Game Update

[jerdge]

So let's say that I spend four days building up to DEFCON 1. First thing my enemy does is send spies in to change my DEFCON back to 5. By the time I'm back at maximum readiness, the war is almost over.

Spies' ability to change DEFCON must be disabled before this takes place. If a government can't change DEFCON more than one level per day, how is a spy supposed to be able to do it? Magic?

Also, this is a MAJOR change to game mechanics. Such a mjor change should not be, in my opinion, implemented after barely twelve hours of consideration.

This is one of the most far-reaching changes proposed yet and there is no reason that it should be implemented on such short notice.

What above about spies, and this. A longer waiting period must be set before this takes effect.

- You can still initiate a surprise attack. It just is slightly less effective. Also, if it it really is a surprise attack, your enemy will also be at defcon 5 and so you will be on equal footing. You will actually likely be on slightly better footing as you will be a step ahead on getting to defcon 1.

- Alliances can have people switching in and out of higher levels to have a standing force. Should be a natural part of improvement swap cycles anyway to not collect for long periods.

- You can still fight at levels 2-5. The penalty isn't that huge. Just like you can still collect at levels 1-4, the penalty isn't that huge. I don't know how people get the idea that you can't fight at defcon 5. You just don't now because it would be stupid not to switch to 1 to attack, as it isn't a big deal to switch to 1. And its stupid to collect not in 5 now because its easy to switch into it before update and switch out afterwards. But just because its stupid not to be in 1 to attack and 5 to collect now due to the ease of it doesn't mean it won't kill people to not do it once the change happens.

- It is realistic. You can still fight a war on the fly. It just takes time to be ready to your maximum advantage.

All of this is true (good points). However, if DEFCON has to be realistic, let's face that RL DEFCON doesn't affect a Nation's happyness/income (if anything, it's a boost to them, due to the people feeling protected, and due to the increased public expenditure).

DEFCON must be made affecting military maintenance costs, rather than Nation's economics, before this change comes in effect.

As it is now, this change basically ruins the spy system, the war system, the economic simulation of this game. I voted NO.

[Arrnea]

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

Seconded! This would be awesome.

Also, I voted NO for reasons stated on all the pages of this topic.

BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD IDEA!

Worst idea since Lead in Construction.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Arrnea

[MudBug]

This is the most asinine thing to happen to this game.

This ^^^

I agree 1billion %

[Boney]

Doesn't this belong in the suggestions forum?

I wish I could say something without getting warned. Ya'll know what I'm talking about though.

[Lordy]

Oh Lordy.

Not exactly lovin' this.

I have answered your prayers, and thus admin has decided not to implement this for now.

However, this +1/-1 idea is a good change spies. It is not realistic for spies to change the entier defcon of a nation so quickly.

[Nilty]

In the movies and such.. It was always easier to move Up then to move down.... Cause its always been the case where a Nation gets scared it goes to Defcon 4 or 5 to put up maximum defense.. and because they they are nervous and uneasy about the maximum alert at that point they slowly lower it not wanting to be too hasty.

Also any Nation at war should be able to hit Defcon 5 regardless of previous defcon levels

Propose a possible immediate jump to level 4 or 5 and then 1 day each to back down to peace.

[Starcraftmazter]

In the movies and such.. It was always easier to move Up then to move down

And we all know what a real depiction of life Hollywood portrays....

[jerdge]

In the movies and such.. It was always easier to move Up then to move down.... Cause its always been the case where a Nation gets scared it goes to Defcon 4 or 5 to put up maximum defense.. and because they they are nervous and uneasy about the maximum alert at that point they slowly lower it not wanting to be too hasty.

Also any Nation at war should be able to hit Defcon 5 regardless of previous defcon levels

Propose a possible immediate jump to level 4 or 5 and then 1 day each to back down to peace.

This is another point.

However, good friend, you messed up with the numbers: DEFCON 1 is highest preparedness, while DEFCON 5 is peace-time status.

I think that your point is anyway clear.

[Tumin]

I imagine that admin is trying to prevent the war-time DEFCON swap, which allowed nations to collect at full value and quickly go back to full readiness. I think that was a ridiculous mechanic, and wholly retarded. That being said, I think this solution is horrible. What would be better, perhaps, is only allowing a nation to increase its prepardedness DURING AN ONGOING WAR and outside of that window, DEFCON can be switched as it has been. That mechanic would make a lot more sense, because you don't stop being prepared when you're at war.

Eh?

[o-dog]

What a terrible idea. I hope it never raises its ugly little head again!

[MCRABT]

Just becasue CN should upgrade there server to stop it grinding to a halt at update time doesn't mean you can solve the problem by implementing stupid changes like this. I hope to see this changed back soon as this is a ridiculous change.

