OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Because most people are so used to always being at defcon1 in war that they don't understand that defcon5 really isn't that terrible? I will take your advice on war because your alliance is one of the original conflict-based alliances. In fact, your alliance entered into a war against seemingly insurmountable enemies with almost no outside help and triumphed. Against all odds, your alliance prevailed. Oh, wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Horrible decision. Takes away the element of suprise and disables a nation to respond effectively from a surprise attack. Awful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Go into an alliance war in Defcon 5 and then come talk. A guerrilla camp adds 35% before Defcon reductions. It's a 24% penalty for being in defcon5. Guerrilla camp adds 35%. You do the math. Plus, in most alliance wars the alliances should roughly be on the same level as far as what defcon they are at. Unless one prepares for war without the other thinking they are the targeting or noticing that they are preparing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 screw it, im havin my alliance spy me to DEFCON 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchova Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This is a horrible idea. And the backlash was inevitable, as it's taking away a freedom. And I know the game's fine tuners are against the whole cycling process of improvements and DEFCON etc. but really it adds a fun angle for alliances organized and dedicated enough to pull it off. And DEFCON 2, 3 and 4 are useless. This change has got to go. Sorry. I say it cuz I love you admin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princessro07 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 -4 happiness isn't much of a penalty?! Do you not remember what it's like when you're below 1k infra?! The economic penalties may not be much for larger nations, but for the smaller ones, it's awful. And as others have stated, Defcon does make a big difference. If you and another nation are of equal strength, the one in Defcon 1 will cause more damage than the one in Defcon 5. Attacking a Defcon 5 nation while in Defcon 1 makes it easy to anarchy them, thus giving a real element of surprise. If you surprise attack a Defcon 5 while in Defcon 5, the effects are relatively minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 It's a 24% penalty for being in defcon5. Guerrilla camp adds 35%. You do the math.Plus, in most alliance wars the alliances should roughly be on the same level as far as what defcon they are at. Unless one prepares for war without the other thinking they are the targeting or noticing that they are preparing. Okay fine. So you have 100% + 35% = 135%. Then at defcon 5, you are at 76% readiness. 135 * .76 = 102.6%. Thats a 32.4% difference. Furthermore, until you have fought a war, you cannot comment on an alliance war and have your comment be taken seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I will take your advice on war because your alliance is one of the original conflict-based alliances. In fact, your alliance entered into a war against seemingly insurmountable enemies with almost no outside help and triumphed. Against all odds, your alliance prevailed.Oh, wait... I can do the math and I've fought in several wars myself. I'm not an expert but I understand the system enough to know that a 24% change in effectiveness won't make someone unable to fight. Their are many other factors that have at least as significant impact (such as improvements, which can triple your soldier effectiveness.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princessro07 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 screw it, im havin my alliance spy me to DEFCON 1 lulz. This statement is entertaining, yet ironically insightful. Thus, I have quoted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironchef Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I would have to say NO. For the love of all that is good!! Think of the children!! What about the children!! How can they play in the park? With national security taking 5 days to sound the alarm and go to Defcon 1 they will get blown off the swing by a CM or have a nuke dropped on them in the sand box and that would be bad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Sane Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I can do the math and I've fought in several wars myself. I'm not an expert but I understand the system enough to know that a 24% change in effectiveness won't make someone unable to fight. Their are many other factors that have at least as significant impact (such as improvements, which can triple your soldier effectiveness.) You're funny. I immediately anarchy people in DEFCON 5 without even finishing a quad. (Even at full military, that's how bad DEFCON 5 is.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princessro07 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I can do the math and I've fought in several wars myself. I'm not an expert but I understand the system enough to know that a 24% change in effectiveness won't make someone unable to fight. Their are many other factors that have at least as significant impact (such as improvements, which can triple your soldier effectiveness.) To clarify: when you say "several wars" do you mean alliance scale wars, or little one with rogues? I'm not assuming either way, just wanted to clarify. Also, as someone above posted, the difference isn't 24%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I can do the math and I've fought in several wars myself. I'm not an expert but I understand the system enough to know that a 24% change in effectiveness won't make someone unable to fight. Their are many other factors that have at least as significant