Attack weapon damage ....

[~Phoenix~]

Well .. defence is much more important than attack .. I asked myself .. why? To keep naquada ..... a high defence is ranked low in comparison to a high offense .. and I think a way to solve this is ... well ..

If you have 5x in defense the enemy does in offense .. you dont suffer any losses ....

Well .. what if you had 5x the enemies defence in your offence .. your weapons dont get damamged and you dont lose troops .. it would definatly even out attack and defense ...

Please comment

[MAsterp]

I like the idea.....

[High guard]

I realy like this idea.

[Balhaar]

I don't like it that much...I like the way it is now.

[High guard]

I don't like it that much...I like the way it is now.

Why you have 15mil defense ?

[~Phoenix~]

I don't like it that much...I like the way it is now.

You lprobably dont know the way it is now ... peeps dont attack people with high defense .. because of enourmous troops losses .. which is why attack isnt generally as high as defence ... peple say this is turning into a peace game .. well this would cause mroe havoc .. and benefit those high attacking people

[Sleipnir]

I'm afraid it would only encourage excessive farming. If you can attack someone who has 30M and a huge defense, or someone who has 20M and no defense, most people will pick the one with no defense, cause the extra 10M often doesn't make up for the repair costs and troop losses.

BTW, I believe damage is already significantly less when fighting someone with small to no defense, and troop losses are non existant in such battles. I see no need to reduce it to 0.

[~Phoenix~]

I'm afraid it would only encourage excessive farming

Exactly Which is good

If you can attack someone who has 30M and a huge defense, or someone who has 20M and no defense, most people will pick the one with no defense, cause the extra 10M often doesn't make up for the repair costs and troop losses.

Which is the SOLE reason why I suggested this

BTW, I believe damage is already significantly less when fighting someone with small to no defense, and troop losses are non existant in such battles. I see no need to reduce it to 0.

Yes .. when small to none defence .. but when you attack someone with a billion defence .. and you have over 1billion attack ... that can sometimes cost you over 1k troops. I know it has for me

Whole point of this ... defense is much more important then offense .. that simply shouldn't be .. a$$gards have too many advantages like this ..

[Sleipnir]

BTW, I believe damage is already significantly less when fighting someone with small to no defense, and troop losses are non existant in such battles. I see no need to reduce it to 0.

Yes .. when small to none defence .. but when you attack someone with a billion defence .. and you have over 1billion attack ... that can sometimes cost you over 1k troops. I know it has for me

Yes, but what about a 1B offense against a 200M defense? I don't know what those numbers are like, are those numbers just as bad? Or a 5B offense against a 1B defense?

Anyway, the way things are set up now, being at the top has its costs. And the good part about that is that it keeps the top from growing beyond reach. Now I agree the asgard defense has some extreme advantages, but I don't think this suggestion will reduce that, or in any way encourage people to attack fat defense asgards. Instead, it will encourage people with huge offense to attack again, but at the expense of low ranking people, further widening the gap between low and high ranks.

[~Phoenix~]

BTW, I believe damage is already significantly less when fighting someone with small to no defense, and troop losses are non existant in such battles. I see no need to reduce it to 0.

Yes .. when small to none defence .. but when you attack someone with a billion defence .. and you have over 1billion attack ... that can sometimes cost you over 1k troops. I know it has for me

Yes, but what about a 1B offense against a 200M defense? I don't know what those numbers are like, are those numbers just as bad? Or a 5B offense against a 1B defense?

Nothng like that .. too my knoledge ... youd get 5x the losses looking at it like that .. see what I mean now ?

[Pyr0t3ch13]

Very good idea, i know becouse i have (only once) tryed to build up a massive offence... i got to about 500M and i attacked someone with 50M def and i lost like 200-300 supers... i was like " OMG, if i attack and use all my turns (around 150 turns) in a single day i would lose more then the troops i made that day (1200 UP) "

There is no way that someone should lose so many troops when thier offence is so high compaired to the def of the opponent.

And i like the no dmg to weps. i mean if i have 500M att and someone has less then 100M def, it should be a walk in the park for my forces and they shouldnt dmg thier weps.

Gala is right, HIGH offence (5x) over the opponents def should not suffer dmg or troop loss

[Sleipnir]

Maybe you could impose a rank modifier on damage and casualties so that casualties are reduced when fighting near your own rank, and drastically reduced when fighting higher ranks, but increased when fighting lower ranks. That would reduce weapon damage when fighting "fair fights", but increase it when you're "stealing candy from the a baby". Seems to me like a better way to close the gap between low and high ranks, instead of widening it.

[Balhaar]

I don't like it that much...I like the way it is now.

Why you have 15mil defense ?

actually i have 300 mil