suggestion concerning defending army

[urogard]

When you get attacked, whatever the size of your army, they will stay and defend your realm.

I think one should be able to set that the defending army wouldn't have to go fight the aggresors at all costs. I think a button should be included (like the alert level one) where you could set how big an enemy army would be where your army would still go and fight. If the enemy would have a larger army than you specified, your army would just run away, leaving it unharmed, and you would lose the same amount of naq/uu's as you would do if you had stood against the enemy and had fought.

Even if I take a RL situation. If your army would consist of 200 men they wouldn't stay in their trenches or whatever to try and fend off an army of 20,000 men.

And i think this should apply only to the size of an enemy army, but not to the equipment they carry (since one can count the enemy soldiers but not always what weapons they are carrying).
(edit):
I want to underline the fact that only the size of the enemy army in numbers is considered, not their equipment. This means one could make an army of 10,000 soldiers without any weapons and you could "defeat" an army that would normally had slaughtered your offensive force.
(edit)
Then, when your army would run away, this would also result in lower/if any repair costs to the enemy.

I suggest a button where you, either write a number how large an army has to be before you run away or just a list of % of your army ranging let's say from 10% in 10's to 250% and then 1 extra option "infinite"

[Wolf359]

This would leave the possibility of never incurring any damage to the defending army, and would make RAID a lot more powerful.

Surely the defending army must mount some sort of defence? Otherwise (hypothetically) the entire realm would be taken over?

[urogard]

This would leave the possibility of never incurring any damage to the defending army, and would make RAID a lot more powerful.

Surely the defending army must mount some sort of defence? Otherwise (hypothetically) the entire realm would be taken over?

but it wouldn't bcs the ppl would rebel and a partisan war would be fought by the civil population. I think the Asgard, Tauri, Replicator and Goa'uld Rulers know this and that is why they retreat their armies after a succesful attack and pillage.

And besides. It's the same thing if the army stays, fights, gets raped and the attacker steals your money or uu's. It is supposed to help the weaker players (ranks 6000+) in order to prevent massive losses against ppl in the ranks about 100-1000.
(and no I am not one of the people in the ranks 6000+).

And besides, raid is limited to a % of the current uu's, and i found out it has no effect (or if, then very little effect) what dmg you do. (1 mil and 1 bil dmg have the same effect on uu's stolen)

>>Edit:
In reality it wouldn't make anything more powerful or less powerful. It would be the defending player who could set up thios option. It would solely serve the purpose of conserving the defending army, by not having it fighting armies which have a huge attack difference.

[urogard]

This would leave the possibility of never incurring any damage to the defending army, and would make RAID a lot more powerful.

Surely the defending army must mount some sort of defence? Otherwise (hypothetically) the entire realm would be taken over?

sorry for saying this, but your answer seems to me like an answer which came just in the moment you ended reading the first post and not having thought about what i might have meant with my suggestion.

[Wolf359]

This would leave the possibility of never incurring any damage to the defending army, and would make RAID a lot more powerful.

Surely the defending army must mount some sort of defence? Otherwise (hypothetically) the entire realm would be taken over?

sorry for saying this, but your answer seems to me like an answer which came just in the moment you ended reading the first post and not having thought about what i might have meant with my suggestion.

Well excuse me if I didn't think about what you MIGHT HAVE MEANT!

Perhaps if you posted what you meant, it wouldn't be a problem, hmmm?

And believe me, I always consider what I am posting.

And besides, raid is limited to a % of the current uu's, and i found out it has no effect (or if, then very little effect) what dmg you do. (1 mil and 1 bil dmg have the same effect on uu's stolen)

There is more to it than a simple percentage.

If you do not like the fact that I do not like your idea, sorry, but tough. Besides, the only reason some people attack is to do damage, not steal naq! This suggestion would render that impossible or, at the very best, unrealistic.

[urogard]

...

Well excuse me if I didn't think about what you MIGHT HAVE MEANT!

Perhaps if you posted what you meant, it wouldn't be a problem, hmmm?

