Federated Air Defense

Can someone tell me when the change was made so that two total countries could have 3 wings respond to attacks?

This is with no mobiles involved.

It was already too strong and now you don't even need many countries lol.

If a second country is federated with a first, it provides TWO wings of air coverage for #reasons. Makes no sense.

Defense is stunningly overpowered. With basic knowledge of how to set up a defense, you can consistently cause 100 to 1 damage to an attacker or greater at basically an infinite rate. That is not exaggeration.

I don't expend Andy or anyone to respond to this because Tiny Atlas is important and things. But just saying. Super busted (still).

I solely agree with you on this. Defense is Stunningly overpowered even on a war world. I just lost 100k off aa and around 180k mrb trying to take out 15 federated heli wings. Imagine having a 100 wing. This is ridiculous! Land defence Unit now having more power than a fully powered Long range division. Currently fighting a PVP war. is not something to be considered without paying an extreme price.

Yeah the costs are something to be considered, but it's worse than that.

It makes it so only 4 or 5 players can really even consider attacking others that have even basic setups. Things the GMs would like players to invest in are completely unnecessary. Targon? Lol why? No need. Mobiles? Lol, why? No need. There are maybe 4 or 5 players in the whole game who have as many weapons total as I've lost trying to take ONE medium defense country lol.

It will entirely discourage anyone from trying to learn more. And again, shooting over and over destroying 1 interceptor and losing 770 air weapons (500+ fighters, 200+ bombers) or the equivalent on the ground is just super unrealistic.

MASSIVE improvements are needed. Not saying offense should steamroll, but this is absolutely silly.

You have to try to force an opponent to run out of ammo because you can't kill a few units? Outnumber them 20 to 1? Doesn

Traditionally, in real life, you need to have about 3:1 advantage as an attacker to achieve parity, which means taking 3:1 losses as well.

Greater numbers typically reduce your losses, and increase the losses of the defenders.

5:1 ratios are typically a bit of a blow out for the attacker, but can be mitigated by strong defensive structures, such as pill boxes, bunkers, etc.

Choosing proper defensive positions, and becoming entrenched in them, will also help reduce losses for the defender.

Running the defender out of ammo is definitely one strategy, but is usually not employed with manned units getting lost on the attacker's side, or if so, usually not at a high rate.

Of course, some countries will use meat shields to do exactly that. For example Russia using prisoners for first wave shock troops, since their loss is still a win for Russia.

Edit: the parity point will shift if the quality of the weapo

While it could be said, that it makes the war game unplayable. it could also be said, that it makes the war game safer, and more playable. When you consider, that a decade of gardening a country, can be lost in a weekend?

what if i can convince, with confidence, that i can protect a newb that wants to come to a pvp level, and tell him to just play his own game? We've still got allot of good vets around. maybe a different player culture is required?

Maybe alternate goals. i don't know?

I'd suggest 100 to 1 losses just makes war moot, not more playable. With vast reductions in air defense your noobies are still safe within a fed. Is 8 or even 10 to 1 losses for the attacker that unreasonable to be asking for?

The current settings just remove the "play" part. If we want everyone always safe, we could just remove player war. It's currently already optional.

No one really knows how to play in the current state and there's no environment to learn. We're trending toward single player c3 gaming in my view. I think a better adjustment to keep people safe would be to change how wars can end.

All opinions valid. That's just mine after having tested it a few times against medium defense countries that had only one supporting country. Right now it's almost entirely pointless, and only a couple players could even consider trying it given assets.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

No one really knows how to play in the current state and there's no environment to learn. -Angry Wildebeest<!-/Quote-!>

Your high lighting a serious problem, but looking at it from a the opposite direction.

When you put in a couple months, maybe a years work into your empire. And the learning curve hits, and you loose, its dishartening enough that its less than even a player would stick around.

The GM keeps increasing defenses, to counter hyper aggressive players, that have got above the learning curve, and using that for their own advantage.

i mean, why not just spell out here, how to set up that kind of defense? having it as "secret knowledge," only creates the learning curve, that few people are willing to risk learning.

