Possible New Suggestion?

[Hitchkok]

Don't need to link DEF to ATK.
Just make units oriented, as opposed to dedicated.
Meaning:
1) every time you're attacked, all of your units (defence AND attack) take part.
2) defenders can take more damage before dying, attackers deal more damage.
3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.
someone says just like MS?
you got the point.
what about sending defenders on attacks, to mitigate losses?
could make this game much more tactics oriented.

[CABAL]

Don't need to link DEF to ATK.
Just make units oriented, as opposed to dedicated.
Meaning:
1) every time you're attacked, all of your units (defence AND attack) take part.
2) defenders can take more damage before dying, attackers deal more damage.
3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.
someone says just like MS?
you got the point.
what about sending defenders on attacks, to mitigate losses?
could make this game much more tactics oriented.

I like your idea, but imo, it'll require too much changing of SGW's attacking algorithms, and hence, I would wonder if adminJ would ever 'get around to doing it'

[Lithium]

I do hate people that jump onto PPT as soon as they mass someone whos wasnt on nox/crit giving them no hope in retaliation and come up with BS excuses like they had to sleep.
And then to top it off they always have nox/crit on, and never build anything other than a token defence.
Noobs.

dont tell me u ve never done it

[Sarevok]

I do hate people that jump onto PPT as soon as they mass someone whos wasnt on nox/crit giving them no hope in retaliation and come up with BS excuses like they had to sleep.
And then to top it off they always have nox/crit on, and never build anything other than a token defence.
Noobs.

dont tell me u ve never done it

Total wars I've been in [1]
Total PPT's used prior to/during/with 5 days after the war [0]
Total accounts massed out side of war [0]
There you go, didn't save I've not done it

3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.

As long as that is in reference to defending, and not attacking ok. If it's for attacking, um NO!?

[Hitchkok]

Don't need to link DEF to ATK.
Just make units oriented, as opposed to dedicated.
Meaning:
1) every time you're attacked, all of your units (defence AND attack) take part.
2) defenders can take more damage before dying, attackers deal more damage.
3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.
someone says just like MS?
you got the point.
what about sending defenders on attacks, to mitigate losses?
could make this game much more tactics oriented.

I like your idea, but imo, it'll require too much changing of SGW's attacking algorithms, and hence, I would wonder if adminJ would ever 'get around to doing it'

i didn't see the actuall algorithams, but how about this:
you take the amount of units you lose as it is now (the result of the current algoritham) multiply it by (say) 0.8, and that's how many defenders you lose. then multiply the first result by (say) 0.2, and that's how many attackers you lose.
in other words: instead of losing X units, you lose:
10X/8 Defenders
10X/2 Attackers.

attack and defence action is calculated the same way, only attackers add a certain amount of defece action, and (maybe) defenders add a certain ammount of attack action.

EDIT: only thing is, something has to be done to prevent massing of a players entire army. would ruin the game if people would log in to find not only their entire defence, but also their entire attack destroyed.

3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.

As long as that is in reference to defending, and not attacking ok. If it's for attacking, um NO!?

I think an option to send defenders on attack should be, at the very least, considered.
if you have a concrete reason for objecting, feel free to post it

[Sarevok]

3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.

As long as that is in reference to defending, and not attacking ok. If it's for attacking, um NO!?

I think an option to send defenders on attack should be, at the very least, considered.
if you have a concrete reason for objecting, feel free to post it

Umm, there meant to defend? I'd like to see you move a anti-missile silo out of the ground, and with you to another country to attack with.

The ratio thing won't work also. Just means, they have 0 defenders, and again, no attackers get killed. Why?
If 80% of losses is 0, then why would 20% be > 0?

[Hitchkok]

3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.

As long as that is in reference to defending, and not attacking ok. If it's for attacking, um NO!?

