the little guys...

[ramen07]

why are small players protected this much?

05:48 **** 10,696,733,560 Naquadah stolen 15 7,245 8,040 441,370,356,516 82,813,434,852

highlighted are my losses and his defense power. this small of a def and he kills more of my supers than i kill of his? i think sgw is going too far to protect smaller players. and yes i know this is a small loss for me but i just find it silly that i would lose any at all. ive got 5x his def!

oh btw i didnt really appreciate it when i was small either

(exit complaint.)

[Lore]

why are small players protected this much?

05:48 **** 10,696,733,560 Naquadah stolen 15 7,245 8,040 441,370,356,516 82,813,434,852

highlighted are my losses and his defense power. this small of a def and he kills more of my supers than i kill of his? i think sgw is going too far to protect smaller players. and yes i know this is a small loss for me but i just find it silly that i would lose any at all. ive got 5x his def!

oh btw i didnt really appreciate it when i was small either

(exit complaint.)

Alot of people agree the small are protected far to much, but to answer your question as best I can, Jason said the high losses come from the idea that the strike has few targets and the defense can basicly shoot blind and still hit someone, thats why the high losses.

[ThunderCat]

to reduce losses use mothership, strike planets, and mercs.

[ramen07]

to reduce losses use mothership, strike planets, and mercs.

ill try that.

btw when i get mercs they really dont change my strike that much, even if i get a few mill.

Alot of people agree the small are protected far to much, but to answer your question as best I can, Jason said the high losses come from the idea that the strike has few targets and the defense can basicly shoot blind and still hit someone, thats why the high losses.

very true but if they strike fast enough, numbers will overpower pretty much anything. but i see his reasoning

[Tacet]

I appreciate the reasoning, but then it should go both ways....

[ThunderCat]

to reduce losses use mothership, strike planets, and mercs.

ill try that.

btw when i get mercs they really dont change my strike that much, even if i get a few mill.

hmm. if you have a strike that is say 50 billion (~350k supers) you can increase that by 50% by buying 350k merc to go along with it. then you would have a 75 billion strike with the same number of supers. then you can add 10 35 billion strike planets on and you have 375 billion strike using 700k supers. plus add on a 100 billion strike mothership and you have a beautiful 475 billion strike that only uses 350k uu and 700k weapons.

you have to invest quite a bit of naq into the planets, but the general idea is that you can take a lot of the pressure off your troops that way and get into some heavy duty farming and massing without taking big losses.

as far as I know mercs are half as good as supers (but much cheaper).

http://www.stargatewars.com/help.php#Calculations

unless these have changes....

[Lore]

Mercs= Guards = 1/2 supers?

Thats what I thought

[Tacet]

I'll concur.

That's why he has it at 25 bil for 50 bil super value, I think. The number of mercs change with ascensions, however. At LG+1 you can have slightly more than 100% mercs. I don't know if it increases after LG+1, though.

[ThunderCat]

if you don't get as many defense merc and defense supers then you can get a higher number of strike merc than strike supers.

[stephen sarsfield]

why are small players protected this much?

05:48 **** 10,696,733,560 Naquadah stolen 15 7,245 8,040[/cor] 441,370,356,516 [color=#FF0000]82,813,434,852

highlighted are my losses and his defense power. this small of a def and he kills more of my supers than i kill of his?

I thought there are some percentages involved there

[ramen07]

thanks guys for your help

@stephen- percentages? explain

[Eternal Serenity]

This has turned into more of a question and answer thread instead of discussion. So Im going to move it for now.

Moved to appropriate section.

[knight]

Think of it this way.

If you are storming the castle, the def has the advantage. All that open ground.

[_Rube_Dragon_]

the battle of thermopoly = the movie 300 that is what is gogin on you have a larger force so more can be killed with les effort
more = more losses

[~Insider Trader~]

Max 2.5% die - thats the rule?

I can't see how small players are protected when you come and hit them with 441bill strike and win their meagre 10bill naq. They have no naq ergo they lose. If there was no limit on killing troops then you could mass someone in 1 hit couldn't you? And then take their weps out with no losses? And no one wants that do they?

I know the discussion is still going on about how the players with 10-20m miners can't survive a night without having a bit of luck and critical def con on . But thats an argument in another thread......