| Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 04:44 pm |
lots of interesting reading
i dont know why you rant about it as W3C is doing exactly what you all wanted them to do. they are removing attack limits step by step. calculate how many INTs would be needed if they are halved again to repell 30K of NF on FB?
before weapon changes smaller countries could defend against the strongest. they would loose the war anyway, but could inflict high losses, that could deterr many possible invaders (IF the victim KNOWS how to defend).
rising attack limits by factor 2 or halving existing units by 2 and increasing manpower and effectiveness is same thing. only problem i see is with units that already have 100% hit ratio. like AAMBs against drones. if AMMBs are halved and drones are not, it leaves a hole in defense system untill drones catch up. all i see W3C is doing wrong is as they are doing it in steps. they should do it for all weapons in game at same time- all or nothing.
there are many still usefull weapons than those you listed.
you all complain how wars cant be fought, no strategy involved, etc. bullshit! when W3C removes the limits, than the only weapons used will be those BK listed. you simply wont need anything else as all you need is sufficient number of those and the rest goes according to same plan over and over again.
defensive airpower will become rather useless. defensive batts will take its place. but there are still issues with batteries beeing destroyed with location they defend and glitches in manual deployment. i dont think you all know what you wish for...
i already see it comming...
*anti flamming shield activated and running at 100%*