Rob Semloh Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Creation of specialized Soldier units who take up the same barrack space as regular Soldiers would help add an element of strategy and save some nations who would otherwise not have defenses against certain types of attack. Being that I'm currently in an Air Defense Artilley unit in real life, I will start with that (it's short and simple): Have an improvement that must be created, such as Patriot Missile battery (the Patriot is a defense only missile) in order to train these Soldiers. These Soldiers, while weaker against other normal infantry, would have some air defense qualities, such as 500 of these Soldiers having roughly the same anti-air quality as 1 airplane (that is a simple example, not the proposed actual strength). These Soldiers could also have the potential to be non-deployable on the offensive battlefield since they are defensive in nature (modern real life ADA doesn't usually venture too near the front lines). Field artillerymen: An improvement that must be created, such as a 155mm factory, to train these Soldiers. These Soldiers are stronger than average against tanks, and possibly ships (if you had a whole lot of them), but weaker against other infantry Soldiers. In short, artillery would give otherwise SOL military units the ability to defend themselves without necessarily developing the same exact technology in order to counter a threat, and would be interesting as it could give people being raided the defensive edge they need to overcome an enemy obstacle. Edited March 13, 2015 by Robert P. Holmes III 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 No... 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...
Rob Semloh Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 No... Great reasoning. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Creation of specialized Soldier units who take up the same barrack space as regular Soldiers would help add an element of strategy and save some nations who would otherwise not have defenses against certain types of attack. Being that I'm currently in an Air Defense Artilley unit in real life, I will start with that (it's short and simple): Have an improvement that must be created, such as Patriot Missile battery (the Patriot is a defense only missile) in order to train these Soldiers. These Soldiers, while weaker against other normal infantry, would have some air defense qualities, such as 500 of these Soldiers having roughly the same anti-air quality as 1 airplane (that is a simple example, not the proposed actual strength). These Soldiers could also have the potential to be non-deployable on the offensive battlefield since they are defensive in nature (modern real life ADA doesn't usually venture too near the front lines). Field artillerymen: An improvement that must be created, such as a 155mm factory, to train these Soldiers. These Soldiers are stronger than average against tanks, and possibly ships (if you had a whole lot of them), but weaker against other infantry Soldiers. In short, artillery would give otherwise SOL military units the ability to defend themselves without necessarily developing the same exact technology in order to counter a threat, and would be interesting as it could give people being raided the defensive edge they need to overcome an enemy obstacle. In a phrase, probably not gonna happen. I wouldn't mind having a little more diversity, but! most people are lazy and don't want to have to learn any new skills. Besides, SOLDIERS tab, includes other specialized soldiers, such as rocket launchers and other stuff, but they are weak against aircraft. little to know affect. Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Great reasoning. Because next, people are going to want IFVs and it will never end. Let's not over complicate things. 1 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...
