Idea: Attack soldiers help defend, but at low effectiveness.

[mgweir]

First, I'm still a n00b when it comes to fighting. Please let me know where my reasoning or idea doesn't work.

The problem as I see it is that it is easy to build large strikes and destroy anyone's defense. When you destroy that defense, you can kill a few spies, but it remains difficult to affect that strike. Even if you sab it down, your opponent can buy new weapons fairly quickly. Esp. with 4 days of ppt to recover funds.
Effectively, there is no need to have more than a token defense, and it is difficult to significantly affect your opponent's ability to hit back.

My idea is to have attack soldiers add to your defense (and die, etc at normal rates) but only at 1/10th the effectiveness. The actual number is subject to testing. What I think would happen here is that attack and defense would be more balanced. You would have an incentive to build a defense to protect your attackers. It's also not like real assault troops would sit and watch their country get invaded.

For battles, if you took down your opponent's defense, you'd get to slaughter attack troops. This would encourage players to balance their defense and their attack, use untrainable troops, and generally add a level of strategy to the gameplay.

Let me know what you think, and if there are reasons this wouldn't work, or would need to be changed.

[~Massin4Christ~]

First, I'm still a n00b when it comes to fighting. Please let me know where my reasoning or idea doesn't work.

The problem as I see it is that it is easy to build large strikes and destroy anyone's defense.

Everyone gets the right to build how they want to, some choose large strikes and a token defense others equal them, or have a large defense and small strike.

When you destroy that defense, you can kill a few spies, but it remains difficult to affect that strike. Even if you sab it down, your opponent can buy new weapons fairly quickly. Esp. with 4 days of ppt to recover funds.
Effectively, there is no need to have more than a token defense, and it is difficult to significantly affect your opponent's ability to hit back.

Depends on there army size, there is next to no point in massing someone under 25M army size with less than 10% total in stats... Above that and it starts to changed...

My idea is to have attack soldiers add to your defense (and die, etc at normal rates) but only at 1/10th the effectiveness. The actual number is subject to testing. What I think would happen here is that attack and defense would be more balanced. You would have an incentive to build a defense to protect your attackers. It's also not like real assault troops would sit and watch their country get invaded.

No, my attack soldiers are for farming and raiding, I dont desire them to be used in defense as many others. Also, people at war usually dont have a large number of att. supers trained...

For battles, if you took down your opponent's defense, you'd get to slaughter attack troops. This would encourage players to balance their defense and their attack, use untrainable troops, and generally add a level of strategy to the gameplay.

No, its peoples choice to have a high covert, low covert, high strike, low strike, etc...

Let me know what you think, and if there are reasons this wouldn't work, or would need to be changed.

[Ferra]

I agree with MFC. Its the players choice to build how they want.

[Tekki]

If you want attack soldiers to help defend, then declare a war of attrition And wait for it to be accepted, then that will have this effect.

[Maha Vishnu]

It is player choices, but so is having lots of covert agents, so is having large defences for income, but all these we are told are not the way to play the game, as someone will mass them.

The biggest issue with this game is that players hide behind no stats.

This makes the game a farce. If you want to war, then you should pay the price.

Players want the Cake and eat it.

Ultimately, if the server war had used the war of attrition capabilities, then a winner (game wise) would of been decided ages ago.

Still cannot understand why the sides fighting in the server do not have a cease fire for 1 week, then sort the alliances into uber allainces and ask Jason to change the war of attrition to be user defined on days.

i.e 1 day to X months.

Then this would shut up all those from both sides spouting there winning, which clearly from a neutrals point of view it is whoever thread your reading at that time, your tactics are no more then CHOAM tactics. Bore your opponets to death and hope then will die of old age lol.

Those who fight by there sword (or plasma cannons) die by the sword (plasma cannons)

[mgweir]

I do agree that everyone should be able to build how they wish.
As a game design, there should be bonuses and penalties for doing so. Or a risk/reward, if that is clearer.
As I see it, there is too little risk and too much reward for having a large strike. And a large risk with little reward for building a large defense. (i.e. you sleep and get massed and lose your troops/weps)
The covert/AC/lifer stuff is pretty well balanced. With the possible exception of a way to harm naq production of miners, but that's a bit different.
There are some problems with planets stripping/attack. I don't know much about this part of the game yet.
The biggest problem is the imbalance between strike and defense. How often does someone brag about a 5t def? How long does that def last?
Building a def more than a few supers has very little reward for the risk, and is unbalanced with the risk/reward for a large strike.
That's my reasoning behind thinking about a change for the system.

[Tekki]

What would help here is declare war to mass and reducing the effectiveness of a 1AT strike against a defence. If the 1AT strike didn't kill as many men as it did then massing would become more expensive. Especially with planets as we have people with 1t strikes with about 1million supers... or less. That means their losses are REALLY low while the defender, regardless of planets loses more when being hit with 1 AT. Equalise that for some more risk in striking peoples.

[scottk]

OR you could have a set amount of attacks you could do only exstented if you win the battle like five and more if you win them to allow raiding for UU

[CABAL]

You have to let the players decide... I agree that there should be some sort of a 'initiate revolution' type thing in main... But if you ask the admin stuff like "ooo! people should build defs as well not just rediculously high strikes" then people will have no choice... You'd end up KNOWING a person's def/attack/covert JUST be looking at their armysize!

[Duderanch]

You have to let the players decide... I agree that there should be some sort of a 'initiate revolution' type thing in main... But if you ask the admin stuff like "ooo! people should build defs as well not just rediculously high strikes" then people will have no choice... You'd end up KNOWING a person's def/attack/covert JUST be looking at their armysize!

Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

[CABAL]

You have to let the players decide... I agree that there should be some sort of a 'initiate revolution' type thing in main... But if you ask the admin stuff like "ooo! people should build defs as well not just rediculously high strikes" then people will have no choice... You'd end up KNOWING a person's def/attack/covert JUST be looking at their armysize!

Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

IF people started implementing ideas which restrict freedom, i.e. the one where your def has to be relative to your miners etc... Things would become so predictable... You'd have pages upon pages of similar troop layouts etc

[scottk]

what i mean is that is you mass some one over and over your beat them to a pulp and there defense will be none ive done it to some one 10times me size and got all of there stuff