Change in Defcon Levels

[Vitauts]

I dont know why we keep going in the direction of making the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

A raider is prepared at Defcon 1 and hunts for a target.. the poor guy is sitting at defcon 5. The raider attacks and the target cannot even go to defcon 1 to improve his chances for 5 days. I guess since I am ussually in the attacking side I should thank the admin.

Also an allaince prepares to go to war, it sends its nations to Defcon 1. The target is unawares and maintains a great proportion in Defcon 5. War starts. There is a slaughter. By the time the 5th day rolls around most are defeated and on their way to ZI.

This just makes wars more lopsided in my opinion.

Vitauts

[Mogar]

I completely agree.

[Wartortle]

I dont know why we keep going in the direction of making the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

A raider is prepared at Defcon 1 and hunts for a target.. the poor guy is sitting at defcon 5. The raider attacks and the target cannot even go to defcon 1 to improve his chances for 5 days. I guess since I am ussually in the attacking side I should thank the admin.

Also an allaince prepares to go to war, it sends its nations to Defcon 1. The target is unawares and maintains a great proportion in Defcon 5. War starts. There is a slaughter. By the time the 5th day rolls around most are defeated and on their way to ZI.

This just makes wars more lopsided in my opinion.

Vitauts

I agree with the above message, this update is going in the wrong direction. Was this talked about anywhere before, I would like to read the discussion that lead up to adding this to the game.

[cora mcstrap]

This is a silly change. It means that the defender in an unexpected war is completly on the back foot for most of the combat. Completely unfair change

[SynthFG]

As I said in the suggestion box thread,

If they want to do something like this,

There should be no limits on the number of times you can increase your defcon status,

But limited to a reduction of one level per day

You should also be able to set a defcon level that if attacked when lower than this level, your nation will automaticaly jump up to

[lastr0ce]

It would actually make sense if Defcon meant something.

Whether you're at 5 or 1, it wont change a thing in ground battles.

I always attack at defcon 5.

So unless it doesn't get a REAL meaning, it wont be a big deal.

Edited November 16, 2007 by lastr0ce

[Nova Bacia]

defcon makes a big difference in wars. If it didn't everyone would battle in defcon 5.

[Lord Boris]

defcon makes a big difference in wars. If it didn't everyone would battle in defcon 5.

QFT. Some people try to do that, and it's one of those things that generally does not end well.

[Lord Boris]

It would actually make sense if Defcon meant something.

Whether you're at 5 or 1, it wont change a thing in ground battles.

I always attack at defcon 5.

So unless it doesn't get a REAL meaning, it wont be a big deal.

Please tell me you're not a ranking military officer, or else I'm going to become greatly concerned about the military capacities of your alliance.

[Azaghul]

I dont know why we keep going in the direction of making the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

A raider is prepared at Defcon 1 and hunts for a target.. the poor guy is sitting at defcon 5. The raider attacks and the target cannot even go to defcon 1 to improve his chances for 5 days. I guess since I am ussually in the attacking side I should thank the admin.

Also an allaince prepares to go to war, it sends its nations to Defcon 1. The target is unawares and maintains a great proportion in Defcon 5. War starts. There is a slaughter. By the time the 5th day rolls around most are defeated and on their way to ZI.

This just makes wars more lopsided in my opinion.

Vitauts

Solution to number 1: join an alliance so you have people to back you up if you are raided.

If an alliance lacks the intelligence to prepare for war when an enemy is preparing for war, they deserve to be screwed over by failing to prepare at all while their enemies gave them plenty of warning.

Plus, while defcon 1-5 is significant, it is not impossible to fight in defcon 5.

[Yenisey]

For alliances, the solution is simple. In order to ensure protection against rogues, they will have to keep a number of their nations at DEFCON 1, perhaps in rotating shifts, much as real nations keep a proportion of their troops on duty.

Any alliance that finds itself in an alliance war without warning should start looking for a new intelligence division, as their current one is obviously not up to the job.

Raiders... well, they take the risks they choose to take.

I do agree that a change is needed to spies to prevent imbalance though.

Edit: Also agree that DEFCON level should be hidden from public view, particularly now that we have spies.

I wouldn't be against removing some of the information from the war screens either, such as money reserves, DEFCON.

Make spies an essential tool, not an overpowered weapon.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Yenisey

[Artemis]

Part of the argument for the change seemed to be that DEFCONs 2-4 were completely useless. Why don't we just scrap the whole DEFCON system and go with "mobilized" and "not mobilized" or something like that?

[Viluin]

Am I the only one that doesn't know what change you guys are talking about? I checked the update log, but I can't find any details.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Viluin

[unbiased mod]

was there, lots of discussion, pulled off again

lock for now, there is a thread about it in Sggestion box