How do I defend my nation?

[Samdoo]

I`m finally asking the question that is facing the game. Show me a war where a prepared aggressor has lost?.. 

 

Anyone?? Today.. I actually tired to find wars where the aggressor lost. Its actually quite difficult, the times i found the aggressor losing was when the aggressor didn`t have tanks... or if the aggressor started the battle with an utter failure.There were a few cases where the aggressor did not use ground battles.  Outside of this "a non engaged party" joins the fight. 

 

How does the aggressor quite nearly always win?.. I can tell you from the times I`ve been an aggressor pretty easily. You declare war 5 minutes before a turn change, With a full military of course. Now comes the complicated part.. You do preferably an air attack and target tanks (if the nation has any, if not you already win). The turn changes, you then do a ground attack. You do 5 more ground attacks... Wow, so much strategy in the game. 

 

What if a defending city has a full military?.. You build another city, you win. 

 

This rotation and method wins and does super well partially because of the surprise factor.If the nation is not on with-in the 5 minutes between turns to do the opposite fight and maybe win, their military has been slashed in half due to attackers advantage. 

 

Here comes some crazy math, when you attack a nation and know you have an advantage.. even if they have some military with-in 1 attack you have destroyed a full a days of military production. Thats right 1 attack that is a win destroy`s your opponent full day of military production. BUT WAIT THERES MORE, that nation has now been slashed; their planes and tanks to be half as effective in this meer 5 minutes period between a turn and winning a ground and air battle. 

 

This is if 1 nation attacks you.. guess what happens when 2 nations attack you.. That's right you lose 2 days worth of military and even if you are trying to double buy.. you`ve already lost. And this is all because they attacked you once. 

 

Attackers advantage is redundant when going 1st already gives an advantage.. (literally look at any game, chess is the classical example, but to an extant 1st advantage is even in monopoly. I could continue to list turn based games where going 1st is an advantage too.) This paired with the massive military loss of losing a battle, The attacker will always win. 

 

The solution is pretty obvious... Remove attackers advantage.. they already have one.. why are we giving the more of one?

 

Adjust how easy it is to destroy tanks, and destroy planes. if you look at a micro war, you can see how this issue carries up quiet easily. princess bubblegum on a 1st attack takes out about 1/3rd of her targets military even with a 5x military advantage.(minimum) the issue with 1/3rd of a target military is carried through every single battle and for the aggressor no matter how much military the defending nation has. 

 

This needs to be discussed before score is even talked about. If you remove attackers advantage and cut the damage done to a defending nation you`ve actually opened up a lot more to war. Do you go for a double ground attack to do the same damage as we currently have on the ground? Do you go for double air attack? Do you risk it and only do half damage to each and hope your opponent doesn`t return. The advantage is in attacking first not in the attackers advantage.

 

THE GAME NEEDS A REACTIONARY PERIOD LONGER THAN 5 MINUTES THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU FINDING A FRIEND. 

[Rozalia]

You were on the winning end of the equation is seems not that far back, I certainly hope this isn't to do with a raider hitting you once.

 
I've in the past done some suggestions, my favourite being the perks: 
 

Trench System: Halves the strength of attacking soldiers and tanks. Disabled when the attacker makes a ground attack (that will likely fail) or the defender launches a ground attack themselves.
Aerial Defense: When the attacker declares, the game simulates the defender's airforce attacking the attacker's soldiers, tanks, and ships (ignoring their defending planes).
No Fly Zone: If the declarer has less planes than the defender's + 180 (two cities airbases full) then they cannot launch air attacks for 6 turns (12 hours)
Mechanized Defense: If the declarer has less tanks than the defender's + 2500 (two cities factories full) then they cannot launch ground attacks for 6 turns (12 hours)
Blockade Breakers: If the declarer has less ships than the defender's + 30 (two cities shipyards full) then they cannot launch naval attacks for 6 turns (12 hours)

More specifically the bottom three.

 

Why the attackers usually win is they attack on the basis they've got the advantage naturally, especially if there are several of them. You can argue the defender wins/draws if they cause just as much damage as the attacker which happens in some cases, my first round of wars last war for example but some wouldn't. 

 

I personally think negating the initiative advantage but in a fair manner is the best way to go about it. I mean the above 3 perks could well be disabled if you have a offensive war active (so the raiders themselves don't get the benefit of the perks themselves)... but would that weaken the attackers too much I wonder. Are they fine enough on their own?

[Samdoo]

I`ve been around for some time.... The wars have always gone who hits first... Sometimes its a matter of who has more allies but more times that is not the case. 

