Idea (Little Upsilon)

There was a recent post about 'Raiders having the advantage', I won't get into why I disagree with that, but there was one solid point where there is in my opinion an unfair advantage and I think I have a solid idea that could help players of all different types. Surprise war declarations, they often come out of nowhere if you aren't closely watching build ups near you and if you have a busy schedule for the next day afterwards they can put you in a bad spot. Here is my idea:

The defending country will have the option to choose the war start time. I believe the following options should be available:

* Immediately - If you believe you have been declared upon by an inferior opponent whose defenses are unprepared for an assault you could choose this option to get the war over with. **Must be selected within 15 game days of war declaration.

* 2 Game Months - Similar to option above but you would like a couple of game months to make sure that everything is in order. **Must be selected within 1 game month after war declaration.

* 4 Game Months - This would also be the default if no selection was made within 1 game month of war declaration.

* 8 Game Months - This would be the option for players who were not at all expecting war, would like as much time as possible to prepare for war/negotiate a possible peace deal prior to war even starting. This option should require at least something to be given up by the player, haven't come up with what yet but there should be some kind of cost involved to make sure that the player feels as though it is worthwhile to choose it. Perhaps if this option is chosen a player can not transfer assets from the country into another above a certain limit? Like 10T, 20T, 50T?

Once again, if no selection is made within 1 game month of war declaration then the default will be 4 game months just as it is now. Under this proposal a player would have to declare war then wait for at least 15 game days to make sure that war was not started immediately, then have to keep their eye out for the 15 game days following to see if a selection was made for a war start time other than the default 4 game months. The person who declared should receive an email alerting them to if/when a decision is made by the defending player with the war time period chosen.

So what say you, the SC community?

As one who lost 4 countries recently while taking 4 days away from SIm to finish a tough WAR on another on-line game ( we kicked their arses too in typical DTA style 5 DTA Vs 200 who made a f a g cease fire - all credit to TANG's ruthless style) my greatest regret was that I was unable to fight back on this game. Was on SIM every day for 4 months - it was my (and DTA alliance) 1st time away - go figure. By the time we could react - our 12 slaves had new owners & under protection. Ironic the game rules protected the attacker. I like the option idea above. Pansy warrior if you attack someone who's not even home. Much better a live person. Thats why I also play games like Fighter Ace - one on one adrenal RUSH. The options above have my vote.

WB,

I would like your input on what points you disagree with in my post on the advantage of the attacker has in this game.

I have been working on how to protect my stuff since I first ran into Andy Clark and the 3M express. Other than a large FED with lots of d air and a very strong counter-punch, it seems to me that this game is seriously stacked on the side of the defender. It was stacked even more back then when my 800 Interceptors were meet by 100 NFP. Is the F/A-18 really that much better than the F-16?

whiteboy,
Having lost 6 countries to a gang of Rat Pack a while back I would welcome a change to the way wars are started but I am not sure your idea is all that great.

Here is an idea that might make the attackers rethink before they gang up on another player. This would further enhance wars and equalize the inballance between attacker and defender.

If a player loses a country in a war the country that fell cannot go into WP for at least 4 game months and assets transfers out of it should still be limited. The conquered country remains open for further war declarations. With this change to the war engine the losing player can regaing his lost country and possibly recover most of his assets.

With the countrys WI close to 0 after being defeated, if it were a desirable country you would just end up with an endless round of people deccing on it and no one actually owning it. The losing player has had his chance, you shouldn't have to beat him 2,3 or more times. Also, if it were me who lost it, I would probably just keep fighting it to destroy any of its assets so the initial aggressor has lost any chance of cost recouperation anyway.
Sorry JL, doesn't seem viable.

why not have garrison weapons respond along with the ints within a certain distance from the attacked target?

Ints on their own are decimated by attacking forces over a short period of time. Given enough ammo,an attacker(s)can take down as many ints as you wish to keep putting up.

