StarGateWars Forums

_Rube_Dragon_ wrote:i personally dont like it to be added to main i could see it added on a quantum age but it would change the game style to much try to move it there is my opinion.

Well it doesn't really make allot of diffrences with the seperated options.

u actually still can chose in what u like to have in Strike and Defence.

And now I understand the suggestion.

For example: 1 trill total power (Strike+defence) ur able to chose how much strike u have or defence like 300 bill strike and 700 bill defence.

problem with the suggestion is the supers being trained witch is hard but also solve able.

For example: 500 bill defence is +- 2 mill supers and 2 mill mercs so when u transfer 250 bill to strike 50% of ur defenders are vulnerable in attack and in tranfering to 250 bill strike u need atleast 1 mill supers and 1 mill mercs

I like it.

Lore wrote:

repli**cator wrote:i don't like this idea, i would rather keep def and attack seperate.
anyways i can try to justify my opinion but in the end i just disagree with the idea of making atk/def 1 army.

I would be intrested to hear your opinion.


I really like the reserves idea. It would help decrease income during wars and give you a safe haven for men. AC is no longer as safe as it once was.

well if you insist;
it just takes away the pleasure some people have in the game.
well yeh noone likes sniper accounts but i don't think we should punish them for a gameplay withing the game architecture.
same thing happened to the planet stealers, beacons came out, 24 hour untill realm arrival came out...

i wouldn't be happy with this for a simple reason, being that i'd have to cut my stats down even more (since i can loose much more now if it's 1 army i ntotal)
if i did that i'd probably get farmed... if i were to retalliate by building a nice big army so i could attack...i'd get massed back by my target and his friends/CO/alliance.. and i'd just stop loving this game for the reasons that i like it atm.

in short this suggestion would kill the game for me, i'd like to be able to change my gameplay to sniper, planet stealer, sitting back living on my income, raiding, all these things. this just limits what i could do in the game...hence my disliking off it.

I like the sound of this idea, however I have a slightly different view on how it could be implemented.

Suggestion:

Keep the stats separate, so you train attack and defense. If you send 1mil attack soldiers at an enemy it will be matched man for man with defense soldiers. While attacking, the defense soldiers that are sent sit back and provide covering fire (protect your attackers while not adding to your strength).

This has 2 effects, for accounts that have a higher or same defense than attack, your attacks will take less losses, while allowing accounts to still build large attacks but will take slightly more losses (these so named sniper accounts will be popularly called glass cannon accounts)

If you attacked someone who managed to defend your attack, your defense should take some damage too. If you win your defense remains the same (maybe a little weapon damage).

When you are attacked, you should lose both. Maybe 1 attacker per 2 defenders lost but 50% of your strike is added to def (since they're trained to attack and not defend).

EDIT: I forgot to add in. Theres still one thing to look at.

If you have 0def should you still lose attackers when attacked? or do they run and hide?

i still believe that it would change the style of game play to much it woudl be a really nice game i liek the sound of it but just not for main

wel i think it needs to be put in main , as the situation now id silly.

i honestly don't think the game style will change that much.

Your still going to have massing, still going to have farming/raiding.

All thats changing is the fact you can't sit there with a strike supers being untouchable.

Whats war now?
First massing then the war drags on for a few months until one side gets tired of fighting, or more likely, till one side loses to many members who can't commit large portions of their real life to a war for months at a time are force to leave their friends and alliances or the game all together.

With this

The massing cycle repeats with occasional farming of those who haven't come online to rebuild yet. With this, I see wars being over in 1 - 2 weeks, depending on how PPT's are used, number of units in the military reserve, and naq in the bank.

You can still have players who don't build much military and so can still MS mass.

So thats not a huge change, condensing a few month war into a few weeks.

TC

why not put in a " surrender bttn " and that makes attacking and being attacked imposible ( ok it wil be miss used

in other words , if you or your alliance surrender you can not attack a member of the alliance that you went to war with for lets say 14 days and you cant get hit back for the same amount of time ( mabe even 21 days as you did lose ) , also pressing the surrender bttn automaticly posts " alliance X admitted defete to alliance Y " someware were everyone can see ( main loginpage or warever admin thinks its best )

The " set war lose nox " thing wil have to go as thats the reason ppl dont set alliance war anymore and this wold also hamper this .

again comments , adjustments welcome.

Some interesting ideas - could well be something to implement.

