Wars

[Cole]

Seriously I dont and didnt care seeing people during the war sitting with 0 stats and all as miners...not an obligation to win victory by the account, you can also win it with the most patient winning it. Like that we see who are the ones who after some days want to go off if not instant total victory. We see then who's stronger.
For miners idea, why not dividing income by 1/4 during war, then if alot damaged, your income /2? That could be even better!
And also best thing if everyone wants so much changing all: at least do it most rightly possible (and fairly).

[Thufir_Hawat]

War of attrition or one of brute force, just two different types.

Some suggestions wanted wars where they only last 5 days. Why so short? Wars should last a long time. If an player or alliance chooses to start a war with another than there should be time to recover from the intiial massing and organize a responce.

I do like Slipners Ideas of what sets you to war.

Not totally against killing miners/lifers it is just a very very tricky situation to code a balanced approach. Something based on Army size and UP also. We know there are a few that make over 500k a day and losing a few thousand in battle would be insignificant. While most with a 5-20k UP would be devastated. Also the problem of multies still, if A account masses the defence then M account comes in with a size modifier to destroy the miners... Then there is always those that just buy UU, they could care less and would have the advantage of those that have spent years building their accounts.

There shoudnt be any rule saying an alliances looses. They lose when they surrender. Any war Declaration remains until one side Surrenders or both sides choose a ceasefire. This could be coded in.

Once again Real Life does not work this way, Losses and size have nothing to do with winning or losing. It is who is has the tenacity to remain till the end.

There are other issues such as memberships, that seem to flow in and out. PPTs how can a war be fought in a week if the sides are on PPT much of the time.

Size, Why should Page 1 alliance be allowed to mass Page 3 alliance then be automatic winners, even if page 3 wishes to fight back.

The game is ballanced now, small changes will have huge effects.

[Lord Me]

i dont play main or any other but q. . its simple. . just that as real life those who lost wars should pay a certain part of their income to winners and if anyone hides just having miners well attacks kills miners if no def at all. .

[Saber]

An idea I came up with while reading through these is that if you are in an alliance war now getting it set to war can be any of the ways mentioned in the above threads.

But just like when you ascend you get a % bonus when you keep ascending. When you are in a war you lose a % of all your stats over time depending on how you are doing. That would mean if your alliance is set to war with another alliance part of it would be based off of the damage calculator which would need to be reworked so it actually shows damage.

But not to give to much advantage to those who strikes first though their should be an advantage to this since they have caught the other alliance off guard. The other part of the % lose would be based off of your current stats compared to your army size. So if you have nearly 100mil army size and your def is at 10bil you will lose a % every turn based on these stats. The opposite is true if you can keep say 300 bil plus def you will regain a % back every turn.

That way if you are actually winning the fight you can get yourself back to 100% and eventually your enemy will fall to 0% at which time they won't make money or be able to strike or make uu they will have eventually lost the war. All depending on the damage calculate and your personal stats. Also to stop people from just leaving an alliance during the war to strike people the alliance could be frozen so no one can leave but they can join.

The % lose could be called war fatigue your realm no longer has the same will to fight as they are losing.

[Hansbrough]

The game is ballanced now, small changes will have huge effects.

You seriously think the game is balanced? Just because a handful of smaller players on cia's side grew during the war does not make the game balanced.

Really small and big changes are required to keep the game alive and evolving which keep the game interesting for many and keep people from leaving and even help KG generate some revenue.

Honestly why would anyone ever quit fighting using your thought process? I mean just train up 10 mil super attackers (paid for by someone else), and then go to town on another alliance. You can keep it up over and over and over again because there's nothing to make the attacker quit because they have nothing to lose.

Having wars drag out forever is not good for the game, so while you like draw you parallels to real life, this is a war game, and limits and economics have to play apart of it for the sanity of the community, otherwise boredom and apathy set in and instead of giving up and surrendering the war, people just quit. You're honestly telling me that's a good business practice to allow wars to drag on so long that people just quit?

Oh well. I think wars need to encoded to end wars... when a certain amount is lost, no more attacking is allow after a certain amount of time and perhaps even depending on the nature of the alliance war; alliances are disbanded and the 1st and 2nd in charge aren't allowed to join or recreate their alliance for a month if they are deemed the loser. While it is drastic, it's what I would like to think of as real consequences for a war.

