def and attack army needs to be 1 army

[Draleg]

why have attack and def army , why not just have 1 army

you always have 100% in defence ( unless you just happen to attack someone at the same time as you get attacked )

and as for attacking you can command a % of your army to go attack someone .

OK , you got a 5 tril power army , you want to hit Draleg and he has 1 tril def , you order 1.1 tril power troops to attack , while they attack your defence is 3.9 tril .
This way there wil always be somthing to kill in a war no more having a tril attack and 50k coverts / 1 mil def.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

There is one problem in your suggestion: the attack system as it is, lasts a fraction of a seccond, so you will always be at 5tril defense in your example. Your suggestion is good, but the entire system would have to be re-thinked and re-coded.

[TacticalCommander]

Before:
The main argument against this was that people could have their entire account wiped out in a single massing and be unable to fight back what so ever.

Now However.
Now with army sizes reaching 100 millions, and bank sizes reaching

Maximum Safe Capacity for Empire Stronghold : 18,576,098,307,251

Now not everyone has that big of a bank, but 6-7 trillion banks are becoming more common.

Also, PPT's are more easy to get, and at any point in time. Plus most alliances have at least 1/4 of their alliance on PPT at any given point in time. I think I don't check all they time.

This idea may actually have more merit now, because people will have the units, and people have the naq and the bank space to store it. Enough that offsets the fact their entire account may be destroyed in the first wave because they can easily rebuild and hit back, or come off PPT and hit back. Go on PPT to rebuild and hit back.

Only problem is players with a small bank, particularly small players, would be at a further disadvantage. Depends on how big of a boost the MT for bank space trade is if the admin implements it. Buts not like a small player would be able to strike back against a big player anyway so that really doesn't change anything. So the disadvantage remains the same whether on the proposed system or the current system. Just a slight shift in form of the disadvantage, and its worth it in my opinion to make the game better.

So
Because players certainly have the naq/bank space/units to do it, if they choose not too, then thats their choice and that would likely knock them out of the war.

Now what many players will hate, is that will require them to untrain miners, and then as they add more miners back after the war, they will have large lifer counts which would hinder fighting in the future.

Now if you combine, your only going need one merc, one trained units, and 1 super unit, meaning the other 3 are going to be gotten rid of.

I propose that you keep one
Rename it to military reserve.
-1000 naq to train 1 unit.
-non killable.
-They don't do anything other than sit there.
-Have as many as you want

So when you wake up massed and you need to go war, you can untrain, retrain to supers, use your bank to buy weps and your good to go and you don't have to worry about eating into your income...at least until your reserves run out. Not that hard to code since it is all there, in fact your taking code away because they don't do anything, your just renaming it.

So with all that, I think that as long a players are given a heads up this is coming and not just dumped on them one morning, it will work pretty well.

TC

[Draleg]

that banksize is out of date , Maximum Safe Capacity for Empire Stronghold : 26,852,396,906,634

great post btw.

[Legendary Apophis]

that banksize is out of date , Maximum Safe Capacity for Empire Stronghold : 26,852,396,906,634

great post btw.

Not everyone has that much...

[Lore]

I fully agree with and back this idea. I also think if you are massing someone, then your attack strength should be subtracted from your def strength.

Admin explained to me the problem is in the weapons.
You got 5mill weapons,
you send 1 mill men to attack 1 man 3 times,
you send 2.5 mill to attack someone 1 time,
Now the problem is you have 1 class of weapons with 3 different levels of damage. That is the problem that cant be overcome.

Can you imagine having to repair 1 mill weapons, when each has to be done seperately?

[TacticalCommander]

Now the problem is you have 1 class of weapons with 3 different levels of damage. That is the problem that cant be overcome.

Still addressing that problem, but I now found a better/different way.

I deleted that horribly long post I had before, sorry if you read it all, but seeing as no on posted after it, I didn't think anyone would be sad to see it go.

Back on topic
It involves taking two concepts already in the game and putting the two together.

First Concept, in using AT,
the fewer turns used = less overall weapon damage, less troop loss.

Second Concept,
-In ascension, there is an attack modifier that makes you attack with only a percentage of your total power.


Now we combine these concepts so that,
First the attack modifier
--This becomes a 2nd input box
---same as the one you input number of turns
----same page 2
--so players Choose what percentage of the damage they want to do.
----YOU CHOOSE, its not automatic like in ascension.
--With decimal places like 85.67%, it will give a pretty good level of control on how much is attacking.
-Combined that with the First Concept
--the less % you input to attack with, less your overall troop and weapon damage is.
---Just like using fewer AT
-maybe add make it variable, so like it might actually do only 82% if you input 86%.
--Never go above the max you inputed...unless you got ascended blessing.


The trick would be getting the troop loss total and weapon damage total of a less than 100% strike to = A normal 15 turn strike of 100% of that same power dealt by the less than 100% strike.


