My suggestion is really based on a suggestion that Seerow made in a different topic.

I will admit that i would significantly change the way the battle system work but i think that would be for the better.

Please not that this suggestion is not suggesting that the server update be changed

Change the system so that people can only have 1 attack in the 24 hour period after the time that they declare the war, and one attack every 24 hours after that.

For example say i declare war at 15:38 server time on the 24/5/2008 I am only allowed one attack in the period 15:38 24/5/2008 to the period 15:37 25/5/2008 and one attack in every subsequent period.

Wars still expire at update on the 7th day of the war as they do now.

When someone goes to make an specific type of attack in a war the server runs the following checks:

• Check time of War Declaration, convert to unix timestamp, call this variable $wardec
• Check time of last two attacks, convert to unix timestamp one for each attack (if there has been less than two attacks in the war then exit the checks and allow the attack), call variables $attackxtime1 & $attackxtime2 (where x is the type of attack being done)
• Check current server time, convert to unix timestamp
• Subtract war declaration timestamp from current timestamp and divide by 86400. Floor this value (this floored value is the number of days that have passed since the war declaration). Call the variable $daysofwar
• Subtract the $attackxtime1 from the $wardec. Divide by 86400 and floor value. Call the variable $attackxdays1 (where x is the type of attack being done) If value of $attackxdays1 is less than $daysofwar, allow the attack, if it is equal to the $daysofwar go to next check
• Subtract the $attackxtime1 from the $wardec. Divide by 86400 and floor value. Call the variable $attackxdays2 (where x is the type of attack being done) If value of $attackxdays2 is less than $days of war, allow the attack, if it is equal to the $daysofwar go to next check, if not allow the attack
• Check if $daysofwar is equal to 6, if equal to 6 return you cannot make any further attacks in this war, else return "you may not make any further attacks of this type until $nextwarupdate. $nextwarupdate = ($wardec + ($daysofwar +1 )*86400)) converted back to windows time

Pros (will update as people point them out):

• This still allows quad attacks only the player is delayed from executing them by 24 hours
• Significantly reduces server load at update during major wars
• Brings more balance to the war system
• Ends the bias that has existed in the war system based on where you live

Cons (will update as people point them out):

• Depending on how its coded wars might remain active even though no attacks are possible due to the fact that wars are currently expired at update.
  Solution: Code the system in such a way that, after the 168 hours of war are up, attacks are no longer allowed and the war is automatically expired once one of the following things happens
  
  • One of the involved nations views their "War & Battle" pages
  • Anyone views the war tab of the nation
  • Anyone attempts to declare upon the nation
  • Either of the nations involved in the war try to declare a war
  • Either of the nations involved in the war try to change their War/Peace preference.

EDIT: Spelling

i like

but this could be alot of coding

shouldn't be more than 30-40 lines of new code...if even that

Basically, downside is the coding, and the fact that it already works

No point in fixing something that ain't broken.

It only already works for people who live in the US, if you happen to love in the EU like me update is at 5/6 in the morning...not exactly desirable

thats the point, the current system provides an unfair advantage for all who can be online at update because of their timezone. Hundreds or even thousands of players have update in the midst of the night or during work/school time, so they are entirely defenseless against update-attacks.

That IS an issue which should be adressed.

Also that attackers can declare 1 minute before update and then gain 2 ground, 2 air, 2 CM - attacks "for free", which the defender simply not has is quite an unfair thing. Both nations should have 7 sets of attacks, no matter when the war is declared, and armies should need to rest at least 6hours after 2 ground attacks have been performed. Like the description ALREADY says [just try to launch a third attack, you will get the message that you cant, becaust your troops need to rest. Magically you can attack a minute later after the update - which is both: crappy for gamplay and unrealistic].

Excellent idea is excellent.

I kind of like having the ability to do attacks right before and after the update. It's a strategy that proves to keep wars interesting. Yes, most major wars are started like this and it gives a lopsided beginning, but things even out eventually. This good start is what gives the attacker a slight advantage, and for good reason. No person in their right mind would start a war without a sound strategy and a glimmer of hope for success.


