suggestion concerning defending army

[NoDot]

[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 don't have too much of a problem in this when people don't use proper English, but chatspeak annoys me and 1337-speak is just sickening to me. I'm just wondering if that critisism is OK by the rules or not...

Also, I don't personally like this suggestion.

[TheSoulHarvester]

its allowed to point out spelling errors, but not to critiscize someones ability to write English... so just pointing out errors with a friendly and some other means of showing its not intended hostile is ok imho

[urogard]

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).

k
I'll pm him too, but I still think people should see this and then, maybe they'll even improve their writing skills too.

[NoDot]

its allowed to point out spelling errors, but not to critiscize someones ability to write English... so just pointing out errors with a friendly and some other means of showing its not intended hostile is ok imho

Well, I don't criticise people's ability to write English, but, IMO, chat-speak and 1337-speak are unacceptable!

[KnightValor]

Jeez... I thought Wolf was going to bite Halamala's head off... Or the other way around...

You guys are still kind of... being slightly less than respectful to each other. Come on guys, someone needs to take the first move. Someone should just... leave this forum alone... or... give the other the silent treatment or something.

Aanyway, I like it, but I think there should be very limited freedom.

You choose from a select box, and that select box would have the available options

Attackers are 20x your army
Attackers are 25x your army
Attackers are 30x your army
Attackers are 40x your army
Attackers are 50x your army
Never retreat

Also, a super-soldier (of any race) should count as two guys. I mean, 200 super-soldiers (Goa'uld specific) would stay to fight those 20,000... and win. (probably even if their opponents had a some anti-supersoldier weapons)

This would greatly reduce abuse. Otherwise a player could simply choose "an army larger than 1" and grow up an unused, undamaged defense, attack only low ranked farms, and just soar up in ranks. Then next we'll have people ask to have a level for their attackers to retreat, and for spies to retreat, and rank number one will literally have the equivelant of no stats because he'll hardly use them, even if they do get to be right up among the great players.

Uhh... yeah. That's my idea.

[urogard]

Jeez... I thought Wolf was going to bite Halamala's head off... Or the other way around...

You guys are still kind of... being slightly less than respectful to each other. Come on guys, someone needs to take the first move. Someone should just... leave this forum alone... or... give the other the silent treatment or something.

Aanyway, I like it, but I think there should be very limited freedom.

You choose from a select box, and that select box would have the available options

Attackers are 20x your army
Attackers are 25x your army
Attackers are 30x your army
Attackers are 40x your army
Attackers are 50x your army
Never retreat

Also, a super-soldier (of any race) should count as two guys. I mean, 200 super-soldiers (Goa'uld specific) would stay to fight those 20,000... and win. (probably even if their opponents had a some anti-supersoldier weapons)

This would greatly reduce abuse. Otherwise a player could simply choose "an army larger than 1" and grow up an unused, undamaged defense, attack only low ranked farms, and just soar up in ranks. Then next we'll have people ask to have a level for their attackers to retreat, and for spies to retreat, and rank number one will literally have the equivelant of no stats because he'll hardly use them, even if they do get to be right up among the great players.

Uhh... yeah. That's my idea.

when i think about the attacks ppl conducted on me before i was able to build up my def. then yes, you might be right with the 25x... of an army.
I still think one should be able to set from let's say 2-3x.
Because you have to take into consideration what the point of building up a defence is. To protect your naq and uu's.
IF you run away permanently you would get farmed permanently (unless you can log in 10 and more times a day, like i can ). ALthough you'd still get farmed during the night.

And i actually thought that I started being (sort off) nice again.

[urogard]

what about having something like: if the army is set to retreat whatever it was set to, then it doesn't contribute to rank.
meaning you could only use it to increase your army but not be able to gain rank if you use it constantly.
and limit it to one change per 24 hours like with relation changes

[Kirklandkie]

you might argue this would make the game more realistic, i believe it lowers realism. do you believe that a retreating army suffers no casualties?

perhaps make like 25% of their weapons "left behind" in the rush to escape and have like 30% of the men slaughtered by the overwhelming force of the enemy ship and men

real life the retreating army does indeed recieve casualties.

or option two:

maybe make it so there is a % chance of retreat but also a % chance of being taken by surprise by the awsome strength of the enemy.

how can you judge the size of the enemy's army before they engage you.

