| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:16 pm |
mertana, it wouldnt be bad if the population soared after a health infrastrucure was build...until the pop hita huge level and density was too large.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:25 pm |
Turin: RD units will have to be changed. if they dont and limitation is lifted then i will be forced to disband defensive army completeley as it will become useless, consuming valuable resources to no effect.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:53 pm |
I agree that they would need to be changed with limits lifted.
I think doubling the manpower would be effective. 10k RDU would then cost a mind boggling 6.4M men in an army.
perhaps even multiplying the manpower cost by 250% or 300%. at these numbers the cost of using them would be very prohibitive. If they were unbalancing when used in combos with ots of aa batts, the cost in manpower could slowly be increased. I expect that they will be tuned, but I like the concept.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:55 pm |
keep in mind , again, that the death of airpower is not the death of a countrys defense.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 04:31 pm |
Sorry to go on, but theres all sorts of issues involved with completely removing the limits.
First off is CEOS. I know everyone does it to some extent, but the use of weapons stockpiles in ceos has now gone on to a whole different level. It means people effectively dont have to support the armies they intend to use when they are at war.
So, two countries may appear to be evenly matched, but the one with CEO buddies is always going to win . He can throw a million men away, knowing contracts are on the way for instance. Stockpiling trained units the way we would stockpile any commodity also seems a bit silly.
The second issue, people just building one unit also can result in attacks that require fire more manpower to defend than attack.
Finally you really do then have two extremes, at one end "peaceful countries" and at the other, a giant weapons race. I can see now why jozi likes the sliding weapons idea..but i think its flawed for reasons stated before ;/
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 04:51 pm |
I dont think there are that many issues at all. Things werent all that bad before they didnt exist, and that was even before trasnfer limits and weapons ranges were codidfed.
Peaceful countries woudl not have to engage in war, and small nonpeacful coutnries would have 100 months (or whatever) to prepare to defend themslves, and defenses would be the same as they are now - that is, man per man and $ per $ much more effective then offensive units. How then could you possibly justify the limits?
CEO contracts are just one way or working with things, theyre a 2 edged function, working for defenses far more effectively than they work for offenses on a per corporation basis.
I know of no attack which would require more manpower to defend against then to use in attack.
You also have to keep in mind that there are a lot of tactical options open to the defender that arent open to the atacker.
On the other hand, I dont have huge problems with removing ceo stockpiles altohgether. It does indeed seem a bit silly. The main issue is that doing so will still prevent any country from using comparable weapons to an entire defnesive federation. even if a country builds a massive 9m army and tosses it intelligently against a shared defense of many countriees, theyll be toast. I think the existence and usage of CEO contracts balances out the trasnfer limits/lack of offensive federation sharing. I would really, really much rather see offensive fed weapon sharng rather than a return to the 'ghost armies' tyr loved so much.
But I dont think that anything 'big' wuld happen for a long time until after peaceful coutrnries were introduced and the bloody limits removed once and for all. During that time, the new units could be balanced and decisions regarding CEO corporations/fed offensive sharing coudl be made. Until then I think the widespread usage of ceos by all parties evens thigns out.
I thought about the sliding weapons idea, and varitions (total empire/fed defense indices), but every idea is open to all kinds of manipulation. I think the 100 month protection works just fine.
although matty is too shy to post, he just said "Elle is jus starting to name every advantage a person could have ina war, and calling it unfair."
I expect that that will force him to post to defend himself, although he might smack me a bit for saying it
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 04:52 pm |
and oh, ceo stockpiles can be countered just like anything else. Theyre just another tactic imho.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 04:59 pm |
All I'll say is that a sliding scale wouldn't necessarily favor small defenses. It could be based on population, and/or could be biased against smaller defenses. The scale does not have to be constant. It can be curved or angled...if that makes sense. If you want examples of that I'll give them.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 05:03 pm |
lol im a defensive minded player matty ;p.
im not pretending to be an advanced player like the monkeys. But im not blind either and i honestly think CEO's are responsible for unrealistic scenarios. I think people should have to support the armies, not "buy them" suddenly. And that goes for defensive units too. And of course you have to remember many players only have 1 credit. Are we saying people should have to register as a CEO too if they want to compete??.
Matt, lots of weapons exist which require larger manpower to defend successfully against surely?. Drones, jeeps, and RDU / SF to name a few. If an airforce has 10k DH...10k drones fired at target will do damage. So 100,000 fired at target will beat a 100,000 DH defence.