We should be able to drop defense to ZERO with assaults.

When assaulting, the defender will always lose about 4% of his defense, no matter if you attack him with same force or with a strike 1000 times higher than yours. This is not good.

I suggest that it will be made possible to drop defenses to zero with assaults.
I suggest it to be done this way:
When assaulting, the defender will lose either 4% of his own defense, or an equivalent of 1% of attackers strike, whichever is higher. Obviously the attacker will lose roughly the same number of everything if techs and weapons are same.

Examples: (all soldiers armed with same weapons and same techs)

CURRENT ASSAULT SYSTEM:

Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 1.000.000
attacker losses: 50.000
defender losses: 40.000

Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 100.000
attacker losses: 5.000
defender losses: 4.000

Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 10.000
attacker losses: 500
defender losses: 400

(attacker 10.000 times stronger than defender can't drop defense to zero with assaults)
Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 100
attacker losses: 5
defender losses: 4


NEW SYSTEM:

Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 1.000.000
attacker losses: 50.000
defender losses: 40.000

(attacker loses 1%, defender loses an equivalent)
Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 100.000
attacker losses: 10.000
defender losses: 8.000

(if my strike is about 100 times higher than enemy defense, I can destroy it with two assaults)
Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 10.000
attacker losses: 10.000
defender losses: 8.000

(attacker 10.000 times stronger than defender can mass him with one assault)
Attacker: 1.000.000
Defender: 100
attacker losses: 125
defender losses: 100

Of course this would mean that assaults become deadlier in the hands of big players which should come with modification of ST cost.

PS: In my example you need about 125 higher strike than defense to crush it with 1 assault. So if you have for example 10.000.000.000 strike, you can crush a 80.000.000 defense with one assault.

will this bleed over to destructions as well? They do go hand in hand.


Please explain

Of course this would mean that assaults become deadlier in the hands of big players which should come with modification of ST cost.

The size of the player mean very little,,, its the make up of the account. A player with 1 mill men total in his ranks can have the rank 1 strike. That said there should be no modification to ST cost. Why punish someone based on their size alone when 99% of the active player base can get a rank 1 strike? Or where you saying the bigger a strike the more the ST cost?

Nomad wrote:will this bleed over to destructions as well? They do go hand in hand.


Please explain

Of course this would mean that assaults become deadlier in the hands of big players which should come with modification of ST cost.

The size of the player mean very little,,, its the make up of the account. A player with 1 mill men total in his ranks can have the rank 1 strike. That said there should be no modification to ST cost. Why punish someone based on their size alone when 99% of the active player base can get a rank 1 strike? Or where you saying the bigger a strike the more the ST cost?

I didnt mean size of a player, by big i meant a player with bigger strike.

Since players will be able to destroy a defense with less assaults (if they have much higher strike), this means that overall in aderan wars, less assaults will be necessary to do the same job. Obviously if ST cost gets changed, then it should remain the same for each player. Then again, because its impossible to drop defense to 0 with assaults, people simply dont do it at all, not worth the AT and ST, so there is a possibility to not change ST cost at all. Either is fine with me.

just to be clear you mean the bigger the strike the more ST cost?

or do you mean changing the ST cost across the board?


If its the first I do have 1 problem with that. That is if 2 accounts fight, the smaller has a signifigant advantage of cheaper assaults ST wise. If the 200% rules is not in play then the bigger strike suffers an unfair penalty in my eyes.

If its the second I have no stance personally. I would have to see what is suggested as a change in ST cost.

Lastly, defenses can be 0ed. Assassins and sabatoges do work just fine,,,,, but I also understand the frustration of not being able to 0 a defense with brute force.



*edit*
After more thought I see another very small problem, but still a problem I think anyway.

We got 3 guys joe, henry and bob

Bob has a 100,000,000 defense
Joe has a 25 bill strike, and farms Bob for 0 losses and no loss to def so all of the hit is profit and the defense never gets smaller
henry has a 1 bill strike, but when he farms bob he suffers horrific losses and makes it so its not worth farming bob.

Do you feel this is an exceptable situation?

(I'm not on either side, I just see it as an issue in need of addressing)

If kinda for this idea. I like the set %s really.

@nomad: I think the first option which says higher strike suffers more penalty is feasible. I think it would have to be along the lines of how DW was set up with in that aspect tho. Perhaps not more ST cost but more AT???
And please don't say people selling off their army to get in a lower bracket is a problem. Selling millions of uu in AW is already enough a blow to your AW acc

as for the second part, i thought we were talking about assaults?

not sure i know what you mean about second part? across the board means everyone no matter size or account make up pays the same (just different then now)

I never played DW so maybe a better explination would help? I am intrigued by more massive the unit the higher the cost in AT,,,, I just think it will need a balance since strikes can assault and kill with a positive ratio defenses much larger then themselves.

Kenzu has not stated if it is for assaults only or if Destructions will be included. I personally cant see one without the other.

*edited out a mistake/misunderstanding on my part*

Dunewars used to have relams

1-5

1 could hit 1 at normal cost
1 hit 2 at normal+1 cost
1 hit 3 at normal + 2 cost
1 couldn't hit 5, It stopped at 3 or 4.

