Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) ill accept this, only if i can spy on myself to set it from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1... Yus Spying on yourself ftw Edited November 16, 2007 by Jphillips412 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 very very bad idea.....kills the whole concept of Blitz & quad attacks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene L Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Hate this. Love the 'hide the DEFCON' idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Seerow is good at many things. I'm not sure if "war" is on that list. He was referring to Diskord, who happens to be the only person in the game with more casualties than me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 alliance wars = 5 days of staring at each other, then...ATTACK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) 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. Good point. But is it more decisive than several other factors? Having full soldiers? The difference in how many soldiers each side can have in a fight? Military improvements (especially guerrilla camps)? Coordinating attacks? Being around to refill your defending soldiers as you are attacked? Technology levels? Edit to add: I don't think its likely that one side in an alliance war would all be at defcon 5 and the other at defcon 1. Unless they tricked the other into thinking the war would be with a different party. Edited November 16, 2007 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 He was referring to Diskord, who happens to be the only person in the game with more casualties than me Yay for tech raiding... But in all seriousness, I'm sorry but I can't support this change, something like Defcon was never broken, there is no need to try and fix it. This proposal is ludicrous and if you want this for more 'RLness' in the game then we need to change deployment, aircraft, etc. Please just give us back Defcon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarinch Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 If someone launched an all-out nuclear war upon your nation irl, nothing prevents you from going from defcon 5 to defcon 1 instantly. If the mechanic must change, I would be in favor of an instant-change, with slow return method like, Able to go to defcon 1 from defcon 5 instantly, but because of the difference between def 5 and def 1, you wouldn't be able to change your defcon level for 4 days after you switch. To prevent the unreality of changing to defcon 5 before update to collect, and bck to defcon 1 after update for war benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Good point. But is it more decisive than several other factors? Having full soldiers? The difference in how many soldiers each side can have in a fight? Military improvements (especially guerrilla camps)? Coordinating attacks? Being around to refill your defending soldiers as you are attacked? Technology levels? I said this earlier, and I'll say it again. Say you have a guerrilla camp. Fine. And you are at Defcon 5. Sure. So then, you have 100% base attack + 35% added bonus. Sounds good eh? Oh wait. Thats right. You're in Defcon 5! So you have to multiply that by .74 to get the real number. 135 * .75 = 102.4. Thats a 32.6% loss. Its obviously minuscule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Good point. But is it more decisive than several other factors? Having full soldiers? The difference in how many soldiers each side can have in a fight? Military improvements (especially guerrilla camps)? Coordinating attacks? Being around to refill your defending soldiers as you are attacked? Technology levels? I thought you understood how the combat system worked from your 10 rogue veterancy. But it's good that you're asking questions. Implies a desire to learn... However, I recommend experience as the best teacher in matters of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Good point. But is it more decisive than several other factors? Having full soldiers? The difference in how many soldiers each side can have in a fight? Military improvements (especially guerrilla camps)? Coordinating attacks? Being around to refill your defending soldiers as you are attacked? Technology levels? No one is ever going to buy a guerrilla camp. Ever. Unless you have 29732183 citizens and enough money to waste on the waste of space that is Geurilla camps. You really have no idea what your talking about, you have never been in a real war, and probably never will. This change doesn't effect you, stop arguing about it. Go be a hippie somewhere else please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 alliance wars = 5 days of staring at each other, then...ATTACK If both sides are at defcon 5, how is it that different from both being at defcon 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) alliance wars = 5 days of staring at each other, then...ATTACK Alliances wars aka Cold War Sit and stare at each other.... oh look my military is bigger than yours. If both sides are at defcon 5, how is it that different from both being at defcon 1? Because it's stupid and soldiers are more expensive. Edited November 16, 2007 by Jphillips412 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magoo Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Good lord.That is the most ridiculous change that could be made to the game. I believe Diskord said something in the other thread about it not being realistic for a military to change Defcon in 1 day.That is so totally false.Defcon can be changed in minutes,hours at the most.It would take less than a day for most units to go from readiness Defcon 5 to 1.And much less than a day to go the other way. This would only result in Alliances going from Defcon 5 to 4 before attacking, giving a 1 day lead to the attacker as each side worked it's way to Defcon 1. Basically this would seriously tone down the effects of the before/after update blitz.This would prolong wars immeasurably.Some may take that as good or bad. The only people to benefit big time from a change like this would be rogues.And it would take longer to deal with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Monkey Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 this has to be a joke cause this is the worst idea ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 If both sides are at defcon 5, how is it that different from both being at defcon 1? Soldiers cost more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) this has to be a joke cause this is the worst idea ever. Indeed. worst idea ever Edited November 16, 2007 by Jphillips412 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I thought you understood how the combat system worked from your 10 rogue veterancy. But it's good that you're asking questions. Implies a desire to learn...However, I recommend experience as the best teacher in matters of war. Rhetorical questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Money... War... Money... War... SOME1 MAKE A NEW WAR ECONOMY PLAN! QUICK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Rhetorical questions. That have been answered over and over again. Mathematically speaking (and in practice), Defcon is the biggest decider on how well you do in a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Nuke em' all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Money...War... Money... War... SOME1 MAKE A NEW WAR ECONOMY PLAN! QUICK! /me goes to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) That have been answered over and over again. Mathematically speaking (and in practice), Defcon is the biggest decider on how well you do in a war. More then the 225% bonus that having guerrilla camps and barracks have? A nation with 100% (defcon 1 but no camps or barracks) is less than someone at 240.5 (325x.74, has those improvements but at defcon 5). Of course their are other bonuses but I think I've made my point. Edited November 16, 2007 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Evil? Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 While I appreciate the thought of making Defcons 2-4 more useful, this idea just plain sucks. It makes fighting an alliance war well damn near impossible, as others have stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 More then the 225% bonus that having guerrilla camps and barracks have?A nation with 100% (defcon 1 but no camps or barracks) is less than someone at 240.5 (325x.74, has those improvements but at defcon 5). Of course their are other bonuses but I think I've made my point. No, defcon levels are still the biggest decider on how well you do in a war. Not only do they effect soldier battle strength which is huge in war performance but they lower costs as well. 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.