I think an option to send defenders on attack should be, at the very least, considered.
if you have a concrete reason for objecting, feel free to post it

Umm, there meant to defend? I'd like to see you move a anti-missile silo out of the ground, and with you to another country to attack with.
actually, most anti-missile system these days are truck mounted and easily transportable. besides, and i can't stress this enough: this is a sci-fi based game
The ratio thing won't work also. Just means, they have 0 defenders, and again, no attackers get killed. Why?
If 80% of losses is 0, then why would 20% be > 0?

well, you can calculate how many units are killed based on how many units you have in total and then have something along the line of:
y:number of defenders
z: number of attackers
x:total number of units
x':total number of deaths
y':number of dead defenders (x*0.
z':number of dead attackers (x*0.2)
if y'>y then z'=z'+(y'-y)
OR (more preferably, as it will make massing strike alot harder)
if y'>y then y'=y

[Sarevok]

3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.

As long as that is in reference to defending, and not attacking ok. If it's for attacking, um NO!?

I think an option to send defenders on attack should be, at the very least, considered.
if you have a concrete reason for objecting, feel free to post it

Umm, there meant to defend? I'd like to see you move a anti-missile silo out of the ground, and with you to another country to attack with.
actually, most anti-missile system these days are truck mounted and easily transportable. besides, and i can't stress this enough: this is a sci-fi based game
I never saw the Tollen Cannons being moved about. They are sci-fi based
The ratio thing won't work also. Just means, they have 0 defenders, and again, no attackers get killed. Why?
If 80% of losses is 0, then why would 20% be > 0?

well, you can calculate how many units are killed based on how many units you have in total and then have something along the line of:
y:number of defenders
z: number of attackers
x:total number of units
x':total number of deaths
y':number of dead defenders (x*0.
z':number of dead attackers (x*0.2)
if y'>y then z'=z'+(y'-y)
OR (more preferably, as it will make massing strike alot harder)
if y'>y then y'=y

Again, how do you kill defenders, if there are none? Imo, just make killing attack units like killing covert. It's doable whilst they have a defense, but its simple, once the defense has been removed.

[Hitchkok]

3) you lose BOTH kinds, more defenders (i think somthing along the line of 2/8 ratio, maybe 25/75). if all of your defenders are killed, you lose more attackers.

As long as that is in reference to defending, and not attacking ok. If it's for attacking, um NO!?

I think an option to send defenders on attack should be, at the very least, considered.
if you have a concrete reason for objecting, feel free to post it

Umm, there meant to defend? I'd like to see you move a anti-missile silo out of the ground, and with you to another country to attack with.
actually, most anti-missile system these days are truck mounted and easily transportable. besides, and i can't stress this enough: this is a sci-fi based game
I never saw the Tollen Cannons being moved about. They are sci-fi based
tollan enginneers just came up with a new portable version.
The ratio thing won't work also. Just means, they have 0 defenders, and again, no attackers get killed. Why?
If 80% of losses is 0, then why would 20% be > 0?

well, you can calculate how many units are killed based on how many units you have in total and then have something along the line of:
y:number of defenders
z: number of attackers
x:total number of units
x':total number of deaths
y':number of dead defenders ( x'*0.8 )
z':number of dead attackers ( x'*0.2 )
if y'>y then z'=z'+(y'-y)
OR (more preferably, as it will make massing strike alot harder)
if y'>y then y'=y

Again, how do you kill defenders, if there are none? Imo, just make killing attack units like killing covert. It's doable whilst they have a defense, but its simple, once the defense has been removed.

Have you read the suggestion?
the first part clearly says that amount of deaths will be calculated based on total amount of units, then distributed.
the second part shows two option to deal with an event in which there are no defenders
option A uses the excess amount of deaths to kill attackers (Rephrase:make killing attack units like killing covert. It's doable whilst they have a defense, but its simple, once the defense has been removed).
option B "wastes" the excess.
i'll say it again: out of the two, my vote is for option B.
why?
since, as you well know, people are already complaining about their defenses being massed at night.
and frankly, massing is just too easy. find someone offline who'se defence is less than 10/3 you're attack, be ready to accept severe losses and pay Hefty ammounts on retraining and repairing weapons, and in less than a turn you scrap his defensive weapons, leaving him defenceless.
now, loging in to find no defenses is frustrating enough. imagine you have no offense aswell!.
only viable strategy would be to train only miners, and invest only in UP, and log in every 4 turns or so to bank/spend. oh, and going on PPT twice a week, which i tried and got bored to death with.
oh, right, there will be another strategy. get out a Credit Card and log in to the black market.

