what's the community's opinion on this?

[geisha]

I was wondering how the community would see this hypothetical situation:

Alliance A and alliance B are at war (or empire, coalition etc. but let's just say alliance).

The initial massings are long over, many defences were removed, planets stolen, strikes sabbed etc. A managed to remove all defences in B but B never managed to take down everyone in A.

A keeps rebuilding and many players in A were never massed to begin with.

B does not rebuild any defences and does not build high enough strikes to mass down the biggest defences in A.

A keeps sitting on B, sabbing away B's strike actions whenever they happen to build one.

B occasionally masses one of the smaller defences in A which A normally rebuilds pretty soon.

B has lost most their planets while most players in A still have theirs.

To sum it up: A is growing and increasing their stats, B isn't even trying to do anything about it. B isn't building anything.

So who is winning?

[Clarkey]

A has already won and B needs to surrender.

[SVaRuN]

My thought...


B needs to think out of the box and use what they have at their disposal...

Need to start doing a regular A disposement...and then it really wont matter how many times A rebuilds the result will start to show...
If I were B I would start with the figure heads no matter how hard it looks like...

I wouldnt go after the main figure head though cause its pointless if you turn what you would lost on him into a massing of other figure heads you get a nice number and same losses on your side only this time quite some guys down...and when A would see that B can easily do the figure heads they would start questioning when will their time come...

More of A ppl would start using critical etc which is = to lower income and at least a fear effect this time around has its tow...

Also in reverse the B ppl"s moral would go up...

IF however B isnt able to start doing the above then their only chance is in doing what they are doing with some new tactics but in this case they need to adapt to this gameplay and find it enjoyable...

Find it enjoyable and you can war for a very long time without loosing members. In otherwords you have to make the new gameplay your way of gameplay and if that is doable or not is beyond me dont know B"s ppl so well...

If even the baove isnt doable then yes surrendering would be an option...


In any case B"s as A"s alliance will get to see what type of members do they have. But unless B doesnt do smth diffrent its less likely to see what A"s members are made off...the odds need to be diffrent to see the true nature of ppl


That is my opinion and my opinion only...



Blue

[RepliJake]

TO need to get a clue...




Oops, I mean "B"

[geisha]

I think the real question is: what's the definition of winning or losing a war in this game?

IMHO if one party is lacking the resources and/or the will to take down their opponents, they are defeated whether they want to admit it or not.

It's not that you can kill accounts and remove them from the game and who ever is left comes out as the winner...

[Wolf359]

Nobody can win because it is too easy to get to a stage where you are invulnerable to attack (whichever way that might be), but likewise, it is too easy to all of a sudden look as though you're defeated and then quickly build up, attack everyone, and then dismantle anything vuilnerable to attack.

[RepliJake]

I'm coming for you...

[Wolf359]

haha - should've expected that.

perhaps I should've said - too easy if you can be bothered!

[Severian]

The issue is that this is WillPower Wars, not Stargate Wars and not one initiative or update has been implemented to address the issue.

Economics or starvation/siege plays no part as naq is almost limitless and can be brokered, sent direct + PPT allows 4 days free income all the time and so cannot starve an alliance into submission.

Logistics plays no part as its easy to jump in/out of perge and there is an unlimited amount of attack turns which can be bought with near limitless resources.

Stratergies and Tactics play no part as 0 stat accounts can dish out a massive damage output without requiring a damage input.

Onces people have lost their initial stats, they have nothing more to lose, nothing more to fear and can fight indefinetly without any sort of worry or disadvantage.

In effect, the game is who can outlast losing their normal gameplay/watching numbers go up the longest. People are realising this and as a result wars are getting longer and longer and once mighty powers or initiatives, wars and massings have lost their physical and psychological effect beyond the inital strike.

The question is, do we want Willgate wars and happy with the way things are or actually take the concepts of Economics, Logistics, Tactics and Stratergies and work out solutions to implement these concepts which are atm found wanting.

[RepliJake]

haha - should've expected that.

perhaps I should've said - too easy if you can be bothered!

Easy or not Wolf, I'm a comin...

[vinny d]

It is not over until the fat lady sings.

I don't see anyone from To/CoTo singing.

[Wolf359]

The issue is that this is WillPower Wars, not Stargate Wars and not one initiative or update has been implemented to address the issue.

Economics or starvation/siege plays no part as naq is almost limitless and can be brokered, sent direct + PPT allows 4 days free income all the time and so cannot starve an alliance into submission.

Logistics plays no part as its easy to jump in/out of perge and there is an unlimited amount of attack turns which can be bought with near limitless resources.

Stratergies and Tactics play no part as 0 stat accounts can dish out a massive damage output without requiring a damage input.

Onces people have lost their initial stats, they have nothing more to lose, nothing more to fear and can fight indefinetly without any sort of worry or disadvantage.

In effect, the game is who can outlast losing their normal gameplay/watching numbers go up the longest. People are realising this and as a result wars are getting longer and longer and once mighty powers or initiatives, wars and massings have lost their physical and psychological effect beyond the inital strike.

The question is, do we want Willgate wars and happy with the way things are or actually take the concepts of Economics, Logistics, Tactics and Stratergies and work out solutions to implement these concepts which are atm found wanting.

Unfortunately, it is the result of an update that has made it so. One time, UU were killable and so it was almost impossible to fight back (especially with limited AT) for a certain amount of time until you had rebuilt your army - which you could only do if the other side let you.

However, too many things have changed for UU (or lifers) to be killable again - even I acknowledge that.

As to your last paragraph - I'd love the game to take a step back towards that (we did used to have it) - but I think the only way it will ever happen is if Jason creates a new server.

[REK]

Alliance A won alliance B is now a second rate resistance in occupied terroritory

[Wolf359]

Alliance A won alliance B is now a second rate resistance in occupied terroritory

That's a good way of looking at it - with alliance B resorting to 'guerilla' tactics.

[Unimatrix881]

What's the situation in ascended in relation to A and B? This only seems like main to me.