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 li

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 effec

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 unna

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

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 addi

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 pr

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 prot

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 s