Something I've mentioned before but never put down here. It seems to me that ABs and BRs and CMs and Bomb Structures op should not affect Construction Sites. Keeping my feelings about bomb structures aside (I continue to believe things that dont help netting and have no efficacy in war tend to support griefing which assists in community toxicity blah blah blah. Another discussion for another time), it seems just like a glaringly obvious necessary change. It turns the AB from ruining your set to resetting your last turn or 3. It destroys the efficacy of oop war which is garbage anyways. Fixes so many things that result in unenjoyable months long experiences for certain players every set.

I can think of about 2 dozen reasons why these three things shouldn't take out construction sites and about 0 why they do. I'm sure it's probably a hard coding change but it's imo just as necessary as clan GDI or anything else. Just fix the ability to ruin a whole set in 10 seconds for a single player and do it rather easily.

I dunno about taking out 0. As i recall they reduced CS destruction from BRs to make ABs distinctly different in what they do at some point.

Theres a problem with ABs most notably but probably also BRs since changeset 18 and forward tho; they limited the returns based on the buildings you have to some degree, but that is the total returns, but the CS destroyed remained unchanged.

There used to be this thing where if one AB/BR took out maybe 2% your buildings, it took out slightly fewer of your CS. But when you get limited total buildings destroyed you can land on something like I had last set which was like 0.5% of my buildings were destroyed but about 3% of my CS in every AB... Which basically makes it useless for war but still very powerful against netters. The whole point of the post 17-changeset limitations was to make suiciders weaker but it backfired and hurt maiming in war more.

The problem is that no one makes clan GDI happen. If it did happen and it was potent you could develop war ops, special attacks, missiles freely to make war great, instead of always making bad compromises.

I lost 95% of my buildings last set, but only 35% of my cs. That was from brs and chems.

yeah we BR killed some dude this set, who had 180 cs, he lost like 5 CS to 200 BRs.

I guess it makes sense that ABs and BRs vary in potency against CS. But its silly that the changeset 18-20 limitations to attack returns only affect the total buildings and not the CS losses. In changeset 18 if you ABed off-strat you would actually only destroy CS. So basically the fix was supposed to make suiciding less potent but it made it so that ABs was nearly impossible to use in war but still potent for suiciding with. :P

The landgrab limiting fix did what it should tho.

Bomb structure takes out more CS in my experience in warring on solo servers, not sure if it's same in alliance.

I completely disagree that we need to think about it like why should it not kill any CS. I think we should just try to think about why not have CS be a fixed building you cant lose by any other method than SS.

I dont think it's a bad thing....even for war....to have that building be safe. Because again, the kind of war that destroying a CS matters in, is not a community sustaining war type.

This again comes from my theory that Clan GDI from a war players perspective only serves to isolate griefers and suiciders against war clans, thereby making war worse and not sustainable, rather than making war good and netting better.

It just baffles me that the changes don't look at fixing both.

Losing a higher % of cs than total buildings seems wrong for sure. Really, losing anywhere near the same % doesn't seem right regardless of the attack/op.

You'd be hard pressed to find a large multi-set griefing campaign against a war tag any server. Because it's very hard work to do actual damage. KungFU vs Elders on team for instance was 24/7 walling from me and if I didn't you would have killed me and moved on to do your thing every set without being really bothered by a few countries losing 150-300 turns each.

It's ineffective and hard work so it basically never happens. It is a theoretical problem that will most likely never become an actual one.