| Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 12:58 pm |
if a well developed 40M pop country with a proper defense and offensive capabilties carn't deal with a few 10m pop countries built mostly around offense.
even though those limits are not what they have planned. your working of pop where they are sugesting it being worked off defensive index (incompasing total army strength). there for offensive would be takin into account and the large amounts of offensive weapons your talking about would up the amount the 40M can attack with far past 10K. i don't really like the idea of a country being able to attack me with lets say 60K - 100K weapons where i could only attack him with lets say 20 - 30. but other then that i see no other major flaw with the propsal and think its a good idea. of course if the limits were completely lifted then that would make things alot easyer for all involved but considering thats not on the tables i think jozi's proposal is the next best thing.
Perhaps they could make a uniform attack limit for all countries involved, like perhaps made on a average of the war limits for each player involved or maybe allowing the defender to attack the aggressor with equal amounts of weapons as the aggressor is able to if the limit for the defender is lower then that of the agressor to begin with.
agressors limit is 30,000
and the defenders limit is 20,000
the defender because he has smaller limits would have a limit of 30,000.
of course this would only work if you assume every country declaring is the aggressor which is not allways the case.
i don't see any reason why an aggressor shouldn't be able to feel the full force of the defenders country. i see no reason why the defender has to loss as many or more men and assets where it could be done in less time and with less loss's.
there is my 2 cents anyway.