And believe me, I always consider what I am posting, do not presume to know how I post.

...

There is more to it than a simple percentage.

If you do not like the fact that I do not like your idea, sorry, but tough. Besides, the only reason some people attack is to do damage, not steal naq! This suggestion would render that impossible or, at the very best, unrealistic.

Even if someone would try to mass me. Its obvious that an army without weapons wouldn't try to fight another fully-equipped army. This brings more realism into the game. If you don't like it, then it's your problem. I think anything that can make a game more realistic is worth implementing. If it makes it more difficult for people to achieve their aims, just like in RL, then it should be implemented. (this is subjective though, as has been proven by your previous post)
But you forget that some people think that their army is sufficient to fend of any attack so they won't bother, or they even might want to protect their naq and uu's. But that is something you didn't seem to consider, or did you? (make your posts more clear on that)
And I bet 95% of the attacks conducted are just for stealing the naq or uu's. This applies to me b/s i farm accounts no one uses and I am fine with it. I solve my Feuds trough diplomacy, rarely through force. Of course, i know, few like using this option, either because they are incapable of doing so or are just stupid to see the true victory in a such settlement.

and i know that there is more than just a simple percentage but as i said. It has little effect if you attack with 1 mil or 1 bil when stealing uu's.

and please don't get angry. I know you're the mod. And, frankly, I don't care. I treat you as a person that has come to comment on my suggestion and doesn't have any more voting power than anyone else around here.
The fact that you are mod is completely irrelevant and I somehow suspect that you're getting angry and somehow think that you got the right to, just because you have been given a post, most probably due to your ability to handle responsibility, which I will not judge because I think that you have this ability.

besides i need the opinion of more than one person to being able to evaluate whether this is an idea which people would embrace or not.

[Wolf359]

I never brought being a mod into it so I do not understand why you did, and I am not getting angry, I am simply stating MY opinion of your idea.

Sorry if I am not simply dropping into line and saying 'yeah, it's wonderful, let's do it!' That's life bud.

And, please understand, that even if I like an idea, I will more than likely play devil's advocate and point out the faults and consequences of it!

The fact is, some people attack to cause damage to weapons and to kill troops. I can safely say that the majority of my recent attacks has been to do this. And I know some people that only do this!

Whether the defending army with no weapons wants to fight or not, perhaps the attacking army does not wish to give them a choice, so no, the idea does not bring more realism.

The whole point of these discussion threads is to discuss - if you do not like the critique I am giving of your idea, I don't care, but I do not have a 'problem' as you put it. Just do not post if you are not prepared to have your suggestion criticised.

That aside, you are right, it is the opinion of more than just you and I that count!

[urogard]

...Sorry if I am not simply dropping into line and saying 'yeah, it's wonderful, let's do it!' That's life bud.

And, please understand, that even if I like an idea, I will more than likely play devil's advocate and point out the faults and consequences of it!
...
The whole point of these discussion threads is to discuss - if you do not like the critique I am giving of your idea, I don't care, but I do not have a 'problem' as you put it. Just do not post if you are not prepared to have your suggestion criticised.

That aside, you are right, it is the opinion of more than just you and I that count!

I am happy that people give me critique. But what's better than saying what shouldn't be is by saying what something should be instead.
I like that people say that it's bad because of this and that. Because I came up with the idea I would most probably not be able spot them.
I still think, if an army

And the fact I brought the mod thing up, was just due to some past experiences. Some people abusing their rights and thinking they were something better than others.
I'm just glad you're nothing like them which means that, in my opinion, you are more that fitting for your position. (I hope that's it, about that off-topic talk)

[TheSoulHarvester]

the idea is stupid imho... attacking will become useless!

only way Id ever agree to it would be if the minimum percent would be 90%


and its a GAME, not REAL LIFE, hence, it doesnt haveto be realistic!!

