Real-time Combo attacks to overcome outnumbered or weak military

[Soxirella]

Let's say A is at war with B and C, and while A has 300,000 troops, B and C may only have 180,000.

In the current system, B and C may not be able to individually and realistically mount a comeback on their own, but they can join forces and do a comeback.

Either B or C will initiate an attack with A, selecting an option that denotes it is a 'Joint Attack', Within 5 minutes of the initiation, the other and any other players should do the same type of attack with the Joint Attack option selected. Then instead of two attacks with 180,000 troops, there will be 360,000 troops against A's 300,000.

If a player chooses Joint Attack option, but no other person joins in, then the attack will go through as a regular one, but with much lower morale or modifier to that effect.

 

One may say that this favours the attacker, since the defender cannot do joint defense, so we can only enable this option, if the difference in military score or troops are greater than 50% or so. In addition, A can also team up with D to do combo attacks on B and C, since retaliation combo attacks should be OKed unconditionally.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

this could be fun to try out.

[Soxirella]

Personally, I feel this is one of the ways in which a micro has any real chance of bringing down a whale and this idea encourages co-ordination, which is good too.

[Sketchy]

Whats to stop 2 people with 300k soldiers smacking some kid with 180k?

Also, I assume that a joint attack would act as a single attack, not two consecutive attacks at twice the strength.

Your idea needs quite a bit of refining.

 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

absolutely nothing, why should everything war related be set up to hurt large nations.  The advantage to small nations is that their are significantly more non whale nations vs whale nations.

Side note if something like this does happen, the war declaration range needs to change, and large nations need to be able to declare on anyone that can attack them.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Sweeeeet Ronny D

[Soxirella]

21 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Whats to stop 2 people with 300k soldiers smacking some kid with 180k?

Also, I assume that a joint attack would act as a single attack, not two consecutive attacks at twice the strength.

Your idea needs quite a bit of refining.

 

 

Firstly, it is only one attack v/s two. In your scenario, it'd actually work against the two bigger players.

Let's say the defender (180k) has reasonable money on hand. If there are two GAs, then the defender may loose 20k soldiers and perhaps 300k cash per attack.

 

However, now that there is a combo attack, the defender may loose 30k soldiers and 300k cash, once.

 

So, in either scenario, this works more for the player who has fewer troops... i.e. either get the ability to damage someone who you couldn't or lose fewer resources.

[Sir Scarfalot]

3 hours ago, Soxirella said:

 

Firstly, it is only one attack v/s two. In your scenario, it'd actually work against the two bigger players.

Let's say the defender (180k) has reasonable money on hand. If there are two GAs, then the defender may loose 20k soldiers and perhaps 300k cash per attack.

 

However, now that there is a combo attack, the defender may loose 30k soldiers and 300k cash, once.

 

So, in either scenario, this works more for the player who has fewer troops... i.e. either get the ability to damage someone who you couldn't or lose fewer resources.

no... actually, as far as I'm aware, two attacks with 300k soldiers causes less damage in every way than one attack with 600k. I might be entirely wrong though.

[Sketchy]

4 hours ago, Soxirella said:

 

Firstly, it is only one attack v/s two. In your scenario, it'd actually work against the two bigger players.

Let's say the defender (180k) has reasonable money on hand. If there are two GAs, then the defender may loose 20k soldiers and perhaps 300k cash per attack.

 

However, now that there is a combo attack, the defender may loose 30k soldiers and 300k cash, once.

 

So, in either scenario, this works more for the player who has fewer troops... i.e. either get the ability to damage someone who you couldn't or lose fewer resources.

Just to be clear, are you proposing this only for soldiers? If that is the case, the value of this idea is incredibly narrow strategically, and therefore a waste of sheepy's time, if its for all units and attack types, then you'll encounter a whole host of problems.

Ultimately, without some sort of defensive countermeasure, this just further increases an attackers advantage. Its a shallow view of coordination. This doesn't increase the level of coordination, it doesn't create any new strategies in regards to it, it merely amplifies the effectiveness of existing coordination.

I disagree with your premise that "this is one of the ways in which a micro has any real chance of bringing down a whale ". It is perfectly possible for smaller nations, currently, to bring down larger ones. Its actually easier to do so, than it is for larger nations to bring down smaller ones, on a macro scale. Your solution addresses a problem that doesn't exist.

[Soxirella]

Actually, I take back what I said in the previous reply... even in my OP, I intended this to be only available in certain cases - "if the difference in military score or troops are greater than 50% or so"

In addition, I meant for this to be used with any military type - so two or more groups of soldiers, planes, or ships.

However, it'd be a great bonus, if we could also combine more than one military type.

Let's say A has ground control on B and while B has many planes C has more tanks. Then in a combo attack between B and C v/s A, C's tank can first remove ground control of A on B and then B's full set of planes can do more damage.

If the last point is implemented, then the sequence of attacks can be:

1) If soldiers/tanks are attacking and planes are not involved, then the former go first

2) Else soldiers/tanks or planes go first depending on score comparison between defender and attacker

3) Then the other go next

4) Planes go first, if there are no ground troops

5) Naval go last always

There is no advantage to going first for ships, as of today.

[Sir Scarfalot]

7 hours ago, Soxirella said:

There is no advantage to going first for ships, as of today.

Except for rapid blockade in order to lock down resources for looting.

Edit: And rapidly removing resistance in expectation of less opportunity for easy attacks down the line, and preventing aid to refill sub-standard warchest, and lone-ship raiding being a very inexpensive option to open a raid with, and more really.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Soxirella]

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Except for rapid blockade in order to lock down resources for looting.

Edit: And rapidly removing resistance in expectation of less opportunity for easy attacks down the line, and preventing aid to refill sub-standard warchest, and lone-ship raiding being a very inexpensive option to open a raid with, and more really.

 

No, I meant the sequence in a scenario where a combo attack involves one player using ground troops and the other using ships.

If both had used ground troops, then the attack would be 150k of A plus 150k of B = one GA with 300k troops

 

However, if two or more different types are used, then the code needs to execute either a GA first or Naval first.

GA and Air attacks are interrelated, but Naval is independent, in that it can only do blockade for now.

Hence, in a combo attack with 150k soldiers of A and 50 ships of B, soldiers should attack first and then ships, since there is only a millisecond gap between the two attacks.

 

If however A attacks with 150k soldiers and B attacks with 300 planes, then the sequence depends on whether the opponent has ground control or not. If the opponent has ground control, then soldiers should go first to try to remove that, so that all the planes may be used. Else, the plane can go first, depending on what it is targeting. Perhaps it targets soldiers, and hence our soldiers going second would me a higher chance of win.