I admit this has been discussed previously, but it is usually buried inside some larger topic about a different suggestion.

So here it is, in its own thread.

Defensive Maneuvers.

Allow a defender to select a maneuver, which would work differently versus a different attack type.

Example:


Takes you to new screen:



If you guess right, you get slightly better battle odds (this isnt displayed for the attacker).

If you guess wrong, you are no worse off, the defender is in no way worse off than now.

If you don't want to guess, leave it on default.

---

To make it more useful:

When you get your inbox message stating "You have been attacked by Vivi Orunita. You lost..."

Extend this to reveal the attack type your opponent used (Aggressive/Standard/Cautious): "You have been attacked (Aggressive) by Vivi Orunita. You lost..."

Here a defender would be able to see trends and plan accordingly, giving a skilled defender a slight advantage in battle.

---

Possible Extensions:
1. New Spy ops.

Attacker now has the ability to do a spy op to:
- Determine Defesive strategy and
- Alter Defensive Strategy (Say your opponent is sitting on Ambush and you want to change it to get better odds for Aggressive).

2. New Wonders/Improvements to increase/decrease the 2% bonus.

Seems interesting.

approved for discussion.

I like this idea, it is presented very well and adds a new level to the game. Congrats

I like it a lot, could do with possible defensive actions for Naval attacks, Air attacks and CM attacks.

Yeah seems pretty cool. Should there be a happiness cost? Because in peace-time everyone will surely set it to 'Ambush' anyway in case of a surprise raid attack. Seems like there should be a small price for it, since it's kind of like defcon levels. Or does the option only appear when your nation is at war to allow for some nimble-fingered defensive maneuvers between declaration and the first attack and strategy thereafter ?

Seems like a war only option, so you have to be quick and aware to get it in before the blitz. How about we come up with some names for the suggest improvements and/or wonders that boost or modify the effects of defensive operations?

I'd favor a rock/paper/scissors style.

Ambush beats aggressive, loses to cautious, nothing vs planned (you ambush someone who's overly eager, but if they're cautious, your ambush fails)
Counter beats cautious, loses planned, nothing vs aggressive.
Blah beats planned, loses to aggressive, nothing vs cautious.

Insert whatever names above. By 'beats' I mean gets the 2% advantage or whatever.

I like this idea.

I'd suggest making it instead of 2% up to 5% however, AND lowering the chances for a successful 1/2 attack. However, using what was just posted, I would also be in favor of having it lower your odds by 3% against the "wrong" attack type.

This would be really useful and add depth; attackers can use aggressives to kill a lot of soldiers but a smart defender can just always prepare against that, or the attacker can use a cautious and not kill as many soldiers of their own but have a better chance at winning the battle.

Love the idea! Regarding this...

... how about an extra .5% for each Guerilla Camp, 3% for Pentagon and 5% for WRC? The percentages could obviously be discussed, my point is that we already have suitable improvements and wonders to use

How about just having a defensive maneuvers available before the first attack as an option against a specific nation: defensive maneuvers cost 2 moves (cancels out ground attacks) so greatly increase are ground battle odds against unfair fights of which there are way to many of.

Defensive maneuvers shouldn't be any more of a penalty than that it already is.

I love this idea, I was just thinking about it actually. It would add a more rock-paper-scissors element to the game.

Question: There's an unlikely chance that an attacker will be attacking a defender the same time that a defender is on. So, if you're at war, can you select your defensive strategy, then when the enemy does attack that defensive strategy will be used?

Yeah, potential for other options in the 'Defensive Maneuvers' Section of the drop down in my photoshopped picture, eg 'Lengthen War' could pop up in that Defensive Maneuver section as well etc...




I'd favour it as a war time option only... so for your initial hit you are going to be on 'Default, no benefit', but from there you'd be able to take a shot at getting better odds.



The only problem with the rock/paper/scissors style is a defender could be worse off if they guessed wrong... which is a situation I don't favour... I'd like this to be a defensive weapon only, not something where an aggressor can get in a more powerful hit if their opponent is unlucky/unskilled.



I think 2% is a good base, I mean a Pentagon (20% ground battle strength) only gives 4-5% better battle odds (IIRC) So I wouldn't want to overpower this and underpower the Pentagon any more than it already is.

Maybe if we are talking 5% ground battle strength, rather then 5% battle odds...