100:1 losses is not reasonable.
This is supposed to be a simulation.

I think a big part of the problem is how wars are conducted.
First you send in 1 group to attack, then you send in a 2nd when your done sending the first.

That's not how wars work.

Wars typically will have air support for ground troops, and naval support for sea landings, in addition to the ground support.

Units do not attack on their own. It is an effort of all available resources, minus those that need to stay to defend.

The thing I find really strange about this simulation is that some units are tagged as offensive, and others as defensive.

A tank, used to project power, is offensive. Used to protect territory, it is defensive. The difference isn't the unit, or the men using the equipment, it is the role assigned to it.

Certain units work better in cities, while others work better in forests, and still other

I hear what you're trying to say Josias. I do think it is brutal when players lose lots of work in a short amount of time. I'll share my reaction to your post:

We already have optional warfare (war levels). If you don't want to risk your empire being gone in a weekend, don't go out of war protection and don't play solo. Get allies. Are you suggesting that a new war player should be able to retain their country without logging in during a war with an experienced player? If that's true, then what's the point of wars if countries cannot be defeated? If your concern is players losing too many assets, I think you could instead be pushing for different war outcomes (as opposed to conquest only) instead of the current war engine balance.

Regarding practice: C3 warfare should be improved so players can improve. The current settings are mostly irrelevant when you compare with player war. You'll never

Both points, EO and Josias, are valid. However, I have also observed a significant 100:1 difference in the war game. Just the other day, I engaged in a battle against a war level 4 c3 and was surprised by the substantial resistance it offered. Players involved in PvP wars typically possess more defenses compared to C3s. While I understand that countries can become obsolete years after building up, that is the risk one takes when engaging in war at level three. Currently, there are numerous large empires below war level three because they have zero interest in participating in the war game, which explains their existence. These defenses are excessively overpowering. It means that two players could easily establish defenses and reach a stalemate, regardless of the offensive forces they possess. Consequently, the war becomes pointless from the outset.

what if we talked the GM into dropping the war index altogether?

instead, as a war drags on, your welfare index drops. succesfull attacks, and painting, would reduce the welfare index more. you'd be forced to raise wages, to keep folks happy, kinda like a form of war exhaustion, and/or attrition?

and in addition of "conquest," you fight until some one surrenders?

at which point they keep their country, but you gain certain rights, like you get their income tax for a while, and you get to build natural resource corps, and maybe gain control of nationalized corporation, (like targon missile corps,) and some of the countries stock pile of materials? for a while?

Some one convinced the GM that C3 raiding distracted from the real econ part of the game. And you know, theirs a point to be made their. I was one of the most prolithic C3 raiders. And i'm very resigned to except things as they are, rather than have a strong opinion.

If you take away wind farms, and pop transfers, and just do a straight econ game. Then take another look at the way the war game is set up. I mean, when you can only afford a handful of wings, doesn't this kinda mega defense make more sense?

As it stands, its my understanding that the best counter offensive strat to this, is multipul attackers. like a fed with 6 active guys, and 1Q assets, each, would be stronger than a fed with 3 guys, and 3Q assets? you just need enough folks wanting to do anything, to have a robust political struggle.

So maybe the mega defense, in the sim-era of wind farms, to make more folks feel safer to come to wl3, and join

From my perspective, the core problem is:
1) Being a text game means that the battles are instant, and so a country can be demolished as fast as a player can click through the attacks to make it so.

2) The game is also a real time strategy "city builder" where you have to wait long periods of time to make progress. For example, you need 200 game months (or more) to get your corp's efficiency maxed out, which is on the order of a real month or longer.

The 2 ways to re-balance these 2 things would be 1) make attacks take longer and 2) make growth happen faster.

My opinion: #1 would be easier to do, and better for the game.

How would you accomplish that?
1) assign speeds to units, so that it takes time for them to travel to a target, and back.
2) Limit the speed that an air base can rearm planes, thus limiting the number of attacks per base, per day.

Example: