some time ago I suggested a unit (belonging to the "recon" category) specialized in a single task: if deployed in a base, it warned you (eg: 1 min before) with a report of the imminent arrival of an attack in the base where it had been allocated.
but this idea has been rejected by the developers.
in essence it would be the defensive version of the recon.
in fact, currently, the attacker has the possibility to recon the Defensive Army deployed by his opponent, but on the contrary, who defends has no way of knowing in advance what the offensive army will be that he is trying to stop !!
IMHO, this is a huge imbalance between defensive and offensive player.
For defensive players it is always a leap in the dark to decide to deploy their army in defense of a base (or Repo or Depo, etc.), vice versa, offensive players can always make a check before attacking (in order to know in advance what they are going up against!).
This is one of the main reasons why I prefer attack on defense.
defending is a gamble (you risk of losing everything), attacking it is not: it is strategy and you can control the situation.
In a sense you're right, but you don't decide to get attacked or not. And in this case you must choose to defend yourself or let the enemy win. By making an estimate of the power according to several criteria you can often predict the overwhelming force or not. The defender is not obliged to release his defense several hours before the attack, that's why a reco report will never be 100% reliable.
There is the "decoy army" item for your base that allows you to display twice as many units on the enemy recon.
I personally think that there is so much risk for both strategies, attacking stronger than oneself, or wanting to resist someone more powerful.
If you are unable to organize your attack so that it is safe, this is your problem.
Fortunately, the game allows you to do this and using the tools provided by the game, I am able to organize my attacks efficiently and safely (it will never happen to me that I will crash on a Defensive army bigger than my Offensive army... unless the game or my internet connection suddenly stuck) ...
Only the stupids are so incapable as to self-destruct in this way with their own hands.
On the contrary, the same level of management, organization and control of the situation can not be obtained if you want to be on the side of the defense.
if you deploy a Defensive army into a base (base, depot, repo, etc.) you are at the mercy of others.... you have no control of the situation and you don't know what is happening out there, who is attacking you, when, etc.
you just have to wait and hope that everything is fine ...
suddenly a report arrives and tells you if you have won or lost.
and of course, if the one who attacked you is not stupid, then you've lost ... since it was he who chose to attack you, so he will have made his assessments before attacking you and he will have studied the situation, studied the identity of the player he is attacking, his level, his habits, etc.
in short: it is the predator who chooses his own prey, not the other way around.
Not to mention the points! ...
The attacker loses very few units, and he is able to get a lot of points only by eliminating units belonging to his opponent.
vice versa, the defender (as I have complained about several times) gets the points mainly from his losses and only a few points from the units he destroys to the player who attacked him.
therefore a defensive player gets points when he loses his units!
many few points if he eliminates all of his opponent's offensive units without taking damage!
this turns out to be a vicious circle that never lets you get a positive result!
since to get points (and rewards and new units) your units must die, so you will always be in negative balance.
ahahahaah ... this is ridiculous!
There is absolutely no comparison between defense and attack.
it's 100 times better to be a player who attacks!
Why should I choose the way of the defender? ... there is no advantage in it (apart from being able to group more defensive armies into a single base, but this is not feasible at any location and also requires a very long preventive organization that involves many players at the same time. .. the attacking player will hardly allow you to organize all this).
How can you say that there is the same risk?
Who says this or is in bad faith, or is not able to play this game (he attacks haphazardly only relying on the hope of being the stronger of the two, and he is unable to evaluate the situations on which he comes across, and unable to take security measures for his attack and unable to use / combine effectively the tools that the game puts at his disposal, which would allow him to make his attack "free from risk").