Rob Semloh Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 Because next, people are going to want IFVs and it will never end. Let's not over complicate things. While IFV's wouldn't be a horrible idea they wouldn't hold much weight against armor. Maybe being in the military gives one added perspective, but a Soldier can do so much more than just fight other Soldiers head to head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filthy Fifths Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 We already have them. They are called missiles. 2 Quote "In an honest service there is thin commons, low wages, and hard labor; in this, plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power; and who would not balance creditor on this side, when all the hazard that is run for it, at worst, is only a sour look or two at choking. No, a merry life and a short one, shall be my motto." - Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts Green Enforcement Agency will rise again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saeton Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 While IFV's wouldn't be a horrible idea they wouldn't hold much weight against armor. Maybe being in the military gives one added perspective, but a Soldier can do so much more than just fight other Soldiers head to head. Then we could add Small Arms and Artillery Repair (my former MOS) which could salvage, say, 1/3 munitions used in soldier attacks. So many things could be constructed but it's hard on the math side. This game isn't like, say, Evony, where unit A can take out B just as easily as C can take out F, which can take out A. Quote (TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Do we really have to put in every single type of existing weaponry systems into the game? Overcomplicating stuff while adding little aside, this would just end up cluttering everything and giving some unnecessary minmaxing factor into the game 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Semloh Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 Do we really have to put in every single type of existing weaponry systems into the game? Overcomplicating stuff while adding little aside, this would just end up cluttering everything and giving some unnecessary minmaxing factor into the game I also favor keeping the game simple, but adding two types of artillery to the Soldier menu after added improvements adds realism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) >realism Sure why don't we add election, in which every few days we'll have to run a campaign and lose the control over our nation if we lose Realism is a stupid reasoning to add something in a game, try to think what it can do to the current system of the game rather than saying 'OMG it existed irl so it's good!' Edited March 14, 2015 by Atzuya 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored now Leafing Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Got to remember something about political war game forums they are normally populated by the most uninspired folks who just want to HULK SMASH everything strategy is too hard to think about when it is easier to just build all units you can hold and then HULK SMASH until they get to the top of the score chart, if you imagine the conservative mindset to be about preserving the status quo then most of them you will find are the most hardcore ultra conservatives you will ever talk to even if they are politically extreme left Marxists who want to exterminate every last person who has a nickel in there pocket in the name of communist liberalism. Oh yeah and REALISM they are really scared of that one they come to these games because that is what they want to escape even if it is the best idea in the world just say REALISM and the idea will be DOA they hate REALISM with a passion even if the name of the game has real some where in the title of the game or game description, and because of all that fear of REALISM some of the best ideas the world might see never see the light of day. As demonstrated by the snarky reply from that purple thing up there. Edited March 14, 2015 by Quew 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Got to remember something about political war game forums they are normally populated by the most uninspired folks who just want to HULK SMASH everything strategy is too hard to think about when it is easier to just build all units you can hold and then HULK SMASH until they get to the top of the score chart, if you imagine the conservative mindset to be about preserving the status quo then most of them you will find are the most hardcore ultra conservatives you will ever talk to even if they are politically extreme left Marxists who want to exterminate every last person who has a nickel in there pocket in the name of communist liberalism. Oh yeah and REALISM they are really scared of that one they come to these games because that is what they want to escape even if it is the best idea in the world just say REALISM and the idea will be DOA they hate REALISM with a passion even if the name of the game has real some where in the title of the game or game description, and because of all that fear of REALISM some of the best ideas the world might see never see the light of day. As demonstrated by the snarky reply from that purple thing up there. What... The !@#$ was that^? 1 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...