 

Those perks would simple pro-long war as with some small timing could make it useless. (the current natural loses makes buying 1-days of military not really a game changer.) 

 

The natural attacking advantage on top of air/ground control being dependent on each other is more of an issue than the timing. yes 3 more nations can attack a nation... That type of coordination and community activity having a reward isn`t a terrible thing. 

 

One nation hitting 3 without any real chance of repercussion is quite biased, and shows how extreme the attacking advantage currently is. 

[Spite]

Be active and have good allies. Mensa were hit first in the last war and we "won" the war. Certainly we won the wars we fought in. Our members and allies countered faster than we could be attacked.

 

I also know in our alliance there have been times when despite being declared on, our members have struck first just through sheer activity.

[Rozalia]

I`ve been around for some time.... The wars have always gone who hits first... Sometimes its a matter of who has more allies but more times that is not the case. 

 

Those perks would simple pro-long war as with some small timing could make it useless. (the current natural loses makes buying 1-days of military not really a game changer.) 

 

The natural attacking advantage on top of air/ground control being dependent on each other is more of an issue than the timing. yes 3 more nations can attack a nation... That type of coordination and community activity having a reward isn`t a terrible thing. 

 

One nation hitting 3 without any real chance of repercussion is quite biased, and shows how extreme the attacking advantage currently is. 

 

If you can't log in within the 10-12 hour timeframe then... you never had a chance anyway.

 

Well I've heard people suggest something that makes it so to get air/ground control you have to get 2 immenses for example, that could help. Combine it with the above and the enemy is delayed enough for counters on them to come in. 

[seabasstion]

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6248-thoughts-on-the-current-state-of-the-war-system/?p=105530

 

i find this post of mine still on point in this area.

[Spite]

The system isn't broken, it just replies on activity and cooperation. Those are qualities you need to succeed and a team game however the mechanics are.

[Samdoo]

You literally just said your allies were prepped to attack the second the war started.

 

The level of activity and cooperation like I said is a 5 minute period (you could probably get this window smaller.)

 

This is assuming they maintain a full military too, If not It's quite difficult to defend your ally. 

 

The game requires you to maintain a constant full military, even if you want your nations to be defensive, and if your nation gets hit 1st your full military was wrecked. oh.. and this would increase your score so a nation with more cities and not at full military could declare on you, Giving the defender and even larger disadvantage. 

[Vanek26]

I could point out several spots where VE nations not engaged in wars attacked one or two of my members, and we had them defeated within 4 hours with my members taking minimal damage only. 

[Pfeiffer]

Since you think this game "requires you to keep full military", I would suggest studying the war module some more before you complain about it being unfair.

 

There is an advantage to attacking, but it is not insurmountable. The game is not meant to be played on your own. That is why alliances exist, and that is why alliances link up and defend each other as needed. This is not a flaw, this is intentional.

[Jacob Hanson]

If you can't log in within the 10-12 hour timeframe then... you never had a chance anyway.

 

Well I've heard people suggest something that makes it so to get air/ground control you have to get 2 immenses for example, that could help. Combine it with the above and the enemy is delayed enough for counters on them to come in. 

 

This exactly. 

 

Since you think this game "requires you to keep full military", I would suggest studying the war module some more before you complain about it being unfair.

 

There is an advantage to attacking, but it is not insurmountable. The game is not meant to be played on your own. That is why alliances exist, and that is why alliances link up and defend each other as needed. This is not a flaw, this is intentional.

 

 

And this. 

 

I think you're crying  because you got hit. You even where asking for a calculator on how to decom military improvements etc. Obviously a weakened military in an alliance who just got its behind whooped is going to be a problem. Better situational awareness and allies in the future will help you. 

 

God all the crying lately hurts my head..

Edited February 24, 2016 by Jacob Hanson

[Fox Fire]

Bro, you're literally barking up a tree that I have been barking up forever, basically. 

Fact is: the aggressor always has the advantage because he prepared for war. That's not to say the defender can never win. In fact, I've actually won most of my defensive wars. But I definitely feel your frustration.

[Fox Fire]

Since you think this game "requires you to keep full military", I would suggest studying the war module some more before you complain about it being unfair.

 

There is an advantage to attacking, but it is not insurmountable. The game is not meant to be played on your own. That is why alliances exist, and that is why alliances link up and defend each other as needed. This is not a flaw, this is intentional.

That's a moot point. An outmatched alliance won't help you very much. The point of the thread is that aggressors win wars. And they generally do. A whole shit ton of money that you could be earning must be placed into defence instead, simply to ward off attackers. It's a pretty aggressive game and doesn't have the war standards of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) where raiding is basically internationally banned.