the invasion of the Western United States)



Day 601, WW3 (French soldiers land in Nova Scotia)



What do we have now though? A pure numbers game that leads to dull and boring gameplay. The only strategy involved is choosing which battles to prioritize and that is quite frankly not strategy at all.

I understand the old war modules were complicated and had bugs, which led to arguments, but the war module that we have now is fine. What has ruined the tactical element of this game is the alliances... They make it too easy for empires to be created with little to no effort.

The game developers have done a great job of polishing the game. The Alliances thing was cute, the missions are good, the addition of 'Divisions' to battles was also a step in the right direction, and the interface looks nice. On top of that, Bazookas, Big Bombs, Small bombs, and Rockets allow weaker players to have a slightly bigger impact in battle. However, this does not address the long-term issue this game has had of being too strategically bland.

In order to tread a middle path though, we have to make it so that defenders (as is the case in real life) have an advantage over the attackers. The answer is to add two tiers to alliances. The first is simple, a true Mutual PROTECTION Pact. If a country's original regions in an MPP is attacked, the alliance is triggered. Simple, however if a country does an offensive maneuver, the alliance is NOT triggered, and the country that is attacking goes in the fight alone (Volunteer fighters can still join, however).

Once an MPP is triggered however, it remains triggered for the remainder of the conflict. So lets say that Serbia is attacked in its ORIGINAL regions by Italy, but the Italian invasion fails, Serbia's MPPs stay activated even if they launch a counter-attack (like in v1).

The second would be more expensive, and it would simply be called an 'Alliance'. It would be more expensive than the MPP option (about twice as expensive) but it would include not only all the benefits of an MPP, but it would automatically trigger the alliance in either an offensive or defensive operation.



The point of this is simple, it would make the game less about alliances, and make countries choose to either play defensively or offensively (at a greater cost of course). This way, lets say the US is offered an 'Alliance' by Japan, and an 'Alliance' by Croatia, it can decline the offer from the weaker Japan and counter-offer a less expensive MPP, and accept the stronger Croatian offer of an 'Alliance' for greater benefit. This would also allow weaker countries to adequately defend themselves, since their MPPs would be activated if they were to be attacked and the attacking country would go in with fewer, albeit stronger, allies.



It reimplements strategy, and even though the numbers will inevitably still be a huge factor, it would force both factions in a conflict to choose where, whom, and when to attack.



Please vote and subscribe and leave a comment below.