Larger Penalty for NOT Declaring and just Invading

TommyHR wrote:

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?

TommyHR wrote:

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?

As for planned attacks, most won't fail because it takes days to plan them out perfectly. I have seen matches where someone paid $100 had a hordes of planes and the game was ruined within 30 days at x4 speed. It was so much fun I didn't bother playing anymore for months.

Sneak attacks ON EVERYONE are for cowards. Would it be cowardly against a more formidable opponent? No, a tactic.

Croa Del Mar wrote:

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?

I'm pretty sure up until about 6 months ago there was a difference, but then they made the popularity penalty the same amount. Now the only thing that will be different is the announcement in the newspaper and front report.

Are you contributing anything new to this thread or just regurgitating known information because you're bored?

Have any of the guesses and assumptions anyone posted here after (or before) @Taffyta Muttonfudge's post contributed anything useful?

Georgie27 wrote:

TommyHR wrote:

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?

Big difference. How about everyone just surprise attacks each other without penalty. Such realism and amazing fun. Not. This game strives to implement realism and fairness. I give my opponents a fair warning. Formal Declaration while my troops are in motion but not violating the formal declare before they attack.

As for planned attacks, most won't fail because it takes days to plan them out perfectly. I have seen matches where someone paid $100 had a hordes of planes and the game was ruined within 30 days at x4 speed. It was so much fun I didn't bother playing anymore for months.

Sneak attacks ON EVERYONE are for cowards. Would it be cowardly against a more formidable opponent? No, a tactic.

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?

Georgie27 wrote:

WednesdayAddams wrote:

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?

He need the jesus and help.Idk why he complaining, he probably mad about losing every time someone invades informally. lol

Well perpetually wrong retard, guess what? I am Christian too and have a winning record on here. Darn those amazing facts. Remember how you said you "weren't around for 1.0?" So if you don't know about it, then stay TF away from here.

Really appreciate your completely worthless, uneducated, ignorant, lazy opinion in the grand hopes of feeling like you are right and your fellow morons will pat you on the back. So yea, I will block you as well and as a reply to your useless insult, hopefully your uneducated small mind can figure out this acronym (If you know what that even means) E.S.A.D. and Ill throw in a GFY for a bonus point. Blocking you too. Now cry the seven seas for me, ok?

there's also 'find the light' free rehab services offered at most churches in my area if you are Christian

Georgie27 wrote:

Croa Del Mar wrote:

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?

I'm pretty sure up until about 6 months ago there was a difference, but then they made the popularity penalty the same amount. Now the only thing that will be different is the announcement in the newspaper and front report.

WELL DUH!!!

Are you contributing anything new to this thread or just regurgitating known information because you're bored?

Have any of the guesses and assumptions anyone posted here after (or before) @Taffyta Muttonfudge's post contributed anything useful?

• You're confusing and contradictory

Georgie27 wrote:

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?

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

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?

Oh, the irony!

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?

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?

• You're insulting and accusing others

Georgie27 wrote:

WednesdayAddams wrote:

i wasnt here in 1.0 so i dont know

Well then, stay out of this thread, stupid.

• You're rejecting others' help. You keep stating your own point and refuse to see anyone else's point. True, their points may be bad, but you don't have to absolutely annihilate them every time they comment. Otherwise, jsut keep your points to yourself. Why make this thread at all?
• You're acting like you own this forum and that you are superior to everyone.

Georgie27 wrote:

Well perpetually wrong retard, guess what? I am Christian too and have a winning record on here. Darn those amazing facts. Remember how you said you "weren't around for 1.0?" So if you don't know about it, then stay TF away from here.

Really appreciate your completely worthless, uneducated, ignorant, lazy opinion in the grand hopes of feeling like you are right and your fellow morons will pat you on the back. So yea, I will block you as well and as a reply to your useless insult, hopefully your uneducated small mind can figure out this acronym (If you know what that even means) E.S.A.D. and Ill throw in a GFY for a bonus point. Blocking you too. Now cry the seven seas for me, ok?

lol

Where is the dislike button?

The Popularity system needs to be re-evaluated, I think that there shouldn't be a moral penalty (or a very low one) if you declare war on a country that has declared war on your ally. As well as this, perhaps a smaller popularity drop to declaring war on a country that has launched a surprise attack.

Usually you already get a smaller drop, or no drop, or even an increase if you declare war on countries which attack others. Because those countries are usually disliked most by the AI, and any country being enemy to the countries they dislike, they like more.

As for the extra penalty for not declaring war first: I don't think it will be brought back. It is just an extra click and as said earlier, a noob trap. Starting wars gives enough penalty, and especially noobs make the mistake to start many anyway.

I feel as though the whole popularity system should be reworked.

Yeah probably it should, just not high on the prio list sadly.

So many things to do lol. Still though, plenty of ideas is better than none, right?

freezy wrote:

Usually you already get a smaller drop, or no drop, or even an increase if you declare war on countries which attack others. Because those countries are usually disliked most by the AI, and any country being enemy to the countries they dislike, they like more.

As for the extra penalty for not declaring war first: I don't think it will be brought back. It is just an extra click and as said earlier, a noob trap. Starting wars gives enough penalty, and especially noobs make the mistake to start many anyway.

freezy wrote:

Usually you already get a smaller drop, or no drop, or even an increase if you declare war on countries which attack others. Because those countries are usually disliked most by the AI, and any country being enemy to the countries they dislike, they like more.

Having to declare war at all in a WAR game seem seems ridiculous. It seems only to exist to punish noobs who do not know how to deal with AI players. This is not a fun mechanic. Perhaps if we had functional things like the UN, Bricks, or functional trade routes this could be interesting. Right now its not needed.

RookOnzo wrote:

Having to declare war at all in a WAR game seem seems ridiculous. It seems only to exist to punish noobs who do not know how to deal with AI players. This is not a fun mechanic. Perhaps if we had functional things like the UN, Bricks, or functional trade routes this could be interesting. Right now its not needed.

I agree with Carking, perhaps a better suggestion would be less of a penalty for declaring war instead of a surprise attack.