Furthermore about the real life comparison, the war ends when the other side's top people are captured... mind telling me how this can be achieved in a game?

[Thufir_Hawat]

One player cannot take on a whole alliance.

You suggestion that one player can build a 10M Super Attackers and go on forever is false. He can be attacked, sabbed etc... The defender can build a bigger defence (bought with mates funds if neccesary) where it will end either by the Initiator being blocked or succeeding in getting the other to surrender.


Yes two relatively equal: players, alliances or coalitions can go on for a long time. Eventually one of them will want it to stop, if one side does but is unwilling to surrender than why should it be coded to steal the victory from the other?

Or worse hand the victory to the bigger player, even if he wishes it to end?

If you do set an artificial time it still needs to be long enough (1month) where they both feel the real effects of it. Having a short period which allows a those prepared for the conflict to enter it win and end it before the other has a chance to show their true potential is not honorable.


In Real Life now there is a war going on in Iraq. I belive one side has a very very huge technical, financial and manpower advantage. They are going to lose and retreat becasue the other side is more willing to fight.

Wars do not end by capturing the enemy leaders, Wars end when the Enemies Leader Surrenders.



Your telling me people quit the game when the war is boring? What do you call the game without wars, most of your mates were quiting because of the boredom I belive.

If the player does not like the war they have the real option of leaving the alliance. Many did last war. And made each alliance stronger.

[Hansbrough]

I would love to carry on this discussion with you away from the forum Thirfur. However, maintaining on this thread and this forum would be futile. You'll never agree to anything said because you like the current position it allows you to have. Furthermore I hate to break it to you, but this thread is really more about ideas and not how to fight this -- alliance wars are coming whether you like it or not.

[Thufir_Hawat]

Well, I tried offering some input. I also feel it is important that game suggestion threads be posted in if your against the Idea. Otherwise Forum will just see those rubberstamping it believe no one opposes it.

As much as I respect you Chris, we do have very opposite opinions on some stuff. Mainly what war is.

Let there be changes and as you will see no matter how many changes are made, Players will adapt. It got to the point where I welcomed the little tweaks over the last few months. It was even more funny when I would get PMs how they effected me while we had been using them for days to our advantage.

If you can honestly state here on your work that you don't think this just helps your Team more than it does any other than I will consider it.

But all I have seen is primarily post from 3 of your friends about how unfair the game is now to them and making rules where THEY regain the advantage, when it is the same practice that your team inflicted on others
for years.


I have already stated I feel Slepnir has some of the best ideas. I like the Ways war can be declared. And I believe the whole alliance should be involved.

I don’t believe players should have to keep a defense or lose their miners/lifers. It is easy enough for a single player now to wipe out the defenses of a whole alliance, which cost plenty of Supers etc... And makes the spies vulnerable.

If we stop players from petioning to let lifers be changed back to UU without ascending etc.. Then players will be limited in their use of Mercs.
I remember a couple months ago when ETL etc.. would boast of how he only uses mercs, so what is wrong with it now?

I can almost guarantee you that if you Make it where an alliance is disbanded for losing a war your alliance will be just as vulnerable and probably be a victim to it. Then we will hear all kinds of new rules to change the game again.

It is sad that all these suggestions came when they did. If they came 6 months ago I feel they would of had more credibility.

You are correct. I do like the new status quo and am not in a hurry to see the game coded to change it. And believe me my "Position" has been thru years of hard work. I really do not believe you are insinuating otherwise.

You'll never agree to anything said because you like the current position it allows you to have.

That statement shows that the effort is not benevolent. I am not the only one benefited by the current rules. Everyone is, your saying the rules should be changed to protect a few players.

alliance wars are coming whether you like it or not.

Once again I hear about changes like they are fact. If they are shouldn’t we all know about them? Can you post a link to the thread or chat logs so I know how to prepare?


Make balanced suggestions and I will agree to them. Do not make artificial ones.

Lets instead of pointing to 4 threads, try drawing the points agreed to by everyone in each and list them for discussion. There are many pros and cons to each, to make a huge change at once could cause great turmoil.

[Hansbrough]

If someone from the admin meetings would be so kind to post the chat logs, that would be great, as the fact that alliance wars are coming were stated there. The time table was 1-2 months. That's why it's important to have suggestions posted by everyone, and how they feel they could benefit, and how others or themselves would also not benefit from the upgrades.