The way the game is set now, Nation A can get in two sets of attacks doing significant damage to Nation B, and B has the choice whether to fight back, restabalize, or turtle it out.

If this were to be removed from the game, wars would be monotonous. Nation A launches all attacks at Nation B. Nation B rebuilds and does the same. Nation A rebuilds and does the same, etc. Wars would cease to be interesting at this point.

Is this tactic annoying? Hell yes it is. Does it keep the game interesting? Hell yes it does. Making the game "fair" or "even" isn't going to make it fun, as some people hope. The uneven side of the game is what drives people to rival those in power. Those in power are in power for a reason, and that's because they use strategies developed through countless wars. Instead of taking away their strategy, develop your own.

Aye it certainly is hence the suggestion

Personally i feel that having the ability to launch 7 sets of attacks within the space of 48 hours is a tad unfair, this means that one nation could launch 42 attacks within 4 days.

It would also mean that if two nations attacked at once that they could stagger their attacks so that the defender gets pummelled every 3 hours (every 2 hours if you have 3 attackers). No nation would be able to withstand a constant barrage of attacks every two hours and it would imbalance the triple team war situation even more.

Whats more should a nation have been foolish enough to attack 3 aligned nations and as a result gets attacked by 3 more nations, using your modification, they could theoretically get smashed every hour on the hour with their opponents rotating the attacks properly...way to overpowered

The best compromise between the two imo is what i outlined in the op which amounts to a tweaking of the war system that balances the need for an update with the reality that most people cannot be on at 5 or 6 am to do the coordinated attacks...



Why thanks Bob

First things first:
This does not remove the update blitz it just delays the possible implementation of it by 24 hours...

The fact that one can triple team and stagger a nation is already advantage enough...no nation is able to withstand a barrage of a 3 nation pile on...even if the update blitz is not used.

The reason it needs to be changed is that it is unfair to people who for reasons beyond their control will never be able to utilise the "update quad strategy". For this reason alone something needs to be done. Its not about taking away someone's strategy, because its not a strategy if you only have it because of where you happen to live, its an unfair advantage that you shouldn't have had in the first place.

Should the suggestion be implemented it wouldn't be as monotonous as it sounds, there are excellent strategies that can be made to work with the modefied system i have proposed here

If someone declared war on you and didn't attack in the first 20 or so hours, it's not really a blitz. You know it's coming and you can take measures to stop/resist it. The biggest flaw with this is if someone declares on me tonight and doesn't attack, expecting to quad me the next night, they'll be sadly met with a nuclear greeting squad.

I live in an area where I cannot quad a nation, and I have no problem with it. I've only been involved in a wide scale war once, and you know what I did to make sure I got in that oh-so-sweet double attack? I set my alarm clock. I woke up at 2 am, clicked around for 5 minutes then went back to bed. It's not that hard to get around the time issue.

and i would imagine they would return the favour...of the nuclear greeting squad that is...seriously though just because you happen to have nukes does not make the suggestion a bad one.

Also for the people who don't have nuclear weapons, what happens to them? They get quadded like normal.

Counter to your point, as i'm sure you know, firing off a nuke when at war is a very good way in the current climate to get oneself slapped with the ZI gun...better methinks to take the "update blitz" (or better yet counter it with conventional attacks and prevent the "update blitz" from being effective)

Seriously though what happens if one person declares at 4 am your time another declares at 5 am your time and the final attacker declares at 6 am your time? you gonna get up every hour on the hour to resist every single attack? Thats where the notion of tactics comes into this suggestion. Just because it changes the way you need to think about tactics does not mean that they don't exist.

you make the point that you set your alarm to get up at 2am...my point is that you shouldn't need to get up at 2 am to perform the quad attack, its unfair that you are asked to do so. Furthermore what about someone who is not able to get up at their specific update time (myself for example update for me is currently at 5am should i get up at that time i leave myself completely wrecked and with a disjointed nights sleep, and unable to perform in college and work to teh best of my ability to boot).

I know nukes would get me a ZI, that was just an example of a way to counter the oncoming blitz.