[Sarevok]

Umm, there meant to defend? I'd like to see you move a anti-missile silo out of the ground, and with you to another country to attack with.
actually, most anti-missile system these days are truck mounted and easily transportable. besides, and i can't stress this enough: this is a sci-fi based game
I never saw the Tollen Cannons being moved about. They are sci-fi based
tollan enginneers just came up with a new portable version.
The ratio thing won't work also. Just means, they have 0 defenders, and again, no attackers get killed. Why?
If 80% of losses is 0, then why would 20% be > 0?

WHEN? They said they'd have to re-assemble it on earth, since it wouldn't fit though the Stargate :/

Have you read the suggestion?
the first part clearly says that amount of deaths will be calculated based on total amount of units, then distributed.
the second part shows two option to deal with an event in which there are no defenders
option A uses the excess amount of deaths to kill attackers (Rephrase:make killing attack units like killing covert. It's doable whilst they have a defense, but its simple, once the defense has been removed).
option B "wastes" the excess.
i'll say it again: out of the two, my vote is for option B.
why?
since, as you well know, people are already complaining about their defenses being massed at night.
and frankly, massing is just too easy. find someone offline who'se defence is less than 10/3 you're attack, be ready to accept severe losses and pay Hefty ammounts on retraining and repairing weapons, and in less than a turn you scrap his defensive weapons, leaving him defenceless.
now, loging in to find no defenses is frustrating enough. imagine you have no offense aswell!.
only viable strategy would be to train only miners, and invest only in UP, and log in every 4 turns or so to bank/spend. oh, and going on PPT twice a week, which i tried and got bored to death with.
oh, right, there will be another strategy. get out a Credit Card and log in to the black market.

I would say option A. Defense is massable easily, why shouldn't attack be also? Most people have either a large defense, or a large attack, and a token of the other. Large defense gets massed, and they loose everything trained (except their few trained attackers). Large attack gets massed, and they loose their token defense (oh no's).

Also, nightly PPT will NEVER come in.

[Lore]

You two are bickering over nothing. The thread is about defense UNITS being killed, not a massive defense weapon. I like hitchkok's idea fairly well myself.

way I see it, with the unlimited resources, and easy, simply massing methods, even making strikes massable wont truely change anything. It will place more importance on larger banks to store the resources to buy more UU and house naq for weapon purchases.

In essence all it means is strike will now have to be written off as a loss the same way defenses are, but will ultimately change nothing.

[Hitchkok]

wer'e not bickering, it's all good-natured.
only seems so since it's on three different threads.
anyway, i believe we came to some sort of aggreement, or at least a status-que

[Lore]

wer'e not bickering, it's all good-natured.
only seems so since it's on three different threads.
anyway, i believe we came to some sort of aggreement, or at least a status-que

To me the word bickering is not meant in a negative way? kinna like haggling over a price? In many ways the way of a discussion can determine its outcome if that makes sense to you?

wasnt meant in a negative way is what I was aiming to say BTW.

[Sarevok]

In essence all it means is strike will now have to be written off as a loss the same way defenses are, but will ultimately change nothing.

In my view, this is what should be done. If their willing to wipe out your defense with a large strike, then they should be willing to watch their strike ALSO be wiped out, in retribution.

[Tropic Thunder]

Why not create a new attack to allow you to mass strike, but you would have to do it once the defense is zeroed otherwise the strike an defense would be added together? To stop it being totally unfair on the defender ensure that:

The loses when someone is massing the strike are hugely in the defender's role. (Instead of having to have a 30% of their strike you wil have to have a 50%+). Or even having a larger strke then their defense?

Make the new attack require alot more ATs than just 15, maybe 50? so if they are on NOX, some of their strike may be salveged.

The only down side is that people won't be able to figh back if their defense and strike have been zeroed, but by making it alot more costly than it s already it would make it overal alot fairer.