| Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 07:12 pm |
I'm not useing wrong tactics clear hat, so shut up. all I said was SBs are easily stopped by defences, just like all other nuclear weapons. if I remove the defence first, which would be the wise thing to do, SBs would be economicly unwise to use since missile cruisers would do the job much cheaper.
this simple fact negates SBs as being a logical weapon to have in your arsenal, therefor, unrealistic.
if the SB and other nuclear weapons had more power and could overpower the defence cheaper, then they would be a logical weapon in the arsenal. when WW3 breaks out, I doubt nations will send hardware and personnel into enemy territory b4 launching thier ICBMS, or even strategic bombers.
I find that SBs are an effective way to bypass heavy SRMB concentrations that my MCs cant overpower or remove. useing NF in a pinch is difficult due to shortages of ammo and MIBs are just to strong against subs.
in the case of the war that triggered this post, my NF country lapsed it's war (I didn't look to see if NF would be needed in the corp destruction, something I usually do but this time didn't) and I couldn't use the NF to eliminate the defence.
I figured: that's ok, I have a diverse army. I can use other weapons in my arsenal to win the war. hey, I have 1k SBs in another country I can use those. wrong.
oh, I still have 4-5k MCs to use. I can finish him off with those. in my past testing with MCs, they pretty much lost the same numbers wether you attack the target or missiles, it didn't matter cuz they were about the same. against 500 SRMBs (attacking target) you will lose about ~250 MCs. attacking missiles you will lose about 200 MCs. that's not a big differance.
I would expect the game to be alittle bit more flexable. not just a simple formate of these weapons attacking like this equal victory. I want to believe that if you have a diverse arsenal, you should be able to be capable of victory even if the worst possible thing occures. the ability to use all weapons tactfully by a player should be the over-ruling factor in wars. errors should result in higher casualties and financial cost, but not nessissarily defeat.
now my error in planning has cost me the war, but the only weapon removed from the field were navy fighters. since the enemy airforce was completely removed, one would figure that losing air superiority wouldn't result in defeat.
your suggestion is to reward proper execution of a combination of attacks resulting in successful battles, with monetary or weapondary gifts.
I would believe that wageing a successful war with minimal casulties would be a more realistic reward. giving artifical kick-backs for performing "the correct attack" would, indeed, give incentive for players to attack but in all the ways Jossi and w3c are against. even if implemented, the feature would give those with knowledge the ability to rape the ignorant and abuse the feature.
I'm all for warmongering encouragement, but not in this fasion. I hope you understand what I'm saying.
I'm very much aware of the 50m pop limit. to gain more population you have to expand. I totally agree, but with the current game rules attacking a c3 is cheaper, less risky, extremely predictable, and with the cash market easily supplied with all the population you need. why attack another player, who has more defence (unless a total noob), and is more unpredictable?
everybody that plays with the war engine wants to attack other players and put thier skills to the test. however, there is no insentive to do so. and to even bo capable of attacking distant players (due to the size of the worlds and limits on range) you need very expencive and manpower heavy navies. just getting to this stage in empire building is currently a "war god" status when compaired to the rest of the community. over 75% of the players in SC don't have a single clue about the war engine, let alone how to build an empire.
[btw, I have no idea how effective MIBs are against MCs. in the case of the war I fought the MIB count per corp was 250ish] I also don't use NAH because I've never saw the logic in having another weapon to maintain in my arsenal that does the same thing that NFs do.