Nation A attacks at 4 am
Nation B attacks at 5 am
Nation C attacks at 6 am

If they follow your idea and stall their attacks 24 hours, this gives me 24 hours to organize people from my alliance to take them down before they have the chance to do it to me. Sure, I'm not going to get up hourly to defend myself in a game, but I can sure get 3 buddies of mine to gnosh each of them into anarchy, screwing their plans over quite a bit.

No matter what way you look at it, the war system will be messed up. The way it is now, not everyone has the ability to quad. The way you're suggesting, wars wouldn't be a surprise. If people use conventional warfare, there's no difference between a new and old system, but if people want tactics, the present system is better. Tactics, meaning the ability to outsmart your opponent through planning and co-ordination. You can plan and co-ordinate the crap out of the system you're suggesting, but when it gets down to it, there is a 24 hour time slot where I'm free to do as I wish to screw up your plans. If we're talking realistically here, to counter an oncoming doom, I'd sell/kill off all my soldiers so you can only get one attack in on me. Tell me you'd prefer to fight every single war against turtling nations rather than quadding.

Just as an aside, using something that will in the long run get more damage dealt to you then not is not really the best tactic in the world is it?

Well, and correct me if i'm wrong here, but so long as a nation has enough money anarchy does not matter one jot to their fighting ability so assuming a reasonable case of three nations that have good war chests your still looking at a problem no matter how many of your friends pile on. If its a situation where you've gotten attacked by 3 nations thats usually an indicator of a larger scale war is it not? and thus your 3 buddies might be somewhat occupied with their own wars?

Yes i do concede the point that it gives the defending nation the ability to turtle, but then again they have just shoved themselves into anarchy for the next 7 days, thus hampering their ability to collect for the next 7 days without facing a severe happiness (and thus income) penalty.

Turtling enemies are actually the ideal prey for an attacker. Think about it you have a nation who is putting themselves into ZI and is not attacking you...minimum damage for maximum gain. If the defender does decide to attack then they can be caught out by the attacker(s) who can inflict yet more damage.

Talking realistically here is the idea of war not to anarchy as many of the enemy as possible to prevent them from being able to launch a counter attack? Thus if the enemy decides to self ZI (and thus self anarchy) is this not a good thing for you and your alliance?


Everything you have said here applies to teh war system as it stands now, the only difference being that you might be able to get in one more set of attacks now before the enemy has the decision of whether or not to turtle...I'd be willing to lose that one set of "surprise" attacks to balance the war system out and make it properly usable by everyone...

(EDIT: also as i have never experienced quadding...and most likely never will be able to do so due to my geographic location i'm already faced with having to fight every single war against turtling nations so yes i would.)

I've been on both ends of a quad, and to be honest, it isn't that bad to get one. You rarely get anarchied if you're the slightest bit prepared (more than 20% soldiers).

The only problem with your argument there is that you assumed the attacking nations had a significant warchest to last them the 7 days, making anarchy had an almost nonexistant effect, but did not give the defender the benefit of the doubt. Most people hold a war chest, as I'm sure you already know. Different alliances advise different amounts, but I prefer to be able to last atleast 2 weeks. This means paying bills without collecting taxes. This would allow me to turtle effectively, destroying upwards of 50-100 infrastructure and 10-20 tech off of each enemy at me, while they gain nothing. Targeting turtling nations isn't usually a good idea since it's just gonna get you blown up a little bit with doing little damage to the actual target (5-11 less ground attacks depending on the number of wars).

But anyway, if it was a wide scale war, all my buddies were also under 3 attacks, it's kind of obvious we're boned. An alliance wide turtle fest would mean yes, we're going to lose the war, but atleast we're going to cost the attackers thousands upon thousands of infrastructure. If you're gonna lose a war, you may as well do it right.

well no i did actually assume that the defender had a war chest. The aim of a war is to get the person you are against into anarchy and keep them there, the main reason for this is so that they cannot declare on anyone else that might be attacking them, thus reducing the chances of the alliance they are in putting up any sort of successful counterattack. If your enemy decides to anarchy themselves for ouy then great thats half the battle won right there and you are also assuming that you win every encounter with them, which you would be lucky to do.

