Possible New Suggestion?

[Sarevok]

You want to make it that someone loses whether they attack of defend, real easy fix,

Make it you cannot sell weapons at all, problem solved.

Defender cannot sell off, they either fight or lose,

Attacker cannot sell off, so if they have that 40mill weapons, someone be going sab happy on them. and as you can only PPT 4 out of 7 you will need either

1. A huge def ( defender gets revenge )
2. A huge covert ( again defender gets revenge )
3. Both ( again defender gets revenge )

Now just tell us, how the person that losses 40m SUPER DEFENDERS feels, when the attack looses he's weapons ONLY, and he's attackers sit there happy as Larry. In essence, the defender looses 2x if not MORE then the aggressor

[Andariel]

just a smaller suggestion that doesn't require a radical change.
lower sab costs to 1 covert turn/ increase the amount of times a player can be sabbed before covert phasing/increase the amount of weapons killed per sab.

[CABAL]

just a smaller suggestion that doesn't require a radical change.
lower sab costs to 1 covert turn/ increase the amount of times a player can be sabbed before covert phasing/increase the amount of weapons killed per sab.

But it still won't solve the problem of snipers :/

[Sarevok]

And won't really allow for the attack units to be killed.

There are a variety of ways to destroy the attack weapons, it's the weaponless, defenseless attack units that are untouchable, that people don't like.

[GeneralChaos]

You want to make it that someone loses whether they attack of defend, real easy fix,

Make it you cannot sell weapons at all, problem solved.

Defender cannot sell off, they either fight or lose,

Attacker cannot sell off, so if they have that 40mill weapons, someone be going sab happy on them. and as you can only PPT 4 out of 7 you will need either

1. A huge def ( defender gets revenge )
2. A huge covert ( again defender gets revenge )
3. Both ( again defender gets revenge )

Now just tell us, how the person that losses 40m SUPER DEFENDERS feels, when the attack looses he's weapons ONLY, and he's attackers sit there happy as Larry. In essence, the defender looses 2x if not MORE then the aggressor

See if you had read the rest of my post instead of what you only wanted to see, you would also see i stated that admin should set it that only 5, 10, or 15 AT's can be used, if the attacker HAS to use a set number of turns, they will LOSE more on each hit.

*sigh

[woodsyEK]

i couldnt be bothered reading the whole thread so sorry if this has already been said!

what about raiders?
radiers dont build stricke to save losers but if this was in place wouldnt they have to build a stricke to build a def to stop farming?

[Sarevok]

You want to make it that someone loses whether they attack of defend, real easy fix,

Make it you cannot sell weapons at all, problem solved.

Defender cannot sell off, they either fight or lose,

Attacker cannot sell off, so if they have that 40mill weapons, someone be going sab happy on them. and as you can only PPT 4 out of 7 you will need either

1. A huge def ( defender gets revenge )
2. A huge covert ( again defender gets revenge )
3. Both ( again defender gets revenge )

Now just tell us, how the person that losses 40m SUPER DEFENDERS feels, when the attack looses he's weapons ONLY, and he's attackers sit there happy as Larry. In essence, the defender looses 2x if not MORE then the aggressor

See if you had read the rest of my post instead of what you only wanted to see, you would also see i stated that admin should set it that only 5, 10, or 15 AT's can be used, if the attacker HAS to use a set number of turns, they will LOSE more on each hit.

*sigh

Oh, so fixing the ratio of losses will allow for attack units to be killed non-passively, that's helpful to know...

[muffafuffin]

not being able to sell weapons is a terrible idea. it might help for war but ruins it for any other player. Ascenders cant sell there weapons for naw they will massively need. players with big defenses who find themselves above the UU buying limit and need to raid now have to get themselves massed so they can get into raiding range. Once defenders lose a bunch of units they now have useless weapons. again good for war not good for anyone else. Now im sure as your in server war you probably dont care about any other players but your plan has a rather negative affect on growth and thus new players, power ascenders, and generally anyone else trying to be productive outside the war suffers because of the idea.

[CABAL]

not being able to sell weapons is a terrible idea. it might help for war but ruins it for any other player. Ascenders cant sell there weapons for naw they will massively need. players with big defenses who find themselves above the UU buying limit and need to raid now have to get themselves massed so they can get into raiding range. Once defenders lose a bunch of units they now have useless weapons. again good for war not good for anyone else. Now im sure as your in server war you probably dont care about any other players but your plan has a rather negative affect on growth and thus new players, power ascenders, and generally anyone else trying to be productive outside the war suffers because of the idea.

I would imagine something like "Due to recent battles, your troops are unwilling to give up their weapons" (You can only sell weapons if you don't attack for like 6 hours or something)

[muffafuffin]

with that edit i MIGHT be able to get on board. but not if its completely undoable.

[Sarevok]

24 hours IMO.

[muffafuffin]

i think that might be too long. want to atleast have the chance for people to be able to drop defenses if they find that off chance big raid. remember though this threads idea is to fix war there is still more to the game.

[Lithium]

lol, if u force members to have mandatory stats then the game changes radically, the best of it is: its dynamically , u can play it in different way, be a rider and farmer , a masser whatever , u can train/untrain what games allows you etc.

sniping wont ever came to an end , lol its part of the game .

the fact of the 0-100b def wit 300-600b strike bothers only in long wars so dont make a case for such things, its ridiculous

[Sarevok]

Your probably right. Forcing stats forces a style of play. All though, as of the moment, having a defense isn't a viable playing style.

I personally think, the ability to kill offensive units, is better then forcing people to have a defense. Admittedly, training normal units is also do-able to avoid this, however, being only 50% effective, would mean they still need 60% of the trained military (if planets and MS were excluded)

[schuesseled]

These kind of ideas are crappy, if someone wants to have 0 defence then by all means let them, just farm them.

These "quick fix" solutions to peoples abilities to war are nonsense to be fair. People want a minimum defence to build a strike simply so they can get more ME in their friveless wars.

If you truely want to sovle all problems relating to balances to do with attack and defence, then thier is one simple and complete solution. Get rid of att/def , simply have Troops, these can both be used to attack other players and defend your realm, if someone massed your troops all of them die, if you mass someone elses all of them die. Simple. Effective. No More large strikes and small defences for ME hungry people, who want to save their own UU losses, no more Large Defence, 1 AT weapon for the turtles, everybody has to arm themselfs as they see fit. If you want to defend your income with 100 billion men then you must also attack with this many meaning you will have to go after the massive sums of naqudah behind big defences, if you wish to have 1 troop, so you can cheaply go afetr turnly naqudah on inactives and raid UU then you can do this very cheaply and efficiently, you will just have no defence.