Join the new world

Evening all,

What makes the difference between a good battle and a bad one? Is it the amount of damage done, the closeness of the outcome, the importance of the battle itself? I think all three come into play and can easily show what makes a bad battle too. A battle with no invasion nor need for defence. The current battle system permits this, but is there an alternative?

As it stands, strategy is a seldom used word. The closest we come is Poland 'strategically' moving around the world, destroying everything in it's path. With automatic battles and the inability to launch more than one, the amount of warfare strategy in this game is at an all time low, but is there an alternative?

What if there was an alternative. A battle system with just a wall and 60 seconds. What, you ask? Let me run you through it.

The attack is launched, within seconds the amassed players are informed and the attacks begin to fly. By the time the 60 seconds are up, a small chunk has been taken from the wall, now the next few minutes and hours make the battle. From the 60 second point, the battle only ends when the wall is completely destroyed or completely restored.

This setup would put the burden of the battle on the attacking forces. Countries would need to plan ahead for every attack or risk losing the battle and any attack fees. There would be no need for the one battle per war rule, launching multiple attacks would become a risk with no reward unless they can win them all. It would make every battle a good battle, up the strategic merit of the military module and overall make the module more interesting from soldier to MoD.