stetonic Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Personally not a fan of suggestions where the merit of it is based on reality, if it added a certain tactic for players to use or something I might be more in favor of it but I don't really see this adding that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 If you're outnumbering your opponent you should probably win, the game rewards preparation highly and it's something I really like about it. From what I understand there's a RNG which will either give you an attack bonus or possibly your enemy a defense bonus, I'm not entirely sure how that works to be entirely honest with you but it's something similar to that. I think what you're asking for might already be in place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 This game isnt about realism. No and considering your from DEIC I can see why you are making this suggestion lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 And seeing as you are from rose and over 50 of your members are on beige.I would think letting a losing side get a victory against the odds would be welcomed by your alliance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 For the record, politics should really be kept out of the suggestions area (god knows I've broken this more than once but hell, I've been called a hypocrite before). But really, simply because it's beneficial to someone at the time being doesn't necessarily mean they should think it's a good idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 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 I've complained about this a few times, but everyone seems to prefer the rather one sided set up. What I think is dumb about it is that it gives the attacking nation a huge advantage in war right from the start, because obviously, they're going to be the only side prepared for the initial attack. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 And seeing as you are from rose and over 50 of your members are on beige.I would think letting a losing side get a victory against the odds would be welcomed by your alliance Bieging does jack shit. If you rush to biege people then you are stupid unless you in a bad situation in the war. So over 50 member being bieged is a good thing. It shows that The Covenant is losing and is desperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Bieging does jack !@#$. If you rush to biege people then you are stupid unless you in a bad situation in the war. So over 50 member being bieged is a good thing. It shows that The Covenant is losing and is desperate. If you get all members of an alliance onto beige then they cant fight back.Which means your alliance is winning.So if Rose has that many members on beige how are the covenant losing Ok in the time you are on beige you will rebuild but so will your enemy so when you fight again you will be in the same position and you will lose again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) If you get all members of an alliance onto beige then they cant fight back.Which means your alliance is winning.So if Rose has that many members on beige how are the covenant losing Ok in the time you are on beige you will rebuild but so will your enemy so when you fight again you will be in the same position and you will lose again I am not even going to bother replying to the crap you just said. Edited December 16, 2014 by Seryozha Nikanor 1 Quote 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.