Okay, I suspect this will receive a lot of resistance, but hear me out.

My suggestion is to have a time limit between any similar attacks, such that it is no longer possible to attack at 11:59, and again at 12:01 the next day. Perhaps there could be a requirement that no more than 2 ground attacks can be launched against the same nation within a 12 hour period (in addition to the 2 attacks per day limit). Ground attacks is just an example, and it could certainly apply to all other types of military attacks as well.

An option could be to set it up such that it either 12 hours since your last attacks, or after your enemy attacks you back, whichever occurs first. Another option could be to extend this to include DEFCON and Threat level changes as well.

Currently, this system is not particularly fair to anyone that cannot be sitting at their computer at update time, which is biased towards people in certain timezones (or people that stay up later than others!). There would still be some advantage, in that a nation could initially wage war just before update and get that extra attack in, but this would certainly limit that advantage.

approved for discussion

20 hours between each pair of ground attacks would be my suggestion.

- Update 'blitz' would become a thing of the past...
- In most cases, both parties get the same amount of attacks in during the course of the war.
- If you attack at 3pm one afternoon you don't have to wait until 3:01 (24 period), allows a few hrs flexibility to fit in with peoples normal online time
- If you were insanely dedicated to the point where you would get up in the middle of the night and attack at 20hrs on the button each time, you could be rewaded with one extra round of attacks by the end of the war.

Has been discussed many a time tho...

Edited for clarity

I like this idea, 12 hours would be good. It would eliminate the unbalance of some players being able to be on at update and getting a huge advantage because of it as well as reduce server strain because of everyone attacking at the same time.

Misunderstood, disregard.

I'm not in favor of a change. Topics of a similar nature have been debated like crazy to no end result other than disagreement.


But I definitely need to point out that separating attacks too far would cause most players to miss their second attack. Most of us cannot log onto the game any hour of the day when we like. Instead, most of us have a short window after work or school. Separating attacks by more than a couple hours would cause most of us to miss the second window. Even worse is something like a half day since the lucky one that can get on 12 hours later will get it right on the dot and then be forced to delay the next day's attacks as well.

I would hate if this were implemented, but even if it did the only way is to delay the 2nd attack by 2 or 3 hours at most.

Same goes for european time only it generally equates in us being active when you're sleeping. I don't see why the system should wrap around your needs rather than be balanced and fulfill the general needs as best as possible.
And you do have 12 hours to pull your second wave of attacks after the first one. That's a pretty big timeframe if you ask me.

This is why I suggested 20hrs between each pair of attacks.

It is pretty much 'once per day', with a little flexibility if you need to do things a few hrs earlier the following day that 24hrs wouldn't give.

Edited for clarity

So instead of 2 attack per day per type, it should be 1 attack according to you? Dont think thats effective enough in war. It would only make wars last longer. And it really doesnt serve much purpose. If one day i were to attack at noon, the next day i'd have to be up by 8 am and then 4 am...etc

Isnt that what you mean?

Sorry it wasn't clear that I was referring to two attacks in each of my posts :/

---

What I mean is, you get your 2 ground attacks, and then after that must wait 20hrs to do your next two.

So you cant do two at 11:59 and two at 12:01.

You do 2 at 4pm after school, come back the next day at 3pm, and can do your next two, next day come back at 5pm and do your next two... etc...

If it was 24hrs then you have the hassle of day one at 4pm, day two at 4:15, day 3 at 4:30 etc etc getting later as the war goes on... gives pretty much a 'day' between your two attacks, but gives flexibility.

Even if we consider 2 attacks every 20 hour period it will eventually become a time issue. Just like i said if one day i attack at noon it pushes me back by 4 hours the next day and another 4 the consecutive. Eventually it will be at a time that is impossible for me to be awake at. To some extent i agree with the fact that 2 attacks before and after the reset are a bit unfair. Even i am generally not around a computer during update time, but your suggestion doesn't have enough positives to make it effective.