But yeah, I favour 2% as a base percentage which can be increased by other improvements/wonders.



Yes, we could certainly enhance the existing war improvements/wonders, or use this as a chance to fill the large numbers of empty improvements slots with some new ones, and soon-to-be full wonder slates.

The Pentagon I'd favour as increasing your defensive odds further, as it is already widely considered to be underpowered.



I'm not sure exactly what you are saying.

With my above setup, you would be able to pick different defensive strategies for different opponents, which is how it should be, picking Ambush against one opponent, Counter against another etc, but your reply isn't clear to me can you maybe try and explain further?



My plan would be to pick your defensive strategy as soon as you are able once war is declared.

From there, it would stay on tha option until either you changed it, or perhaps your opponent spied you to change your defensive option.

So you wouldn't have to be online when they attack, just set it up and all future defensive battles from that time would use your chosen strategy.

Intresting.

Yeah I like it JS.

I approve of this.

Or perhaps spying would just be used to find out your current defensive position?

I favour this, but do agree a cost should be incurred. Only a slight one though, maybe -0.5% odds on a rock, paper, scissors system. It should only be a low cost as aggressor usually has the advantage.

This maybe be seen as a pointless disadvantage but I strongly feel all acts should have costs and benefits to add to tactical decisions - you get it wrong you pay a price, (or for the aggressor, you get it right you gain a a bonus).
Without the cost there is no reason to chose the generic option as any guess is better than no guess as a defender loses nothing for error.

As for a wonder...

Officer Training School, (OTS)? RL would create a flexible officer corp to press advantages and adapt to difficulties.

Effects:

*4 odds modifier on successful manever for defender. (IE plus 8% battle odds on current 2% benefit).
*2 odds modifier on successfully missing manever for attacker. (IE plus 1% battle odds on suggested -0.5% modifier).
+3% battle odds defence or attack in land war.
+5% to naval and air battle odds. (OTS works across services). (Better multipiler for sea and air theatres as land war has manevour effects).

Cost of 30 million.

M6

M6

I like the idea of defensive maneuvering, but I don't think that a defender should have this extra advantage while having the ability to fight battles. I would support dialing up the effects of defensive maneuvering, but anyone who uses defensive maneuvering can no longer launch battles against that other nation. That way, there is an alternative to "turtling," which would add an interesting element to the game and discourage long-term beatdowns of a single nation.

What you suggest increase the effectiveness of turtling

Hello, I am Nintenderek, and I approve this idea. This should have been implemented long ago.

I don't see the issue, I mean there is no way you could turtle and use these defensive maneuvers, as a 2% increase in your 0% battle odds when you are turtling is still going to mean a defeat alert.

Why would a slight extra chance to be able to defend yourself result in losing the ability to inflict any damage on your opponent?

If people lose the ability to attack for the sake of slightly better chance to win defensive battles, no-one would do it, you would see two clear camps, those who attack back and don't use the defensive maneuvers, or those that turtle... which is pretty much what we already have.

Defensive Manuevers as outlined in the OP gives more options...

Exactly. I'm trying to make suggestions to com bat the practice of turtling, not encourage it.

Theres no way this suggestion encourages turtling.

Theres no way this suggestion increases the benefit of turtling.

Would it however, possibly combat the practice of turtling?

It certainly could help.

If defenders could try and get slightly better battle odds by knowing attacking trends, they would only be able to go for the defensive bonus, but only if they kept their troops on hand, ie, if they didnt turtle.

Exactly. I only suggested increasing the bonuses for nations on the defense, and in return make the nation who used the advantage unable to attack for a ccertain period fo time. That way, it would be a very useful tool to discourage turtling. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just making a suggestion for what I think will be a more practical application of your suggested improvement to the game.

understand that maneuvers in general can be done by any combat unit. As such your troops deployed at home can also maneuver. If we allow defensive maneuvers, we should be allowed offensive ones as well.

Seems like a great idea.

I support.

There are already offensive choices, Aggressive, Standard, Cautious.

Granted they only affect loot/casualties and not outcome, but still, they give strategy options and there are currently no strategy options in defense.

This my friend, is one epic idea!

As I was reading this, I didn't like the idea at all. That is until I read the part where the attacked can spy to change/determine someones defensive tactics.

That being said, I like it!

