SoL does not think the mods are anti-SoL

we think they are anti-dagga

while all dagga is SoL
not all SoL is dagga


We just think the game mechanics are anti-war, thus being anti SoL/SoF by nature

The forum moderators are what they are

I agree.

Change #1 make lemming hits more painful than successful hits!

more painful for whom?

i think he means more painful for the attacker and less effective overall. which i don't exactly agree with.

it would make getting the FS even that much stronger if it was more difficult than it already is to come back in a war.

In an even number war it would be almost impossible for the losing side to come back via lemmings anyway. In a war where the smaller alliance has pulled ahead and a much bigger one is using their numbers to nerf the smaller one it leads to a scenerio where numbers always > skill.

I think you should lose 6% per DH. This would also make stonewalling more fun as making the enemy DH would be a much bigger deal. It would also make suceeding with the initial breaks much more crucial.

I also think something needs to be done about military loss. At the moment if you break the target, you usally lose more than your enemy and sometime your enemy loses very little. While all DH's are constant (there is no random factor and fluctation) meaning that failing could be a better way of breaking than actually suceeding.

Hell this could go on b+s

I am anti-sol....

Interesting ideas; I'm not sure the even-number higher side should always pull away though, because that *really* leads to over-valuation of the FS, and forgone conclusions early in the war. Many of our recent pro-war changes have been designed to prolong wars, so that warmongers get to actually war for longer

not really in oop wars unless warrers have ~same amount of members, if attacker has enuf advantage war could be basically over after 2 weeks.