Aizu Cassion

Looking at this im reminded of suggestions from the early incarnation of P&W. The system used to be that of real time. One would get resources and money in real time and wars would devistate nations that were inactive for an hour. changing the MAPs generation would favor raiders more than defenders as they would be able to blitz down a target much faster as well if defensive slots were expanded it would mean nations would get ground into dust that much faster. Nations already attack other nations around the world its just separated by score. If what your suggesting is you can attack ANY nation that would kill this game. We scrapped realism in the face of war fought around the world for one simple reason it did not make sense for what was being suggested at that time. I have access to archives that would be otherwise lost detailing many of the same ideas that your talking about now. Alot of them were shutdown for the simple purpose of they did not make sense for the scope of the game. Now onto some of your ideas. 1) Biological weapons are an interesting thought. They would have to do less infra damage but it would increase the disease rate to 90% in the city they hit. Effectively shutting down that city until it reduces down to whatever that city was at over time. (at least what i would want them to do)2) Uncapping cities... As what Quichwe10 said thats a bad idea as it would mean bigger nations would be able to become untouchable due to the fact that they can now get as many cities as they want to. 3) Uncapping MAPs. Terrible idea it would mean one could stock them up in wartime and then unleash unholy hell on a nation. I would not want to see multiple nukes or missiles get launched at once that would be terrifying not to mention your cities would be bombed/nuked into the stone age.

Ah so similar to a suggestion i already posted on another post.

Hrm. I do like that tanks would be a more viable option when it comes to dealing with planes but. What would the new numbers be pertaining to airstrikes against tanks? As it stands An airstrike with 1440 planes against 20,000 tanks the planes would be able to take out more tanks than the tanks would be able to take out planes. This is also assuming said ground attack gets a IT at all. With the current simulation an airstrike with 1440 planes would take out 3672 tanks from the 20k mentioned. so to compare. 1 IT with planes can take out more tanks overall than 1 IT ground attack with the proposed system. and 3 IT's in a day from planes would decimate more of the tanks than what the tanks could do to the planes.

And what would that accomplish? Less losses?

Ground control... yeah but it only reduces the effectiveness unless the other nation has the planes to actually follow up the ground control its effectively useless.

I'd say for simplification be able to build 1 AA for every 5000 troops and each AA would have a compounding effect to hit a plane. 10% base with a compounding 1.5% per additional AA and with the project described above have the base go up to 25% Even planes should have a chance to get shot down by ground forces and navy. Boats should have a 25% chance to hit as they have inbuilt radar and anti air capabilities. It would not get rid of the capability of planes but it would make them less OP.

Hello all, its me Nyx back after 6 years gone. I shall now be known as Aizu Cassion, Aizu for short. Its nice to see this game has grown considerably though the economy is as broken as i saw it when it was even jankier. Also Hi Sheepy

Ah Sheepy yer still at it making this game oh so much better

Not sure if facepalm or taking a mask off 5/10