Attack versus Defenders

[Stampeda]

My suggestion is as followed thougt the suggestion is kinda based and the "player getting bigger"

We all like to war , we all like to crush things ... It's cheap to crush things I say it in a funny way cus its funny to crush things

But massing somone is terrible cheap unlike the defence from someone extremely exspensive as defence can be touched and strike cannot unless you sab the weapons.

Therefore is a strike cheap so are the loses of the Super soldiers and all that , thats involved in massing a defence

Everone knows that accounts grow like chickens laying eggs constantly...

raising the loses of massers make it more intense , everone knows a war is a cost of something

Besides like in a real war with more soldiers u'll have more deaths than the oppsite of the camp

100 soldiers thows grenades at 3000 soldiers who will have the most loses ? I'm being realistic here.

I don't want that defences will become untouchable , but as accoount grow so should be the loses cus losing 3k for 1 at hit while you have 130 mill army size is quit low and cheap.

[Stampeda]

whats the suggestion?

make strikes more expensive to lose?

Well raising the ratio of loses yes , seeing the game grows.

Or perhaps just raising the repair bills of the strike weapons

[~phalax~]

I think this idea has merit, In a realistic sense a defender know their terrain better than the attackers this should increase attackers losses if you play it that way, but in saying that technology has a part to play, he who has the better technology should win?

[Lore]

when you can kill over 50 mill men and lose only 2 mill doing it, the game is to far skewed. thats why no one carries defenses anymore during war time, they are useless and a liability.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

when you can kill over 50 mill men and lose only 2 mill doing it, the game is to far skewed. thats why no one carries defenses anymore during war time, they are useless and a liability.

This game has become terribly unbalanced and unrealistic. That`s why i`ve lost interest in it. The old school battles were a lot more fun and after i supported for so long the update with the planets, i have come to the conclusion that these planets unbalanced the game and screwed up everything. There is absolutely no strategy left, except for maybe the live MS battles...


Anyway, here's a suggestion...

- introduce a new type of attack for massing only that would be extremely expensive, costing as much as the defense to be massed, or variable depending on the differences. In this type of attack the planets will not be involved, because no stranger will want to risk his homeworld for the greed of one tiran.
- the farming and raiding attack should cause no damage at all or a very very small damage to the defense...

This suggestion will achieve this:
- will make the planets not that important... if you want to mass, you will have to pay, either UU to mass with the massing attack, either lots of turns and lots of repair naq if you use the classic attack
- will make the wars winable... the ones with more UU and who will build defenses will win... or the ones who cannot cause damage will surrender or will think twice before waging wars against the bigger economies.

[CABAL]

when you can kill over 50 mill men and lose only 2 mill doing it, the game is to far skewed. thats why no one carries defenses anymore during war time, they are useless and a liability.

This game has become terribly unbalanced and unrealistic. That`s why i`ve lost interest in it. The old school battles were a lot more fun and after i supported for so long the update with the planets, i have come to the conclusion that these planets unbalanced the game and screwed up everything. There is absolutely no strategy left, except for maybe the live MS battles...


Anyway, here's a suggestion...

- introduce a new type of attack for massing only that would be extremely expensive, costing as much as the defense to be massed, or variable depending on the differences. In this type of attack the planets will not be involved, because no stranger will want to risk his homeworld for the greed of one tiran.
- the farming and raiding attack should cause no damage at all or a very very small damage to the defense...

This suggestion will achieve this:
- will make the planets not that important... if you want to mass, you will have to pay, either UU to mass with the massing attack, either lots of turns and lots of repair naq if you use the classic attack
- will make the wars winable... the ones with more UU and who will build defenses will win... or the ones who cannot cause damage will surrender or will think twice before waging wars against the bigger economies.

Agreed, however, I would like to add that the masser has to lose MORE than the defender during profitless massing. Otherwise you will still get ME farmers

[Sarevok]

IMO, anything that unskews attack vs defense is work a look into. If you are going to mass a well setup defense, expect heavy losses.

Stupid example, but take the movie 300, they were defensive, and killed many attackers

[d3stroyer_69]

THough I bet im completely off topic maybe some kind of special def, attack for everyone should apply... Maybe the ability to add naq to repair weapons would make it more costly to mass an active player or someone trying to get back in the game...

Or maybe give the option to make def supers /def weapons untouchable (like they arent there) if you want... Could bring a new tactic into game...

[Sarevok]

OR, the attackers looses 5-10% * (defense power / attack power) of their units for an attack that is unsuccessful. Based on, chances are, if you launch an unsuccessful assault on someone, their guys aren't gonna stand their while you retreat, there gonna gun as many of your guys down as they can

[Lore]

I dont think an attacker should lose more automaticly, to me a far superior attacking force should overpower/over run a defesive position.

The main and worst issue is weaponless defenders, and the way AC works.

Both can be easily solved

First off it has NEVER made sense that covert and AC are not like att and def. Covert should kill incoming AC, and AC should killed hunted covert.

There should never be the situation of 0 losses for any attacking force.

All weapons should never reach 0 strength, not attack or defense. They should start at 100% and degress down to 50% or even 25%. But it should never be 0. Heck no one ever heard of a bayonet? Never though to just club the heck out of someone with the butt of the gun? I mean really!!!!!!!

If nothing else, give defensive soilders a secondary weapon, a knife or a sword, that way you CAN still kill all the defensive soilders, but now it will actually cost you to kill them.

0 losses should NEVER happen, everything should have a cost.

[Sarevok]

I agree, a far superior attack force should. The equation i gave was meant to be only for failed assaults on the defenses "for an attack that is unsuccessful". If you for example keep the % but use the multiplier i gave, an attack force 2x larger then the defensive, would only take 1/2 of the % they would now.

[Ĕɱƿŷ]

Perhaps lowering the strength of attack weapons so that massing actually gives the attacker losses?

[CABAL]

Unarmed troops also should deal damage

After all, nobody would sit there and be shot - They'd fight back

[Tekki]

Actually it DID used to be that if you attacked a 0 defence with LOTS of men, one or two died in the cross fire. I haven't noticed that lately.

[CABAL]

Actually it DID used to be that if you attacked a 0 defence with LOTS of men, one or two died in the cross fire. I haven't noticed that lately.

That's the case, but 0 defenders = 3 damage, 1mil defenders = 3 damage
that is messed up...