My only question is this. Why can't the attacker also choose defensive tactics for their troops when the defender counter attacks? It seems to me that someone in the field would be just as likely to plan against certain attacks than someone fighting on home ground. Maybe make it a lower benefit though, because they are not on their home turf.

And I agree with M6. There should be some consequence for choosing the wrong type. If all your troops are preparing for one type of attack, it makes sense that they wouldn't be as able to counter a different type of attack.

Great suggestion!

not to much time

lets say that your nation is at war, and youre against 3 oppenents

well for your attacks you have choices, you select ground battle, defensive fortification maneuver, which results in losing ground battle turns, but steps up defensive success odds

I like it but it will soon become a an addition quickly forgotten just like the choice of offensive maneuvers. It's still a go we need an extra click or two for during war time

True. There are certain times you use certain attacks and the bonus would not deter things much.

I think that it would be a way for the defense to possibly gain the upper hand and could actually put the attacker at a disadvantage for once

@Jack Shepard
Looks very neat.

Great idea! I support this wholeheartedly!

The GC part stuck out to me, with if you could once a day configure GC's into agreesive, or defense, agressive being as it is now, and definsive popping this up, say, 3-5%?

Wonderful idea!

You should add a poll, great idea. I definitely support it.

I agree with JoshuaR's rock/paper/scissors type style.

I definitely like this idea, however, I think there should be some sort of penalty for guessing wrong (otherwise the attackers get no benefit).
I don't personally like new implementations that are only one sided. Like there's no possible wrong choice.

If you set your defensive strategy to Ambush, and your opponent attacks with an agressive attack, you automatically get +2% battle odds. But if he attacks with a cautions attack and you're set to ambush, you automatically get -2% battle odds.

That would make more sense if you're leaving the default option with no gain, no loss. Otherwise nobody will pick the default option because there's nothing to lose with any of the other 3 options.

Just my thoughts...

-Acid

I like this idea, but I think it needs to be more than 2% to make it worth a spy-op and to make it noticeably effective. I'd say it should increase your battle strength by 5% (similar to how the Pentagon works). The bonus increases by 1% for every Guerilla Camp you currently own.

A Pentagon I believe gives you 4-5% better battle odds, so I don't agree that this should give you comparitive power to that of a wonder.

It is basically a minor tweak to give a little edge for the defender in an even battle, not a way to the defender can come out on top when fighting on multiple fronts.

I'd say yes.

You would need to be able to have a standard one set before war as if you are update attacked, that is 4 groundbattles you aren't able to have a defensive manoeuvre for.

I like this idea, but adding flat battle odds I don't like. Increase the combat strength, not the battle odds. Everything else is a multiplier of combat strength, why would defensive maneuvers be any different?


Say +10% battle strength as a base for a correct choice. -10% on bad choice. Neutral on neutral choice (using the 3 way rock paper scisors effect someone mentioned back on page one).

Have Pentagon tied in with defensive maneuvers. On a successful maneuver it's effect is doubled, on a bad choice, it reduces the normal penalty for a wrong choice by half. This keeps it relevant and makes it very useful in a defensively waged war.


I'd also say have some way (a wonder maybe?) that lets you have a counter attack option on your defense. When someone attacks you, if you made the right choice, there's a chance that the enemy will lose infra tech and land, in addition to their normal soldier/tank losses. This would make fighting a defensive war feasible, as there IS a definite advantage when fighting at home (land and infra gives defensive bonuses iirc, and you can have your maximum force there, while you can't deploy all of your troops at once). This combined with Pentagon, and maybe some other wonders/improvements giving defensive advantages would make it hurt for an enemy to continue an extended war against a well prepared enemy, something that has long been lacking in CN.

Not infra for counterr.

Tech and money.

Great idea

Better change that GC to Barracks, thats a much much better.

And for the rest of the ideas in the tread, yes i like it.

Right now, I do every attack aggressive and win big. If my defender set every defense to ambush and got a 2% bonus, then I'd just have that much more of the underdog advantage. Yay me.

If we want to see some value in being a defensive nation, maneuvers isn't it. What's been discussed so far is merely changing the operating point of the game to a new optimum strategy. That gets us nowhere.

If we want an actual element of flexible strategy, we need more complexity in the gameplay options while keeping the mechanics as simple as possible. This proposal adds a new wrinkle, but it's not going to stop existing strategies.