Multiple enemy-nation penalty

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Multiple enemy-nation penalty

      After a few years' hiatus, I'm back playing CoW again :)

      The new version removed the war penalty to morale when at war with multiple enemy-nations; that is, each enemy-nation affected one's morale, compounded. So, going to war with more than one enemy at a time was still possible, but somewhat unattractive.

      I did notice that an expansion penalty has been introduced. I think this is a good idea, as it factors in the increasing inefficiency of an ever-growing empire.

      But, back to the multiple enemy-nations issue. I myself think a multiple enemy-nation penalty is a good idea, yet, it was removed from the game. I'm hoping experienced players will comment on this, pro or con.

    • Eh, it could be left out now, the provinces get de-moralized alot thanks to the Expansion Penalty, plus, a Coalition could declare war on you and absolutely Murder your Province Morale
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison

      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - Support Form.
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.

    • I didn't think about having a Coalition declare war... But, that should go both ways.

      If say, the multiple members of a Coalition each declare war on a non-mutual neighbor, then each member of the Coalition would/should be at war with multiple enemy-nations, and each would/should suffer some corresponding penalty(ies).

      It's a sticky issue. It seems to me that players who attack multiple enemy-nations, and have multiple enemy-nations at one time (regardless of the total number of provinces involved) - should suffer a penalty(ies).

    • Actually I think there SHOULD be a weighted war penalty from a gameplay point of view... for example, UK was at war with SOME remote place in the world for almost every single day over the 19th and early 20th century (quelling riots in India or Palestine, subjugating Pacific islands, scheming against Russia in the Crimea, and all kinds of stuff like that), but the British population would only consider themselves to be at war (and suffer a potential moral loss) when they were fighting countries like Germany or France.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Hurbala wrote:

      I think that a slight morale penalty could be a good thing for a mulit-nation-attacker!
      And what if 5 people declare war on you?

      That suddenly becomes your fault, not many want it back for good reason, this is why.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison

      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - Support Form.
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.

    • if I am crazy enogh to declare war to 15 nations.. well, I'm suddendly dead unless I'm already so big to be next to the victory.

      moreover in long matches I could be in war with many almost-dead nations..

      and it would not be realistic, not easily: if I attack multiple smaller nations my country could feel proud and stronger, why do you assume it would deserve a penalty? On the contrary, could be a power-up.