Atzuya Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I think... it's trying to communicate, yeah. We need some top-notch cryptologist here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Personally, I would like to see some diversification, even just small ones, but the fact of the matter is this, Learning curve. The more stuff we add to this game, the steeper and steeper that curve gets which turns people away from the game. Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Guys stop being so aggressive He's just trying to make a suggestion That being said, I understand the criticisms, This suggestion would really complicate the game's prisms Otherwise I like the idea of more different units and complications Right now it's just a battle of pure numbers, and for the game that has negative connotations Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilal the Great Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Aircraft and missiles pretty much made artillery redundant. Both can bypass the enemy defense like artillery can. Quote King Bilal the Great Mediocre The Average monarch of Billonesia Wikia page (if you're into roleplay things). We Tvtropes now. (down the rabbit hole!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Sanders Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 its a good idea, and Sheepy has been seeming to want more war, so this would add some appeal to it, however, most of the people in this game sont go for it as they are lazy Id go for it however Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 If this was a project that gave a defensive buff to soldiers, I'd be willing to consider it. But as it stands, I can't support it. Sure, I'd like more unit types. But the balancing issues that would pop up as a result would be a nightmare. Not only to existing units, but you'd also need a offense specialty type to counter it for fairness sake. In short, this really only encourages people to turtle. It would have the opposite effect than what you are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored now Leafing Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Why does everyone want to make projects out of everything should just call it projects & war. The way to do it is not so much to have different unit types but rather a roster of differing specializations for the various unit types. So infantry might go as such Infantry (Same as basic type we have now) RPG infantry (infantry type for taking on tanks but is also weaker in normal infantry fighting rolls) Flak Infantry (infantry type for challenging aircraft but still less effective then just using aircraft to counter and weaker against infantry and tanks) Marines (don't know if you want to go this far with it but something for raiding ships that are blockading/trying to blockade your ports again weaker against other infantry and tanks) Now the names are just made up on the fly i am sure others could think of something better but my take on the idea is that each of these types could offer a roll to play against thous types of units even if weaker then the standard defending types but would be weaker in the normal roll they play fighting other infantry. My thought on this is to have it so you can reshuffle types at a speed based on the number of barracks you have so for example (100 per barracks per turn) If this idea was extended out to tanks/aircraft i would think when reshuffling you would need a small cost 0.1 steel for each tank/ 0.1 aluminum for each plane. Land Vehicles Tanks (Basic type we have now) IFV (Who would win an anti infantry tank and anti tank infantry platoon?) Flak rack/Mobile missile pod(Anti aircraft tank) ??? (room for anti ship tank if wanted/needed) Aircraft Multi roll fighter(basically what we have now) Interceptor (Anti aircraft aircraft) Bomber (ground targets what else) ??? (room for anti ship planes if wanted/needed) Personally, I would like to see some diversification, even just small ones, but the fact of the matter is this, Learning curve. The more stuff we add to this game, the steeper and steeper that curve gets which turns people away from the game. First off just so you know my initial comment was not directed at you seeing as you were not being insulting unlike Foxunist and the purple people eater and 1 or 2 others not worth naming. Do you know for a fact that new features drives players away? do you have numbers or some kind of survey? cause the only reason new features might drive players away in my thinking is if all thous new features are set so far up in the stratosphere that new players can't reach them unless they play for a year or longer, and everyone wanting to turn every new idea into a project is exactly that. On top of that i have played some of these browser rpg games that have utter crap for service and i mean the worst you ever saw yet they keep piling on new stuff everyday (the games are so over complicated/convoluted most people do not even know about half the features or when they do often forget about them) and people keep spending there money on the games even after they have engaged in open fraud against the player base i don't think it is new stuff/steep learning curve that kills these games, the game just has to have the learning curve properly applied/spaced out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Sanders Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I think that if we were to do this, a way to implement it might be to first "turn off" military until everything is solved, then only allow certain units to become unlocked at a certain score (kinda like how only a few countries have the most advanced weapons) and then there could be a tutorial video that anyone could access at any time to see how to use the military, and perhaps a help "hotline". this way it would be user friendly and easy to understand at first, then more complicated as the game gets more in depth, so to speak. OR we could have an option (one time) that allows you to decide if you want to take place in the