StarGateWars Forums

Thanks for warning Thriller, already PMed you.

Tho, i still think this idea is just bad written. I agree as well that this game need update, just dont think this idea is good how it is.

Building defence to cover strike is useles. Better will be, if strike will be able to hit strike, i duno if JT mentioned osmething like this, didnt read it all. These kind of attack should cost more turns too.

Than spy will be only for reconing, not for sabing.

I still think that Noobert's idea is realy made only to profit a small group of ppl, on the other side, small players, beginners, sat ppl will be never able to build strike.

Sniper mode, having strike without defence, we all hated it, but its in game for over 2 years. There must be some better idea how to fix it. But this version how was written on page 1 would be disaster.

massing a strike seems fun. however on that same note massing a strike means the attacker loses even more attack guys after already having done the work to remove the defense so ceaser if you can see it my way that really seems like its still letting the people that dont build defenses have it there way.


Noobert this idea is brilliant. makes perfect sense both as a solution and as something i could see happening in a real situation. id definately give this my vote.

Well, i see problem in the basic idea, massing defence and than just wait and watch how enemy is loosing strike. Foll nah?

If you guys wanna mass strikes, lets pay for it how everyone pays for massing.

Ppl who built strike didnt built ir from air. They spent resources as well, using that strike cost lot of repair Naq and retraining UUs.

I have lost around 70m def supers, but over 350m attack supers. I think its the same lose, doest metter if you loose defenders or attackers.

Also massers who are massing defences. They kill def supers, but loosing attack supers. So, on both sides, sniper or def builders, are looses.

And going even deeper, attackers have to spend turns, wich are expensive these days. Defenders dont have to. They just sit and repair.

This reminded me on massers who have 250b natural strike, 750b support from planets and 1T from MS. Theyr costs are low, and even if this update would be implemented, this kind of massers will just laugh and boost own ME. Doesnt metter in wich alliance, it will end like i wrote.

But massing strike with strike how i wrote, will cost massers resources, so it will be better for the balance of game.

caesar2 wrote:Well, i see problem in the basic idea, massing defence and than just wait and watch how enemy is loosing strike. Foll nah?

If you guys wanna mass strikes, lets pay for it how everyone pays for massing.

Ppl who built strike didnt built ir from air. They spent resources as well, using that strike cost lot of repair Naq and retraining UUs.

I have lost around 70m def supers, but over 350m attack supers. I think its the same lose, doest metter if you loose defenders or attackers.

Also massers who are massing defences. They kill def supers, but loosing attack supers. So, on both sides, sniper or def builders, are looses.

And going even deeper, attackers have to spend turns, wich are expensive these days. Defenders dont have to. They just sit and repair.

This reminded me on massers who have 250b natural strike, 750b support from planets and 1T from MS. Theyr costs are low, and even if this update would be implemented, this kind of massers will just laugh and boost own ME. Doesnt metter in wich alliance, it will end like i wrote.

But massing strike with strike how i wrote, will cost massers resources, so it will be better for the balance of game.

Two problems with that. First of all... YOU Chose whether or not to build a def. Meaning, someone can lose several hundred mil attack supers, but only a couple hundred k of def supers...

You choose when to kill your attack supers. You choose when to mass your enemy's def.

In the end, defenders will lose more, as, even though ATs are quite expensive, you're still making a profit (I hope), from attacking people, defenders whom rarely attack, will lose much more if their def is massed down.

And read some more comments, there's been very good ideas to stop the people with massive MS strikes, and some ideas on how to make attack planets more balanced...


I myself think attack planets should be like satellites, and should not only take damage (i.e. like weapons), but something like, if you attack someone whose def is more than twice your strike, you start to lose facilities...

I strongly disagree planets as satellites. If they were, they would be come useless. Just like if MS capacity could be destroyed, then MS would be less wanted...

I would also claim that attack losses is voluntary, like CABAL said, whereas defense losses, are usually gone through no direct action on your behalf.

I agree with strike massing strike. Or another system whereby strike can be killed, like Jedi's suggestion.

by improving def that much then the game will aim to build def's and sit to make naq.

on this idea i see a trick, its just to kill the game play of Noobert (fuall) enemies. You get 20 accounts fully ascended , build big def's (10-20T)
put planets in def and MS aswell.

what can u do if one of this bully you?

ya got the chance to retaliate ??