In any case lets assume that everyone wins every attack they make this means that:

Each enemy against you can take (2*10 + 2*20 = 60) 60 infra and 30 tech off you per set of attacks, plus the extra 40 infra and 10 tech you lose for being defeated with no troops

Total off you 220 infra 100 tech

you can take 100 infra off them and 50 tech

Damage to each enemy 100 infra and 50 tech

So against these 3 enemies you are losing roughly twice as much as they are and as a consequence losing your ability to win attacks against them at the same percentage. So even without the quad attacks you are gonna lose a shed load of infra and tech, and by turtling you are saving yourself *maybe* 40 infra per day...so i dispute your assertion that you lose nothing

In any case all of that is a digression off topic (sort of). The attacks are already powerful enough without the update blitz which gives some players an unfair advantage over others, which they will never have over others

I don't like the idea of changing the game just because some tactic gives someone the upper hand in a battle.

In the real world, we don't fight honorably. We attack while the enemy is sleeping. Anyone who feels shameful will wake him up, give him a sword, and thus a fighting chance.

Yes, I'll admit that the current system favors me. I have an update at 2200 hours.

24 hours is ridiculous. No one's going to declare war knowing that they opponent has 24 hours to figure out a counterattack. I can easily get everyone within my strength range in my alliance to attack you.

This change would drastically change the way the game is played, something most don't want changed.

People, it's not just about waking up at the ungodly hours of the night, some people can't use update blitz because they have WORK or SCHOOL during those hours, so no matter what happens, they will NEVER be able to utilize it.

I support this suggestion 100%. No one should get a free round of attacks by abusing holes in the war system. The attackers get a completely unfair advantage as it is and I'm disgusted to see such opposition to balancing the system so the defenders have a chance.

This would not change when you attack...the only thing it does is remove the exploit that exists at the moment. It means if you want to quad your enemy your gonna have to wait for a bit.

From reading through the suggestions and stuff on the old boards the quad exploit is exactly the same thing as the old nuke exploit. Declaree war just before update wait five minutes for update to pass, perform quad attack and then nuke then enemy with 3 nukes. Bang enemy has just lost circa 700 infra in what was effectively one attack. This was changed because it was a blatant exploit, just as the quad attack as it currently stands is now.

People will still declare war as they do now, they will still be able to attack, they just won't be able to use an exploit to give them a material advantage.

But should it be the case where you were getting quadded now more than likely your entire alliance just got quadded in which case your alliance mates in the strength bracket will be too occupied with their own wars to be able to form an effective backup.


I'll say it again, this suggestion does not say that you have to quad, or that you have to wait 24 hours to perform attacks, merely that if you wish to quad someone then you gotta wait for 24 hours

I'm sorry that you misunderstood me - I'm also in the EU as well, and i'm pretty sure that the update ain't a 4/5 in the morning.

At any rate - you can still win by not being on at the update, as I've managed it before. =D

Didn't misunderstand you, the system is broken so it does need to be fixed.

Also yea it is for anyone in the western part of the EU (me is in Ireland)

But the fact is that you shouldn't have to "manage it". The way it is structured at the moment is completely biased towards those who happen to live in a particular area of the world, this should not be the case.

Win suggestion in win. RL location should not affect gameplay.

--Intro

This would be about the 50th thread of this nature that I have supported. Seems to me we are fighting a losing battle mate. Though I agree with you 100% that the current system is not just broken, but mangled beyond recognition of even a hint of balance, clearly the powers that be do not agree, or have other reasons, as this has not yet been implemented despite the numerous voices of complaint.

Live in the Uk

In all honesty, i see no real need to change it, as you get 2 attacks within 24 hours yes?

If the game time was centered on GMT, then would you be complaining? I somewhat doubt it .

IMO - It really doesn't need changing, as it really doesn't affect how anyone can fight combat - if anything, your suggestions would actually make combat a lot slower i think.

Well then it should be 5 in the morning at least (it is in Ireland at the moment anyways)

And ye i would be complaining if it was centred on GMT because it would still be broken...Where you live in the world should not matter in terms of how well you can perform in battle.



