Larger Penalty for NOT Declaring and just Invading

Georgie27 wrote:

I know this was here when canvas was still around. Possibly even in 1.5. But there should be a bigger popularity penalty for invading countries without declaring war? It's just not considered mature to start a war without declaring war. This is how it is in real life. So can we please get this feature back? Because right now most noobs are launching surprise invasions without declaring war and there are NO repercussions.

If you nuke a city or bombard a lot, your popularity goes down. Shouldn't this be the case as well?

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Georgie27 wrote:

I know this was here when canvas was still around. Possibly even in 1.5. But there should be a bigger popularity penalty for invading countries without declaring war? It's just not considered mature to start a war without declaring war. This is how it is in real life. So can we please get this feature back? Because right now most noobs are launching surprise invasions without declaring war and there are NO repercussions.

If you nuke a city or bombard a lot, your popularity goes down. Shouldn't this be the case as well?

I kinda agree to an extent, but remember, main reason this was dropped is cause people found the whole "trade embargo 24h before declaring war" tedious and not fun. I do agree tho that a trade off between surprise attack and popularity should be made, but no point going back to the old system, it was boring and tedious.

Also, what old system? Doesn't the popularity system work the same as it always has?

i wasnt here in 1.0 so i dont know

Georgie27 wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Georgie27 wrote:

I know this was here when canvas was still around. Possibly even in 1.5. But there should be a bigger popularity penalty for invading countries without declaring war? It's just not considered mature to start a war without declaring war. This is how it is in real life. So can we please get this feature back? Because right now most noobs are launching surprise invasions without declaring war and there are NO repercussions.

If you nuke a city or bombard a lot, your popularity goes down. Shouldn't this be the case as well?

I kinda agree to an extent, but remember, main reason this was dropped is cause people found the whole "trade embargo 24h before declaring war" tedious and not fun. I do agree tho that a trade off between surprise attack and popularity should be made, but no point going back to the old system, it was boring and tedious.

My post was not about the "embargo before war" thing, it's about POPULARITY being affected by the METHOD WITH WHICH YOU START A WAR.

Also, what old system? Doesn't the popularity system work the same as it always has?

WednesdayAddams wrote:

i wasnt here in 1.0 so i dont know

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Georgie27 wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Georgie27 wrote:

I know this was here when canvas was still around. Possibly even in 1.5. But there should be a bigger popularity penalty for invading countries without declaring war? It's just not considered mature to start a war without declaring war. This is how it is in real life. So can we please get this feature back? Because right now most noobs are launching surprise invasions without declaring war and there are NO repercussions.

If you nuke a city or bombard a lot, your popularity goes down. Shouldn't this be the case as well?

I kinda agree to an extent, but remember, main reason this was dropped is cause people found the whole "trade embargo 24h before declaring war" tedious and not fun. I do agree tho that a trade off between surprise attack and popularity should be made, but no point going back to the old system, it was boring and tedious.

My post was not about the "embargo before war" thing, it's about POPULARITY being affected by the METHOD WITH WHICH YOU START A WAR.Also, what old system? Doesn't the popularity system work the same as it always has?

Uhhh...but popularity was affected by choosing to trade embargo or not trade embargo. Btw old system is still there, just slightly altered (no difference between embargo, declare war or surprise attack)

I said that I believe the old method (SURPRISE ATTACK lowers popularity more than DECLARING WAR) should be brought back. There was no reason to get rid of it, other than to cater to noobs who don't understand the fundamentals of the game.

Georgie27 wrote:

WednesdayAddams wrote:

i wasnt here in 1.0 so i dont know

Well then, stay out of this thread, stupid.

WednesdayAddams wrote:

Georgie27 wrote:

WednesdayAddams wrote:

i wasnt here in 1.0 so i dont know

Well then, stay out of this thread, stupid.

someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed...

Damn he sounds like you earlier on

Carking the 6th wrote:

WednesdayAddams wrote:

Georgie27 wrote:

WednesdayAddams wrote:

i wasnt here in 1.0 so i dont know

Well then, stay out of this thread, stupid.

someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed...

Damn he sounds like you earlier on

When you said rude things and called people idiots?

Carking the 6th wrote:

When you said rude things and called people idiots?

Georgie27 wrote:

This is how it is in real life. So can we please get this feature back? Because right now most noobs are launching surprise invasions without declaring war and there are NO repercussions.

In the game, whatever increases fun and playability.