The reverse was true
5 could hit 5 at normal cost
5 could hit 4 at normal - 1 cost
5 hit 3 at normal - 2 cost
5 couldn't hit 1

seaborgium wrote:Dunewars used to have relams

1-5

1 could hit 1 at normal cost
1 hit 2 at normal+1 cost
1 hit 3 at normal + 2 cost
1 couldn't hit 5, It stopped at 3 or 4.

The reverse was true
5 could hit 5 at normal cost
5 could hit 4 at normal - 1 cost
5 hit 3 at normal - 2 cost
5 couldn't hit 1

these wre sepearted by size? power? or just space? What seperated these Relams?

Size separated all the realms. Bigger you were, the higher the cost was to mass small, tiny players (compared to you of course) by a AT increase.

I believe that there was a 5 realm limit of people attacking and massing other people. I didnt really like the limit but I suppose one could be put in if there was a discussion about it

It was removed later but I don't know when. I had stopped laying.

So when I suggest this idea everyone is against it.

Kenzu comes up with something about being able to zero a defense and you guys are all over it?

"wtf" ?

And the point of this idea is what?

As has been said a defense can be zeroed and quite easily when necessary. Yes the cost is high but then again for war actions it should be.

Mystake wrote:So when I suggest this idea everyone is against it.

Kenzu comes up with something about being able to zero a defense and you guys are all over it?

"wtf" ?

Hey, give me credit. I obviously brainwashed everyone into accepting this suddenly

Manleva wrote:And the point of this idea is what?

As has been said a defense can be zeroed and quite easily when necessary. Yes the cost is high but then again for war actions it should be.

It is high. We are talking about a completely new assault system though. The cost would still be high I assure you. No one is saying to make the game easy as hell..

Not to sound like I'm deviating from my usual policy of unanimously accepting kenzu's suggestions no matter what they are, but isn't the analogy of killing a % of enemy forces with a regular assault something like enemy guerilla fighters remaining to cause you some losses?

just a question though. if these %s are put in how would techs be put into place?

1,000,000 soldiers with 200% strike is equal to 2,000,000 or something. just asking

I believe if implemented, it should be done for assaults and destruction missions.

Nomad wrote:just to be clear you mean the bigger the strike the more ST cost?

or do you mean changing the ST cost across the board?


If its the first I do have 1 problem with that. That is if 2 accounts fight, the smaller has a signifigant advantage of cheaper assaults ST wise. If the 200% rules is not in play then the bigger strike suffers an unfair penalty in my eyes.

If its the second I have no stance personally. I would have to see what is suggested as a change in ST cost.

Lastly, defenses can be 0ed. Assassins and sabatoges do work just fine,,,,, but I also understand the frustration of not being able to 0 a defense with brute force.



*edit*
After more thought I see another very small problem, but still a problem I think anyway.

We got 3 guys joe, henry and bob

Bob has a 100,000,000 defense
Joe has a 25 bill strike, and farms Bob for 0 losses and no loss to def so all of the hit is profit and the defense never gets smaller
henry has a 1 bill strike, but when he farms bob he suffers horrific losses and makes it so its not worth farming bob.

Do you feel this is an exceptable situation?

(I'm not on either side, I just see it as an issue in need of addressing)

Bob will train 5000 soldiers with tanks and Joe will have losses too.

Sidenote, when farming someone who has 10 times smaller defense, your losses are not horrific, but they are not negligible either. (Henry will lose 200-300 soldiers each time).

=> I believe your post belongs to the other thread, namely the farming raiding thread.

Manleva wrote:And the point of this idea is what?

As has been said a defense can be zeroed and quite easily when necessary. Yes the cost is high but then again for war actions it should be.

Right now you can zero a defense only with sabs or assassinations. I would like it to be possible for assaults too. Afterall what kind of weakling soldiers we have if they cant finish their job, right?

Mystake wrote:So when I suggest this idea everyone is against it.

Kenzu comes up with something about being able to zero a defense and you guys are all over it?

"wtf" ?

Maybe you have stated your suggestion differently. I checked your thread and it seemed rather focused on the unequal losses in farm and raid missions. You have stated clearly that you want assaults to take down defense to zero, but if this was your intention, then take this suggestion as another attempt by a friend in support of your idea!

Admin wrote:Not to sound like I'm deviating from my usual policy of unanimously accepting kenzu's suggestions no matter what they are, but isn't the analogy of killing a % of enemy forces with a regular assault something like enemy guerilla fighters remaining to cause you some losses?

What are you getting at?

@ Kenzu

I agree if this passes for assault it should be destruction to.

Your right, I was thinking of it incorrectly as its assaults a destructions only, not farming and raiding.

@ Admin

What are you getting at?

While ultimately as a player I think it sucks to not be able to 0 a def with military strike so part of me supports this idea,,,,, but more of me thinks its wrong for men to account for nothing when they are there and armed. Spies and assassins are meant to be used. It is more strategic to have to use more then 1 muscle in the arm which holds your military might.