One thing i would suggest is diminishing returns on multiple attacks. Lets say for example Attack 1 has 100 efficiency, attack 2 will only be 80% and attack 3 and 4 would be 60% and 40% respectively. And to reset your efficiency count you need to wait about 6 hours. This would put some people off and make them attack only twice, wait 6 hours and then hit twice again.

20 hours is the minimum before you can attack again... you can attack 20, 21, 22, 23, 24hrs later or later... it doesn't 'push back' anything...

You can attack basically the same time every day. with a few hrs flexibility each side.

If you wanted to be crazily committed and get up in the middle of the night you might get in an 8th attack compared to your opponent that was hitting you around the same time daily, but if you really want to do that more power to you...

Perhaps day time attacks should be more heavily weighted:

http://www.cybernations.net/game_update_log.asp



1,000 technology is becoming rather common... perhaps day time ground attacks should receive a 5% bonus to soldier efficiency strength instead of 1% to draw more people away from update attacks

You assume that update time is convenient for Americans. Perhaps only for those in Alaska. Not exactly a large segment of our membership there. For the rest of us it is midnight or later where those on continental Europe have a perfect shot to hit on update when it's 6 or 7 am. For most people with jobs or school early morning is usually awake time whereas midnight cuts into our sleep.

The midnight CST update inconveniences almost every geographical region. You would have to dump the update concept completely to get around that. There's far more to CN update than war. Everything is based off that time point. You would need to re-code the entire game.

No, one of the things I like about this is the ability to strike fast (even as a defender).

I've nailed a few attackers hard with ground attacks when they deploy to attack me, and ditto to using nukes.

invasions have become predictable and cookie cutterish, update blitz more or so end the war before they start too, wars should be longer, we have so much peace that its annoying. I would not mind seeing a war myself going on for month or more with actual real fighting.

Actually, I like this solution. It would then still be possible to have back-to-back attacks at update, but it would not be as deadly as attacks performed later in the day. It at least makes people think a little more about it, and not everyone would choose to flood the servers at update.

What might work even better, but along those same lines...it could change such that there is a stronger defensive bonus at nighttime. Currently the day vs. night bonuses are irrelevant if two nations are similarly matched b/c they both get the same bonus. If it was set up such that the attacking nation is stronger during the day but the defending nation is stronger at night, it would discourage midnight attacks.

This at least solves part of the problem. I still don't like how easy it is to change your DEFCON and other settings right before midnight, collect taxes, and change them back. I think an additional time limit imposed on any of the settings that you can change once a day (DEFCON, threat, etc.) would make this a little more fair as well. But perhaps I should worry about one improvement at a time.

The point is kinda missed in the fact that not everyone is in the US and in US day time. Its always nightime somewhere.

there are fewer things more satisfying that forcing all your opponents freshly deployed troops to return home b/c of lack of defense

i like having the way things are.

The game's politics have evolved partly around things like the update blitz. It's the only thing in this game that gets close to the concept of a blitzkrieg.

"your soldiers have already been involved in 2 ground attacks today and must rest" 2 minutes later you can attack again...

Its obvious that Admin originally intended people to have to wait between attacks. I fully agree with a delay between attack pairs, however 20 hours is to long.

I attack friday at 9pm when i get home from work.. saturday i gotta be somewhere all day so i try to attack at 8 am.... oops, i can't

I believe that the US military says there is supposed to be 4 hours of continuous rest in a 24 hour period (of course this probably doesnt really happen), but i think that could be a good number as far as the game goes.

so basically change it from 2 attacks from 0000 to 2359 to
2 attacks from 0000 to 2359 and a minimum 4 hour wait between attack pairs.

That would mean i could attack at 10pm and then at 2am.

There would still be the tactic of attacking around update to catch people that are asleep etc, but it would fall back in line with what admin must have originally intended based on the reason given for not being able to launch a 3rd attack in one day.


Of course, there are so many people and alliances that bank on the quad attack that this will most likely get shot down, however it would be best for gameplay.

