|Previous Thread:||Everyone post a brief history|
|Next Thread:||RedHot Federation lookingfor new members.|
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:56 am |
The idea of a peaceful country is not new to us here. We talked about it for some time but never worked out the details. Setting up a new server for that is possible but the two groups can trade together and play the stock market together. They just do not fight wars.
We just replaced the server for GR and when all world upgrades are done, we will be sitting here with one idle server.
I will come back with some suggestions on whether Peaceful users must register new countries or tag existing ones as peaceful and a more detailed idea for the discussion.
It is 1:00 am. I am out of here.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 01:08 am |
Im not sure, but I dont think they should. Current countries suddenly free of military defense entirely would immediately dominate the rankings (unless they made 2 ranking systems..but yes, that is complicated, although it would work just fine) Im thikning of jinson in particular
That was my concern. Peace-only countries should start from scratch.
Elle, as far as the 3-1 ratio that you think should be needed to fight an offensive war, I agree. But as Hector has hinted at, that is impossible with the current 10k limits. An offensive army will almost always be smaller than the defender. That's why we've had to develop strategies to defeat large defenses with small but powerful (and expensive) weapon makeups. Now if those weapons are weakened enough, I don't know how war could be possible against countries in large federations anymore. I don't think even the tactic (mass jeeps) used against Fully Completely works anymore since jeeps were weakened as well.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 01:12 am |
I think a 3-1 or 4-1 ratio is desireable. but a 100-1 or a 1000-1 ratio is closer to the way things are currently, and is impossible.
War wont be posible in that case, red.
Jozi, I am very intersted in what this idea, and your feedback. This suggestion might be a good solution to a long-standing issue in the game, which would be acceptable to most or all.
There are viable defensive tactics that are not even being used (redeploying defenses manually for points of attack , booby traps, etc). its a shame.
Godnight jozi. get some sleep! Just seeing you reading and respinding on the bulletin board is very encouraging.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 02:21 am |
And yet the 12M, with the largest fed defence ever seen is sporting some pretty heavily damaged countries matt?. I havent been following the wars closely (damn RL ;p ) . But surely not all of the damage inflicted has been with bugs?. So it looks, on the outside that even the largest defences can be penetrated atm?.
Argh wasnt gonna comment again, im just really curious about this. In theory i would have expected every attack on 12M mainland to simply die.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:09 am |
Jozi, I dont post often on the board. I've read the entire tread up to here. One suggestion for attacks being ineffective against strongly defended countries. This could be corrected by making even the weakest and poorly planned attack effective to let us say for instance .001. A way to achieve this is to make all weapons only destructible on a single attack to only 99%. I'm not sure if I make myself clear. Anyone able to clarify this for me? In the real world an enemy strongly outnumbered occasionally will inflect injuries even when he is killed in the process.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:31 am |
"There are viable defensive tactics that are not even being used (redeploying defenses manually for points of attack , booby traps, etc). its a shame."
I agree with you here avalon, I would be interested. However, the interface for manual deployments is very clunky and requires too much of my time to futz with, more than once.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:35 am |
What about eliminating the ratio effect from the war model? Or making it more robust?
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:40 am |
and yet the 12M, with the largest fed defence ever seen is sporting some pretty heavily damaged countries matt?. I havent been following the wars closely (damn RL ;p ) . But surely not all of the damage inflicted has been with bugs?. So it looks, on the outside that even the largest defences can be penetrated atm?.
yep. Bugs and quirks, all of it that wasnt there already from the tiem we conquered the coutnries (some of them were only taken recently). Every last one.
the only countries damaged that werent direclty due to quirks were the ones under attack by kodiak in tundra. The 'quirks' (fed defenses not responding, batteries undeploying) make the point less clear.
again, a shame.
and hymy, ive used tactics like that on fearless blue to conquer enemies multiples of my size, long long ago...wihtout using any air defenses at all, or a very very very small air defense force.
Just another way defenders have the advantage.
So far, the only people ive seen using them are 12M members. Sometimes the effectiveness is limited by the stupid automatic rederployment, but other times they are very effective indeed.
frankly, I think the most tactically interesting part of a war from a defenders side only begins when their air defenses fail (or mosly fail).
before I planned this war I considered mostly undefending a country, and challening people to take it - but I decided they would not truly try, and when the few who did failed to take it, they would only shrug and move on. This way was supposed to be much more clear.
| Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:41 am |
intersting idea hymy. As you know, 10k navy fighters (say) launched against even a relatively paltry 40k interceptorw defense will kill 0 units before dying.
What exactly did you have in mind?