Alright, I didn't want to get into the attacker/defender argument as I thought it would turn into a discussion similar to above which I don't think there can be any consensus on. The idea presented isn't meant to address all of the concerns of people who are declared war upon because there is just no way to do that. If you are looking for ideas to make it impossible for anyone to actually win a war thus making war impossible, I can't support that, I know there are many of you out there who only enjoy the econ side of the game and I'm all for lobbying SC to create rules to assist you but destroying the war side of the game is not one of them.

If you are truly an econ only player there is a very easy and cost effective way to protect your assets and that is war protection. From recent forum comments by Tom it looks like we were actually able to successfully lobby to make long term war protection even more viable and cost effective. It is not possible to protect your assets via military at a lower cost than war protection as wp costs 115B per month whereas the strong defense coupled with the offense necessary for defense (this is the part that alot of people don't understand) costs more than 115B per month and even with that you do not have the absolute protection guaranteed by war protection.

As Wild said in her guide, no country is 'untakeable', with the right kind of determined enemies any country will fall eventually. That is not because the attackers have an advantage but because of determination. If two well skilled equal opponents meet then the more determined player will win but if that is the attacking player they will spend far more assets in order to achieve the win than they will gain. You can not create a defense which can not be destroyed, but you can create a defense which makes it not really worth the time and weapons spent. I'm not going to get into specific tactics here as it gets a bit detailed and I'm not interested in debating war tactics in the forums, I will however answer any questions sent to me via in game message at any of the following, WB 001 Econ on LU, WB 001 Pwn on GR or RYAKER 001 Home on FB to the best of my ability. Also remember my note above about offense as defense, just as you can not create a defense that can not be destroyed, neither can your opponent...this is where most people fail, the idea of your defense is to hold up for long enough to take your opponents country or disable it, it is not meant to be impenetrable. This is perfectly reasonable in real life terms, if the US was attacked and we engaged only our defensive weapons in that attack then eventually we would lose...it could take 10 or 20 years, but we would lose.

Anyway, the idea posted was meant to be an aid to players, not to solve all of their problems it just isn't possible to do. We can however work out some rules to make things more fair and enjoyable for players of all types, but everyone should consider that when coming up with their ideas, otherwise we end up with all of the warriors thinking everything should benefit war and all of the econ players thinking everything should be protected...there is no balance there.

Oh...and Blue Serpent - Federated air defense (this does not mean you need a federation, I know you know this but just for the others out there reading) can be the most time consuming thing to dismantle. I run 80k ints in all of my slaves (and it is key to at least build them in duo's) so a player wishing to dismantle my air d would need approximately:

900k A2A missiles, 180k drones and 25k fp

And that is assuming I wasn't fighting back...and assuming it is only my duo slaves, if a player is attacking say my cluster on FB which is 6 slaves bordering each other with a total of 480k ints, well that would require 2.7 million A2A.

I've dismantled enough air d to know how long it takes to take down that many ints and I've spent 8+ hours on just dismantling one players air d, I would hardly call it decimation or a quick and easy task.

He's so gangster!

Thanks for the positive contribution Wendy...helping the community as usual...

Actually, you are so kucci kucci


I like how when you talk on most subjects you speak from an authoritative point of view.

Now that *IS* Gangsta.

Dangit, thats gonna cost me some more c3s..

WB I'm sorry. Don't mess with this guy.

Pssst, he's a k-i-l-l-e-r

Keep talking Wendy...just do it in a different thread, I'm actually trying to get some ideas out there that I think could help people...go talk your trash elsewhere...if you have an opinion on the subject I'd love to hear it but don't turn the thread into a flame war.

Back to authoritative I see.

He's SO *Hardass*

@WB, my suggestion was aimed at the eco players and those with little military knowledge. Those are the countries that have small amount or no d wings up at all. Plus an experienced attacker with 80k ints up would prove a difficult task for a non military country.

Got it Serpent...totally agree...

I agree that between equally matched players (in skill and assets though skill is more important. Remember the lesson of T against Turner on FB) that the attacker has very little advantage, because the defense fires first and defense is cheaper than offense, etc., etc., but that is not the type of war I was addressing in my post on Asset Raiders.

I also have no problem raiding inactives and did it regularly on FB. It is almost the the only way to play there. I do not understand why some players go to war over the raiding of inactive friends, and I must admit that my own thinking would have me taking countries of friends who were not coming back.

I also understand the need to "teach a lesson." I personally believe in the quick sharp lesson.

However, there have been many occasions when Vet "Swag" has gotten out of hand. I remember a particular nuking campaign that was carried out several years ago, on an unnamed world by unnamed players, where apparently some people just had way too many nukes sitting around. They were quite pleased with themselves over the affair. There have other similar campaigns.

Good players have been run off before they have developed either the skill or assets to compete. Their relative inability and asset rich countries make them easy targets.

We do not need draconian rules that put severe limits on what people can do (like the arbitrary limitations put on Wild). We need to be a self-policing and governing group of players who show appropriate restraint.

Every experienced player needs to see himself as a Defender of SC and ACTIVELY offer to help new players learn the game, refrain from foolish pique (Wendy's posts just above this one), and build player retention. Imagine how much better this game would be with just 15-20 more players who had a chance to learn the game. And SC actually has room for hundreds more. This game would be much more exciting, though it would lose some of its "family" feel.

I know that many of you are helpful to new players on the forums, but look how many new players get shut down here on the forums so that some "experienced" player can get "cool points" within the existing players.

I see plato, my forum etiquette has always been in question. I will say without hostility that for every one person who feels like you about my post, there are others that quite appreciate in equal number if not more. Just a thought.

As far as having forum posts included into opinion on changing the way war is done, I think there is no real relationship between forum speak, and how soon war decs go out. Now if you want to get on that subject, we can make another thread and talk about why I post how I do. I would be more than happy to explain it in further detail.

For example, I may have come on this thread and acted like an asshat becuase WB in true asshat form went on a thread made to help new players take a country for free, offered by myself, and tried to sell some n00bs a country instead, all while being given (supposedly) an empire for free. When he did so, he made it into just the kind of post you just said you opposed and now it is trashed. Full of good stuff though for yard sales and forum lurkers though. So me being here, and now is a direct result of what he did on an actual helpful thread...first.

Now had he come on that thread in question and just stated that he was willing to sell some country to nobs for 50 gc and kept his silliness down, it is likely I wouldn't be on this thread.

The Boy is SO *HardAss*
Have you balanced your Karma WB?

If this were implemented, I would actually suggest that the default be 8 game months because if no option is chosen, the likely scenario is that the president will not have logged in to choose which option therefore will need more time to prepare when they do log in.

Wendy - Sigh...the thread you are referring to was you telling the poor newbs that you could no longer help them because you were 'dragged into an engagement' or something to that effect, I simply replied that you chose war over assisting them and that I would assist them by providing them with free 20 mil pop countries. Just drop it and let this thread be what it was supposed to be about.

Plato - Couldn't agree with you more, we should all do a better job of helping out newer players. Jojo recently sent what I think could be a great idea for assisting new players, federation awards, it would encourage people to be active and part of the community and we would like to make part of the award system the taking on as well as training and development of newer players. Interested to hear your thoughts.

Scarlet - I see your point, however that would mean 48 hours before being able to attack completely inactive empires and in addition I do think there should be some cost involved in choosing this option as it does give a player more time to build up/move assets out of the country, in which case it wouldn't be appropriate to just assume that would be the players choice.

Thanks for the comments guys...definitely want to get some more ideas and opinions.

No offense White Boy, but I think the whole idea is bad. I believe the simple way to provide counter strike cpability for a defender is to simply remove all wp for an attackers entire empire for at least 8 game months. Barring this, I do like John L's idea about the defenders lost country staying out of wp, but I would extend it to 8 to 12 game months.

neidy and john's idea would be the only way to stop the raiders.

I guess we should probably define people that are being called 'raiders', I know I have been called one but to my recollection I have never declared on a player with little or no defense operating in an econ only fashion (Daelin was an econ player but I had no idea because he had top 10 war rank countries with solid defense and a big militaristic fed backing him up). I really haven't even declared on that many active players, mostly just 3M members and other players that I have had a personal issue with, so what exactly are we calling raiders? I won't deny that I've built large parts of my empire from inactive countries as well as their assets, but I would hardly call that 'raiding'.