Wrong you get 2 sets of attacks in each update. This means that if you declare war and attack 5 minutes before update, wait until update passes and then attack again. Thus you have just used 4 sets of attacks within the space of 10 minutes.

My suggestion does not "slow down" the battle, everything stays the same as it is now except the exploit that allows you to get 4 sets of attacks within the space of 5-10 minutes is closed. Everything else stays the same

Actually, getting rid of that "exploit" would make it moderately impossible to anarchy someone who checks their nation frequently by yourself-- you would need your allies to declare and coordinate with you as well. This just means that someone being attacked 3v1 has almost no chance at all of ever putting their opponents into anarchy (well, assuming those attackers also check their nation at least once a day)

but it shouldn't be easy to anarchy someone by yourself...

So the war system needs fixing, then. Because what you just said ('it's impossible to anarchy without a quad') means that the advantage certain players have because of their RL location is really, really big.

Also, making this change would actually vastly increase the tactical element of war. Right now there is only one good tactic: quad at update. If you don't live somewhere that's possible, or you are at work/school, you will lose against an opponent of equal skill. That is wrong and unfair. However, with this change, there are many more tactical choices: when to declare war so your opponent will not be online at the 'war update', whether to wait 24 hours for them to arm up so you can quad or whether to attack now with 1 set of attacks while they're unprepared, whether to stagger or match updates in different wars.

It works, just it could work better. The difference in time zones creates advantages for those who either wish to stay up late, or the update is at an earlier hour. Further when major wars break out, the server usually gets clogged at update with tons of people trying to make attacks. This would spread out the workload that is pushed onto the server.

I am assuming by "1 attack" you actually mean the 2 afforded a nation per day. You did mention quad attacks would still be possible.

To me this seems like it would be a fix for the update blitz-server crash problem, yet not affect tactical operations too heavily. I am in support.

Against a player who is online at update, quad attacks at midnight are near impossible to pull off, because they will be refreshing like mad and buying everything back meaning you cannot anarchy them.

Coordinated attacking at random times during the day is the best time to anarchy/damage someone as with three people being able to all fight the current soldiers, you can put their numbers really low and win a ton of ground attacks.

1 AM isn't desirable for me, either

This is well thought out, wonderfully presented.

o/

well if thats the case then its putting even more strain on the server, which means that getting rid of the exploit that allows the initial update blitz is even more needed as its putting a great amount of strain on the server when a lot of defending nations are refreshing so often, at the same time.



Thanks

I don't like this suggestion. I think there ought to be a possible military advantage for those who can take the time to coordinate mass update attacks, even through different time zones. It takes a lot of work to properly orchestrate a good set of quad attacks on an update assault if all your subordinates are scattered to the ends of the earth, and I think that it the hard work pays off.

In all honesty, I think I would prefer this suggestion if it was another "change the time of update" thread.

I vote no.

but there already is a military advantage for the aggressors, the aggressor can pile on 3 nations to 1 and the defending nation then stands pretty much no chance in a prolonged war (assuming no backup for either side and 3 nations which are equal at the start of the war and that the aggressors can coordinate their attacks)

There will still be a significant advantage to those who have the organisation to coordinate their attacks, this is just no longer tying down when is best to coordinate those attacks. Its also unfair that people who may have the organisation to coordinate attacks cannot do so regardless because they are in work or school...

That's where allies come in, and even further organization of military structure and command positions. At present the military system has more potential to develop large scale military tactics for alliance scaled warfare. Should this be implimented the military tactics of this game would essentially be reduced to Soviet doctrine, where everything is based off of number advantages in alliance conflict.

While something like this may benefit the defending nation (individual scale) it can also make alliance wide counter attacks much less fruitful.

It would depend on how such a counter attack was organised instead of who can get the most people on at update...remember you can't counter attack if you are in anarchy...meaning if all your allies have just gotten blitzed your screwed.

