It would just take away the fact that i can send just enough soldiers to get a moderate win. Which kills his soldiers and i still get loot while prolonging the war.If there was a chance my tactic of sending for a moderate victory could fail it would at least give the battle some degree of gamble
To add a percentage no matter how small of a smaller force defeating a larger one would make the attacking nation change there attack tactic in the manner of sending more or less troop or adding tanks or choosing to use munitions or not .As it is at the moment you can just outnumber your enemy 2-1 and still know you will win
The game has limitations on tactics during a war due to the fact you can only train a soldier or tank and not a soldier trained in a certain field of combat.So if the game took into account things like defending soldiers of a nation would be dug into defensive positions or would use certain tactics to take out tanks or a smaller military winning a battle against the odds which has happened throughout history.This would not effect the outcome that much due to 1 battle not winning a war but it would add an aspect of reality into a war
Your story of the alamo and armies winning battles with less men should cross over into the game and instead of the game giving the nation with the largest army a victory everytime maybe once in awhile the out numbered win.Many armies have done it many times throughout history
This idea is a lot fairer than taking away someones ability to fire missiles when its the only option left for them.I mean if i am losing on all 3 fronts after 2 days i might aswell not log in for the next 3 days
At no point did i say you was complaining.I stated i was responding to your post which contained the the idea of stopping someones ability to launch missiles
Last time i checked Phiney was in Test and i was responding to the suggestion of stopping someones ability to launch missiles.By getting total control so you can just smash them without a response.If you dont want to take any damage in response to attacking someone with the missile project.then chose a different player.
If i am being attacked by 3 nations all of the same size as me and i have maxed out all military improvements and so have they.I am already outnumbered 3-1 on all fronts.As there is a limit to how many troops/tanks etc i can buy perday how am i ever going to retake control on any front after the first day of the war.The only option i have left is my missiles.If i cant use them there is no point having them in the game.If an attacking nation does not want to get hit by missiles then beige me dont sit there hitting me over and over then complain coz i hit you with a missile.Either take away the limits on buying military during a war or leave the missiles attacking system the way it is.
maybe you could expand the soldiers section to include a special forces section it would cost more to buy and operate but they could attack improvements ahead of a ground attack and your own special forces would defend the improvements thats how modern warfare is conducted in real life