So why are there so many ranked termed wars?
Ranked wars should be competitive.
Started by Metal_Daze420 [2336693] on in Questions & Answers.
About this thread
Posts archived: 8 / 8 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
- Archived posts
- 8
- Discussion span
- →
- People posting
- 8
- Likes on archived posts
- 7
- Authority score
- 44 / 100
- Historical score
- 17 / 100
- Story score
- 32 / 100
- Engagement score
- 54 / 100
Thought you'd have better luck in Q and A dude? Nice try
Less effort, easy money, no one needs to deal with getting hosp locked or stressing about the chain.
You already have a thread in GD, what are you hoping to accomplish by this question?
The answer is that both parties get more out of terming and our energy can be spent on training.
An actual competitive war will cost both sides in the range of 20-50b to fight, most FACS can't sustain this on a consistent basis - this means that either the wars will be half-assed which feels bad, or termed which allows everyone involved decent cashflow
If we wanna see more competitive wars there needs to be balance brought to the force, however I don't see how this could happen; you can't give FACS 50b worth of monetary shits every war, otherwise the terming problem would be that much more lucrative (imagine a world where diamond FACS can provide like 50m/hit in a termed war lol, would be insane)
It seems you have an allergy for money...
Cost of a termed war maxes out at about 190m
Cost of a real war has no max
Payout of a termed war is say around 3bn depending on rank and termed split
Payout of a real war is around 1.5bn or 4.5bn depending if you win..
Mathematically speaking, it makes more sense to term
The only time real war makes sense is if you can pretty much guarantee a win and a quick one