Warfare in the game consists of a deployed military facing the undeployed military of an opponent. Usually, this tends to favor wars in which a much stronger opponent who can field a larger military force has a large advantage over a defender. While that seems logical, a side effect is defending nations find it almost necessary to employ a turtle strategy and wait out the attacker. More and more this is becoming the standard trend in wars.

What I propose is altering the attack options to allowing a player to chose whether to attack the opposing nation directly or to attack the opposing deployed forces of that nation. This would include CM's, airstikes, ground atttacks, and even nuclear attacks. While it seems kind of insane to nuke yourself in order to destroy opposing military forces, if you're getting nuked anyway it's the kind of thing that could turn the tide overall in a war.

I have to admit, I've kinda lost my train of thought here. As I said, the general idea is to allow a defender another option in order to make warfare a bit more exciting. A defender could do a whole heck of a lot of damage in a nuclear war simply by nuking his own self to destroy his opponents deployed forces then going full bore at the defending forces of the opponents nation.

However, since my attention span has kind of moved on. Perhaps the community can take this and run with it.

Approved for discussion. Not so sure about attacking deployed ground forces with nukes, but attacking deployed soldiers directly with your own seems interesting.

Do you envision when nuking yourself, all forces deployed against you are destroyed? and assuming it does damage to your own infra/tech, does that count for your one nuke hit for the day? either could be interesting strategy-wise, and I'm sure there are other possibilities too for this, but those are my two.

If I could nuke myself or otherwise attack the deployed force of an enemy to gut his military ability, all the better!

If you're doing it right, you attack their deployed forces once they've been called back home because everyone kinda up and died...

I think it would be better if you could only attack the deployed soldiers once, because it would be dum to attack deployed soldiers twice because it would do you no good, sine killing deployed soldiers won't throw the other guy in anarchy


Also if you won a fight against deployed soldiers, is it possible to get funds and tech from the deployed soldiers? Since you can't get land or infra

When you're outnumbered and outclassed, you'll never really be able to "defend". At that point you should worry about doing as much damage as possible, and wasting a nuke on yourself doesn't really fit in with that strategy.



I really don't see the point of ever attacking someone's deployed forces. If you attack them before he deploys, he'll simply deploy new ones. If you attack them after he deploys then it'll be a waste because he's already done his attacks. In fact, by nuking your enemy's deployed forces you're helping him.

As I see it the only reason you would ever choose to attack deployed forces would be casualty farming. So that would add nothing to this game, and make it far easier to casualty farm, which adds nothing to this game either.

The only way to make it worthwhile, IMO, is to give the "attacker" who is attacking invading forces (the deployed forces) some kind of advantage for attacking on their home turf. This might make a weaker opponent have a viable alternative for engaging a larger enemy.

Taking it a step further, having geographical distance between the capitals of nations have an effect on battle odds for (or damage inflicted by) the deployed forces could really make such a suggestion useful. Sending your forces over a large distance makes them more vulnerable and fighting on your own ground gives you a defensive advantage.

In that light, I think it's a good idea. Otherwise, I don't see the advantage.

Man, I'm trying to fit where I was going with this down. You know how you get an idea and before you can write it down somewhere it's gone? I swear I'm not smoking weed with this.

Ground attacks against deployed troops makes sense to me. Nukes however make no sense.

Problem with the geographical bit is that someone might just drag their nation over nice and close, then attack. Of course, then they have others who came nearby to counterattack, and soon everyone in the world is in a heap on, say, Miami.

Looking things over, I'd have to say that attacking an enemy's extended ground forces would only benefit that enemy. Here's the scenarios I see.

Enemy hasn't attacked or deployed: Enemy buys up troops, deploys, attacks.
Enemy has deployed, not attacked: Enemy buys up troops and has them sit and defend, then attacks who he can with what he has.
Enemy has attacked and deployed: Enemy buys up troops to defend.

There really would need to be some major benefit to the nation to do this. What would be fitting?

Countering a deployed enemy force before he attacks should provide defender bonus to the attacker. Allowing a smaller nation to demolish a much larger nation's forces for being careless.

Eh, I see alot of careless defenders attacking depleted deployed troops thus allowing their attacker to become an even harder target to crack once he rebuys those dead deployed troops.
Unless they want to turtle in a nuclear war, then you're still doing them a favor.
There is no benefit whatsoever, it is absolutely detrimental to kill deployed troops.

The abstractness of the combat system kinda works against this suggestion. It is something however that merits a bit a playtesting just to see what sorts of unrealistic results it would yield.

In terms of nuking yourself goes, that would be "scored earth" tactics. If you are a nation that lacks a WRC and is significantly lower tech than your WRC equipped enemies, it would mean that you would take less damage from nuke attacks. That said, I would not see myself ever employing it as a tactic....

