Game Update

[Willaim Kreiger]

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.

Okay so you like playing with numbers.

Let's begin.

A) You are in Defcon 2. What the hell?

B ) Currently by myself I have 12800% more casualties than your nation. Therefor your opinion is moot

C) NO ONE buys guerrilla camps. EVER. They completely destroy your economy. People will buy barracks' but NO ONE will ever touch a guerrillas camp unless they don't know what they are doing.

D) I really have no Idea why your even arguing for this change since you will never be in a war where you are seriously threatened anyway.

EDIT: apparently B) = cool and not B )

Edited November 16, 2007 by Willaim Kreiger

[LOLtex]

Okay so you like playing with numbers.

Let's begin.

A) You are in Defcon 2. What the hell?

B ) Currently by myself I have 12800% more casualties than your nation. Therefor your opinion is moot

C) NO ONE buys guerrilla camps. EVER. They completely destroy your economy. People will buy barracks' but NO ONE will ever touch a guerrillas camp unless they don't know what they are doing.

D) I really have no Idea why your even arguing for this change since you will never be in a war where you are seriously threatened anyway.

EDIT: apparently B) = cool and not B )

i was thinking about buying guerrilla camps to attack with, then defend with them up, but not collect with them. much like labor camp swapping. that's probably a stupid idea though right?

no one bought them before because the soldier modifier was broken. now that it's been relatively fixed, i think guerrilla camp swapping in wartime will be commonplace.

[Daedalus27]

I hope this change is implimented. No one uses Defcon 2, 3, and 4. Why should they? There is no reason to even have them in the game at this point unless some system is in place.

How is it realistic to have your troops instantly at readiness? It takes days to go from Defcon 5 to Defcon 1. You have to recall troops and cancel leaves, you need to repair your equipment for an increased tempo of operations, and you have to deploy troops to staging areas to move onto the battlefield for max effectiveness (Please note nuclear weapons can do this, I am talking about conventional forces maximum readiness). You can't simply snap your fingers and make it happen like in CN.

Would this change war and warfighting strategy, sure. However it would add a little bit more realism and make Defcon 2, 3, and 4 something you might actually see. Blitzes and quad attacks would still take place. You just have to make sure funds are stored prior to the conflict as your ability to collect during a war has been reduced. This is a minor change that I hope will be adopted.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Daedalus27

[Azaghul]

Okay so you like playing with numbers.

Let's begin.

A) You are in Defcon 2. What the hell?

B ) Currently by myself I have 12800% more casualties than your nation. Therefor your opinion is moot

C) NO ONE buys guerrilla camps. EVER. They completely destroy your economy. People will buy barracks' but NO ONE will ever touch a guerrillas camp unless they don't know what they are doing.

D) I really have no Idea why your even arguing for this change since you will never be in a war where you are seriously threatened anyway.

EDIT: apparently B) = cool and not B )

1) I'm in defcon 2 because I collect in 3 days, so I change to 5 in time to collect (assuming this update goes forward in the next day.)

2) So disprove me with numbers than.

3) Why not if you aren't collecting? I've bought them as part of an improvement swap cycle before and no harm was done except adding some cost in switching improvements. Switch them out just as you do with labor camps.

4) For the academic fun of it. I have little material interest in it, you are right.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Azaghul

[mhawk]

I voted yes.

But would like the following addition, instead of moving the defcon +/- once per day, why not make it so you can only change once every 3 or 5 days (just like peacemode). This would eliminate the issue of people having to be active everyday while at the same time making mobilization more costly.

If not then it simply rewards teamwork. If you keep a unit ready for retaliation within the alliance you can off set the costs of such a group with the added profit from those not in d1. In reality the war system is fairly simple, something that adds a dimension that forces a very real balance of military capability vs financial vitality only makes the game a bit more interesting. While it may slow your optimized growth down, it does so across the board and at the same time rewards careful planning and strategic analysis.

[Willaim Kreiger]

1) I'm in defcon 2 because I collect in 3 days, so I change to 5 in time to collect (assuming this update goes forward in the next day.)

2) So disprove me with numbers than.

3) Why not if you aren't collecting? I've bought them as part of an improvement swap cycle before and no harm was done except adding some cost in switching improvements. Switch them out just as you do with labor camps.

4) For the academic fun of it. I have little material interest in it, you are right.

1. There is no point to Defcon 2 as the game is now. Defcon 1 or Defcon 5, always.

2.-3. Your numbers are sound, yes, but the fact remains that no one will have a guerilla camp during war, because they would need to be bought before the war, would decrease income before, during, and after, and it would be wasting an improvement slot that could be filled with something far more valuable during the conflict, or after (such as economic improvements)

4. Yus. Academia ftw I suppose.

(sorry if 2-3 comes out crazy I am on medication)

EDIT: @ LOLtex

I understand where you are coming from, and its fine during rogue wars, but in an alliance war you are going to lose a lot of infrastructure fast. If you are a medium or smaller strength nation you will need those improvement slots for economic improvements for the rebuilding after the war. This is totally ignoring those nations that can afford to buy all the improvements three times over cause their population is so large.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Willaim Kreiger

[Imperial Empire]

As much as I like Admin, I vote no.

