Repair System

Due to it being asked, I'm creating a topic to discuss different ideas for weapon repairs.

Right now, there is two different ideas being discussed:

1.) The current system and how it can be improved (cheaper raiding, etc.)

2.) System with no repair points. If you lose a soldier, you lose the weapon they were holding at the time as well

Though if you have better ideas, by all means bring it up.

Let the debate begin!

(I personally think option 2 sounds like a good system)

I *love* the second option. It's quite unbelieveable that there's some sort of sweeper robot cleaning up the battlefield, carrying the weapons dieing soldiers dropped back to the army base, so losing the weapon *with* the soldier seems logical.

Although it is of note that some people have more weapons as they have soldiers, perhaps that should be restricted, then? (Or maybe it is, and I just hallucinated.)

My question is, how will the removal of repair cost effect the game as a whole? With no repair costs farming becomes far more profitable. So in turn will you see more and more farming? Will it get to the point where smaller/weaker players can not keep their own income at all? If it follows the other system, I think it was 500 times stronger you accept no losses? This means its best for bigger stronger players to constantly farm smaller BUT ACTIVE accounts.

I'm not against the idea, I want to see it in action, just playing devils advocate to try to uncover some issues.

I am sure that it can be worked out where it cost the same.
personally i think the current repair system offers a bit more of a chance of being hit when you have repair kuwal out.

Good question.
Maybe the rate could be kicked up, so that it takes 2000 times stronger to just bypass the defence altogether? Of course, for the really tiny, that doesn't make much of a difference, but that would require a 1 million defence to be hit by a 2 billion strike for the attacker not to take any losses.. not sure how far along we are.. but 1m defence is cheap as dirt for even a player who just starts playing. Besides, they don't make enough to be even remotely considered as a target yet.. and when they do, their defences *can* stand.

i don't know of any 2b strikes lol, the highest def i have seen is 1.3b

nomad farming doesnt necesarily become more profitable.

yes, you dont have to repair all your weapons with each attack. On the other hand you actually have to buy fresh weapons with each attack.
I think from a farming point of view, the "repairs" will remain approximately the same

While option 2 is a decent idea, I still think that when combined with the Weapon repairing update, it could get a little troubling. You farm with your limited Supply turns, you run low on weapons, so you repair, then numerous turns later you can start farming again... That type of scenario just seems much more beneficial to those able to log in constantly, and like a penalty for those who are away from game. Also, would that mean that the defender also loses weapons instead of repairs? (That would make massing much much easier, considering you could mass the opponent killing their soldiers AND weapons, instead of allowing the player to log in and attempt to repair their weapons to increase enemy losses.

Looking at my vote again, I think option 1 would be better for the same reasonings. Why not take the weapons out of combat temporarily, and have to pay for the repairs of the weapons?

Example:
Player A attacks Player B causing X soldiers to die, along with the X soldiers killed, X weapons become in need of repair. So every turn for Y turns you recovery a few of the weapons you were repairing. But if you log in before the Y turns are up, you can choose to scrap the decreased value of the weapons and replace them, or you can pay to have them repaired that next turn.

The thinking behind this, is that while a soldier may get riddled with bullets or killed by an explosion their gear gets damaged but doesn't always stay impossible to use.

Admin wrote:nomad farming doesnt necesarily become more profitable.

yes, you dont have to repair all your weapons with each attack. On the other hand you actually have to buy fresh weapons with each attack.
I think from a farming point of view, the "repairs" will remain approximately the same

Well my question is, is there a point where you take 0 losses? as in a strike 500 times stronger then the defense? As for farming costs, that remains to be seen. I do see that both will have a cost, but which is higher or lower I would assume depends on the strike vs defense?

Also, what about overstocking weapons?

After reading Spaces reply it made me think of something else. In the case of a complete massing, and if the airforce can attack buildings, will these coupled limitation be too much?

Would a combonation of the two be worth considering?

I still want to see it in action, so I can wrap my head around it.

The current system makes it both an advantage and a disadvantage to have an enormous strike: you can hit bigger targets, but hitting any target is more expensive. This protects players that have a defence from players that are much larger and insures that both need an economy that fits with the size of the army.
In the case of weapon lost with each casualty, the economy of the attacker needs to fit with the size of the defence (and thus the losses he's going to incur.)