StarGateWars Forums

Ok had this idea yesterday when discussing alliance wars with friends.

Basically it would be a button, say like "make this user my commander", except it would be "blockade planet".

During a blockade the account being blocked would gernerate no UU or Naq, and would be unable to trade. Nor would they be able to attack, spy, or sab. any other players.

In order to blockade a planet you would have to have certain things:

1. A mothership
2. An attack force
3. Requirements 1 & 2 must be great then target's M/S and defence.

A blockade would last a max 2 days. But could be canceled by those doing it after a minimum of 8 hours.

Only one player may block another at any one time.

This would make alliance wars all that more interesting as not only would accounts be massed but would also not be able to rebuild for 2 days max. Therefore giving other side time to rebuild first.

interesting idea but it wud be quite harsh on some1 it wud be like sticking them in vac mode. How about the blockade means that u get more naq at the end of it or u intercept a certain amount of the naq that the person makes during that turn

That basic idea's not awful, but your requirements are far too loose. If the only requirements are that I have to have a more powerful MS and Attack, then I could go and blockade any little player that looked at me wrong. You're putting FAR too much power into the hands of a single player. You're basically allowing one single player to put another player into vacation mode on a whim. For it to be even remotely fair, you would have to put a rank modifier on it, and you would have to make some penalty or risk to the one putting up the blockade. Maybe they would lose Naq themselves since it's not cheap. Or maybe some restrictions set on them for if they are attacked while blockading another player. Something...otherwise this would be far too powerful a tool.

I agree, with no detriment to the initiator, this idea is way to overpowered.

How about...
1) A blockade's effectiveness is directly proportional to the difference of the (offense * defense) of the blocker versus that of the blockee. Then put in a covert/anticovert factor (for blockade runners/smugglers) (there might be something here for a race benefit).

For example let's say person A wants to blockade person B. Person A has an attack*offence factor of 200 and person B has factor of 180 so 200 - 180 leaves a difference of 20 which is 10% of 200. Double the difference % and subtract from 100%, and that is how many resources A has tied up blockading B. So A would end up tieing up 60% of each of his resources (60% attackers, 60% defenders, 60% miners, etc.) to maintain the blockade, also his mothership can't be used in any offense/defense (leaving his home planet open for a great attack). Since A well than outnumbered B, B would be immediately reduced to (pick a number) say 5% (call this safe production) naq/UU production (+ any positive difference between B_Covert - A_AntiCovert)

Now in reverse if B had the 200 factor and A had the 180 factor, A would have tied up 100% of his resources for the blockade, where B would still have (10%[difference] + 5%[safe production] + positive covert factor) of his resources remaining.

Both motherships would be tied up.
Neither side can attack.
Blocker has limited defense at home.

There should be some consideration for anyone trying to attack the blockee since the blocker is going to be attacking anyone going to or from the planet.

use search button...its been suggested b4

More thought needed - there must be some sort of way of breaking the blockade if and when it is put in place. And why would it mean naq production is stopped?

I like the whole idea but maybe a require ment to blockade is a naq fee by the blockader.....like 1 billion for all cost and expences of blockading a person(gas, food, patrol watch, ect...)

For the person being blockaded I dont see why they cant make naq and uu...If our planet (God Forbid) got blockaded by an alien race we would still be able to produce people and money....So maybe instead of not being able to produce goods the person could not trade with people to get reinforcements and extra naq for a long siege....

To get past the blockade you could make a new ship called the Blockade Runner and it would get naq and troops from allies
To counter that the blockader could have a tech to intercept it on the way back to the blockaded person....Then the blockader would get all or a large sum of what the Blockade Runner was holding

hmm interesting idea but pointless if you have only 1 planet(its not like your trading with open space is it?)

but forum happens to be making a way to get more than 1 planet(up to 11)

so it could cut off the supply from the planets you chose to blockade

but only forum so far knows what the planets will do so hard to say yet what to do

Reaver wrote:That basic idea's not awful, but your requirements are far too loose. If the only requirements are that I have to have a more powerful MS and Attack, then I could go and blockade any little player that looked at me wrong. You're putting FAR too much power into the hands of a single player. You're basically allowing one single player to put another player into vacation mode on a whim. For it to be even remotely fair, you would have to put a rank modifier on it, and you would have to make some penalty or risk to the one putting up the blockade. Maybe they would lose Naq themselves since it's not cheap. Or maybe some restrictions set on them for if they are attacked while blockading another player. Something...otherwise this would be far too powerful a tool.

i agree

the little player gets stomped on yet again if this were to happen

~Stricken

i liked the previous suggestion thread for this better...decreased the naq production but the blockader couldn't repair. anyone kno where that thread ended up?

very bad idea IMO , will kill the game.

your for some reason assumign we have planets

we dont .

This would be a good idea to give to atlantean wars, we dotn want this game screwed up , go suggest this there.

edit. maybe thats to harsh , it could be an ok idea if it limited naq/uu production, and there was a way to break it, or stop it happening, and would make alliance wars interesting, thanks for the unique idea martin
stopping trading though is not a good idea.

edit2. If you wanna increase the costs to the blockaded player , say seriously reduce income e.t.c , then there has to be equal costs on the other player.
Say the following , proportions are just guessed not equal per say.
Can not attack/raid or make covert operations whilst blockading this planet , as the whole fleet is preocupied. (additionally you cant blockade another player until fleet is done here)
Defencive ability is reduced say 50% to maintain efforts on the blockade. (i.e if your strength in battle would have been 100 mil , it will be 50 mil)
Your mothership will not help in the defence of your planet whilst away blockading.
Weapons and Mothership will sustain damages during the blockade anbd will need constant repairs, say this damage will be equal to thge use of 30-45-60 AT turns against a player.
Mothership damage will depend on the enemy's mothership.

Naturally with all those in place the blockaded party will need certain downfalls aswell , such as damage on the defences , attack power reduction, chance of attack being blocked by the blockade, like a hologram but damage is sustained no your attack force and the blockading force, chance depends on strength of blockader.
E.t.c,

.......

Just a general note, putting indepth thought into suggestions stops posts such as my original one

the old thread that talked about this said:

1. max 2 days duration
2. reduced naq production for the blockaded
3. multiple blockades can be in place (i.e. A on B, B on C, C on A)
4. blockader uses 15/at each turn
5. blockader suffers losses and damage obviously
6. blockader cannot repair or replace losses during blockade

Shizune wrote:the old thread that talked about this said:

1. max 2 days duration
2. reduced naq production for the blockaded
3. multiple blockades can be in place (i.e. A on B, B on C, C on A)
4. blockader uses 15/at each turn
5. blockader suffers losses and damage obviously
6. blockader cannot repair or replace losses during blockade

how about adding, blocker gets % of blocked income, so blocked gets 20mil a turn blocker gets 2.5mil extra a turn

i think it may have had that too but i'm too lazy to search for the thread. its still not a good idea...