Upcoming test releases

In order to fix this issue, can't unarmed forces just stay home instead of rushing onto the battlefield and causing armed forces to be killed? It leaves the defender in a better position after all his armed forces were destroyed, because there is no need to destroy so many unarmed forces. Also if the defender instantly buys weapons during a massing, the defending force will be much larger instantly.
I was actually proud of myself for thinking through the consequences of the way units losses are calculated and maximising that effect to quickly zero a defence. I am sad to see it go.

WOW i really like that idea! Itll finally give someone a chance to fight back if they come online during a massing.

well think if you really want to have it work like that

cos then it's bye bye killing off defenders when you sab away some weapons

true but you can still assassinate def soldiers, you could make it so that when assassinating soldiers without weapons are killed easier...

would also mean that if you have 1 mill attack supers and 1 weapon that only 1 man goes out.

What about destrution missions? does that mean unarmed att soilders are immune as well?

it limits killing att and def units who are unarmed to assasination attacks only and they are limited by CT

unless someone thinks this through i wont bother with it, i'll just do what i posted myself

Well I think it just puts importance on arming each and every man. this proves having a bad ratio can be devistating

Admin, what is there to think through?
1) In assault only defenders with weapons show up. Defence soldiers without weapons are untouchable except for assassination.
1.1) Defenders are armed as usual (mercenaries and supers before normal soldiers.)
1.2) The attacker always shows up with his full army.
1.3) When defence soldiers die, their weapon is lost also, best weapon first. This will make people upgrade all their weapons. This is the same as currently and works fine as far as I'm concerned. It will also make the game more tactical.
2) Assassination works the same as always, a percentage of all soldiers, regardless of the number of weapons.
Actually, I don't see a need to "fix" the strategy where you first destroy part of the defender's weapons and then assault. It leaves it up to the defender to set up a defence comprising defence soldiers, spare weapons, covert and assassins. Have you thought about what losses an enemy will incur if the defender has spare weapons and a high covert? If you add a weapon shelter where unarmed troops can get weapons if they are under assault, it would add another dimension. (No protection from farming, but surprise defence under assault.)

I think the points I showed still need to be addressed. This makes it so att and defensive units can be made immune to all attacks except Assassinations, and they are severely limited by CT. Now I'm not saying good or bad to it, just pointing it out.

On attacks, my point about having 1 weapon still stands. The problem with a big strike is high losses when hitting a defense, you are basicly removing that because now an attacker can adjust his weapons count to lessen his losses. before 1 mill men suffered the same losses no matter the weapon count, now you can adjust the men sent out by the weapons count and suffer bare minimum in UU losses.

plus an unarmed attack force make the dusruction mission completely useless.

I am sorta annoyed by how every1 wants to protect the defender. What is the point of the game if you cant mass any1 profitably?

If we do Jiro's way and the attacker sends all units to kill a few supers the attack will always lose more based off the new ratios.

If the attack has a smaller force and attacks the defender he will still take more loses then the defender.

Either way the attacker is screwed whether the defender is online or not.

The attacker can NOT go heads up against the defender because based on just the amount of loses will NEVER win the battle. There needs to be a way around just smashing each other. If someone can go onto test server and take out a defense losing less units by just using assault on any defense in the server regardless of your strike to prove me wrong I will be in shock and awh and support your solution to the "problem"

Why cant we just keep things as is and people think to build their account around it? If you dont want to get sabbed get more spies...

Vesper wrote:What is the point of the game if you cant mass any1 profitably?

mass and profitably in one sentence?

If you consider that before you needed a crapload of kuwal along with a big strike in order to mass a def, all you need right now is just a big strike, then I think I'm slowly getting the system in how it should really be.
A few more steps and we could get to have this a nice wargame.

I agree that so far the setup was more in direction of a stat building game, compared to sgw.
But I can honestly say that I am having my sight slowly turning in the right direction.
Things are never simple

Mass profitably meaning they lose more then you. Sorry for any confusion.

Admin, I just experienced that you can be zeroed by using sabotage exclusively. It is much less elegant than partially zeroing someone and then assaulting him, but the effect is much the same.
So I think it is not worth bothering trying to prevent people from having their defences zeroed by someone either doing a well thought out or an overpowering attack. Can you leave the changes as they are now?

Jiro wrote:So I think it is not worth bothering trying to prevent people from having their defences zeroed by someone either doing a well thought out or an overpowering attack. Can you leave the changes as they are now?

Once I get told a good reason why it should be possible to zero a defense, I might leave it as it is.
But currently I see no reason to do so

Cant we just keep the release exactly how it is right now on the test??

I just made up formulas and all that fun stuff. It would be bad if you changed it. I figured release date being today so yesterday i did the formulas

Admin wrote:

Jiro wrote:So I think it is not worth bothering trying to prevent people from having their defences zeroed by someone either doing a well thought out or an overpowering attack. Can you leave the changes as they are now?