Not to mention the fact that it already is a numbers game. If you have all of your slots filled and the person attacking you has more allies then you are you going to sacrifice your allies when you know its going to kill you all? But thats beside the point. At present there is only one "correct strategy" and by the very way it works it gives some players a material advantage over other due to factors beyond their control (ie they can't choose to live and work somewhere else just to play the game, and they shouldn't have to). If this change as implemented their may still be one "correct strategy", there might be a couple, but either way they would not be tied down to any particular timezone in the Real World.

Anyway the bit about whether or not its a numbers game is beside the point. This does not get rid of the update blitz, merely moves it back by 24 hours so you can't get 4 sets of surprise attacks, per attacking nation, in the space of 5-10 minutes. You can still get 2 sets per attacking nation by surprise (as the battle system was intended to work).

This change would essentially eliminate the update blitz. Sure, quad attacks are still possible, but they are not a blitz. The reason it is a successful tactic is because of the surprise factor, without that it is just an attack. They can also be defeated by a competent and active player once the element of surprise is lost (which would be when the war is declared). Yes, some people have an easier time making use of this because of their time zone. Some people also have an easier time because they can afford to donate money to the game. Does that mean we should get rid of donations just to make things fair for those whose RL situation doesn't allow them to take advantage of it? Absolutely not. I would disagree with that, and for the same reason, I disagree with the change you propose here.

It is well thought out though, kudos for that. We need more suggestions of this quality.

so you call the fact that an attacking alliance has:

- the advantage of surprise [setting attack date and preparing properly]
- the advantage of 4attacks-in-a-row per attacking nation instead of only 2
- the advantage of 2 more ground attacks, 2 more CMs, 2 more Airstrikes per war, which the defender can NEVER catch up

fair?

Sorry, but the system is horribly biased towards the attacker, if two alliances or blocks of exactly the same NS, Numbers, Membership Quality and Preparation (nukes, warchest, spies etc..) fight each other 100 times, the attacking alliance/block will win 100times.

Just as small math example: Chose a block of 1000 nations vs another block of 1000 nations. The attacker can launch 2000 CMs, 2000 Airstrikes and 2000 Ground attacks MORE on the first day of the war, just 30seconds before update. That is, if they are successful (and because of the element of surprise, a overwhelming majoritiy of them will be), up to 4000*20 + 2000*10 infra damage + a possible loot of 2000x1M cash [2 BILLION CASH], 2000x5tech [10,000tech] and 2000x75miles land [150,000miles]. Thats 100,000infra/2billion cash/150,000land/10,000tech damage for the defender simply from taking one day of "free attacks".

In addition to that, it allowes the implemention of new improvements/wonders which reduce construction time as important tool for military (or even economical) use.

So, at the time where the defender is aware of the attack and can alert his forces, the attacker already has an advantage of:

100,000infra
4 Billion cash
300,000 land
20,000 tech

This is simply game-over if from that moment on both alliances fight a war of absolutely equal quality. The amount of anarchied defending nations which are inactive for a few days and will lose a damn lot of tax, while all attackers could have collected with the maximum eco setup on the day before the attacks, not even counted in.

Some points of this war-system are just horribly broken, and if you want to establish a system were tactic and skill counts, they have to be addressed.

These are:
- Both sides need to have the exact same amount of attacks per war, 7 sets for the attacker, 7 sets for the defender
- Troops need to rest after 2 battles, no matter when they are performed. If you attack someone twice 30seconds before update, fine, then you can attack him the next time some hours after the update, when your soldiers have rested. The game ALREADY has this mechanism, but the update simply disables it. Update blitzes are right now nothing more but an established loophole to get rid of the resting time to gain an advantage over the defender.
- troops [and all other things in CN you can build] should have a "construction time", to prevent this "refreshing and rebuilding" stuff. It is totally unrealistic and brings even the strongest server to its knees if 5,000 people do it simultaneously. If you buy soldiers, 2hours later they are ready for battle. Tanks 6 hours. CMs, Planes 12 hours, Nukes 18hours. Something like that. It is for a reason that every successful online game has "time" as important factor for producing things, because it is good for adding tactic and depth to the game.