[urogard]

the idea is stupid imho... attacking will become useless!

only way Id ever agree to it would be if the minimum percent would be 90%


and its a GAME, not REAL LIFE, hence, it doesnt haveto be realistic!!

why would it become uselless? You would attack and steal his resources.
You can't force an army, which is retreating, to fight.
You could then just set a percentage chance that some percentage of your army would have been killed because they were caught in surprise and weren't prepared to escape.

[cinder__393]

why would it become uselless? You would attack and steal his resources.
You can't force an army, which is retreating, to fight.
You could then just set a percentage chance that some percentage of your army would have been killed because they were caught in surprise and weren't prepared to escape.

i admit i read all except where you and wolf where tiffing

I DONT LIKE THE IDEA.... nothing personel
my self i attack ppls for resorces... (and i like doing damages when i do) because it herts the person twice

i like massing a defence away when some one act like a super player and every one elles is garbage....

if that would be implimented (and they where retreating (i would wont a SLAUGHTER RATE because i would wont my army to chase tehm down and massicer them ) this is a war game DEFENCE is an important thing .... and it should be ther no options of retreating or crap like that because they would be hit even if they were retreating

(hope i addressed all the points i wonted to)

[urogard]

why would it become uselless? You would attack and steal his resources.
You can't force an army, which is retreating, to fight.
You could then just set a percentage chance that some percentage of your army would have been killed because they were caught in surprise and weren't prepared to escape.

i admit i read all except where you and wolf where tiffing

I DONT LIKE THE IDEA.... nothing personel
my self i attack ppls for resorces... (and i like doing damages when i do) because it herts the person twice

i like massing a defence away when some one act like a super player and every one elles is garbage....

if that would be implimented (and they where retreating (i would wont a SLAUGHTER RATE because i would wont my army to chase tehm down and massicer them ) this is a war game DEFENCE is an important thing .... and it should be ther no options of retreating or crap like that because they would be hit even if they were retreating

(hope i addressed all the points i wonted to)

[small note, nothing personal I just try to make people write (sort of) proper english, might have been a typing error on your side several times but wont is written with an a not o.]
if you're massing, isn't the general strategy to attack with a few soldiers.
Whatever, but if someone acts as a super player he would set that his army would stand and defend his realm at all costs. Ergo, you could mass him anyway. Don't see how it could affect you.
Besides this should have been something mostly the lower ranked people would use who have a def between 1 and maybe 400 mil. It's pointless for them to defend against an army which deals 1+ bil dmg per attack.

For me personally I don't care. I fend off about 2/3 of the attacks conducted on me and I generally kill more enemy soldiers than I loose. But I remembered when my def was quite low and I got attacked by those people who had over 1 bill attack (which I thought at that time that it was a hell of a lot), and thought about what could get improved about it, to give weaker players a better chance at building up their defences against those juggernauts in the ranks 1000 and lower.

[Wolf359]

[small note, nothing personal I just try to make people write (sort of) proper english, might have been a typing error on your side several times but wont is written with an a not o.]

It may not have been personal, but please try and remember that not everyone has English as their first (or even second language). 1st/2nd/3rd language aside - It is a general forum rule that there is NO criticising anyone regarding their spelling and/or grammer.

[urogard]

[small note, nothing personal I just try to make people write (sort of) proper english, might have been a typing error on your side several times but wont is written with an a not o.]

It may not have been personal, but please try and remember that not everyone has English as their first (or even second language). 1st/2nd/3rd language aside - It is a general forum rule that there is NO criticising anyone regarding their spelling and/or grammer.

i want to apologize if it was understood as critcism. I also want to add that english is neither my first language (nor my second). It was merely an advice. He can continue writing the way he does, if he wishes to. Yet I want to tell him that people whose grammar is fine then those usually are looked at with more respect, than those whose grammar is really really bad

[quoting a person you might remember wolf:these r way better then mercenaries aka:mercs. get alot of these for witcheva race u r. insted of untrain mercs get untrain of wateva race u r. these will increase the money ... ] I think you get my point.

[Wolf359]

lol! I get the point!

(But my comment still stands - if you truly think someone needs to edit their post to make it more readable - the diplomatic solution is to inform them via pm).