Defend City Option

[Thepenguin]

I Just had a thought this morning, How about having an option to 'Defend' a city? The system would work as follows: Me and Joe-Blow 45 have an alliance together, and he owns Vilnius, Lithuania. I decide as part of this that I want to help him defend the city, so i send an army out to the city from my home base. Once the army arrives, I would have the option to click Attack, or Defend. The Defend option would keep my army outside of the City and inorder for others to attack the city they would have to defeat the army. The drawback to the army that is set to the now nonexistant 'defend' option is that they dont receve any bonouses beacuse of their posistion, No points for capturing the city, and not getting the ability to add troops to the armies (they are OUTSIDE the city).

I hope this idea intrests you.

[rasqual]

This is a SUPERB idea, consider this post my "second" on the notion. I mean, really. This gives visible "board power" to alliances, rather than making them mere back-room invisible things you merely suspect.

However, I'd suggest offering two options in a defense action:

1. Bear the brunt
2. Share the loss

The first option would mean the defending city's armies never even see the enemy -- unless the allies defending armies are lost.

The second option would distribute casualties evenly between the ally and the occupier. The armies are fighting side-by-side, so to speak. The shared losses should be proportionate, not numerical (i.e., if there are 500 losses to be lost, an ally with an army of 800 would lose 400 if the army inside the city in battle had 200, and would lose 100). In close cases, I'd suppose the defender should lose the second-to-last troop.

Also, I'd suggest that defending allies be given a different extrusion/icon -- not a tent. Hey, how about a shield?

[War_Peace]

Things are getting out of control!...

[Thepenguin]

For an icon i was thinking somthing like a ring, to symbolize that the army has established a permiter around the city.

I like your idea about bearing the brunt/sharing the loss, but I think that option should be left up to the occuping force and not the person defending (leave the defualt set to Bear the brunt), it adds a bit of balence to the equation.

i was also thinking about the effect of nukes on the Perimiter Defenders, should they be affected by nukes? I myself think not as they are out of city limits, mabye have some fallout effect the troups? also, if the city is lost by a nuke how about automatically turning the Defending force back into one of the tent things, then giving the option when the city is re-occupied?

[Cato]

This defending cities is a great idea, but you should obviously not be able to "defend" a recently nuked (hence radioactive) city. This would allow you save the city for yourself.

Also, maybe multiple players should simultaneously be able to defend a city, though that might get a little out of control.

[druidiine]

sry, thepinguin are you talking hypothetically about vilnius? beacuse i cant see it as a city on my map, do i need a newer version of gow?
thnx

[Thepenguin]

Originally Posted by druidiine

sry, thepinguin are you talking hypothetically about vilnius? beacuse i cant see it as a city on my map, do i need a newer version of gow?
thnx

its a hypo. for an example cuz i dont want to use others names and cities that i dont have =)

[Thepenguin]

Originally Posted by Cato

This defending cities is a great idea, but you should obviously not be able to "defend" a recently nuked (hence radioactive) city. This would allow you save the city for yourself.

as i stated (although not clearly) above, if a city gets nuked i think that the defenders around the city should turn back into a tent, and camp outside the city, they are there, but nothings there to defend, it would just be like having a army citing outside of a city anyway. although mabye some fallout should effect them a bit, like treat it like an army of 25% attacked the army.

Originally Posted by Cato

Also, maybe multiple players should simultaneously be able to defend a city, though that might get a little out of control.

i thought about that a bit ago, and i dont think that that should become available, if they have an allience with more than one person, let them defend another city.

[rasqual]

Originally Posted by Thepenguin

For an icon i was thinking somthing like a ring, to symbolize that the army has established a permiter around the city.

Yeah, that's good too. But it'd be worth seeing the individual armies still, somehow, and differentiating 'em from other armies present that might not be defenders. A single ring could be clickable and tell you more, I suppose, but . . .

We'll defer to Mickey but heartily commend your idea to his wee-hour coding marathons! :-)

I like your idea about bearing the brunt/sharing the loss, but I think that option should be left up to the occuping force and not the person defending (leave the defualt set to Bear the brunt), it adds a bit of balence to the equation.

Left up to the occupying force? Hmm. I dunno. Usually, when allies defend someone else, they (the allies) set the terms (such as U.S. refusal to let U.S. soldiers wear blue helmets -- be under U.N. command). Only vassal states would cede that kind of control, IMO. Which implies a particular politics on my part about the U.N. and nations that wear blue helmets, but anyway . . . ;-)

i was also thinking about the effect of nukes on the Perimiter Defenders, should they be affected by nukes? I myself think not as they are out of city limits, mabye have some fallout effect the troups? also, if the city is lost by a nuke how about automatically turning the Defending force back into one of the tent things, then giving the option when the city is re-occupied?

Yes, I like that a lot, just as you said it. Darned good thinking on this.

I'm also tending toward the notion that multiple defenders should not be allowed. I'm certainly open to persuasion otherwise, though.

I also suggest that defense of cities be one instance of a special case of alliance actions which would also include field operations -- i.e. and e.g., battles in the open. If someone intercepts armies enroute to somewhere and attacks them (a feature not yet in production), it should be possible to send someone to their aid. This wouldn't be defense of an objective, but cobelligerence against an opposing force. In THIS instance, I'd suggest the possibility of all-out, everyone involved lunacy. No nukes, though. ;-) Well . . .

I think the next step is really for battles to TAKE TIME. None of the rally cool possibilities -- coming to someone's rescue, and so forth -- are possible unless that happens. It takes time to get to places -- that's good. But although some battles are fast and decisive (witness the first gulf war for Kuwait), others aren't.

Heck, that could become a parameter too, someday. What MAKES a war fast, and decisive? Planning, intelligence, superior power (certainly including air power), and so forth. Maybe if we could begin differentiating forces -- an air force complement would cost you a LOT, but would make battles more decisive (more quickly won, with fewer casualties to infantry on the side that has the air force at their disposal). Battles between mere infantry units could go on for days. And so forth.