it even says sometimes "a huge amount" because they were so powerful you couldnt tell how strong they were

just some thoughts

-kirk

[urogard]

you might argue this would make the game more realistic, i believe it lowers realism. do you believe that a retreating army suffers no casualties?

perhaps make like 25% of their weapons "left behind" in the rush to escape and have like 30% of the men slaughtered by the overwhelming force of the enemy ship and men

real life the retreating army does indeed recieve casualties.

or option two:

maybe make it so there is a % chance of retreat but also a % chance of being taken by surprise by the awsome strength of the enemy.

how can you judge the size of the enemy's army before they engage you.

it even says sometimes "a huge amount" because they were so powerful you couldnt tell how strong they were

just some thoughts

-kirk

i didn't say you wouldn't loose any soldiers, or if i did i didn't actually mean to. I completely agree with you there would have to be a percentage of being caught in surprise and that some will get killed whilst running away.

[Blackbird]

I'm not sure whether I like this idea or not, it is intresting though.
What type of retreat would you be talking about, everyone runs away screaming or a fighting retreat because they have very different consequences.

Also ppl shouldnt really be talking about realism. I mean we are playing a game based on a TV program (or a movie). If you must compare it to reality look at the current system. With about (picks a random number) 35k fully armed clones you would take alot more than several hundred casualties before anyone considered retreating and letting an invading army into your realm. In reality I think you would lose most of your men. But that wouldnt make for a very fun game.

feel free to critise my thoughts (spelling and grammer too if you want - i have one language bad english)

[12agnar0k]

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.

thye would if they were a proper army, trained to die for there prupose, nto a bunch of cowards scared to DIE IN BATTLE!!!

DAmn IRISH !!! YOUR ONE OF EM , ARNET YOU!!!!

[urogard]

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.

thye would if they were a proper army, trained to die for there prupose, nto a bunch of cowards scared to DIE IN BATTLE!!!

DAmn IRISH !!! YOUR ONE OF EM , ARNET YOU!!!!

lol no one calles me irish and gets away with it
Just j/k but i partially agree with you.

but soldiers are people too you know, most of them got free wil and they won't stay and fight a desperate battle.

and I completely agree with blackbird that there can be only so much realism in this game. I know that the losses one suffers during figths are just a fraction of the numbers that would die in reality.

I think it's pointless to talk about realism. Because there are many arguments for and against this.

[Blackbird]

You better not be insulting the Irish - we can do well enough all by ourselves

[KnightValor]

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.

thye would if they were a proper army, trained to die for there prupose, nto a bunch of cowards scared to DIE IN BATTLE!!!

DAmn IRISH !!! YOUR ONE OF EM , ARNET YOU!!!!

lol no one calles me irish and gets away with it
Just j/k but i partially agree with you.

but soldiers are people too you know, most of them got free wil and they won't stay and fight a desperate battle.

and I completely agree with blackbird that there can be only so much realism in this game. I know that the losses one suffers during figths are just a fraction of the numbers that would die in reality.

I think it's pointless to talk about realism. Because there are many arguments for and against this.

Well... not... really...

A considered "massacre" is one third dead/captured(/wounded?), not 75% as I used to imagine.

But, I've played airsoft with like 12 people in some woods before, and we all played it very safe... probably as safe as real life. Each game took FOREVER and I would guess we had an average of about 4% accuracy... we played one-hit-kills.

The truth is, humans are very unlikely to do the action hero idea of making heroic attempts of running out in the open firing as they do and taking out six enemies. In actuallity those "six guys" would all be 9/10ths concealed behind a tree, and the action hero would be facing fire from at least fifteen people with semi, if not fully, automatics. It'd be stupid to do!

In real wars and stuff people play it VERY safe, especially once they see all the people getting hit in the face (when you're behind cover, that's all that shows). You would be worried to even stick your pinkey toe out.

Yeah. 1/3rd is a massacre... 1/8th would probably be about right for a retreating force's casualties. And about a 2x or 3x option, troops have to do that all the time. War isn't fair, the opposite sides don't get all nicey nicey and ask for even amounts in a single battle. Maybe add a 5x and 10x and 15x and 20x... but no 30% casualties from retreating!

[Paul-ish]

As great as this sounds (it sounds great). this would make that game more complicated to newbs who are just starting, remember we don't want to overwhelm people who are just joining making it impossible to stay. I think this would be good on ascended server or some server where the people know the game well already and are ready for the next level, but this ad on would be to important to miss out on and probably often misunderstood by new players.