In addition to that, it allowes the implementation of new mechanisms (improvements/wonders/events/penalties) which modify construction time and therefore add more options for the players to improve their nations in a way they like.

i don't necessarily think that we need to get rid of quad attacks completely just need to get rid of the initial loophole that exists allowing an initial update blitz. If a ruler logs in once in 24 hours and the attacker has not attacked yet they can use the time to prepare for the quad.

My suggestion does this and ensures that both sides have the same number of attacks at every stage throughout the war.

Again rest time isn't something that is necessarily needed imo, it would slow down battles one hell of a lot.

Construction time would be an interesting feature in the game, but i think that that should really have its own suggestion thread.

I personally think Syzygy makes a lot of excellent points. I personally wouldn't want to see the removal of the update blitz unless several of his suggestions were also implimented.
The only one of your suggestions, that perhaps I need more clarification on is this



As I read it, I disagree with this point. If your soldiers are on one front, (of a possible 6, 3 within country, 3 outside) then why would the soldiers need to rest after each attack regardless of the front that they are attacking from? I think that I would agree with this point, assuming that with the military system you had the opportunity to deploy and alot soldiers to each front as oppose to the way it is set up now with one mass deployment of soldiers who can fight on all 6 fronts, despite some being on home soil, others being foreign.

This would be the case if my suggestion were to be implimented.

Well, i still think how it is at the moment is fine.

If you have enough men before being attacked/attacked, and all the other affecting things, you can still survive anarchy.

And i doubt most people will be able to get on at 11 in the morning, then get on at 7 at night, for the sole purpose of attacking somone.

The majority of people want it over and done with in about 10-15 mins.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Right now it is this way: Your soldiers can perform 2 attack per front, but after 2 attacks you get the message "you already have performed two ground attacks against XXX and your troops are too exhausted to fight and need to rest." (or something similar, i don't know the exact wording). This means, after two battles the soldiers are just tired, the tanks need to be refueled and the ammo reloaded. They simply *cannot* fight any more without resting first.

But at update this mechanism is simply evaded. Instead of 2 times, you attack 4 times without resting or refueling or reloading in between. Thats why I favor a forced delay of at least some hours between each set (2) of attacks. That is for Ground, CM, Air. Not only that his is by far more realistic, it also removes a bit of the strength from an update blitz, which in *all ways* only favors the attacker and those nations and alliances who can have a lot of people online at the fixed update time. Fact is, not all people CAN [because they have to work or are at school or it is 4 at night for them], so it is totally wrong to say "yeah thats a matter of discipline and orga - the alliance which can do it is just better!" - that is not true. If you are from europe for example, you are simply at work at the update time. There is *nothing* you can do to defend against an update blitz, and it has *nothing* to do with lazyness or lack of orga, you simply cannot be online at this time. And thads a BIG disadvantage, because you cannot prevent anarchy in any way, even if you have max troops and defcon1 - 12 attacks in a row WILL anarchy you if you cannot even rebuild soldiers in between.

This update blitz is *absolutely* biased towards alliances and nations which can bring big percentages of their fighters online at update because they have a very comfortable timezone. Its is simply unfair for those who cannot. Either make the update time for each nation selectable or base it on the ingame location, or implement a forced delay between 2 sets of attacks of at least some hours.

or you could just delay the update blitz from happening byb 24 hours, thus giving the defenders a chance against it...

As said, if most of the defending people are from europe and have to work/school, there is no difference if they know about it or not. if you are at work at the update time, you will simply end up in anarchy, no matter how good you are prepared. And thats not fair.

And to be honest: if people say "good alliances can do the effort bringing on a lot players at update so they shall be rewarded!" i can also say: "good alliances can do the effort of having their players log in 2 times a day to perform the attacks at war time!". And to be realistic: that is how it is right now anyway, the active ones will be online a lot of hours per day during wars, so a break between two sets of attacks will not really harm anyone. Tell me, how many players can really access CN only 1 time per day for 10 minutes? Almost none. But how many players cannot be online at a fixed time? Hundreds or even thousands.

Well actually there is a difference.

