What would be the results of getting rid of all attack types except SS and PS?

My immediate thought is the possibility that wars could actually be beneficial to netgaining... at least, for one side.

Any thoughts?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

old school war

Uh-huh... I was thinking back to the days when GS/BR kills would glitch and not go through.

=)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

well with only 1 defence needed, turrets

rather than spies tanks troops sdi and turrets

a large country could easily out produce a small one, especially since as the small one tried to increase jets it would become easier to farm

whereas currently a small country can easily choose one out of five areas to specialise and be able to damage a large country, perhaps with some stockpiling

if GS's were made to hurt more individually - maybe destroy tech in addition to food, but the ability to make a pop kill was eliminated it would make a difference.

Wars before the pop kill were very different, but were long, drawn out, and generally inconclusive. I don't see the larger alliances getting behind this idea since it would make it almost impossible to deal with a well run suicider.

By necessity, PS/SS-only attacks will take away missiles, but does this mean that tanks and troops would be taken out of the equation? I'm not sure that's what's being suggested, but I want to clarify.

Also, long, drawn-out, inconclusive wars might be a good way to draw in more people, in that they will find a game full of action but no real way to lose. That said, I don't know if I like that idea.

so why bring it up then :)

Just trying to see all sides of the picture.

Perhaps you could make BR/GS kills allowed so long as the country is not tagged up to an alliance with 10+ members in it, or maybe even make the number higher. It would certainly give alliances more incentive to put more effort into recruiting on their own outside of the game rather than just getting old members to come back or waiting for new players to show up with standard advertising.

LAME

lol

or you can make it so the attack are only available under a state of war and add an option for an ingame declaration of war between alliances.

By "allowed," do you mean that the option doesn't show up in the war room unless those circumstances apply? Otherwise this could just turn into another political mess. After all, the current state of most grab/retal policies (that I'm aware of) are limited to PS/SS, so there wouldn't be any difference in that regard.

Also, those circumstances seem to me to say that larger clans attacking smaller clans would have GS/BR available to them. So you'd give the larger clans more weapons than the smaller clans, considering the problems the smaller clan faces already?

EDIT: I like Pain's idea.

So... yes to an all LG round? =)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

no.

interesting idea

I also like pains idea...

heres a thought, go back to when gs's could steal bushels.. rather then destroying them, then it becomes more beneficial to gs a large target with stock rather then br it.

it would bring back gs wars.. everyone knows now that BR is better.

So that pretty much nerfs the ability to kill suiciders, then?

...

Pain's suggestion is pretty much the opposite of mine. I'm looking for wars that are only LGs... his suggestion is that everything except LGs are unavailable unless you're in a war.

My suggestion is trying to change how wars work. Could be fun.

His suggestion is just giving major alliances another advantage, protecting them from suiciders. Boring.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I have proposed this before but it may not have been on the public forums I forget. Anyways, I think this is a great idea. Less radical is to nerf GS/BR to 1/4 (or w/ever constant) effectiveness...

The idea of clans going to war in order to achieve higher end ANW is a fun one imo...

I would think that any war would end up killing NW based on military losses required to continue it, even if the gains are in land. Land grabs require more military than BR/GS; wouldn't that lead to higher NW losses in the long run?

Maybe gwagers... it's hard to know.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

hey foog

I'm not sure an answer from the guy with no clue is going to help me at all, but thanks! lol