Even then... you're denying yourself 2 raids on their nation as opposed to a single defeat alert. And that's only if someone didn't beat you to it.

Please let me nuke myself.

I will abuse the !@#$ out of the war system if I can do that.

Never having less than 105 aircraft, never having soldiers, never being able to be defeat alerted... always being able to GA people with no fear of retaliation... being able to rebuy navy after the nuke...

Not sure what would be bad about that actually ^^ Even if the person nuking themselves takes more infra damage from the nuke itself, they by far save money and overall losses.

Also, this makes no sense, since if you cannot cause infra damage against the deployed soldiers (why would you be able to?) it will always hurt you to attack them.

REJECTED (please?)

Well if they could loot the lesser of the 2 forces. So that if they win, they get the base loot for the tanks/troops they destroy, but not actually looting their reserves. Damage could be reduced to infra/tech and could be justified then in blocking out the most aggressive attack method or even just allowing skirmish level on the justification that the troops don't want to destroy that which they defend. Either that or have skirmish do only minimal infra/tech damage of 10% what it would be and normal attack do 75% infra/tech damage. Aggressive would still be greyed out.

It's a marginal use strategy I'll admit, but to say it would have absolutely no use it going too far.

I would still disallow nuking your own nation. CMs possibly.

Nuking yourself=bad. Mkay?

However, I guess it would make sense to use ground attacks against deployed troops.

Question: Would you have two attacks for the deployed and undeployed military or would you still just have two ground attacks?

I'd say the latter.

It does not make sense for either land, or infrastructure, to be lost if deployed soldiers are attacked. If you want to allow this just make it so you can steal technology and loot money, but no infra/land damage. It makes no sense to destroy infrastructure - in fact it is more likely that your own infrastructure would be destroyed, as your soldiers are fighting in your home base.

For land I agree. However, infra I do not. Look at wars in countries where people fight on occupying nations. There is basic infrastructure damage. This is represented by both infra and tech. You are attacking deployed troops. They are considered deployed in or around your nation therefore the damage will be to you.

I like the idea of ground attack agianst deployed soldiers

But if you think about it..... if the enemy is attacking they are in your country thus you are defending your homeland.... so your troops arn't deployed


Maybe have a 3rd option......

1) Defending Soldiers
2) Deployed Soldiers
3) Deployed Defending Soldiers

The deployed Defending soldiers attack the Deployed soldiers and vise versa

in order for the deployed soldiers to attack the Defending Soldiers they must defeat the Deployed Defending Soldiers 1st




Also Nuking your own nation is not a good Idea..... but normal missiles is good... even though you do damage to yourself... it's not as bad

Say if I was losing my GAs every day because my opponent had way more infra or whatever, I might attack their deployed troops to limit their odds against me, but this would only be useful if they had already deployed that day and if they had then it's probably too late.

If a nation could not replace troops at home then this would be useful because if my opponent hadn't already deployed he/she would have to choose whether to deploy more soldiers to get better odds against me, but leave themselves more vulnerable at home or take their chances with the smaller deployment and hold their defence. As it is though, and as it's been said before in this thread, this isn't how the game mechanics work so although I think it's a nice idea it does seem a little pointless.

Perhaps attacking deployed forces gives a successful attacker a % chance of 'capturing' enemy soldiers but nothing more - a tactic that stacks every day. By day three the defending nation could have turned the tide of the war. In this manner the tactic would only be used to manage the odds in a battle weighed heavily against m - not to gain but for damage limitation.

Also a spy attack springs to mind where, if succesful, a nation loses the ability to replace a % of its ground forces back home.

I got carried away

A couple times during Karma, I actually had more troops deployed than at home. This is because I expected my opponents to attack me after nuking, and having big deployments helped me win my defensive GAs.

It'd be interesting to have an option to attack the deployed forces. You wouldn't be able to steal land though, or destroy infra, logically. Perhaps stealing tech.

That's basically what I had in mind, you could steal/destroy tech and loot cash. Since you couldn't steal/destroy land or destroy infra the odds should be a bit more favorable (it's also your home terf). I'm not sure what should happen if they are under 5% as returning home just doesn't seem like enough and having them surrender is too much.

Edit: Nevermind.

hmmm if your attacking the deployed soldiers in your own country then why not make it half your pouplation picks up arms and defends meaning you will lose some population but will defend your nation

This would be interesting.. You could easily ruin someone's day with this. Fighting 3+ opponents simultaneously takes a good plan and careful deployments. If just one of your opponents is paying attention when you deploy, they attack your deployed troops and you lose your offense for the day. For the small and medium sized nations, not getting the money from winning GAs can be painful, if not the difference between coming out of war in one piece and coming out with a pile of rubble in bill lock.