Lithium wrote:You get 20 accounts fully ascended , build big def's (10-20T) put planets in def and MS aswell.

Oddly enough, you over looked the current mechanics.

Lets, see, 20T defense. I need 5T attack to take that out. I have a 1T MS, i need 4T attack. i have 10 ATK planets with 100B each, i need 3T attack. I get ascended blessing once every 3 rounds (roughly), i need a 1.5T attack.

1.5T attack = 10M supers (or 7m supers, and 6m mercs). Taking a 25% ratio, i need 2.5M super defenders (or 2m supers with 1m mercs). Even some of the smallest account can afford to have 2m super defenders.

Lastly, I don't know how you define bullying, but to me, if they can have that sort of defense, then so can you, therefor, making it just as hard for the bullier...

I agree with Sarevok.

If you compare the defender with the attacker, the attacker gets a major advantage in everything.

Not only is it unrealistic, it also ruins the spirit of the game, when a 20tril def can theoritically be taken down by a 1.5tril strike (+ the added stuff explained by Sarevok)

YOU choose when you want your strike to die. YOU choose when you want your enemy's def to die.

imo, def planets should atleast cost less to build up than attack planets. And MS should give more 'protection' whilst defending (maybe something like, MS strike can only add 1/2 natural strike, but can add up to the entire def)

And, as the satellites thing, if you don't do something to nerf strike planets, the bullies will just get more and more powerful...

Not only is it unrealistic, it also ruins the spirit of the game, when a 20tril def can theoritically be taken down by a 1.5tril strike (+ the added stuff explained by Sarevok)


ya talkin craps man , have u ever massed abig def wit a low strike

20T vs 1.5T , ya aint gona make it.

ya need almost half of def power in strike to be able.

imo, def planets should atleast cost less to build up than attack planets. And MS should give more 'protection' whilst defending (maybe something like, MS strike can only add 1/2 natural strike, but can add up to the entire def)

actually MS def gives more , build 100k volleys and 100k shields and see who gives more power.

Lithium the only reason you are posting here and against this idea is because Noobert made it, if someone not in FUALL suggested it, you wouldn't even be posting here. SO think twice about why you're here.

I've already made this suggestion, tie Attack bonuses (Planets and MS) to raw defense power, so you need a large defense to benefit from your large attack planets and huge MS.

I don't like the idea of making Planets damageable besides taking them, and also MS slots being destroyed or disabled. Those are both fine how they are, and Planets being made any easier to hurt would basically completely ruin them. Already no planet is safe and anyone can take almost any other planet someone has.

I didn't really understand the idea posted about being able to mass someones strike, I only briefly skimmed over it. I kinda want to read more about it though so can someone elaborate on it

ya must be mental to know my thoughts

i see her ppl calcs how they ll strike MS , planets, AB etc
what about the Defender, does he have a MS , AB and planets??? i never saw smaone wit big def kinda 20T that dont have a big MS + planets , lets not consider that whos active nowadays is ascending to 23.

and you are wrong Sarajevo, i post where i like to and i said mines here about this idea so stick in topic and dont get in my pants

I wont get into numbers and calculations..Ill leave that to the really smart people (yes I am not as smart as you )

Strike attack-
*100 turns to attack a strike
*Bunker option- to protect the strike usable 1nce every 8 hours, so when a player is offline he or she can bumker the strike but not use it for 8 hours..also you can allow a specific number of hits on strike while bunkered.

Strike.Defense Ratio- 25%- defense must be kept within 25% of the raw strike to protect it from damage (total strike?)

Attack/Defense planets- make them sattelites with slots and optional to use in the manner the MS is.

Nox/Critical- Plague effect for those that use it as cheap defense..or eliminate it altogether.

i tho this thread was to have def as mandatory to build strike not how to kill strike, cmone guys stick on topic ,

Why make it necessary to have a defense to build a strike? Seems silly to me. If someone doesnt have a defense then kill their spies and sab their strike. Isnt that what those options were put there for?