StarGateWars Forums

Well, tbh idea came from SGAW, but anyway, i think this would fit in very well into SGW as well.

Basicly implement another attack option, which is that you strike enemy strike action, goes the same way as we strike enemy defense nowaday.

now, few points i would add:

-when attacking enemy strike action, it should imo go attacker strike vs defenders strike + defense, to make it more costly to mass strike

-you should take no resources from enemy by using this attack

-should be same as attack defensive action, except that offensive weapons and units are damaged/killed



Why would this be good? Because nowaday ppl can be defenseless and just build up attack and mass anyone they want while enemy can't hurt them, this way ppl will want to maintain defense to protect strike as well as enemy will be able to hurt them and they'll have to rebuild something to decent level each time they'll want to attack.

Also i think this way wars would hurt a bit more and would add few percents to a chance that war is winnable *points at server war*

whatever, this is my suggestion

ideas? feedback? opinions?

SuperSaiyan wrote:personally, I don't like the idea, the whole point of bloodrealm is for that, I'd rather it not be an option in norm.

i'm yet to hear about anyone using blood realm tbh. And imo this would at least make accounts hurtable in wars, now after you lose a defense you cant really lose anything anymore and you only grow as we do in server war atm. that's just my opinion

don't think i really understand you, however i suggested that when you're attacking enemy defense, enemy is defending with strike + defense power combined against your strike power alone. That way it makes it tad harder to mass strike, or to just mass strikes in pre-emptive attack in wars or such.

SuperSaiyan wrote:all your idea does is make norm. the same as blood realm

it's not same, 1stly you can only enter blood realmy if whole alliance enters it. in blood realm you lose both attackers and defenders while 2 alliances both need to accept the challenge, while here you mass enemy attack, while it's just their defensive power added to attack power while defending, if that's the problem, this part can also be skipped

I agree Attack units should be vulnerable. But.

I have to say, having them involved in defence, hasn't worked before, ,don't see it working now.

Would work better fitting in with a lifer suicide type attack, imo, perhaps with a different ratio

Well, i'm not yet convinced that *strike vs strike* kind of attack would be bad, where you attack and kill enemy strike weapons and units

anyway, there're many possibilities how to make it a bit harder to mass than to mass defense, like making offenders losses x1,5 or x2, or to make each attack cost 20 or 30 turns, or...

imo even server war wouldn't last this long if strikes were massable as ppl would have to keep on rebuilding strikes which wouldnt be that profitable anymore

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Horus God Of Light wrote:Well, i'm not yet convinced that *strike vs strike* kind of attack would be bad, where you attack and kill enemy strike weapons and units

anyway, there're many possibilities how to make it a bit harder to mass than to mass defense, like making offenders losses x1,5 or x2, or to make each attack cost 20 or 30 turns, or...

costing more AT isn't gonna help, its just gonna hurt the smaller players

higher unit loss might work, but I'm not convinced yet

small is really relative nowaday, for some 100mill army is small for some 5mill is small etc. anyway, i dont think those "small" you have in mind actually do any real massing, so not sure how would this hurt them?


strike is a seed of all "evil" here, it's untouchable, yet it can destroy unlimited ammounts of defenses. Dont say we have sab option, as players with lvl 30+ covert lvl and 500-1mill+ spies trained can easily defend their strike, they just need small defense to keep enemy from ACing

and wars are unwinnable as all there's to do is to mass MS's now, those are hard to upgrade and only $$ ppl are able to keep up with the top, while for strike actions anyone can build and mass. and it hurts as much if not more as if you had MS massed.

dunno if i just made any sense, pretty tired already, so sorry if i didnt

i meant higier losses or more ats for strike attacks only, not when you do normal farming hits on defense.

Very quick thought with no real idea behind how itd be implemented but what about an ambush option?

Something along the lines of '' Your covert agents release a distress beacon using the frequencys of <Realm A> Within moments <Realm A's> troops arrive and are attacked by your forces lying in wake. <Realm A> Lost ### units

Upon arriving at the source of the distress beacon your forces realise....ITS A TRAP!!! At a disadvantage they manage to eliminate #### of <realm B's> troops, before successfully retreating"



Your Strike & Covert Vs Enemies Strike & Covert

....ok so i just want an option that can include the words ''ITS A TRAP''

Anything to unskew the current inballance of attack vs defense, or a way to remove attack (units, not weapons as this can be done, all be it slowing, and at very heavy losses) of people. Not like ascended, as that's a piece of cake, and the losses are nothing. Something of value, like Tek's idea

A 'destroy' option, which kills like twice the amount of def troops, and like 1.5% of enemy's strike per hit...

Or convince massers to mass you to the same end.

Something to take the fight to them, will the same losses/death ratio as massers get when attacking a defense. That is what I'd like to see, along with others

I think the most effective way to cure the inbalance of attack versus defence is to add in a system that limits your strike to 5x your defence, it means someone with a 20bil defence (Myself at most times) would be limited to a 100bil strike, inversely for raiding, your strike is limited to 1/5th of your defence, ie if you have a strike of 1 or whatever and a 2T defence for raiding, when they attempt to raid the attack fails and a message appears saying "Troops are unsure of their security if they return exhausted and successful from the mission"

Just my thoughts

Dmonix wrote:I think the most effective way to cure the inbalance of attack versus defence is to add in a system that limits your strike to 5x your defence, it means someone with a 20bil defence (Myself at most times) would be limited to a 100bil strike, inversely for raiding, your strike is limited to 1/5th of your defence, ie if you have a strike of 1 or whatever and a 2T defence for raiding, when they attempt to raid the attack fails and a message appears saying "Troops are unsure of their security if they return exhausted and successful from the mission"

Just my thoughts

I did mention this in my other thread. People did not like it.

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Lord Blackhole wrote:

Dmonix wrote:I think the most effective way to cure the inbalance of attack versus defence is to add in a system that limits your strike to 5x your defence, it means someone with a 20bil defence (Myself at most times) would be limited to a 100bil strike, inversely for raiding, your strike is limited to 1/5th of your defence, ie if you have a strike of 1 or whatever and a 2T defence for raiding, when they attempt to raid the attack fails and a message appears saying "Troops are unsure of their security if they return exhausted and successful from the mission"

Just my thoughts

I did mention this in my other thread. People did not like it.

I don't like it

restricts people to how they can play, for instance, I hit only inactive accounts

so my strike is always 1 weapon, am I not allowed to have a nice def.?

I think what he was trying to say "Strike can be no bigger than 5 times your defence but can me smaller."
The inverse part doesn't make sense at all.