1 army type

PRO's:
- makes sniper accounts impossible
- wars become more strategic
- if AT's are limited then use of AT's becomes more strategic
- this would also correlate rank with power a little more 1 army type means only one rank to go towards overall rank (and harder to manipulate)

CON's:
- by ridding the ability for sniper accounts to exist it is limiting gaming styles and the ability for one person to be able to cause trouble for an alliance (coming from other alliance dominated games this is refreshing)
- massing for the fun of it becomes a lot more damaging and those who want to destroy hard work of random people are more able to do it with less losses, and less chance of retribution

Sending a % of army at different levels

PRO's:
- Allows attacking army to more efficiently use its resources and reduces losses
- Allows newer players who are in GnR range (with plans on ascending) to still raid while losing fewer troops on the battlefield and retain their stats

CON's:
- Reduced losses for attackers strengthens the position of people with larger armies going on a massing spree (less upkeep)

I also agree with TacticalCommander that att and def planets should be kept separate in order to retain an unknown element.

If Normal troops were retained someone could realistically build enough military power to jump into GnR range without training supers, providing an easier recovery for the recently ascended.

Some questions -
would you retain normal and super strength troops?
how would MS effect this or be affected?
Keep defending troop losses the same or have them at the same ratio as the attack sends (as in if attacker sends at 60% then defender only loses 60% of 'normal' losses)?

Lore - Military reserves are a great idea, although if normal and super strength troops are retained, it would mean that someone was massed, instead of having to rebuild strike and def supers, they could rebuild as normal troops for the same strike..... mass, then untrain and send them back to reserves - they would take greater losses but can still render their forces untouchable. Also your wish to have troops armed but not disarmed would have to be balanced with something like - Weapons dont contribute to APP and are not consumed when ascending so that those of us that are still growing dont lose trillions of naq worth of weapons when ascending.

one other thing - it would stop (dormant - non-attacking) multi accounts training all troops into attackers to keep them safe and mean that they would have to be trained as miners (and lose a certain amount to lifers)

Dizzy wrote:1 army type

PRO's:
- makes sniper accounts impossible
- wars become more strategic
- if AT's are limited then use of AT's becomes more strategic
- this would also correlate rank with power a little more 1 army type means only one rank to go towards overall rank (and harder to manipulate)

CON's:
- by ridding the ability for sniper accounts to exist it is limiting gaming styles and the ability for one person to be able to cause trouble for an alliance (coming from other alliance dominated games this is refreshing)
- massing for the fun of it becomes a lot more damaging and those who want to destroy hard work of random people are more able to do it with less losses, and less chance of retribution

Lets keep limiting AT to another thread.

Sniper accounts become harder, but not impossible. Instead of using a strike, they use the MS. They can still annoy other players. and with the 24 hour exploration, they can be hard to hit back. Not impossible, but still reasonably difficult.

Massing of random people is always going to be around, this doesn't change that. Hence the reason for the military reserve is so you can rebuild quickly without using miners.

Dizzy wrote:Sending a % of army at different levels

PRO's:
- Allows attacking army to more efficiently use its resources and reduces losses
- Allows newer players who are in GnR range (with plans on ascending) to still raid while losing fewer troops on the battlefield and retain their stats

CON's:
- Reduced losses for attackers strengthens the position of people with larger armies going on a massing spree (less upkeep)

Strengthens position yes, but the AT market right now would makes this a very expensive thing to do these days. and they are still taking weapon damage.

Dizzy wrote:Some questions -
would you retain normal and super strength troops?
how would MS effect this or be affected?
Keep defending troop losses the same or have them at the same ratio as the attack sends (as in if attacker sends at 60% then defender only loses 60% of 'normal' losses)?

Troop strength would be the same I would assume. Training them would be the same. Only difference is you have one troop type that attacks and defends instead of two separate troop types.

MS wouldn't change. MS battle would be the same, MS hit each other, anything left over infuses on to the combat action.

If someone has their troops stay back, then defending losses would also be lessened.
--The troops staying back have to shoot farther and are not that accurate.
--Otherwise the massing of defenses becomes way to easy if people just keep their troops back and mow down from far away.
---Of course not that much of a problem, because you could train up and do the exact same thing to them.

Dizzy wrote:Lore - Military reserves are a great idea, although if normal and super strength troops are retained, it would mean that someone was massed, instead of having to rebuild strike and def supers, they could rebuild as normal troops for the same strike..... mass, then untrain and send them back to reserves -

They are not untouchable. Yes they could do that, but a super is twice as powerful as a normal trooper. And attackers naturally take more losses. Sure if your dealing with 100k super, and you train 200k normal troops to attack it, your probably not going to notice it. Depending on ones UP. However, once you start reaching into the say 1mil, 2mil super troops, trust me, if that person uses millions of normal troops against supers, they are going to notice it.

Besides they also have to buy a lot more weapons, and with the recent update, selling those back isn't as effective anymore.

Dizzy wrote:one other thing - it would stop (dormant - non-attacking) multi accounts training all troops into attackers to keep them safe and mean that they would have to be trained as miners (and lose a certain amount to lifers)

Actually they would just train them into the military reserve if that is implemented along side.

I hope I answered everything, of course this is alot of thinking before breakfast so I could be talking about jellybeans and cup cakes for all I know..
TC