Two alternative suggestions to limit impact of being rolled

[Soxirella]

Right now, three players can declare on a player and destroy half his forces, before he has a chance to react. This impacts alliances where the number of members are equal on either side or where one has many members over the other. So here are two options:

 

OPTION 1:

1) Allow war declarations on a player, only if (2 x number of existing defensive wars) hours have passed

Example:

~ A has no defensive wars at the moment

~ B declares on A and can fight immediately

~ C can only declare two hours after B, on A

~ D can only declare four hours after C, on A

 

If the aggressor alliance has 100 more members that the defensive ones, then the latter may still get rolled, but at least they'll have more time to prepare where they can make actionable impact, or can potentially down declare and do more damage that otherwise possible.

 

OPTION 2:

Allow nations to build one or both of

i) 'Early War Alert' project

 ii) 'Blitzkrieg' project

...and allow the nation to spend on upgrading it to 10 levels in total.

At each level of the former, the hours before an aggressor can use their points to do attacks can increase, and at each level of the latter project, the effect of the former project will be negated. In addition, the defender may also be allowed to attack sooner than the aggressor.

Example:

If A declares on B and A's Blitzkrieg project is at a level lower than B's Early Warning Alert project, then A will not be able to initiate attacks immediately and may run a risk of B attacking sooner, before the delay period is over

If A declares on B and their Blitzkrieg project is at a level higher than B, then not only will they be able to attack immediately, but also can prevent B from making attacks for some time, provided the level difference is beyond a certain threshold.

[Micchan]

It helps too much big nations, in updeclares if you don't strike all together at the start it's over

[Soxirella]

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

It helps too much big nations, in updeclares if you don't strike all together at the start it's over

Not sure I understand you right, but we can always discuss and propose a solution that helps everyone. Perhaps we can factor in the nation sizes also. Smaller nations will detect easier, due to smaller land, area of focus, etc.

 

BTW, did you disagree with Option 1, Option 2, or both?

Edited April 3, 2018 by Soxirella
n/a

[Azaghul]

I think the way blitzing works is good for the game.  It creates oppurtunities for coordination to make up a small difference in numbers.

 

And it encourages aggressive action by alliances and hitting first.  Which is a good thing because it helps to balance out the fact that it's better politically to be on the defense.

[Sketchy]

Lol no.

OPTION 3: Git Gud

Edited April 3, 2018 by Sketchy

[Soxirella]

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

Lol no.

OPTION 3: Git Gud

Most constructive post ever!

[Sketchy]

23 minutes ago, Soxirella said:

Most constructive post ever!

It would be if you did it.

[Felkey]

Option 4: tell your leaders to stop deliberately trying to piss off the rest of the world so no one wants to roll you.

I'll direct you to this video to explain further: 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Felkey

[Lordship]

Would just discourage offensive action and nerf recruitment/coordination too much. I think making the game more casual is not in its best interest

[Soxirella]

8 minutes ago, Lordship said:

Would just discourage offensive action and nerf recruitment/coordination too much. I think making the game more casual is not in its best interest

Why do you feel it'd discourage offensive action? I feel it'd more strategy than casual gameplay.

In Option 2, since they can have only 10 levels across both projects, a player may choose to go full offensive and build 10 levels of blitzkrieg project. Thus they'd almost always have turn advantage going into an offensive war, but when declared on, they'd need to wait turns before they can fight back. This'd be full offensive.

 

Option 1, may not be too offensive friendly, but it gives the defender a better chance to fight back, than to be bogged down with shock and awe. Even if both sides are equal, it always comes down to co-ordination. So, let's say there are two evenly matched alliances that are fighting each other, after the initial rounds of beiging, the second alliance could in theory mount a comeback and do triple declares to shock and awe inactives from the other alliance or even actives.

 

The bottom line is, I strongly feel that a defender should not be in a position where he has lost more than a day's buy back before he is able to mount a defense.

[Felkey]

35 minutes ago, Soxirella said:

Why do you feel it'd discourage offensive action? I feel it'd more strategy than casual gameplay.

 

Because it would kill the ability to bring down someone even slightly bigger than you. Being able to hit together gives smaller nations a chance to beat people with a sizable city advantage. So you'd be relegating the entire game to fighting people their own size or smaller. All this suggestion would do is make the whale tier invincible.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Felkey

[Lordship]

2 minutes ago, Soxirella said:

Why do you feel it'd discourage offensive action? I feel it'd more strategy than casual gameplay.

In Option 2, since they can have only 10 levels across both projects, a player may choose to go full offensive and build 10 levels of blitzkrieg project. Thus they'd almost always have turn advantage going into an offensive war, but when declared on, they'd need to wait turns before they can fight back. This'd be full offensive.

 

Option 1, may not be too offensive friendly, but it gives the defender a better chance to fight back, than to be bogged down with shock and awe. Even if both sides are equal, it always comes down to co-ordination. So, let's say there are two evenly matched alliances that are fighting each other, after the initial rounds of beiging, the second alliance could in theory mount a comeback and do triple declares to shock and awe inactives from the other alliance or even actives.

 

The bottom line is, I strongly feel that a defender should not be in a position where he has lost more than a day's buy back before he is able to mount a defense.

7

Right now being on the offensive, from a purely mechanical standpoint, is good because you get to hit through the air first and coordinate triple hits in order to pull down bigger targets or get a good lead and then double buy to counter any defensive hits. So you get the hit in, and you don't really lose planes because you get a free buy. This can be countered through activity and some skill, by your opponent hitting you first as you declare or also getting a buy-in before the update, so it's not supremely OP but still good because most people aren't this active. Option 1 kills all of this entirely, so it would be better to play defense because they can't swarm you and they tip their hand without actually getting any real advantage outside of the first nation being hit (which isn't good enough to risk the political capital on). Option 2 also gives the defender too much of a chance to fight back without involving skillful outplay of being online as the hits come in. As for your last 'bottom line' point, this is why the game is multifaceted and not solely based on the war mechanics. Its why you can clearly separate the good alliances from the bad alliances when it comes to being politically savvy and having proper communication/coordination within their alliances and across coalitions. 

[Soxirella]

Hi Felkey, Lordship, I really appreciate your feedback, please do chime in on my other suggestion threads.

I am not trying to take offense from the game though, nor make it easier for the bigger people. Technically, a smaller nation with a Level 10 Blitzkrieg could up-declare on a big player with only level 4, and get two free GAs.

Then again, perhaps this is not one of my more well thought of or simple to implement and understand ideas, and I see where you are coming from Lordship.

At the end of the day, I guess it comes down to what the majority of the community want to see - being ok to roll others v/s having a more battle of equals, and any suggestions implemented would be appropriate to that.