Nations in RL don't have to wait 5 days to change DEFCON levels.

Also, did this come from the Game Update Log? If so, there's nothing in there about it now....

[Jphillips412]

As much as I like Admin, I vote no.

Nations in RL don't have to wait 5 days to change DEFCON levels.

Also, did this come from the Game Update Log? If so, there's nothing in there about it now....

It was removed.

[Azaghul]

1. There is no point to Defcon 2 as the game is now. Defcon 1 or Defcon 5, always.

2.-3. Your numbers are sound, yes, but the fact remains that no one will have a guerilla camp during war, because they would need to be bought before the war, would decrease income before, during, and after, and it would be wasting an improvement slot that could be filled with something far more valuable during the conflict, or after (such as economic improvements)

4. Yus. Academia ftw I suppose.

(sorry if 2-3 comes out crazy I am on medication)

EDIT: @ LOLtex

I understand where you are coming from, and its fine during rogue wars, but in an alliance war you are going to lose a lot of infrastructure fast. If you are a medium or smaller strength nation you will need those improvement slots for economic improvements for the rebuilding after the war. This is totally ignoring those nations that can afford to buy all the improvements three times over cause their population is so large.

1) Just anticipating the change. I understand that 2-4 are useless now. But with the new change being in 2 instead of 1 gives me a day less till I'm at 5.

2) Do people collect taxes during war? If you have to do that you can just destroy the guerrilla camp. Even if you might have to later, for an initial attack where you have plenty of money you could buy guerrilla camp, do quad attack, destroy guerrilla camp and replace with previous improvement (which costs some money to do the swap but gives you a huge 175% soldier efficiency bonus.) It's the same principle as with labor camps, they are useful but just don't collect while you have them.

Your edit: That's a fair point. But guerrilla camps can still be useful for as you say, the high level nations or use at the beginning when you can swap improvements quickly for an attack, and don't have more improvements than your current citizen count can support.

[Great Dzar]

This change is ridiculous.

[Reltih]

Lets all take 5 days to launch nukes too!!

And what about aircrafts, lets not forget them either!

I mean they gotta move around planet Bob to get to the war too right?

heck lets extend wars to 17 days 5 days to get ready; 7 to attack; 5 days to go back!!!!

sounds sweet!

Worst Idea Ever

[Willaim Kreiger]

1) Just anticipating the change. I understand that 2-4 are useless now. But with the new change being in 2 instead of 1 gives me a day less till I'm at 5.

2) Do people collect taxes during war? If you have to do that you can just destroy the guerrilla camp. Even if you might have to later, for an initial attack where you have plenty of money you could buy guerrilla camp, do quad attack, destroy guerrilla camp and replace with previous improvement (which costs some money to do the swap but gives you a huge 175% soldier efficiency bonus.) It's the same principle as with labor camps, they are useful but just don't collect while you have them.

Your edit: That's a fair point. But guerrilla camps can still be useful for as you say, the high level nations or use at the beginning when you can swap improvements quickly for an attack, and don't have more improvements than your current citizen count can support.

1. Fair enough.

2. I am forced to collect taxes during large alliance wars eventually, i.e. GWII and GWIII (before nukes and stuff were mainstream) switching to 5 and collecting at update was commonplace. And I don't think you get my point, in large alliance wars, you don't have the money OR the infrastructure (population) to continually purchase/destroy improvements, or even to do it once. I doubt you have ever been in 4 wars at once, or even 6 wars, but infrastructure disapears rapidly and you really dont want to waste improvements slots, money, or anything else on guerilla camps.

[ChileRelleno]

When i first posted i didnt even really think of spies and lower level nations.

Ok lets look at what this will do to nations.

1. If you get attacked by a rogue or another alliance your done. No more wars lasting for a few days to weeks. Wars will last 1 night. As soon as a nation gets declared on in 1 night, alliance wars, they will be anarchied, which already hurt your income, and then take 5 days of a pounding before you can fight halfway decently. So a good blitz by a decet alliance will kill an alliance in one night.

Along with that if you get attacked by a rogue you get to be pounded for 5 days without being able to do anything about it. Even alliance members will basically tell you your SoL because they are also at a low defcon. THey can pump cash into you but that wont help much.

2. Spies are so powerful its insane. Now that it will tke 5 days to go defcon 1 someone can just spy on you and BAM your back to defcon 5 and done for.

3. Economy. The lower level nations already have a hard time with bills and growth as it is but the second theygo defcon 4 they might as well forget about growth for quite a while.

4. Blitzes. They are gone. As soon as an alliance starts to go defcon 4 and then 3 everyone realizes whats up and they can prepare.

In short....Worst....Idea....Ever

Ditto, this and so many other comments (e.g. Defcons can change incredibly fast/by more than one level in RL, the fact that one CN day/update does not equal one day in RL and etc) are dead on target pertaining to this Update being a very poor idea.