I would be okay with a wait, so long as it wasn't too long. Perhaps 15-60 minutes between attacks? However, this would make it very hard to anarchy someone. Update bias is what it is. Europe has it easier, but that's life. Build a bridge and get over it.

A 20 hour window sounds good to me. That means that most people can attack at the time that they are online each day, and if you're super dedicated you get a small advantage.

I support this just as I support every suggestion which proposes removing the huge advantage you get from being able to be online at update.

Being new to this "Game". The one startling thing I notice is how "easy" the game makers have made it to wage WAR. Which is why your thread caught my eye. If "We" all are going to play war, then at least lets do it right and more realistic. For example, You "could not" in reality deploy soldiers across the world, if you did not have troop transports or troop air craft. Preping 200 to 2000 soldiers for deployment and the method of getting them to the battle zone, i.e. air drop or ship troop transport needs to be reality based. It might take 3 weeks to travel by ship, this actuality needs to be incorporated, just as air troop transport, in-air refueling, and actual flight time. AS with all other aspects of actual war. If the game is recoded to take into account reallity of logistics, this talk about time "between attacks" takes care of itself. Also, GPS and WAR plans should be required, then if an attacker lands in an area or nukes an area remote in the defender's land, they get way less. If not, then all this war waging is just an ego fantasy, to what end? wage a war, when the attacker and defender actions have no basis in even remote reality. Let the attacker submit a war plan, the defender should have the ability to locate troops and armor in any area in his land, a war defense plan as it were. Then click and lets see how all you part time war heros make out. From what I have seen so far 99% of these large alliances would be destroyed by much smaller nations, if the large alliances actually had to think, before attacking. But, what the heck, it would be more interesting, largess vs strategy...go figure, who would have thunk.......

No we don't.. 6-7 AM cuts into my sleep too, I usually don't have to get up until 8 or 9 AM. And let's not forget about the weekends where I go to bed very late and normally sleep in. The update is hell during the weekend, it means I have to either get up after a few hours of sleep for CN, or I'll eat 6-12 successful ground attacks and bombing runs. This war clearly shows how nations that are not active around the update are falling down to ZI much faster than those who are. I stopped caring about the update a few days ago because I'm at a point where my infra is worth nothing and my money can't be stolen, and I've noticed a huge increase in infra losses as a result. I would support a change that would draw people away from attacking at the update, as long as it doesn't mean splitting up attack types (which was suggested last week).

Europe doesn't have the advantage, its much easier to stay up for an hour or so after you usually go to bed than it is to wake up 2-3 hours earlier, or risk being late for work or school to run your attacks.

20 hours could cause some problems though, lets say someone attacks at a time on a sunday at a time when they are normally in the middle of their work day and they do so in order to coordinate with their allies. Monday they are now in work at the time when the limit expires until fater update. They've just missed out on a whole set of attacks directly because of where they happen to live/work at.

I think the best option would be to divorce the battle system completely from the update as then you can introduce time limits on attacks if you so wish of 2-3 hours between attacks without without messing with anyone in any specific timezone.

I find it hilarious people think it is easier to be up at 5 or 6 AM and not midnight...

Ok..problems are...

If you make day attacks most efficient what happens is everyone attacks update and then next time during the day. Therefore people up before update have an attack advantage.

The 20 hour wait is pretty much perfect imo. You can attack the same time everyday and there is no possible timezone bias.

And everybody complaining it will be impossible to anarchy like this...it's good as it makes you WORK to anarchy somebody. Currently it is a case for me if I am attacked by just one person I wake up the next day and find myself in anarchy and 15 messages in my inbox...hardly fair.

Admin could add a wonder which lets you choose a option, to activate the wonder or not, and if you choose to activate the wonder it would automatically re-buy soldiers after a attack but with great costs like 3% of your current money surplus.

With warchests of around 1 billion now...I dont think 33 lost million per attack is a great idea....

