| Monday, April 12, 2004 - 06:11 pm |
Ya well it didnt look that hard to give it back, it was completely ruined anyway
Also the defenses were pointless in GR because of the bug with the nuke subs. I just think that transfers and weapons limit per attack should be lifted so we could actually attack 100k interceptors with 150k navy fighter planes to crush them.
| Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 07:12 am |
Yeah, now the defensive aspect has gone too much the other way. Still, I did like my subs.........
| Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 08:20 pm |
Is then removing the attack limits a simple way of trying to counterbalance?
| Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 06:03 am |
| Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 12:14 pm |
Defending a country is easy you just have to know how to defend. With the current defence rules if you dont defend properly or have enough defence your country will be damaged i dont see whats wrong with that. Removing the weapons limits probably wont help much but atleast there would be a chance of over powering an enemy. The biggest problems are nuke subs so if you keep them limited to 100 and the nuke batts and strat bombers limited to 100 then the defence of a country will be very easy
| Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 02:11 am |
You're completely wrong SSVV. The limit of 100 strat weapons per attack doesnt change anything. Wars aren't supposed to be won with these weapons anyway. Usually the big fights are with offensive weapons trying to take down the Defenses. For example Navy fighters vs Interceptors or AAMB vs DH. Thats why limits to these offensive weapons makes big wars impossible, and also defense very easy. Now, you dont need more than 100 nuke subs to finish a country after the defenses are destroyed. The game would be stupid if it was all about buying 10000 strat bombers and bypassing the defenses. Defenses are there to be attacked, and now we need to be able to attack them efficiently, which requires game changes.
Just my opinion, but its also the truth. Useless to say it since my opinion is always the truth.
| Monday, April 19, 2004 - 06:32 am |
Me completely wrong......that would be the first time ever ive been wrong so im guessing im right this time aswell. I would like to overpower an enemy by force but i also like how strat bombers and nuke subs force people to defend their countries with the def batts and also gives us all power of negotiation. Smaller countries can damage large empires i dont see whats so bad about that
| Monday, April 19, 2004 - 07:05 pm |
The first time you're wrong? No, thats me that is never wrong. But its ok, a lot of people make that mistake too, I forgive you. If you reduce war to the strat weapons vs batteries, all the offensive weapons are pointless and the defense airplanes too. Small countries Should NOT be able to conquer large empires only with strat weapons, if you think that, you surely dont remember ( or were not there at all ) when the nuke subs only could conquer everything. It was the worst for war. Defense batteries must remain strong enough to force the enemy to destroy defenses first, and then use strat weapons on the country. The problem is that the current war system makes defense too strong, way too strong. Dont bother arguing, everyone whose opinion has value knows Im right :p
| Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:30 am |
I dont want the war reduced to just Strat weapons only, i want several attacking options if the airforce can be cleared great, if they have no mibs at their cities i think they should lose that city, all i ever wanted was to have to protect your country and have more then 1 attacking option. The world knows and nuke subs and strat bombers so its upto them to defend against it. But yes i agree with you hr remover the weapon restrictions.