Clarke Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 (edited) Nations being attacked by 3 nations should be able to build 2 missiles per a day... it only makes sense that production of missiles would increase under that circumstances as they nation is fighting to survive. Edited December 14, 2014 by Diabolos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthfox2 Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I disagree with this. 1 Quote Need to boost your income? New country without enough funds to really get started? Come and buy or sell stock with us! http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3840-general-stock-market/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAI-40 Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 That doesn't actually make any sense. 1 Quote "They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers. But what's the real cost? ‘Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper. Why are we still paying so much for sneakers when you got them made by little slave kids? What are your overheads?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 (edited) No logic at all, why should a nation under attacked by 3 nations be given preferential treatment . Why should they be allowed to build two missiles whereas nation at peace is only able to build one at a time? Sheepy, please NO dont implement this, is not fair to the rest . Edited December 14, 2014 by Vincent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Yeah against this, it just rewards a lack of preparation 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I would support this at a form of resistance of a weak against the strong....but the problem is, how do you grant the one who called "weak" when opposed by 3 nations or one who already prepare it long enough to launch those destructive weapons in order to subdues their so-called enemy? War never is a fair-issue. but how do you define weak in the sense he could have such preveilage to retaliate the over-whelming power? you see, it is difficult to work it out if Kangaroo Ocean can be also defined as "weak" when facing top 2 to 4 to against him at the same time, and having weapons....so? my decision is abstain...bcos there is no substain definition of "weak" for retaliation. BUT, you can have 3 weaker nations to beat one stronger nations...and suffer much devastation cause than 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 No, doesn't make sense, why should being at a disadvantage suddenly give you an advantage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted December 14, 2014 Author Share Posted December 14, 2014 This should be implemented soon to add balance as the game is unbalanced atm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthfox2 Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 only cuz you didnt prepare XD thats your own dang fault. why would you keep missles and pay for there upkeep if you could just build a bunch and fire them every day? Quote Need to boost your income? New country without enough funds to really get started? Come and buy or sell stock with us! http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3840-general-stock-market/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 This should be implemented soon to add balance as the game is unbalanced atm. Would you really be thinking/saying this if your situation was reversed and you were on the 3 side against 1? I think not......quit your !@#$in' and prepare better next time. Another suggestion.......cry yourself a river......then build a bridge a GET OVER IT! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 THats your own fault for not preparing before you were attacked. Would you be saying this if it was the other way around? No you wouldn't. Why put the disadvantaged at an advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Seems like no one like this suggestion.except yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 This is another self-centered, poor idea. You don't gain production just because people are at war with you. Stop suggesting stuff only because you are losing your wars. This game is called POLITICS and war. Learn the politics side better and you won't be so frustrated by the war side. Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.