I'm in favor of changing the war system for the better, but this suggestion is not one of them imo

This would make the war system hideously unbalanced against smaller alliances. Small alliances can now use skill and strategy to counter larger alliances (see: Fark hitting IRON) whereas were this to be implemented, you take away that ability and make it all into just a numbers game.

Numbers and nukes.

Conventional attacks would merely become salt in the nuclear wound as trying to run a conventional-only war would become impossible. It's already extremely hard to anarchy a nation conventionally as it stands now. This change would make it almost impossible. So alliances would turn even more readily than they do now to "nuke and roll" tactics.

This wouldn't give smaller alliances any edge at all. Instead it would make the outcome more certain. If their opponents are larger and have nukes then facing the guaranteed "nuke and roll" those smaller alliances would either turtle or capitulate almost immediately. Trying to make a fight out of it would be impossible. Furthermore, the offers of "we won't nuke if you don't" would diminish even more than it is now.

Really...you could still anarchy with coordination.

Just need multiple attackers...

All these comments stating if you can't update attack you can't win a war is simply redundant. I can't get on at update and still manage to do fine in wars....

No. That is my contribution to this thread.

I do not like this idea, the gameplay is slow anyway. This would make it even slower and boring - just imagine having to wait 12 hours.

Personally, I like he blitz tactic. It breathes purpose into alliances and coordination. So, I don't think it should be done away with.

I do, though, think that having a blitz be forced to favor certain timezones is unfair. I'd rather see the link to CN update time removed and have all attacks in every war individually time tracked and prevent anyone from making a 3rd attack within any 24 hour period.

The means to implement already exists in the PM of the battle results, which is timestamped to the second. So, when an attack is attempted, lookup all PMs between the attacker and defender in the past 24 hours and ensure that there are not 2 PMs for that kind of attack. If there are, prevent a new attack. If not, the attack goes forward.

Thus, an alliance could blitz at noon or 5pm or whenever...favoring no one. Also, it'd help to prevent a lot of sleepy people at work! And, the mechanism to implement it should be fairly simple via the PMs query.

No, just no, update blitz owns, so no. Its a tactical strat and a good one. Its a strat no wonder can buy or and improvement can improve it all lies with the person.

It isn't much of a strategy...

All it is is attacking twice. You just need to be up for it.

Don't change the system.

The fact that you can blitz a nation twice is balanced by the fact that you can no longer attack for the next 23 hours and X minutes. By attacking twice, you essentially leave yourself open to being attacked twice during the next update with no means of retaliation except after update.

From my personal experiences, I found that attacks were often uncoordinated and occurred at seemingly arbitrary times throughout the day, so the happiest thing for me was to be nuked minutes after update since I knew that the other nations could do little else to me for the next 23+ hours.

I agree with Otherworld here. A change like what I have proposed here does not kill all strategy as some have suggested. Coordinating attacks with 3 or more nations is much deadlier than a single nation having multiple attacks at update anyway, and you could still cause anarchy.

I just still don't like the idea that a turn-based game like this has such a strong advantage at a very specific time. I won't argue which timezones are the most inconvenienced by this, but it's clear that for many rulers, it is impossible or at least very inconvenient to be online at update. And in addition, encouraging everyone to be on at the same time only creates additional server problems, which require either more expensive server capabilities or additional work to reduce functionality during that time (or both).




This is an interesting idea, and a good compromise, I think. You still have the "strategy" benefit of multiple consecutive attacks, but it can adapt to a player's schedule, regardless of their timezone. I don't think you could really use PMs, because those can get deleted before the 24hour mark, but I'd imagine there are similar ways to code this.



Thanks to your insightful contribution. Comments like this add nothing to the conversation, and are a warnable offense according to the forum rules.

I think things should remain the same; as mentioned, if you attack just after update, you're stuffed anyways for the next 23 plus hours before you can retaliate.

