Loosing weapons instead of a %

[Maha Vishnu]

Why not make it that when your massing someone, you do not loose % of those weapons, you ACTUALLY loose weapons. And those you are massing loose weapons as well

So, I attack someone with 1 mil weps, and 1.3 mil units.

I will suffer more casualties as I have sent in units with no weapons also I will loose a % of weapons per attack or 1=1
i.e 17,000 units die, I loose 17,000 weps + a % of the unarmed units

Additionally, if the defending army has lots of unarmed defenders then they loose units as well but slightly less ratio

Then, as the idea has already been brought up, you have weapon factories which can make weapons to stop bigger players just buying lots of weapons after massing someone or preparing to mass someone (unless they have invested in build up of weapons)

So, if you want to mass someone, you need to ensure your factories have produced weapons available for your army (off-site storage facilities available which cannot be attacked)

This then makes it more tactical as if you want to go to war on an alliance, you start to build up naq but also off-site weapons facilities.

The draw back is ascended blessing kicking in on attacks/defence which can be devastating especially if they have higher % of ascending blessing

[xXxsephirothxXx]

Yeah I dunno.. might need a bit of working on.

I just cant seem to think how

[GeneralChaos]

What difference would it really make then

Say your hitting someone with 1 mill supers and they are all armed.

so its

1,000,000 UU
1,000,000 Weapons

After 1 attack on target say you kill 50k as it stands so

950,000 UU
1,000,000 Weapons

50k of them weapons arent being used, but it still costs to repair them

Going with your idea it would be

950,000 UU
950,000 Weapons

In which case you just build 1mill attackers, 1 mill mercs and buy the cheapest weapon and go crazy attack....

Admin would then have to make sabbing 50x more profitable else no one would do it.

I think the idea has merit but it would be to hard to code.

[Lore]

Well personally I always wanted to go the complete opposite direction. I think is totally hosed that weapons don't last. I think once a man is armed he should stay armed and weapons should never be destroyed Except by sabatoge. I always thought they should start at 100% strength, and slowly drop down to 50% maybe as low as 25%, but should Never be destroyed. It puts an end to killing 20 mill Super Def for FREE after a defense falls.

Repairing them simple brings the strength back to 100%

This could actually make sabb worth while and could take care of another very serious problem with the game. Untouchable Attack Supers. Sabbed weapons would no do what they would do in R/L. They blow up and kill those holding them. So now you lose the man holding the weapon, but weapons are no longer destroyed and it would actually cost the Attacker to sit a kill Def and spies instead of doing it for free now.

[Sarevok]

I always wondered how weapons got damaged myself, especially hand held ones, unless they are using explosives.

I'm with Lore, kill more men, and have the weapons take damage, but never destroyed. With the current rates, there about the same cost anyway

[Maha Vishnu]

But in RL, when a man is armed and gets killed, no one readily goes and picks up that weapon unless a comrade without a weapon does so (similar to the Russians in WW1)

This is where weapons factories come in. They will require X amount of naq per turn to make weapons. The better the weapon, more naq it requires
This means that you would need to think about massing someone especially if you do not have weapons to replace those lost.

Also, this would stop players killing weapons and leaving defenders. To totally wipe out a defence you would need to take the the defenders down to 0.

Also, as discussed else where, sabbing could be achieved on the weapons factory which would reduce the amount being built as clearly sabbing weapons on attackers is mad as clearly the attackers are not on the base (if you know what I mean).

[Sarevok]

I would love to see someone try and assassinate someone with a gun in broad daylight, if they just had a knife to be discrete

[GeneralChaos]

But in RL, when a man is armed and gets killed, no one readily goes and picks up that weapon unless a comrade without a weapon does so (similar to the Russians in WW1)

This is where weapons factories come in. They will require X amount of naq per turn to make weapons. The better the weapon, more naq it requires
This means that you would need to think about massing someone especially if you do not have weapons to replace those lost.

Also, this would stop players killing weapons and leaving defenders. To totally wipe out a defence you would need to take the the defenders down to 0.

Also, as discussed else where, sabbing could be achieved on the weapons factory which would reduce the amount being built as clearly sabbing weapons on attackers is mad as clearly the attackers are not on the base (if you know what I mean).

Then a def would never fall, as its impossible to take defenders below 19.

I like Lores idea there, in a war people die not the weapons.

[Sarevok]

Agreed, but with the whole 19 thing, just change the % when it gets very low (<50)

Seriously, if i send in 100,000 men, against 19, I'm pretty sure my guys can kill 19

[GeneralChaos]

Agreed, but with the whole 19 thing, just change the % when it gets very low (<50)

Seriously, if i send in 100,000 men, against 19, I'm pretty sure my guys can kill 19

Correct but how many of the 100,000 could the 19 kill first........

[Sarevok]

I just mean in terms of, even if the 100,000 took 38 losses, SURELY they can kill the 19 that did that

[Lore]

I always wondered how weapons got damaged myself, especially hand held ones, unless they are using explosives.

It was explained as ammunitions cost, and weapon failure in the field. Still sucky weapons for an entire armys weapons to fail in battle.

But in RL, when a man is armed and gets killed, no one readily goes and picks up that weapon unless a comrade without a weapon does so (similar to the Russians in WW1)

Which makes more sense, picking up a weapon from a fallen comrade or going into a battle barehanded or wielding your gun as a club because it no longer works?

[Sarevok]

I tended to think in large wars, the people would go first, not the weapons

[Lore]

Hes got a point, I generally have say,,,,,500K weapons, 500K SS and 150 to 250K Mercs. This way a man stays on the guns even as they are dieing. This does present a signifigant problem to my idea as my idea would lead to buying a weapon 1 time and never again, and thats not right either.

I think SS has a point, if you make the weapons last, then they should be lost when the man count decreases below the weapon count, but if you have more men the weapons, no weapons are lost till there are no men to use them.

[Sarevok]

Agreed. Either 1:1 ratio, or like 1:1.25 men:weapon, in case they felt the initiative to collect an extra weapon while running for their lives, of if they win, collecting the enemies