[Cyrogen]

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.

gonna just say something quickly here:

Compare the following nations:

Defcon 1 w/ 0 GC: 100%

Defcon 1 w/ 1 GC: 135%

Defcon 1 w/ 2 GC: 170%

Defcon 1 w/ 3 GC: 205%

Defcon 1 w/ 4 GC: 240%

Defcon 1 w/ 5 GC: 275%

Defcon 5 w/ 0 GC: 76% battle odds

Defcon 5 w/ 1 GC: 102.6%

Defcon 5 w/ 2 GC: 129.2%

Defcon 5 w/ 3 GC: 155.8%

Defcon 5 w/ 4 GC: 182.4%

Defcon 5 w/ 5 GC: 209%

So as you buy more GC's the difference gets wider from 24% with no GC to 66% with 5 GC

and this is before you factor in any other improvements

The more improvements you factor in the wider the gap will get

if you add 5 barracks onto both of those nations the two effectiveness percentages are

412.5% for the defcon 1 nation and 313.5% for the defcon 5 nation

now add in that the effect of governments

445.5% for the defcon 1 nation and 338.58% for the defcon 5 nation

or in other words

A 106.2% DIFFERENCE in your soldier efficiency!!

Now explain to me how in the name of god that is "not a significant difference" to your chances in battle?

oh and this is of course neglecting the possible 24.2% (multiplicative) increase by having the trades which increase efficiency

which would increase the percentages to 553.31% and 420.52% respectively

for a grand total...wait for it wait for it

132.79% possible efficiency difference between two otherwise equal nations...all due to DEFCON level...

now i ask again how in the name of god that is "not a significant difference" to your chances in battle?

*edited for formatting*

*edit 2* i also think this would be the worst possible update ever to the game and would put an awful lot of the 32000 people playing the game right off...

Edited November 16, 2007 by Cryogen

[Strudeldorf]

Just for posterity, here is the original text as found in the Update log

11-15-2007

Coming soon (like tomorrow) based on this thread, nations will only be allowed to change DEFCON and Threat levels +-1 per day. If you are at DEFCON or Threat level 5 and need to move to DEFCON or Threat level 1 it will take 5 days to make that move. I'm giving everyone a 24 hour warning here to adjust their DEFCON and Threat levels as needed before the change is put in place.

[President Nevik]

I voted "no" because this change is stupid.

[Finnish Commie]

I voted "no" because this change is terrible.

[MikeTheFirst]

Don't like it, voted NO.

[MrCyber]

This would be such a rediculous change. It will slow this game even more down then it already is and would make it impossible to react to an attack. I strongly vote NO against this change.

[lastr0ce]

Can someone explain me why everyone is so furious about the change?

In general, defcon doesn't even have a significant meaning other then "bluf".

"Hey, watch it, I'm at defcon 1!"

Defcon 5=1.. LOL, I never loose a battle at defcon 5..

This topic isn't even relevant. What's there to discuss?

I suggest defcon gets a real purpose.

Edited November 16, 2007 by lastr0ce

[Lord Boris]

I dislike it. It takes away the element of surprise, and isn't realistic consider after a real nation is attacked they would automatically go into a "DEFCON 1".

Katsumi wins the thread. There's no RL basis for the notion that a government can't up its DEFCON more than once every day, and all this is liable to do is give headaches for the next big war. Admin is quickly becoming the Bilrow of the war system. Stealing all the win out of it.

[wasso]

i don't think that it's a good update :S

[AVFC1]

Awful idea.

Firstly, why doesn't admin as the people what they want first, and not just add things based on the ideas of two people.

Secondly it's not realistic at all, does a country not reach its maximum readiness until well past halfway through a war?

I can't see how this benefits anyone at all.

[Finnish Commie]

Can someone explain me why everyone is so furious about the change?

In general, defcon doesn't even have a significant meaning other then "bluf".

"Hey, watch it, I'm at defcon 1!"

Defcon 5=1.. LOL, I never loose a battle at defcon 5..

This topic isn't even relevant. What's there to discuss?

I suggest defcon gets a real purpose.

If you don't know the differences between battling on Defcon 1 and Defcon 5, you are quite frankly a noob.

[Stargazer Alchemist]

Absoutly amazing. This was obviously well thought out.

[Marechal]

Absoutly amazing. This was obviously well thought out.

Be careful, SA. Using words in italic gets you a warning these days.

Regarding the thread it's obvious the majority of CN community didn't like this.

If DEFCOM 2-4 are useless today this is but making 3-5 useless tomorrow.

[lastr0ce]

If you don't know the differences between battling on Defcon 1 and Defcon 5, you are quite frankly a noob.

You are correct:)

Edited November 16, 2007 by lastr0ce