Once I get told a good reason why it should be possible to zero a defense, I might leave it as it is.
But currently I see no reason to do so

We have play-tested the release like you have it in test now and I think it is working. I know some people will be very disappointed if you cannot zero a defence ever. Also, I think testing has shown that ways will be found to zero a defence.
Besides, there are lots of accounts with a zero defence already.
If there is a reason you'd like to make it impossible to zero a defence, maybe you are solving the problem in the wrong way. If it is because of the costless destruction of assassins (I just lost 700,000 of them), maybe there should be a small price for hunting assassins, independent of overcoming defences (like with a destruction mission). That way, it is not a problem if a defence is zeroed, by whatever means.
Massing someone should not be cheap, but the details from the test server attacks suggest the attacks have been anything but cheap. It should not be impossible either, because the threat of being massed should remain.

Jiro wrote:If there is a reason you'd like to make it impossible to zero a defence, maybe you are solving the problem in the wrong way.

You are welcome, as with any update, to suggest a well thought out, clear cut and ready to implement alternative solution

Until then, we'll stick with the best we've got instead of releasing a non finished update because some parts of were "not as perfect as we hoped it to be"

OK Admin, I have two suggestions, one will make it impossible to zero a defence unless the number of defenders is zero, on will allow it, but it will not be a problem:
1) Each soldier has a basic weapon that cannot be take away or destroyed. Let's call it a teacup. (Ever seen Chronicles of Riddick?). It does damage of 0,5 * knife. If the IFV the soldier was driving is sabotaged, the soldier still does damage, but a lot less. That way there never is a zero defence, even for the existing accounts. The defence will be just very low.
2) Defences can be zeroed, but when invading or hunting assassins the attacked units do damage back because miners and workers are armed with power tools and do 0,1 * soldier with knife damage. Assassins, when hunted, do 0,25 times their normal damage as if they were performing an assassination mission upon the attacking force.

These are just suggestions if you think that what we have now on the test server is not good enough.

hmm a good one, i think that's something that can be worked with

Well I don't see how a knife can be sabotaged to begin with, and I have suggested more then once about weapons that never fail. I believe I suggested bayonets for guns here, I'll have to do a search.

Now I disagree with NOT being able to 0 a defense. If you do this then you have also killed all 0 cost attacks, meaning all those who have massive strikes who thought they could raid again, now cant because the cost to do so will be to high again. I mean if thats what your after then fine, I just wish you had not ever even let me think i would be able to raid with a trained strike. Also means Kewal farming will be far less profitable as well.

tiny def equals tiny attack losses, hence the cost will be small.

and if i add the part that income units and assassins deal some battle damage as well then it'll fix the whole issue
so mission costs will exist for both hunt assassins and invasions just like they did before even with 0 defense

Yeeeeaaah..... ummm i was all behind you with this coz i kinda saw what you were trying to do but now im starting to regret it. You said you were making massing cheaper and encourage shorter less destructive wars. But now all im seeing is a huge shift from being able to mass someone to being able to just farm them easier. I mean yeah thats nice but the only reason i personally play games like this are for the wars and the opportunity i get to 0 peoples accounts. Now it you take that away itll become mostly a stat building game as fully massing people will be too hard and so the job you didnt finish will counter strike hence discouraging the initial attack.

The way i see it the test server is pretty damn fine - it encourages a healthy balance between pure numbers and techs. For those of you who were massed and complained that it was too easy - I used a 230% bonus to strike and 308% bonus to covert to sab you THATS why it looked easy. For normal accounts it will still be incredibly costly. All I proved was that someone with ridiculous stats can own someone with average stats... wel DUH Plus seriously the ST that is required is still a HUGE restriction.

So im begging you admin - let us play around with the Test a little bit more to iron out any remaining creases but do not alter thing again!

Hai-Shulud wrote:So im begging you admin - let us play around with the Test a little bit more to iron out any remaining creases but do not alter thing again!

again? you're talking as if I ever changed a finished system

Dude i meant you keep changing the goal posts - with the current changes in test EVERYTHING has changed in terms of massing people. Me and a few others that do play test have only just got used to it. If you change it again thats fine but you need to give us more time again. You were talking about releasing updates at the end of the month, well i think thats too soon.

You also ignored the rest of my post, im just curious as to what your trying to do - tell us what you think is wrong now or why it could be better.

well if you're asking about the release date then no worries, I wont add stuff and then move it onto main 1 day later.
That being said, I think everyone got by now if they didn't already know by themselves that none of the stuff that is on the test server could ever be seen as final version. It's on the test server because it needs testing and feedback and is by definition subject to changes.

About the rest of your post, I didn't see anything you wanted me to comment on hence the "ignore"
So just clarify what you want me to reply to