Example
In a 15 turn fight
troop losses/weapon damage total
for 1 trillion combat power attacking with 50% power(dealing 500bil power)
would need to equal the same
troop losses/weapon damage total
of a 500bil combat power attacking at 100% power.
against the same power of a defending combat power.
say against 450bil each time

Same would apply if both used 10 turns or 1 turn when attacking.

You following me here? If not, I'll try to clear it up or talk to me on MSN, or ask here. I know its not exactly realistic and all, but it does effectively bypass the problem stated.



I don't think the defense would require any modification to the amount of damage weapons take or troop loss.


TC - not confused anymore.

[hidden]

good idea

[barundin]

i think i got that

but still


THINK OF THE LITTLE PEOPLE like me!!!!!!

[Lore]

OK after talking with TC on MSN. I have come to realize how this idea would work and how good of an idea that it really is.

What TC's suggestion is doing is addressing the weapon damage issue, and addressing the idea of sending only part of your troops into battle. The idea is based on the idea that you could send 100% of your army into battle. Resulting in fully casualities, full damage, and full weapon damage. You can also send in your troops at 50% capasity. What this means is 50% of your troops actuall push deep into enemy territory, the other 50% simply stay in the background laying down cover fire. This results in less casualties, less overall strike power but maintains even weapon damage.

This results in the ability to lessen your strike strength, and casualties involved, to match the defense you are attacking. It also deals with the weapon damage issue, as all weapons are present and this keeps the damage evened out.

[hidden]

yes thats fine to

[Lore]

your siggy scares me


your post count has went from 2K to over 4K lately.



TC'sidea can work on the present system or the idea of 1 army

[Asami Ayano]

This is a horrible idea for anyone under 50 million army.

Sure, farmers get it easier, letting them attack smaller players with less losses, it's the smaller players that loses out.

I mean, seriously, this system will make raiding for anyone. the strongest in the game can just keep building to have an impossible amount of attack/def at the same time.

A smaller player, on the other hand, gets muddled. If they put their army in defense, their troops get killed with minimal loss to the farmers as farmers get lower damage cause they can control amount of troops in now. Thus, it makes everyone able to farm and raid better, driving AT prices up and making smaller player farmed/raided more.

Furthermore, with my current back size, way under a trillion, I can't rebuild my army like that.

[TacticalCommander]

Farmers would not have it easier.

If Someone has 1 mil strike supers, 1 mil defense supers , Stats are combined to be 2 million total.

He hits someone so 1 million rush in, 1 mil hang back, then he is going to take the same losses in troops he would have if stats were not combined.

The raid system, if anything will be made better to the small players advantage.

First, theres the issue of rank, with strike and defense, combined, it becomes harder(not impossible) to manipulate rank.

2nd. Since it would be harder, fewer large players would be able to drop low enough in rank to raid all the inactive players, making it easier for the small players.

3rd. Just because strike and defense are combined, isn't going to change the amount of UU people leave out. So if you have enough out to be raided, then someone will regardless of current system, or this suggestion.

4th. Just because it becomes easier to raid defended targets, doesn't mean it will be profitable.

While it makes it easier to attack others, because you no longer have too build too separate combat stats, it will also make it harder based on the fact that everyone else will also have had both stats combined.

Rising AT prices make it more costlier to farm/raid, effectively resulting in the immediate cancellation of your previous 2 arguments that farming and raiding being made easier.

Your bank size is your own problem, don't make your short comings everyone else.

Maximum Safe Capacity for Empire Stronghold 348,251,267,275
See I have a bank space under 1 trillion too, I wish I had the 26 trillion Draleg has, but thats life.

So heres the easy solution, don't build an army that you can't replace.


IF ANYTHING, this hurts the big players, in fact it hurts them badly.

Because you no longer can have a low def, and high strike.

So if all of side A builds 2 mil large combat, the most of side B would have to build a bigger one to take them down, and then they would have to watch and wait for Side A to knock their own down, and so on. It takes away the fact that side B can just train 3 mil strike supers that can't be killed, so if they build it, even if they sell the weps, those supers are going to get killed. In war, it usually the units loss that counts more than the weapons.

Side B can't just think to themselves, oh I won't build a large combat so they can't weaken me. Because Side A will build one. You think Side B would just surrender, but Side A won't accept, why should they? They just made a bunch of farms for themselves. Even if Side B can't win, they need to be able to show that even while losing, they will be able to inflict enough damage that Side A will be willing to end the war and accept the surrender.


Well I could go on, but I think you by now know the concepts of what I am saying.

Oh and if its the farming/raiding is really that BAD, you can always do one very annoying thing that big players can't do squat about and just go into purgatory. In fact purgatory might become a safe haven for accounts being devastated by war. Assuming their army size drops low enough.

TC

[Lore]

AND

If this idea was coupled with limited AT you would see people waiting to hit profitable targets, not massing anything that moves.

Also, if you make it so you cant unarm a soilder who has been armed, it will be even better.