impact (such as improvements, which can triple your soldier effectiveness.)Fighting a few rogues is different than fighting a fully organized alliance. For one, rogues rarely coordinate with one another and for another, they never receive aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 <snipped your incorrect math because Mercy covered that>Plus, in most alliance wars the alliances should roughly be on the same level as far as what defcon they are at. Unless one prepares for war without the other thinking they are the targeting or noticing that they are preparing. Shouldn't you have put an "I think that" before your statements that begin with "most alliance wars?" Or perhaps a "From observing warfare..." Just an idea. I really enjoy that, as a generality, those that support this change are eiither the perennial losers or the peaceniks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I can do the math and I've fought in several wars myself. I'm not an expert but I understand the system enough to know that a 24% change in effectiveness won't make someone unable to fight. Their are many other factors that have at least as significant impact (such as improvements, which can triple your soldier effectiveness.) 10 wars??? 10 wars??? Ten freaking wars?!?!?!?!? I defer to your superior combat knowledge. The Orders would have done well to have you lead our militaries when we stood alone against the world. Also, your academic knowledge of conflict does not impress me. Pick a different angle next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 its honestly going to be funny.... u go to war with someone in DEFCON 5...they get to DEFCON 2 and u spy them back to DEFCON 5... that will be fun... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Isn't the original suggestion from someone who is famous for being good at war? Anyway, I have fought 10 rogues, so I've seen how battle odds work and how different factors contribute to it. Defcon is just one of several. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhouserok[FCC] Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Oh noes, it'll take five days to fully switch over using the old defcon cycling method, it would appear that defcon cycling is useless now, that's ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Isn't the original suggestion from someone who is famous for being good at war?Anyway, I have fought 10 rogues, so I've seen how battle odds work and how different factors contribute to it. Defcon is just one of several. Very good. I've fought 8 alliance wars, 2 great wars, 50+ nations, etc. OPA has fought in every single NPO conflict from GPW forward. Defcon is one of the biggest factors in battle odds. Diskord is not famous for war and neither is Seerow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Isn't the original suggestion from someone who is famous for being good at war?Anyway, I have fought 10 rogues, so I've seen how battle odds work and how different factors contribute to it. Defcon is just one of several. May be a suggestion from someone who is good at war. Just because someone is good at war doesn't mean they make good suggestions. This is a horrible idea. It takes the element of surprise out of the game, which is a huge element of it. Then again, if you're on the receiving end, it takes your ability to respond out of it. By the time you notice it, you've been caught with your fly down. Awful idea. Stop defending it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Because most people are so used to always being at defcon1 in war that they don't understand that defcon5 really isn't that terrible? You have 7,000 total casualties. Come talk when you have some experiance. EDIT: lol I'm so late meds Edited November 16, 2007 by Willaim Kreiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) I can do the math and I've fought in several wars myself. I'm not an expert but I understand the system enough to know that a 24% change in effectiveness won't make someone unable to fight. Their are many other factors that have at least as significant impact (such as improvements, which can triple your soldier effectiveness.) Defcon doesn't increase soldier effectiveness, but battle strength. Thus, if someone had their soldier efficiency boosted by 200%, one wouldn't fight at 176%, but at around 152%, whilst at Defcon 1, one would enjoy the full increase on the efficiency. That's quite a difference which can be decisive in an update blitz. Edited November 16, 2007 by V The King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Isn't the original suggestion from someone who is famous for being good at war? Seerow is good at many things. I'm not sure if "war" is on that list. Anyway, I have fought 10 rogues, so I've seen how battle odds work and how different factors contribute to it. Defcon is just one of several. As has been said befroe, and as you evidently don't understand... Unorganized rogues < big, organized, committed alliances. There is no way that one could compare a "real" war to fighting a rogue. So you've fought rogues. Way to go. I admire that you've helped to promote stability in the Cyberverse. However, those of us that has fought wars on 6 fronts while lining up our next three targets realize that this change has the potential to devastate the fun portion of wars. If a change was made that would destroy fleeing to peace mode, then I would respect your opinion. In matters of war, however, I cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 ill accept this, only if i can spy on myself to set it from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Also, you take the war-time strategy of managing your economy to maximize tax collections completely out of it. It would become impossible to maximize your income should you need to collect taxes during your war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.