Minimal Defense.

[~Coyle~]

That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Dont mind loki, he/ she is part of the YCC. you're crying crew.

Didn't you roll in one of those before?

Ive rolled in and out of allot of things..I dont remember that one tho..seems like telling people they are whining or crying over something has always come from your side. I can see where posting that is allot easier than actual constructive interaction into a topic.

Wells the facts don't lie but didn't you just post before me something not related at all? You always were a moanbag

Now back on topic please also if a mod could clear up all this awful thrash talk.

[Clockwork]

I do see a flaw, or at least something in need of consideration with Option A, you could use it to work out the likely defences of people without having to spy them.

Maybe a combination of option A and B, only average the defences Off ppt, and have a cutoff point, say in the range of 1-5t on the minimum you need to build?

[Drought]

How about using the average defense formula, and apply to be a logic wheter or not you are allowed to steal planets from said alliance ?

[~Coyle~]

Might just take a bit more team work to take the larger defense say 100tril, means you might need team mates to remove as many defences as possible before you could tackle the big one, brings a lot of team work into the mix, couple of big hitters on stand by ready to move, rest of the team clearing everything else (or trying)

This using the average defense formula Drought had

[Drought]

I do see a flaw, or at least something in need of consideration with Option A, you could use it to work out the likely defences of people without having to spy them.

Maybe a combination of option A and B, only average the defences Off ppt, and have a cutoff point, say in the range of 1-5t on the minimum you need to build?

Working out a likely defense would require you to calculate all the defenses as equally large/small.
would be far off from the real numbers even if one person has a defense twice his alliance mates.

You would end up with a ball park figure of the possible average defense.
You could start hitting a few, to reduce posssibilities ... but .. wouldnt a simple 3 hit get you the same ? or s spy report ?

I think the likely hood of it being applied to figure out a defense is not that big.

[Clockwork]

Just mentioning it because ideas in the past have been rejected because they have some form of crossover on spying. Fewer targets off ppt, easier it would be to work out defs. Just a consideration anyway

[Drought]

Just mentioning it because ideas in the past have been rejected because they have some form of crossover on spying. Fewer targets off ppt, easier it would be to work out defs. Just a consideration anyway

hmm, thats true indeed.
Personally I'd think its more hassle then it would be worth though.


Another downside perhaps (or benefit, unsure lol)

Situation:
5 members in an alliance; 4 on ppt, the 5th allmost massed and getting killed by a relative small player, one of the other 4 on ppt with a big defense drops ppt, and the smaller attacker suddenly needs to build before being able to continue.
All the alliance guy did was drop out of ppt.

This is as annoying as it could be strategical.

Thoughts ?

[Clockwork]

Yes, so we would need to include a cap on the required defence you needed to build, so that as long as the attacker has build up to match the cap, it would not matter if a huge def dropped ppt and skewed the average. Maybe calculate the cap on the average def formular to be based on the attackers army size? So they would have to invest a least X percentage of their army as defence? (Raiding might become annoying, unless you already build a def above the cap to start with).

More thought needed

[SVaRuN]

My suggestion is the following.

50% of defense for attack.

Resulting in

1) hindering snipers

2) making wars more fun forcing players to actually build something in return for them causing a destruction.

3) Making wars more costly and hopefully shorter (instead of the endless engagement we are currently seeing)

[jedi~tank]

My suggestion is the following.

50% of defense for attack.

Resulting in

1) hindering snipers

2) making wars more fun forcing players to actually build something in return for them causing a destruction.

3) Making wars more costly and hopefully shorter (instead of the endless engagement we are currently seeing)

Yes!!!

[~Dä Vinci~]

My suggestion is the following.

50% of defense for attack.

Resulting in

1) hindering snipers

2) making wars more fun forcing players to actually build something in return for them causing a destruction.

3) Making wars more costly and hopefully shorter (instead of the endless engagement we are currently seeing)

Yes!!!

so if someone built i dunno a 500t defence (not pointing at anyone FERI) you would need a 250t defence to attack making it impossible to ever attack that person same with 250t+ defences or just leaving you with no covert.

i like the idea but the 50% is a little steep mby 15%-25%

[Sol]

Perhaps you're taking the issue and solution in the wrong light. Perhaps you should be adding another dimension to the attacking-defending session.

If someone attacks you, and has a very small or insignificant defence, compared to your attack or defence (something to choose), then you have the ability to retaliate during THEIR attack killing MORE attack troops and weps than you normally would.

Consider a similar concept such as the descension battle, you attack someone with your toc, they defend it by repulsing it and all this other jazz, then they attack you back in the same battle, and you defend their attack.

Now what if the same where to happen for an attack in main, except you don't attack back, you continue to defend but if the attackers defence is crap then you automatically kill more weps and units based on how small it is compared to what YOU have.
In reality, in a war, if a defending country finds a weakness in an attacker they gun for it, and the attackers attack is what you would try and kill first.

[SVaRuN]

My suggestion is the following.

50% of defense for attack.

Resulting in

1) hindering snipers

2) making wars more fun forcing players to actually build something in return for them causing a destruction.

3) Making wars more costly and hopefully shorter (instead of the endless engagement we are currently seeing)

Yes!!!

so if someone built i dunno a 500t defence (not pointing at anyone FERI) you would need a 250t defence to attack making it impossible to ever attack that person same with 250t+ defences or just leaving you with no covert.

i like the idea but the 50% is a little steep mby 15%-25%

No because of the following reasons.



Option A)
You would use a double strike so 250 trills strike x 2 = 500 trills (defense 125 trills)

Option B)
Back in the days most of the people who massed defenses had smaller attack then defense of the player was, thus planning was needed and often team work to demolish the biggest defenses. It is how it should be...

You use a couple of massers if needed, you bring defense down. In fact often even normal defenses would fall in such a manner because of the critical + nox and the potential phasing of a player you didnt want to happen


Basically combination of the above.

[~Dä Vinci~]

My suggestion is the following.

50% of defense for attack.

Resulting in

1) hindering snipers

2) making wars more fun forcing players to actually build something in return for them causing a destruction.

3) Making wars more costly and hopefully shorter (instead of the endless engagement we are currently seeing)

Yes!!!

so if someone built i dunno a 500t defence (not pointing at anyone FERI) you would need a 250t defence to attack making it impossible to ever attack that person same with 250t+ defences or just leaving you with no covert.

i like the idea but the 50% is a little steep mby 15%-25%

No because of the following reasons.



Option A)
You would use a double strike so 250 trills strike x 2 = 500 trills (defense 125 trills)

Option B)
Back in the days most of the people who massed defenses had smaller attack then defense of the player was, thus planning was needed and often team work to demolish the biggest defenses. It is how it should be...

You use a couple of massers if needed, you bring defense down. In fact often even normal defenses would fall in such a manner because of the critical + nox and the potential phasing of a player you didnt want to happen


Basically combination of the above.

125t defence = 250/300mm supers

250t strike = 500/600m supers

seems legit of course can add mercs ...

[~Coyle~]

My suggestion is the following.

50% of defense for attack.

Resulting in

1) hindering snipers

2) making wars more fun forcing players to actually build something in return for them causing a destruction.

3) Making wars more costly and hopefully shorter (instead of the endless engagement we are currently seeing)

Yes!!!