Waffle-SS
Gatling Groink
The Administrator[A:0]
This means WAR, MAGGOTS!
Posts: 997
|
Post by Waffle-SS on Dec 24, 2008 18:31:36 GMT -5
Now before everyone comes yelling at me because they think they just want me to make it easier for me to attack my target, let me state my case.
1. Defenses are stronger than war machines of the same length. 2. A defender still gains troops and projects continue while the attacker travels, while the attacker must send what he has and can't add anything more without super-fast transports. 3. At this stage in the game, if someone attacks, its more of a loss than a victory, even if they win, since they will lack the forces of other armies, and can be easily wiped out. The 150% rule is supposed to help this, but outnumbering an enemy that much pretty much constitutes a win, unless their tactics are awful or are at a bad match-up.
What all this means is that this game encourages turtleing, and waiting out the storm of other armies attacking each other. Of course, if everyone realizes this, then nobody will attack, since they will be at a disadvantage to everyone else. It will pretty much be an arms race, untill someone cracks, and all hell breaks loose, where the last one to be attacked will be the victor.
I'm just pointing this out so maybe something will be done to increase the attacking party's odds. Maybe units will gain an offensive boost if attacking? I don't know. I just want something to be done.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Dec 24, 2008 18:36:38 GMT -5
I dunno, I think it's pretty situational. Depends on tactics and strategy combined. Don't think that just because an army has a lot of troops, they will all be in one location. Surprise can be employed, as well as natural counters; last game, Norbert and I nearly entirely destroyed a player with two Bombers because the defender had no anti-air.
|
|
|
Post by THE GODDAMN BATMAN on Dec 24, 2008 18:40:07 GMT -5
Now before everyone comes yelling at me because they think they just want me to make it easier for me to attack my target, let me state my case. 1. Defenses are stronger than war machines of the same length. 2. A defender still gains troops and projects continue while the attacker travels, while the attacker must send what he has and can't add anything more without super-fast transports. 3. At this stage in the game, if someone attacks, its more of a loss than a victory, even if they win, since they will lack the forces of other armies, and can be easily wiped out. The 150% rule is supposed to help this, but outnumbering an enemy that much pretty much constitutes a win, unless their tactics are awful or are at a bad match-up. What all this means is that this game encourages turtleing, and waiting out the storm of other armies attacking each other. Of course, if everyone realizes this, then nobody will attack, since they will be at a disadvantage to everyone else. It will pretty much be an arms race, untill someone cracks, and all hell breaks loose, where the last one to be attacked will be the victor. I'm just pointing this out so maybe something will be done to increase the attacking party's odds. Maybe units will gain an offensive boost if attacking? I don't know. I just want something to be done. But if you think about it, it all makes sense. 1. Base Defenses are like War Machines, but they can't move. There has to be some sort ofbonus to even out the not able to move thing. 2. Why wouldn't the defender continue to gain troops? It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't. 3. If you consider it more of a loss than a victory, don't attack. Most people have some form of purpose behind the attack. For example: I might attack Hachi in order to get his petals. Attacking just for the sake of attacking will almost always end up a loss.
|
|
Waffle-SS
Gatling Groink
The Administrator[A:0]
This means WAR, MAGGOTS!
Posts: 997
|
Post by Waffle-SS on Dec 24, 2008 18:42:45 GMT -5
Yeah, thats why I mentioned the bad match-up. Still, in a head-to-head fight, defenders win. Anyway, the main point I guess is the arms-race situation. Since barring the occasional total victory in your case, attacking will leave a player at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by THE GODDAMN BATMAN on Dec 24, 2008 18:49:13 GMT -5
Yeah, thats why I mentioned the bad match-up. Still, in a head-to-head fight, defenders win. Anyway, the main point I guess is the arms-race situation. Since barring the occasional total victory in your case, attacking will leave a player at a disadvantage. Again, you have to attack with a purpose, that's why you see so many Zealots, to give their army a purpose. If you attack, it's normally for a reason. Hachi might want to attack tinfoilman to cook up some of his troops cajun style, while Norbertk19 might attack Petrosian to wipe out his army. The reason you think of it as a disadvantage is because you're attacking without purpose (I assume).
|
|
Waffle-SS
Gatling Groink
The Administrator[A:0]
This means WAR, MAGGOTS!
Posts: 997
|
Post by Waffle-SS on Dec 24, 2008 18:52:49 GMT -5
Hell, those purposes you listed are hardly purposes. More like excuses. My purpose is to wipe your army off the map. Happy?
And I'm talking about disadvantages towards other armies. Unless you put all your projects on full war-machine churn out and another army has none, after your fight, if that army attacks, you're pretty screwed.
|
|
Hachi
Waterwraith
Captain Oliby[A:0]
I am Oliby, Businessman of Legends. Fear my accounting!
Posts: 2,355
|
Post by Hachi on Dec 24, 2008 18:53:25 GMT -5
I think the attacking advantage of being able to choose any target should be enough to counter it. In past wars, attackers usually won. There has been a few draws and routs of the attacking force, but they are few.
