Little late here, but any time Sal is involved I need to add some logic to the conversation.
I think people are just MASSIVELY psychologically over-impacted by being plundered, compared to the actual in-game cost. Sal's post was a perfect example:
Even being #1, with a huge defensive bonus, I am being attacked regularly. If I had a 0% defense, those attackers would all have been successful and many of them would have been able to plunder me if they caught me between collections.
First, I think you over-state how much defenders care about defense bonus. Lots of people are just super lazy, attack, and if it's not an easy match-up will resign. But that's a minor point.
Second, it sounds like no one even successfully plundered you, despite breaching your huge defensive bonus, and despite real live interfering.
But suppose they had? The problem here is everyone is talking in absolutes. Either 0% defense, or I can never get plundered ever.
The interesting question from a MAXIMIZATION standpoint is:
What is the OPTIMAL amount of plundering? If you can never collect, you need more defense obviously, If you're never plundered, you need less. And OP is correct in how he's approaching the problem. For him, me, MANY others, 0% is correct (well, just the cherry set defense now
.
If you're plundered once a day, run 24-hour cycles,and are devoting more than one good building equivalent of space (including pop, happiness, building size, etc.), you are in the middle ground where it's not clear. Would more defense stop the breach? Probably not? Would less mean more breaches? Idk probably not.
Anyway, dealing in absolutes is for Siths, anyone worth debating understands the question is about maximizing, which at least OP and empire are approaching correctly.
@Salsuero can you tell me how many spaces you dedicate to defense and how many goods you've lost over the last month from plundering?