Secondly in the real world, what military would attack just after tea or before its too late cos they need some sleep. "Sorry sir we got blown to smithereens and half the battalions been killed, if only you'd sent us in on that preemptive strike before bed time then we might still be alive and won the war." - don't think so.

Third, updates at 12 noon for me and I like that...

I see why you try use faulty logic to propel your argument for the status quo... (and yes it is quite faulty)

So the vast majority of CN players hail from the US and Europe, right?

That means the update window for almost everyone falls either between 6am and 8 am or 10 pm to 1am.

While I could see that being problematic for some people with rigid time schedules those time windows are not that bad, especially considering the rest of the Americas and most of Africa also fall into those windows.

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about about the actual update time itself. Both of those time windows are mildly problematic for both groups, but not excessively so.

Only those people with very strict time windows are affected by the update time and would likely be the same way no matter when the update would be activated.

So the only way to remedy that is to impose these time limits between attacks at the cost of the blitz strategy. A strategy deeply rooted in the history of CN. You can't fix "the time problem" without completely ripping that legendary event from the game for good.

Besides, update is more than just about war. Almost the entire computer aspect of the game revolves around it.

So count me as against this whole idea.

I am also concerned about the time period midnight to around 5-8 AM, because during that time, I am asleep (just like most other people) and during the war, my opponents got sick of me trying to stay up to midnight to defend my nation so they quadruple blitized me on 1:00-2:00 AM (when I was asleep) and instant anarchied my nation.

I don't see a need to shuffle the attack periods around, but the 11:00 PM to 5:00 AM attacking time is an issue. Not many people sleep during the daytime.

I suggestion making daytime attacks more favorable than nighttime attacks so it won't cut into people's sleep.

My concern isn't really about the blitzing so much as it is about the fact it exploits the game to give attackers 1 extra day of attacks. It is clearly an exploit, anyone who says its not is just lying because it advantages them.

This suggestion will not help with that because it doesn't solve the actual problem of the extra set of attacks in any way shape or form, all it does is delays the attacks made after that initial set of extra attacks.

This is true, which is why I would prefer the more radical approach to just having wars last 7 days from when you DoW and you can only make X number of attacks every 24hrs. The game can keep track of time based upon when wars start. Admin has shown that. It probably is more complicated to continually determine if you've attacked in a given 24hr period without timing to update, I'll agree.

The quad only effects the conventional attack game. Given that we allow 3 attackers on a nation at once the precedent is set in the game for a devastating attack on unprepared nations. It's a game "feature" that you can overwhelm an unsuspecting defender. The quad is merely more of the same. Unless the player runs his nation constantly in a heightened state of readiness a well run surprise attack is going to knock them over anyway.

But if the attack is not a surprise then even three quads may not push over a well prepped nation. Fully loaded with 80% troops, Barracks, Communism, and GC's installed then it is next to impossible to push the defender into anarchy. If the defender is attacked piecemeal, with weaker attackers, or with less than 3 attackers then they can resist for days. The nuke option arrives long before a poorly run conventional attack can knock them into anarchy.

The quad is the edge needed to pull off a properly run attack on a well prepped defender.

Admin has added incremental help to defenders already. If he keeps bowing to pressure to make defenders stronger then just about every war will become a nuclear thrashing.

Why bother with well planned attacks and expensive war materiel when the only thing assuring victory is nukes? Log in, push the red button, and smash a lot of pixels at once. Yeah, war will be such great fun then. [/sarcasm]

Let's face it. To keep conventional war viable you have to ensure there is a fair chance that you can actually win that way. The quad constitutes a critical element in that viability.

I agree with you Zeke. A defending nation with large amount of defending forces, tech, and all of the military boosting improvements/wonders will make it nearly impossible to anarchy without needing a well coordinated triple or quadruple blitiz attack and getting truckloads of ground attack defeats.

Nothing there is against quadding, except the fact by quadding you are exploting the system to get yourself 1 extra round on the enemy to do 1 extra round of damage they can't return on you, even if they would be capable of it.