Neidy - I don't disagree with your initial assessment, in my opinion it is only appropriate that if you declare war on another player the remainder of your countries should not be allowed war protection as it is designed to protect players who are away or unable to fight for whatever reason. However I do not believe there can be any consensus on that issue (perhaps on FB alone there could be) and I understand the point of view of certain players that it could be a problem although I don't agree. John L's idea as Crafty pointed out is just not feasible, having the country that was taken forced to be immediately out of wp with a 0 war index would be crazy, people would just constantly dec these countries over and over and nothing would ever be accomplished. It's easy to make this argument as a person who just lost a country but I must ask, if you were able to gain the country back from whoever took it, wouldn't that person just dec it again and you would lose it just as easily?

Bigg E - Thanks for the opinion, I appreciate you giving your opinion on the subject without making it a personal issue. As I said, I do disagree with it but it is nice to have your input.

I guess I was incorrect in my assessment on this idea, I thought it would be something that many players would come to a consensus on, if anything I thought the 'warlords' would come out against it because of the further restrictions it would place upon them, but it appears that is not the case.

I know that this idea doesn't go as far as some people may like to stop 'raiders' and that there are 'warlords' out there who think it would go too far in impacting their ability to fight, but is it not better than the rules that currently exist? I hate making these kind of arguments because it seems like all or nothing which clearly is not the case, but if everyone who felt that their assets were at risk had a choice between a standard 4 month start for every war or the plan I have detailed above, what would you choose?

Obviously you cant please ALL the people ALL the time, just SOME of the people SOME of the time. I agree with Neidy in that when a player issues a dec, then all their countries should go outta WP, except maybe for their main.

But just as a person has to learn to have a good eco to make a profitable and sustainable country, there is also a need to learn war, to maintain a sustainable country. War is a part of this game the same way econ is. There is definitely a place for WP in this game for many reasons. I do think tho that WP should be cheaper. What if WP depended on the amount of military assets a country has? And should there be some sort of economic limit a player can achieve if they decide to not have an appropriate def? Because there is a limit as to what a player who chooses to war is able to do with out a good eco? Unless of course they are willing to spend the GC for cash. So shouldn't a eco only player have to spend GC's for protection?

I dunno, many of these ideas, are just that, ideas. It may be impossible or even impractical to implement any of them. Just wanna make sure it is enjoyable for as many as possible, not just one 'type' of player.

Let me explain further my idea that a conquered country should not be in war protection as soon as it is conquered. Imagine Player B loses his country to player A. With the four month wait for the start of war, Player A has four months to set up the defense for the country he conquered and in that four months the country has repaired some of the damage and it's war index has risen.

Let me throw out another idea. What if Player A attacks and takes player B's country. Then let Player B set up terrorist or Liberation units in the country to fight the new regime. Is this not an idea which reflect what can and does happen in real life.

I understand the idea John, but don't you think that players will just continue to dec the country back and forth until one eventually gives up? It just seems like it could make the wars take forever for no real reason, I don't see what goal this would ultimately accomplish. In addition I don't see how the player that lost the country would have much chance if they were already unable to defend the country to begin with to the point that they lost it. The scenario I see playing out would be. Player A gets declared upon by Player B, A loses the country to B, A grabs a c3, decs the country back with the c3 to make sure it can't get into wp then builds a force strong enough to take the country back (this could take a day or a week or a month, all A has to do is make sure there is a dec on the country to keep it out of wp) eventually A takes the country back but then B decides to do the same to A that A had done to him...so on and so forth...just a big cycle with nothing really ever being accomplished.

How about this idea though...what if one of your countries is declared war upon you were given a shorter war declaration window when you counter? So player A has an econ slave declared upon, he is not capable of countering with his war slave right away but he can have a 2 month window with which he can counter declare and have war start at the same time that the war begins with his econ slave? I know that is a little confusing...but hopefully it makes some sense.