military or not, and you can't build military if you decide to be on the "do not raid" list, and you could only switch on to it once and off of it once ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Sanders Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 that being said, here are some other ideas people have had that also might be worth looking at underlordgc Legendary Member Members 2,110 posts Leader Name:underlordgc Nation Name:Jenin Nation Link:Click Here Alliance Name:United Purple Nations Posted 26 August 2014 - 02:14 PM National project name: National Association of Civil EngineersSmall description: We need to modernize our Civil Engineering standards.Project effect: Reduces infra cost nationwide by 5%Resource cost: 100 Steel, 100 AluminumCash cost: $75 millionNational project name: Housing ProgramSmall description: We need to help house our populationProject effect: Doubles city Growth RateResource cost: 1000 steel, 1000 aluminumCash cost: $20 MillionNational project name: Soldier Training FacilitiesSmall description: We need to train better soldiersProject effect: Increases soldier proficiency by 25%Resource cost: 500 Steel, 50 Aluminum, 1000 MunitionsCash cost: $20 millionNational project name: Overseas AirbaseSmall description: A Foreign Nation has offered to provide land for constructing our own airbase on their soilProject effect: 15% more planesResource cost: 250 steel, 500 aluminum, 500 gas, 250 MunitionsCash cost: $25 millionNational project name:War DepartmentSmall description: We should begin construction on a command and control center for our nations military.Project effect: Overall 5% boost to all unitsResource cost: 1000 steel, 200 aluminum, 200 gas, 100 MunitionsCash cost: $45 millionNational project name:Special Weapons And Tactics TrainingSmall description: We need to train SWAT officers to take down dangerous criminalsProject effect: Doubles Police Stations efficiencyResource cost: 100 steel, 200 MunitionsCash cost: $15 millionNational project name: Internal Revenue ServiceSmall description: We need to collect taxes more efficientlyProject effect: 2% more tax incomeResource cost: 100 Steel, 100 aluminumCash cost: $35 millionNational project name: Nationalized Health CareSmall description: We need to set up a nationalized heath systemProject effect: Doubles hospital efficiencyResource cost: 100 gasCash cost: $50 millionNational project name: Space ProgramSmall description: The final frontier shall be ours for the takingProject effect: Unlocks space race/SatellitesResource cost: 500 steel, 2000 aluminum, 1000 gasCash cost: $150 millionNational project name: Moon Colony[unlocked via SP]Small description: Lets setup a colony on the Moon!Project effect: Does whatever a moon colony does(maybe a "special" city that cannot be attacked/built up but provides a small amount of citizens and income?)Resource cost: 250 steel, 1500 aluminum, 1000 gasCash cost: $150 millionNational project name: Mars Colony[unlocked via SP]Small description: Colonies on the Moon are great but you know what's better? Colonies on Mars!Project effect: Does whatever a Moon colony does but is way cooler (see above?)Resource cost: 1500 steel, 750 aluminum, 3000 gasCash cost: $250 millionNational project name:Assist the Global Positioning System[unlocked via SP]Small description: Nation launches their own satellite to assist with the GPS.Project effect:Global Citizen income increases by .001% per satellite added(all nations)(Global boost of .01% soldier efficiency to all nations who assist with the GPS?)Resource cost: 50 steel, 200 aluminum, 350 gasCash cost: $35 million 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 that is an extensive list, but don't forget the ideas that are not projects, Projects aren't everything. This is something that could be useful but it has to be well thought out. I'm thinking of a military structure, like a "Weapons Facility" that allows you to produce up to 50 artillery guns. Each artillery gun would be similar to the German 88mm of ww2, It could aim straight to fire in front of it, it could raise up to fire long distance, and it could be aimed almost at 90 degrees and fire flak shells at aircraft. And it would need two separate formulas. Also in offense, it targets ground units, but during defense, It can target aircraft during an air raid but can also target ground units during a ground battle. Since a tank cost $60 and 1 steel, I'm thinking that these guns should cost $30 and 0.75 steal per unit. (Either that, or tanks need to go up in construction cost). and you can only produce 10 guns a day per facility (because they are held to a hire manufacturing standard and take longer to build). And you can only have 5 facilities per city. And I think I have formulas for the damage during during defensive air battles, but all other formulas will have to be made up by someone else. Each gun has a 3% chance of shooting down a single enemy aircraft. No gun can target more than one aircraft, unless the number of aircraft is greater than the number of guns, in which case each gun has a 5% chance to shoot down a single aircraft and a 2% of shooting down one additional aircraft. Note, real mathematical formulas will require someone versed in that study. Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Sanders Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 That's a good idea,but I am curious as to what sheepy has said on additional military stuff in the past Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I haven't seen much as most new military unit ideas are usually shot down in public, but this one is on the fence so he may consider it. Quote "Head-shots for days" 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.