stetonic
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by stetonic
-
-
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
-
You son of a motherless goat! You told me you got rid of all of those!
Oh hey, I remember that from Beta...
Calm down there, Chief. Don't need to rush you to the VA because of an aneurysm.
That's because of what you did in Shanghai.
Let me tell you a little story about a war that happened long ago. The Mexicans didn't like too much that Texians wanted to be independent, you see. So General Santa Anna and a force of nearly 6,000 soldiers and marched into Texas. At the Alamo, about 1,800 Mexicans attacked in the cover of darkness, while most were sleeping. The defending force was just around 250. The battle lasted 13 days. The general consensus is that Santa Anna lost around 600 troops. One of his officers led an attack at Goliad with 1,500 against 500; this battle lasted 8 days. Mexicans lost roughly 350, while 472 Texans died. 28 were captured but managed to escape. Many of those who died in both of these battles weren't just killed; they were executed upon surrendering. 342 Prisoners of War were executed. When word of this got to Houston's Militia, it rallied up volunteers like no other. Now Houston's actions made people think he was a coward, because he spent a lot of time retreating, but he was a careful tactician. One month later, the day that Santa Anna got an additional 500 men (so he's roughly at 1,400), Houston led the attack in broad daylight. With only 900 men, they charged through the fields shouting "Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!" and it was a slaughter. In just 20 minutes, the Texians killed over 600, wounded about 200, and captured the rest. They only lost nine troops. Virtually every Commander at Fort Alamo, Goliad, and the ones under Houston all have cities, counties, streets, etc named after them. Hell, at my University most of the old dorms are named after battles or commanders.
So next time you want to cry about people attacking in the dead of the night, just regroup your people and return the slaughter in broad daylight. TEst does it and screams BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, but you'll need your own slogan. Also, I'm still waiting for a dormitory named Saeton Hall.
>"your a troll"
>"lier"
>"at least I can spell"
Would you like to redact that last sentence?
I was on the moon way before that, and I'm probably older "then" you. I've done moon stuff, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), TW, and a bunch of random crap I can't remember. The only game I have ever played that involved declaring war and giving the enemy time to build defense is Clash of Clans, which is a giant joke anyway.
/me holsters sidearm
/me apologizes
/me says you're free to go and to have a nice day
You're a daisy if you do.
Mine does too
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
-
I saw in another post that they send a nation to beige with 1 hit
-
When nations start getting nukes will it start a cold war with no one willing to push the button or will it send 1 nation crazy and end the world
-
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
-
Remove the limits all together during war and just who ever has the most resources to replenish there army wins
-
Yeah i moved to brazil.Makes sense now. Should of stayed in the uk and not confused myself
-
The seasons and the game date dont tie up.The game date is june which is summer and the season is winter
-
ok. No problem.thanks
-
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
-
Looking at recent missile stats it does look like Sheepy may have reduced missile damage slightly in the last day or so. But obviously he'll have to confirm that.
I like the idea though. I do think Sheepy should put in what he said a bit ago about not being able to launch a missile if your opponent has ground superiority, air superiority AND a blockade.
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.
-
great update thanks sheepy
-
happy days
-
hi does anyone know if there is a limit to how many cities you can build and if there is a max infrastructure level for each city
-
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
-
the extra cash would come in very handy
-
hi i am stetonic just sayin hi and hope to get to meet some of you ingame so we can trade and stuff
-
1
-
-
nation name tonicland
nation link http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5595
The games war mechanics
in Game Suggestions
Posted
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