10 second delay between subsequent sabotage/assassination missions

As with the assault mission, this limit will be added so that you can't just click 10 times and be done sabbing, giving the target no chance to react even if they are online.

Delay will be less than assault mission though, since generally sabotaging or assassinating is not as destructive per hit.
ETA 12 hours

(It could be released instantly since it would take about 2 minutes to write, but for the sake of telling players and letting them "adjust" even though there isn't really anything to adjust to with this update, i'll give this short timeframe)

I agree.

I'm not for nor against.

but it is making it less and less useful to battle online.

I do have to admit that what Nomad is saying makes sense. I can understand that war needs to be harder, but does every instance need to be harder and harder. I mean it allready costs a heep to fight a war. That is not easy to fund. It is allready hard for just 1 person to mass. Why make it even harder to fight ?
I thought this is a war game ? Should it not be kept a bit easier in some sections ?

I always been against the sheer speed of some things, and "instantaniousness" of alot of things. That said you do seem to want online battles, but with the heavy losses to the attacker in every case you will make them obsolete as no one will use them..

I'm still not for nor against this, just giving a train of though.

If this is to work around clicking 10 times before the page refreshes, I agree. Otherwise filling in the amount of spies to send each time already makes it slow.

Jiro wrote:If this is to work around clicking 10 times before the page refreshes, I agree. Otherwise filling in the amount of spies to send each time already makes it slow.

not if you use opera, you just go back and the number in the box remains there.

ok, so instead of 10 seconds we make it 5 or 7
I'm throwing ideas, with 5 secs you can still make 6-12 assassinations in 30-60 secs which is a realistic timeframe when someone is massing and forgets to check their account

You could reduce st use and units loss. That way the attacker will have to attack a lot more times.
And it will give the opponent more chances to actually see the attack and respond.

Help me think this through because I must be missing something. When being attacked you have around 3 basic options.
1. counter attack
2. turtleshell (increasing realm alert)
3. Seek protection from the council

Now if you fight you cant have any realm alert on so what good is the delay?

If you turtle shell the attacker will either take what they can and leave, or simple overpower your realm alert if they can

And of course protection from the council pretty much ends it all.

So the only usefulness I see in this is

If an attacker begins, the defender strikes back then switches to critical in hopes of catching any incoming covert/assassin attacks. Meaning the defender can still attack, but makes it very difficult for the attacker to strike covert/assassin strikes. Wash rinse and repeat.

Now with the attacker losing 75% on a failed mission now,,,,,,,,,


why not allow attacking outwards with realm alert on? (maybe lock out critical?)

hmm disabling attacks on just critical would be a good alternative.
ok, i guess i'll do it it with that.

well as everyone noticed, it's going to be a bit of time before i do this. seems i'll need to consider more factors than anticipated

Thanks admin

I would like to see 15 seconds for all strike missions (except farm and raid)
and also 15 seconds for sabotage and assassination

Let's have 15 seconds for everything, and not randomly different ammount of time. shall we?



Actually it wouldn't be bad to have 1 minute for all these missions.
If you sab away 50% of someones defense in 15 minutes, that's not bad, and gives the other person time to go on critical if they are online.

If you can still sab in 2 minutes, it's unlikely someone will be online in that instant even if they are online, just not looking on the base page.

yes and completely defeating any chance of actual "online battles" happening

a 5-15 second timeframe between hits still allows online warring to happen to some extent.
1 minute makes that impossible

Admin wrote:yes and completely defeating any chance of actual "online battles" happening

a 5-15 second timeframe between hits still allows online warring to happen to some extent.
1 minute makes that impossible

how come?

how does a 45 second lead to an impossibility of fighting a war?

kenzu it took 10 people 22 mins to take my def from 4b to like 150m
most people do that have that kinda time. I am concerned that if too much 'time' is put into the game then we will lost many potential players.

To be honest I don't really see it as having much overall affect.

It may be of benefit in an online battle situation but this would raise the question of how often these would happen.

Generally speaking I think that an online battle would not be a great tactic from the attackers point of view so you would be looking for oppertunities to attack when the target was offline. In that situation a time delay makes no difference.

It can make a large difference, say

Say you and Somedude were RL firends or really good online friends, and have each others cell number.

We start hitting somedude and hes your officer, and you look in his logs and see that. You could call him and get him to login and change his tatics. With out a time delay in there, in 10 secs we could level him and nothing anyone could do.

While I think the time delay is a cool idea, I don't forsee it going well with many people. But I hope I am proven wrong.

seaborgium wrote:kenzu it took 10 people 22 mins to take my def from 4b to like 150m
most people do that have that kinda time. I am concerned that if too much 'time' is put into the game then we will lost many potential players.

You might be right.

I would however unite the attacks that happen after each 1 minute to a standing order
which means you would click a button, start assaulting and the target would be assaulted as many times you have chosen.

For example, you choose assault with following conditions: enemy defense higher than 200 million, maximum attacks 20, losses less than 150% of kills. and then the server will have your account attack once a minute for the next 20 minutes, unless the enemy goes on protection.

I personally don't like the fact that I need to spend so much time massing, and at the same time massing happens too fast for a victim to react. I rather have a system where I choose who to attack and make an order, and then let the guys fight each other for maybe 1 day until the enemy defense falls. My guys couild be hitting once each turn, and I don't even need to be online. Well that's what I would call nice massing.

Massing that doesn't waste my precious time AND at the same time gives the victim enough time to react, and for example counter attack with friends to take my account down before my account crushes his defenses.


10 seconds for sabbing and assassin missions are not a bad idea.

I also like to add that currently I can sab someone 15 times in 15 seconds and that's all I need. First I calculate how much to send, try one sab, and within 2 seconds attack again by simply clicking 15 times the sab button very fast

For example, you choose assault with following conditions: enemy defense higher than 200 million, maximum attacks 20, losses less than 150% of kills. and then the server will have your account attack once a minute for the next 20 minutes, unless the enemy goes on protection.

Then they just change there def strat and jack you up 2 ways to sunday.

I agree with both sides to an extent. Having to wait between attacks is "annoying" to the attacker, but it does provide a chance for someone who is online to hit ppt before they're annihilated, so it isn't all that bad. The only thing I would suggest is to make sure that it doesn't become impossible to effectively mass a player by putting a wide time frame between attacks. I think the 5 seconds would suffice, as this is more of just a way of preventing spamming the attack button than an attempt to make it harder to mass. And as long as this doesn't get applied to raiding, I'm happy.

Well 1 minute will completely kill online battles as you can hit, then crit for 55 seconds.

No one will use anything other then military force because it will be a KNOWN FACT the defender is on critical.


The standing order button is also a bad idea because,,,,,

You do a standing order, 2 hits in I come online, change tactic, and go on crit, then your following 10 to 12 hits are a complete failure.


I'm against time limits on "all" attacks, the most powerful one fine, it seems to be ok, but to add it to all seems like overkill to me.

As for reaction, we all know you got three options and it doesnt take but a few seconds to decide
1. protection
2, counter
3. turtleshell (crit and/or switch tactics)

I dont see a need for 15 to 20 min to decide what to do.

Yep I see it the same way NOmad does. keep it short and simple. Plus keep war fun and not prolong it. It is already prolonged with hunt ass. missions

Yeah I agree with Nomad & Magnus ,
Making it take longer would just suck,
why play a war game if your not allowed to kill.

Perhaps this could be an update that is tested, possibly tweaked, on the reset server for a few days before being implemented?