They now know that they might get quadded at x time. IF they are unable to be online at a particular time they are able to put into effect better measures to protect themselves against the quad (max out their troops, DEFCON 1, Threat Level 1, max tanks, GCs, Barracks, MDs, satellites, etc) If they judge themselves unable to bulk up enough they are able to put themselves into the turtle mode for the update quad that may come.

If they are able to be on at the time when the war will allow quads they can be one and thwart the attackers attacks via other strategies...

In essence it gives them a hell of a lot of options. However lets say their was a mandatory time between each set of attacks as you have outlined the following situation could happen:
1. Defender gets into bed to sleep for 8 hours. By chance the attacker happens to attack just as the defender is going to bed does 1 set of attacks just before update
2. Six hours later defender is still asleep, attacker comes online again and uses the second set of attacks

When the defender wakes up the effect is the same as if they had just gotten quadded...


Whereas with my solution this situation cannot happen.

You could also say the reason quad attacks make sense if the battle system were to be fixed in the way i have suggested is as follows:
Nation declares war on the enemy and informs its soldiers to rest up in preparation for an extensive set of attacks that will require more of their dedication than usual, they will get an extra 24 hours of rest after this set of attacks to recuperate and regain their strength.

The soldiers then rest up eat well and prepare for a night of hard work knowing that they will be able to regain the extra effort they spent in the quad attacks with the 24 hours rest they gain afterwards...

Thats just an example of a RP in which quad attacks make sense...versus a forced rest time does not

so you suggest that people who cannot be online at update should disband all troops to basically give the attacking alliance 2 free defeat alerts for zero losses? this means -10 Million cash, -20tech, -80infra, -150land and default anarchy. I am sure you are not serious about that. Such an suggestion alone should clearly tell you that the updateblitz-system is flawed a lot.

And basically you suggest that, because no matter how good you tank yourself in, every skilled attack team will anarchy you. 100% sure. Maybe you have a chance if you are winning a lot of the battles by luck, but nothing more.

And your example seems to be pretty... well... artificial. Such "by chance" incidents where the attacker launches his attacks just some minutes after the defender goes to bed and then again "by chance" the second time before he wakes up will happen 1 out of 1,000 wars. In a global conflict, these absolutely make no difference. Quad attacks do, and defenders who cannot be online at update for RL reasons are completely defenseless against them.

its an option, not necessarily my preferred option, but an option nonetheless and currently the only way to reduce the amount of damage you take from ground attacks against multiple opponents regardless of whether they utilise the update blitz or not. And i'm not suggesting that they give the attacker two free defeat alerts...you can launch your own attacks against them and then turtle. Against a team of 3 attackers, using ground attacks alone against a fully militarised defender, the defender can potentially lose 3 times the amount you lose when turtling. The thing is, with my suggestion, its your choice what state you are in should you get quadded as opposed to the enemies choice...



No i didn't suggest that, it depends very much upon your enemy, for instance consider this situation.

You, the defender are fully militarised because you aren't collecting for a few days and wish to protect your collection. 3 enemy nations minimally militarised but still twice your nation strength and very tech heavy declare upon you. They then all fully militarise. Do you have a chance of succeeding against those three nations who are cooperating and syncing their attacks?

Now consider the same situation but the attacking nations are now fully militarised, half your nations strength and tech lite when they declare upon you....

you have a far better chance of never getting anarchied by the nations in the second situation than you do against teh nations in the first situation. Thus they require you to impliment different strategies to defend against a coordinated update attack by one set of nations as opposed to the other.

and aye my suggestion is artificial, but say an alliance recruits mainly from their country, where everyone is at the same timezone (for example Ireland or the UK), your delayed system does nothing to benefit them at all, they are still essentially getting quadded if their attacker happens to pick the right time. My solution means that they cannot get quadded without them knowing in advance that its a possibility and take measures to lessen the damage this will cause (provided they login at least once in the day).

well, lets agree to disagree. I think we can argue hours about it and won't be on the same side. I just don't follow your conclusions . Self-Anarchy should not be a considerable option to work around a gameplay flaw, so I tend to disagree with a solution which would only delay the real problem by 24hours. [imho].

i can agree to that