I think that nations with zero soldiers should not be allowed to launch CM's or Air Raids. ALSO, if you are in war, you shouldn't be able to sell off soldiers!

It's lame, I raided someone and all they did was sold off all there soldiers and bought CM's and launched them for 3 days and also locked my slots for 7.


Just my 2cents worth.

So in other words you tried to steal from someone, who no doubt was unallied. And since they were smart enough to use the war system to make your raid un-fruitful, and damage your nation, you want the rules changed?

Yeah I agree to be honest. It makes raiding redundant if everyone does this. And if raiding becomes redundant the game stagnates. Don't get me wrong, I am peaceful as can be in CN standard and I like that but TE is a chance to have a good fight. If everyone 0 soldiers then TE becomes a test to see who can establish the best economy...which is what peaceful nations do in standard.

Someone suggested in another thread that there should be a minimum soldier count for firing cms and I agree with this. From a gaming angle, it means there is some point in attacking and it makes sense in terms of realism - I mean if a nation literally had 0 soldiers I think it's safe to say that nation is defeated and nobody is firing missiles...I think the same should be applied to the airforce too - who's flying the planes?

Have you not seen Independence Day? Anyone can fly a plane!

Air force != Army.

I've never been the victim of such a tactic, but I agree with this change. Such a change might be very possible for both TE and CN Regular. Someone should move this over to the suggestion box, so more people can see it (considering how this topic has already been subject to a gravedig).

You sir, have won this thread.

+1 for this change. also i want the option of peaceing out with a nation with 0 soldiers unless its after a nuke.

CN:TE is about war, not taking prises. They want to fight their war guerilla style (OOC:Hezbollah 2006?) they can do that. Your soldiers can't find their hideouts and destroy them (aka can't wipe out the infastructure) your fault.

In that case let me use my spies to find their hideouts. Or we should at least be able to find their missile bases and sabotage them. That's totally possible - have you not seen Alias?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=47060

Looks like this idea isn't all too popular... ah well.

Yeah I've seen this topic a few times. I don't really understand why everyone is against it though. Once there is nothing to be gained from war, we may as well not bother with TE. As I've said before, it becomes a struggle for the best economy and whoever avoids the most battles with the best economy should win. Exciting stuff...

To be honest, I don't even know how turtling helps - you still seem to lose as much infra, tech, money as you would do. Not that I've ever turtled, I'm just going by what I've been doing to TE nations over the last few days. Here's one example:

To: ******* From: NeoGandalf Date: 2/4/2009 2:14:19 AM

Subject: Defeat Alert

Message: Your nation has been defeated in battle. You do not have enough troops to defend your nation and your government has been thrown into Anarchy. You have lost all of your tanks, 0 spies, 41.14 infrastructure has been destroyed, 7.73 technology was lost and $5,939.06 of your money reserves was destroyed due to the invasion and resulting riots. What troops you did have deployed have also been returned home.

Not only does it seem to be as damaging on the receiving end in terms of tech, land, etc but spies are also vulnerable.

What am I missing?

Hmm.. I'm with Gandalf on this one, I'm puzzled at how turtling would be effective.

The only reason I can think of is that you can only suffer a defeat once a day as opposed to two ground attacks.

Everybody attacks only much weaker Nations, often with the help of one or two friends. The defender often doesn't have any other chance than turtling. Why should s/he fight and lose more of his/her Nation?
Especially because there's no Aid in TE, and being destroyed with no cash left means being out of any significant competition.

The rationale behind your suggestion, as I understand it, is that the attackers should always be sure that the war will be profitable, thus eliminating all the uncertainty and the risk of it. Why would you want to make the game completely predictable and boring?
War is a risk. If you don't want to be stuck 7 days in a "useless" war, choose your targets carefully (e.g. look at their attacking casualties, ensure they can think they have a chance, etc.) Don't come here with a suggestion only because you don't want to pay for your mistakes/unluck/etc.

Well said, jerdge.



Also well said.

Total damage done by 3 nations attacking (possible)= 60 infastructure, 30 tech, and lots of cash. More to the point, it also ends up in your opponents hand. In a 3 on 1 beatdown the opponent takes 33% less infa damage and 66% less tech damage, and the opponent gains nothing but a volley of CM's.

Change
I like change