Georgi Stomana
-
Posts
258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Georgi Stomana
-
-
Loosing 300-400 infrastructure in a single attack without being able to do anything to defend against it (except the Iron Dome but that's passive and only a small chance) is lame and not fun. If Missiles are going to stay this overpowered, then their should be more options to intercept them.
What about an "anti-missile missile" which costs around the same price as a Missile, but it can intercept and destroy a Missile before it hits your nation. I'm sure many nations would prefer to not get hit, rather than just getting involved for tit-for-tat missile attacks.
My problem is that with ground battles, air battles and naval battles playing defensive is a viable strategy, with missiles their is not defense except just getting missiles yourself and making revenge attacks.
If a player values their infrastructure/improvements more than the ability to do the same damage to an enemy, they should be allowed to play defensive against missiles.
-
Do you know how much a missile cost , not to mention the cost of a missile launch pad. If it doesnt inflict huge damage . Then why waste money and resources having them?
Then reduce both the cost and damage of Missiles, so their more like missiles and less like a freaking meteor strike.
-
For the purpose of the game, "fortifications" would mean concrete/steel bunkers, concrete walls, tank traps, barbed wire, trenches, dug-outs, minefields (?), and everything a player can build at their border to protect against invasion. Border Fortifications would give a substantial bonus to the defender in a battle depending on how "completely" the border is fortified. For example 1% Fortification would cost 1 Steel and a certain amount of cash (just an example), and you can go all the way to 100% which means your border is completely fortified, and would give a huge benefit to the defender. Fortifications would scale upwards in cost depending on how large your target land area is.
Fortifications could be destroyed in ground attacks and airstrikes (I imagine they would be particularly vulnerable to airstrikes).
-
1
-
-
Try absinthe with warm water and sugar
-
I like the idea of giving incentive to winning. Made a suggestion a while back about you effectively tax their land by a percentage that decreases 1/5 each day after the war.
Like occupying their territory? That actually sounds cool.
-
but then you can message them IG and be like "omfg bro i go to .... university too!! where you at let's go get lunch at <popular dining facility>" and this could end up being your BFF or FWB or whatever, y'know? fun times.
Or you could find out that there's someone living under your house and using your wi-fi internet.
-
After looking at some of the battle reports from the recent war.... well maybe I'm missing something but Missiles seem ridiculously overpowered, I saw them taking out 300-to-400 infrastructure, that is ridiculous, no [non-nuclear] missile in existence could take out 40,000 people in one shot unless it was fired precisely at the most densely populated area in the world, well unless they were packed with nerve gas or something.
Sheepy are you sure you didn't mix Missiles up with nukes?
-
This war is a really sad state of affairs, I really hope PW is not going in the same direction as (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), ie might equals right, alliance blocs controlling everything. Well, at least there's no NPO here.
-
Soldiers with rifles will damage a city far less than an airstrike or naval bombardment any day of the week. That is why the cost of aircraft/ships are so high to get into and maintain.
You would assume soldiers have weapons outside just small arms like explosives, mortars, rocket-launchers and grenades. If they only had rifles they they would be defenseless against tanks.
-
So who shot the Archduke?
-
Theme music:
-
seems like something a socialist would do, yeah?
No, a socialist would get back to work.
"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us."
-
I'm probably the one outside of the GPA who loves you guys the most, but holy hell does this post make me want to roll you.
plz no
-
How about all you guys put down your guns, shake hands, hug, and come on over to the GPA forums and have a good sit-down to peacefully and civilly discuss the problems you're having.
-
What is the source of OP's gif?
-
Just because an alliance is socialist doesn't mean that they automatically must be neutrals, I can't seem to figure where you came up with that idea. I find it kind of amusing that a neutral who doesn't even understand war that well is accusing all of us of being warmongering menaces. If we were, you would've been rolled already.
Well, you're all at war with each other right now aren't you? I can't be that far off the mark.
-
-
I'm sorry? I didn't accuse you of anything.
-
They would defend themselves.... soldiers etc automatically engage in battle when attacked. I guess he means they won't counter-attack.
I for one think this alliance is absolutely great and a tribute to Orbis, so many are obsessed with war - even those who claim to be socialists
-
I was wondering if I was going to hear something along these lines. This makes me think that having a Rainbow Council or Color Senate with some powers over restricting trade based on color might actually provide some utility and add to the game.
But isn't that how embargoes generally work, they only have effect if the nation in question already has a strong trade relationship with the nation enforcing the embargo. How I see if, embargoing an alliance or nation is so you don't mistakenly buy or sell stuff to them over the market, so you don't help them, rather than actually trying to do them harm.
To be honest the idea that the biggest nations in the game or each color can prevent someone from trading on a certain color or even worse trading full stop, it seems like it gives too much power to alliances - you'd basically have a big alliance on each color with their top tier nations as Senators with total control over who trades and who doesn't, smashing down embargoes on whoever they deem.
It would be better kept at a national level.
-
I don't raid. But regardless, alliances should protect their own members. That's why they exist.
I mean, neutrality is one thing, but this is just pathetic.
They're a pacifist alliance, didn't you know?
-
Any chance of throwing us commies a bone and including some of the (historical) flags of socialist states:
-
Don't worry, I worked out something with the nation in question, sorry for the bother guys.
-
Yeah, unless this starts happening regularly I'm going to chalk it up as an old trade you had.
I have never wanted to buy 76 munitions. I never made this order. This is a bug.
Recognition of Hostilities
in Alliance Affairs
Posted · Edited by Georgi Stomana
Even if Rose and their allies had a valid CB, it doesn't really matter now, as TC have obviously paid the price. The best thing to do right now is for both sides to come to peace, a fair peace, otherwise this war will just create bitterness and hate from certain players which will hang around for a long time, poisoning the community and just create more war in the future.