StarGateWars Forums

Amon Ra wrote:I'am goauld in the show the jaffa live in little commuinites and i've never seen a scribe or a mining jaffa pick up a staff and start shotting at Sg-1 it's not practical when when system lord beats another he takes his jaffa doesn't slaughter them .

though what you say is true, what i think many of these people want is a way to hurt the cowards who mass attack/sab but dont have any defense. shouldn't there be a pentalty for not having a defense? that would make it possible to hurt a person who choses to not have any defense.
like shouldnt there be damage done so that they have a reason to have a defense.
maybe they should have to pay for dammage done to the "planet" since it had no defense.
or maybe there should be a new attack type called decimation. where there the untrained units and spies are specifically targeted and slaughtered

The only people it would benifit would be those who want to mass attack someone and completly take out ALL their troops. I think is a terrible idea.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I Replicate pretty much laid out why att-units and untrained ones should _not_ take over defense once defenders are gone. Because that would be silly. However, I'm all for a way of reducing a target's untrained units - especially if the target has little or no defense.

So, to paraphrase I Replicate:

-Any and all attacks are directed at naq vaults.
-Attackers can't defend, since they're off polishing guns or whatever.
-Untrained units can't defend, as they're mending the power plant or whatnot.
-Defenders, being big bulky guys living on and around said vaults, are the only ones realistically able to defend. So, they do.

Further, this is what I suggest:

-There's going to have to be a couple of untrained ones around the naq vaults at all times;
*transporting naq in and out
*changing light bulbs
*playing poker
*mopping the floors

This means that any attack would also take out a tiny margin of the target's untrained units - collateral damage, aye?

Further; if no defense troops have been employed or trained, which sane leader would leave their naq vaults open for all the population to see? Hence, in the event of little or no defense - instead of a whole garrison of troops guarding each vault, there'd be 2 soldiers and **Filtered** all else - any functioning society would employ poorly armed, low-salary security guards instead. These, then, would come from the stock of untrained units.

Finally:

-Attackers never defend
-Defenders only and always defend
-In any attack, 0,1% (or whatever) of untrained units die as collateral
-If defense is low relative to other units (figure out ratio later), 15% of untrained defend (poorly, and die)

...that's my 2c anyway. Thoughts?

This is an amazing idea!

Perhaps structure it so that around for every Defender loss 0.1 Untrained Units are lost?

aka if you lose 100 Defenders you'll also lose 10 Untrained Units?

Therefore larger battles mean more casualties on all fronts...

I like the idea of attacking troops first and nas second. Only if you are at war with that person. If you are at war with another group it is logical that you would kill anyone you see on the way in as your primary objective.if you do this then you might also kill attack units. the downside of this is would be that you would get no nas out of the attack. And since you have to be at war the cost of war will go up.

Nuto_vixen wrote:The only people it would benifit would be those who want to mass attack someone and completly take out ALL their troops. I think is a terrible idea.

yes, if people in your alliance were mass attacked by someone whos defence isnt worth the trouble of mass attacking wouldnt you want a way to hit them back? -something that would hurt?

there needs to be something lost when you have no defence. if a city or planet was attacked, do you really think there would no damage done? just think if the attackers make a house into a crator on their way to the naq, wouldnt the system lord but responsible to repair that? or is protecting the people that live there not part of his "job description"?
im just saying that there should be a cost for having no defence.

Vosk wrote:This is an amazing idea!

Perhaps structure it so that around for every Defender loss 0.1 Untrained Units are lost?

aka if you lose 100 Defenders you'll also lose 10 Untrained Units?

Therefore larger battles mean more casualties on all fronts...

It might just be me, but wouldn't this be a little pointless? The objective was to find a way to hurt people with no defense. If they have no defense weapons, why would they have defense troops? This proposal only hurts those with high defense more. Not that amazing I would think.

Ah, but keep in mind the suggestion that having no defense troops would kill off a brickload of untrained "defenders" who'd not actually fight back, just get murdered. If you have some defense, but a ridiculous amount compared to attack and\or untrained, it'd be the same (but more limited amounts of untrained deaths).

yes something should happen when you are attacked, not just you have no defences so there is no damage.
either you should lose people or have a cost to repair your "fortifications" the repair would be charged from what you make per turn/steal (it would take any funds that are left out). i would think that it should also have a cut off for how much damage you can owe for at one time, like 50-30% of a days income.

what do you think?

I replicate is absolutley correct. Attacking troops are defined as such because of the fact that they are positioned on the front. Defending troops by definition are garrisioned to protect headquarters, supply, command, etc.

This is the basis of all warfare, and all military strategy games from chess, all the way up to graphical realtime strategy simulatons. In a chess game, when your bishop lauches an attack on the other side's ranks and is intercepted, does your queen behind the lines suffer also? No, of course not.

This is what makes the game interesting, the balance of offense and defense, and the strategies that unfold from choosing to weigh one over the other.

A change I would like to see is more realistic casualty rates. When two close to evenly matched armies go at it, there are bound to be heavy causualties on both sides. This would require the constant replenishing of troops from the untrained ranks.

What about the possibility of group attack multipliers? A feature whereby several low ranked players could combine their efforts against a more powerful opponent. the result would not neccessarily be their combined attack rating, but rather each player's attack is given a certain percentage multipler.
This would make the game more fluid, allowing for groups of lower ranking players to wear down a more powerful opponent, forcing him to deplete his own supply of untrained troops, and income which seems realistic.

Just throwing some ideas around off the top of my head here guys.

Ok, if untrained get thrown into defense again, it would solve the problem of the worthless goa'uld unique tech.