OK my point is not DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE> My Point is the GAME POPULARITY MECHANIC!

SO Case in point, Germany invades Poland, no one in Germany WANTED war so it affected morale. Byt he time the declared war against the French in May popularity changed.

Why don't people comprehend posts on this message board much?

Georgie27 wrote:

OK my point is not DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE> My Point is the GAME POPULARITY FACTOR!

SO Case in point, Germany invades Poland, no one in Germany WANTED war so it affected morale. Byt he time the declared war against the French in May popularity changed.

Why don't people comprehend posts on this message board much?

In your first line, you say that the ingame popularity mechanic should not be realistic. You then reference a real-life event which you think explains your suggestion.

Now explain to me, how would the game tell whether a nation's citizens "want" war or not? Why would there be a different popularity reaction for the two different wars?

And what does this have to do with popularity?

First of all, Reading is fundamental and comprehension is everything.

1) This thread was not meant as a discussion of "MORALE". It was a discussion of should POPULARITY be affected or not when DECLARING WAR versus UNDECLARED INVASION. Do you comprehend this sentence?

2) Never was there a mention of the MORALE PENALTY and how it could be different setting you to war. Already known it does when an invasion occurs. Do you comprehend this sentence?

3) There was no need to have real life referenced in a comparison of whether or not UNDECLARED invasions happen or not. Of course they did. So the person making the post regarding that, did not answer the original question or explain the game mechanics regarding it. Do you comprehend this sentence?

This game HAS both ways to start a war, but the attacking nation's popularity is NOT AFFECTED DIFFERENTLY.

Why? Will it be implemented? Should I be lazy and just invade and not waste an extra click because ya know it's sooo hard to actually do that?

So, can we stick to the topic instead of going off the rails in 10 directions or do I regret being in this game a long time and never joining this messageboard for fear of wasting precious time?

Georgie27 wrote:

First of all, Reading is fundamental and comprehension is everything.

1) This thread was not meant as a discussion of "MORALE". It was a discussion of should POPULARITY be affected or not when DECLARING WAR versus UNDECLARED INVASION. Do you comprehend this sentence?

2) Never was there a mention of the MORALE PENALTY and how it could be different setting you to war. Already known it does when an invasion occurs. Do you comprehend this sentence?

3) There was no need to have real life referenced in a comparison of whether or not UNDECLARED invasions happen or not. Of course they did. So the person making the post regarding that, did not answer the original question or explain the game mechanics regarding it. Do you comprehend this sentence?

This game HAS both ways to start a war, but the attacking nation's popularity is NOT AFFECTED DIFFERENTLY.

Why? Will it be implemented? Should I be lazy and just invade and not waste an extra click because ya know it's sooo hard to actually do that?

So, can we stick to the topic instead of going off the rails in 10 directions or do I regret being in this game a long time and never joining this messageboard for fear of wasting precious time?

Georgie27 wrote:

This game HAS both ways to start a war, but the attacking nation's popularity is NOT AFFECTED DIFFERENTLY.

Why? Will it be implemented? Should I be lazy and just invade and not waste an extra click because ya know it's sooo hard to actually do that?

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Do you still love God, despite what He did to you?

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Georgie27 wrote:

First of all, Reading is fundamental and comprehension is everything.

1) This thread was not meant as a discussion of "MORALE". It was a discussion of should POPULARITY be affected or not when DECLARING WAR versus UNDECLARED INVASION. Do you comprehend this sentence?

2) Never was there a mention of the MORALE PENALTY and how it could be different setting you to war. Already known it does when an invasion occurs. Do you comprehend this sentence?

3) There was no need to have real life referenced in a comparison of whether or not UNDECLARED invasions happen or not. Of course they did. So the person making the post regarding that, did not answer the original question or explain the game mechanics regarding it. Do you comprehend this sentence?

This game HAS both ways to start a war, but the attacking nation's popularity is NOT AFFECTED DIFFERENTLY.

Why? Will it be implemented? Should I be lazy and just invade and not waste an extra click because ya know it's sooo hard to actually do that?

So, can we stick to the topic instead of going off the rails in 10 directions or do I regret being in this game a long time and never joining this messageboard for fear of wasting precious time?

Do you still love God, despite what He did to you?

Idk why he complaining, he probably mad about losing every time someone invades informally. lol

Are you gonna tell your enemy "I'm gonna attack you", and get your army defeated.

You gonna attack him in surprise (most likely get defeated) but also surprise him.

What's the difference?