Admin, what ever happened to KISS, keep it simple stupid...?

I don't play the game for the game, I play for the alliance/forum interaction, the game is already so slow as to be almost boring.

This is asinine as to the adverse effect on improving gameplay... Gee, lets make it lag more.

I've had mixed response to many of the most current changes, but none have generated the the bad taste that this does in my mouth.

[Willaim Kreiger]

Anyways, I hear admin removed this so this argument has become mute... probably should be locked...

[Jphillips412]

1) Just anticipating the change. I understand that 2-4 are useless now. But with the new change being in 2 instead of 1 gives me a day less till I'm at 5.

2) Do people collect taxes during war? If you have to do that you can just destroy the guerrilla camp. Even if you might have to later, for an initial attack where you have plenty of money you could buy guerrilla camp, do quad attack, destroy guerrilla camp and replace with previous improvement (which costs some money to do the swap but gives you a huge 175% soldier efficiency bonus.) It's the same principle as with labor camps, they are useful but just don't collect while you have them.

Your edit: That's a fair point. But guerrilla camps can still be useful for as you say, the high level nations or use at the beginning when you can swap improvements quickly for an attack, and don't have more improvements than your current citizen count can support.

Again, as GE has pointed out, you're basing all of this off of rogue wars. That's all well and good, but when you get into an alliance war you will be pwned in the face.

[Jphillips412]

Anyways, I hear admin removed this so this argument has become mute... probably should be locked...

Second the motion to lock. However, should this come up again... open it so we can complain more

[V The King]

2) Do people collect taxes during war? If you have to do that you can just destroy the guerrilla camp. Even if you might have to later, for an initial attack where you have plenty of money you could buy guerrilla camp, do quad attack, destroy guerrilla camp and replace with previous improvement (which costs some money to do the swap but gives you a huge 175% soldier efficiency bonus.) It's the same principle as with labor camps, they are useful but just don't collect while you have them.

I collected once every two days during GWIV so I could keep up with the bills through Defcon swapping. Many others probably did the same as me.

Not all of the nations have huge warchests. After all, most can't afford to have one. Plus, during wars, people lose infrastructure. Less infrastructure means less improvements, and economy boosters tend to be much more important than guerrilla camps. One would only be able to frequently do Guerrilla Camp swapping in two scenarios: He has a huge warchest and has enough soldiers spare to use to make the camps worthwhile, or he has a huge nation and a sizable warchest.

I'm sure the largest nations would seek swapping, but the majority of them would very likely be unable to do so in a widespread alliance war.

[Hazardousdoc]

A good idea would be to keep the +1/-1 thing, but make 3 levels of defcon... Spies wouldn't be AS overpowered, as well as hiding threat levels and chance of success in order to make the spy mission a shot in the dark... just a n00b throwing his opinion out...

[BigChris]

NO no NO NO no n-n-no-

NOOOoooooo

[Azaghul]

1. Fair enough.

2. I am forced to collect taxes during large alliance wars eventually, i.e. GWII and GWIII (before nukes and stuff were mainstream) switching to 5 and collecting at update was commonplace. And I don't think you get my point, in large alliance wars, you don't have the money OR the infrastructure (population) to continually purchase/destroy improvements, or even to do it once. I doubt you have ever been in 4 wars at once, or even 6 wars, but infrastructure disapears rapidly and you really dont want to waste improvements slots, money, or anything else on guerilla camps.

You could still have them at the start and then destroy them once you need to collect. You lose the chance for 5 other improvements (which depending on your size and how many you start with, could or could not be a great loss) that you would have at the end of the war but the 175% bonus while you had them would be significant. At least they would be more valuable than barracks, which though you would have them after you collected, provide a much lower bonus (only 50%).

[HeroofTime55]

How about we just get rid of 2-4 since they're useless? lol.

[East Philadelphia]

As defcon is the absolute most important thing to me in CN warfare (because having a red sign on my nation and a small defence bonus means the difference between win and lose), I am terribly angry about this whole thing as it makes my life incrementally more difficult.

[Wartortle]

Bad change to the game, no good at all, leave it as it is.

Fighting a rogues is not like a good guad attack.

When fighting a rogue most of the time its you and two others attacking him.

Try reversing that, with three attacking you and tell me if the Guerrilla Camps help much. Three good attackers will have you in anarchy fast, and the Guerrilla Camp wont help then. Also include in a war you will be attacking your targets on top of the three attacking you. Thats a lot different then fighting with one, and using the modifiers. So the difference in defcon 5 and defcon 1 in a war is real important.

Its also the worst feeling in the game to come online and have three nations attacking you, a msg box full of reports, and your in anarchy. lol

And before you look, I restarted, so not much in the form of deaths in my nation. lol

[wandmdave]

The ultimate solution, thus, is to create a sort of system with which alliance membership can be authorized in-game, preventing ghosting.

Now that would be an awesome update.

[laosurfer]

No further comment, all that needs to be said is already mentioned. The vote itself reflect how the majority felt about this change.

No, no & no.