But, I do agree with Luftwaffle on the turtling part. Usually, gain of resource isn't balanced by the loss of troops and machines. It would be better most of the time to wait, then strike a weaken target.
|
|
Meowzer
Waterwraith
The Picker of the 'Min
Pffffffffff
Posts: 2,249
|
Post by Meowzer on Dec 24, 2008 18:54:25 GMT -5
Like joe said, Base defenses can't move.
And 150% Percent is just a limit, you could be attacking with 150% as long as you don't go over. That gives the attacker a troop advantage.
And if you attack with a purpose, you feel motivated to make better plans. If you attack just for the heck of it, you will be lazy and make worse plans.
And like WD, you can you the enviornment and the element of surprise to your advantage. Let's say some one is next to a lake, you can have the advantage of WMs if they don't make boats.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Dec 24, 2008 18:58:31 GMT -5
Maybe we could have a point system, and the winner of the game is decided at the end by who has the most points. Obviously, you'd get them from successfully pasting people.
|
|
Waffle-SS
Gatling Groink
The Administrator[A:0]
This means WAR, MAGGOTS!
Posts: 997
|
Post by Waffle-SS on Dec 24, 2008 18:58:38 GMT -5
I think the attacking advantage of being able to choose any target should be enough to counter it. In past wars, attackers usually won. There has been a few draws and routs of the attacking force, but they are few. But, I do agree with Luftwaffle on the turtling part. Usually, gain of resource isn't balanced by the loss of troops and machines. It would be better most of the time to wait, then strike a weaken target. Exactly. But then nobody will find a weakened target if they're ALL looking for weakened targets. It would be in everyone's best interest to build Base Defenses instead of War Machines, since attacking would be pointless. You attack, maybe you win, and then another army picks you off.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Dec 24, 2008 19:01:18 GMT -5
I think the attacking advantage of being able to choose any target should be enough to counter it. In past wars, attackers usually won. There has been a few draws and routs of the attacking force, but they are few. But, I do agree with Luftwaffle on the turtling part. Usually, gain of resource isn't balanced by the loss of troops and machines. It would be better most of the time to wait, then strike a weaken target. Exactly. But then nobody will find a weakened target if they're ALL looking for weakened targets. It would be in everyone's best interest to build Base Defenses instead of War Machines, since attacking would be pointless. You attack, maybe you win, and then another army picks you off. U'D LIK 2 THIKN THAT BUT ...You forget that because you'll be the defender against the army trying to pick you off, the game will naturally favor you in the ways you already mentioned!
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilman on Dec 24, 2008 19:03:26 GMT -5
Maybe we could have a point system, and the winner of the game is decided at the end by who has the most points. Obviously, you'd get them from successfully pasting people. BAW Please, no point systems. It has/is failed/failing miserably in SMKW. I'd rather not have it introduced here.
|
|
Hachi
Waterwraith
Captain Oliby[A:0]
I am Oliby, Businessman of Legends. Fear my accounting!
Posts: 2,355
|
Post by Hachi on Dec 24, 2008 19:03:47 GMT -5
What if we have a continuous RE that causes shortage of material in the US (Universal Store)? Resources still are sold at the same price, but the amount being sold is never enough for everyone. Therefore, you must attack to advance your army, or you'll be stalled without material.
|
|
Waffle-SS
Gatling Groink
The Administrator[A:0]
This means WAR, MAGGOTS!
Posts: 997
|
Post by Waffle-SS on Dec 24, 2008 19:04:33 GMT -5
Exactly. But then nobody will find a weakened target if they're ALL looking for weakened targets. It would be in everyone's best interest to build Base Defenses instead of War Machines, since attacking would be pointless. You attack, maybe you win, and then another army picks you off. U'D LIK 2 THIKN THAT BUT ...You forget that because you'll be the defender against the army trying to pick you off, the game will naturally favor you in the ways you already mentioned! B-b-but...
Fine WD, you win. Well played.Except that with the 150% limit, the attacker is at the advantage. I guess this isn't a real problem with attack-defense ballance, but rather a arms-race situation. Hachi's idea is good.
|
|
|
Post by THE GODDAMN BATMAN on Dec 24, 2008 19:05:23 GMT -5
Hell, those purposes you listed are hardly purposes. More like excuses. My purpose is to wipe your army off the map. Happy? And I'm talking about disadvantages towards other armies. Unless you put all your projects on full war-machine churn out and another army has none, after your fight, if that army attacks, you're pretty screwed. I think you misunderstood what I meant. I probably could have chosen a better example. Say person A just got a piece of Titanium from the Universal Store, Player B would also like a piece of said metal. Instead of trading or buying one himself, Player B could just attack Player A for it. Or if Player c poses a threat to Player D, then Player D could attack him so that he no longer has to worry about getting attacked by Player C.
|
|