Now is the time for brainstorming how and what changes people would like to see. Stating that you don't want changes is fine, but please leave it at that, as change is ever-coming in this game.

[Thufir_Hawat]

I am not against changes.

I feel that brainstorming is great.

I know that even small changes have a great impact.

Every change should be discussed, meaning its pros and cons studied, not just rubberstamped or vetoed based upon who presents it.

Thank You for asking that the logs be posted, my work schedule unfortunately has kept me from the Admin Meets.

I still believe there is merit in some of the suggestions and I believe there are ways to do the others to benefit all, if people are open minded and not focused on their own goals only. Changes need to benefit the whole playing field not just a few is all I feel.


Don

[TheRook]

allow the killing of assasins and attackers


for example...

You mass person x

person x has 0 defence

you break out your AC troops and start killing covert troops...

once they are down below 5-10k covert troops (not hard but requires a lot of attacking)

your strike and anticovert troops start killing the enemy anti covert

these can only get hurt if an attacking check comes in and says hey they have less than 5-10k covert troops... lets leave them alone and hunt some real targets...

they got for the assasins... this stops people having stupid amounts of assasins

A ) to boost alliance stats on the ranking page
B ) to stop people having a place to keep invincible and freely untrainable UU (not losing a % to lifers)
C ) because it will be a good way of making people burn more turns on massing someone


well now you get those assasins down to 5-10k like the covert... again your strike and ac troops think hey that was easy and look for another target...

they look across the field and at another stargate they see your attacking troops there...

obviously your strike troops are armed and will effectively act like a defence but at half power (because they aren't trained to defend so its unusual to them)

so a 70bill strike against your strike/ac troops would be a 35bill "strike defence"

this wont kill your AC troops but your ac troops wont kill them they will just stand behind your strike dancing or whatever you prefer!

this takes 5-10 times the damage to kill the strike weapons (til they are all destroyed) for "strike defence" than it would to kill a standard defence to make it even harder...
at the same time killing strike units

or it could not kill the strike weapons just take the strike weapons down to 99% damaged (so they can be repaired) but would mean eventually the "strike defence" would not really be able to fight back much... still allowing the death of strike units but giving the "defender" chance to repair the weapons and fight back...


this can be tweaked until necessary...

but the main requirement is you must attack with a strike and AC troops... some of you may ask why?
well so you have something more valuable to use if say the enemy mid way through you killing his AC troops/strike builds some defence... your AC troops suffer the penalty...

TheRook

p.s. I like the injured miners idea to cut down on peoples incomes... making for better planning with wars

[Archon]

Is this just about winning wars or will it also solve the problem when some little noob with a bigish strike but nothing else attacks you but you have nothing to mass on him and he just laghs at you on pm, hmmm

reminds me of the planet pirate thing!!

I think you should lose a percentage of your strike power if you have no defence.

You should be able to make target miners/lifers (make them ineffective not kill them)

alliance wars should auto declare a winner when either side is destroyed or you will just have each side sitting there for months farming each other.

[Thufir_Hawat]

The Rook

Just add possibly changing the price of the AC also then.

I do not know who hides Units in AC but if they do they have to pay a premium to do so. If AC can be killed than their training cost could then drop some prehaps to ~ 4,000 ?

Players would then have more to risk at all times.

If they choose to train them as miners, than eventually they will all become lifers, making the account ineffective.

This will take care of noobs also with just biggish strikes. If they are a real problem...

[Hansbrough]

I think increasing the cost of war would help end the wars faster. If AC and Strike are vulnerable, but it would force people to become over-filled with lifers. Which perhaps with an update to the market allowing the untraining of lifers (yeah I liked that idea after I thought about it), would help keep things interestings, but yet keep the cost of war even higher. It would also prevent people/alliances from abusing AC power for power rank, and would in the end, make the power rank an overall more valid number.

[Thufir_Hawat]

Im still for a greater use of APP type system.

Prehaps both for rank and Aliance strength. Seeing the ranking of players and alliances is almost totally bogus. We all know that both the rank and the power levels are not real.

Using APP system for Alliance Rank also will end the bogus numbers some get by using Anti, I always felt it was foolish to use anti to improve rank, better to be in the mines bringing the Naq to the surface.

The APP system could be applied to all accounts, I belive to date it comes closest to real strength.