| Friday, April 15, 2005 - 05:03 pm |
If this war world is to work you need to build a war system that works as both a SIMULATION of war that is also FUN.
The current system is no fun,and not simulating national conflict.
For it to be fun,it needs a choise of defence styles and attack styles,with a reasonable chance of killing of an opponant if you apply your tacics correctly.You need a sense of achivement in either your defence or attack.
Failing in your offense because you can never make a dent due to massive forts will not engender a sense of achievment.
Managing to defend by simply drawing out the inevitable will fail as well,because as was said below"who wants to play a country with no ecomomy and a collection of forts?"
For it to be a simulation,it should be impossible to defend you country with a single homogenised unit,wether its forts,interceptors,or missles.
100% attack with a single weapon should be as much a newbie tactic as 100%defence with a single unit(or building.)
In short,war should be about tactics,and strategy,not purchasing power.
Personaly,I feel that all units should be mobil like the navies.
With fed wars,the shared offence is meaningless right now,but the shared defence makes geographical strategies viable defences.
This is a good thing,and worth noting as a big step in web war gaming.
If you need to push into a heavily defended areas,your fed would need (and SHOULD need) to marshal forces.
As an extension of the fleets feature,you could offence grouped into battalions which are then posted as close to border disputes as is stratecticaly viable for defence,and used enmass tacticaly for offence.
The idea of dividing offence and defence as two seperate concepts never to be mingled is a built in flaw that will not allow flexable war tactics.
A tank is a tank is a tank,they shoot things,and 10,000 tanks standing idly by cause they only do offence is silly.The same is true of flying things with guns,and whirlly things with rockets.
I suggest you give each applicable off/def weapon two seperate ratings depending on its role in each conflict.mobil battalions,(and squadrons for airforces)would need a mix of forces to survive and remain effective offensive forces.
HTs with specialist offence and LTs as defensive specialists,but both able to work in the other role as needed but with lessened effect.this to be extended to similar'dual role weapons'such as gun boats,submarines and jeeps etc,.
The War Index itself is just formula to be tweaked occasionaly to make for a good enjoyable war game with the best possible balance(right now,not balanced as is evident from the players complaints here).
Until there is a more flexable war machine available that is able to travel the world,and while forts that never end are so effective that wars can be held in check by sheer stuborn refusal to die,it will be a monoculture world with wars not worth fighting due to the yawn factor.
ps-when are we getting our secret police forces,and KGB style attacks?