Popular Post Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted May 24, 2015 So, I know that this was implemented for a day and then gotten rid of, but my question is why? Having Ground Control, Air Superiority, and a Blockade will prevent your opponent from launching missiles at you. I honestly like this idea. Now, if you're in a war and you're losing very badly, you can just lob missiles to even out the infra damage. War should be about the enemy fighting back. Right now, people who have had their military wiped can just lob missiles and have them sometimes hit (Iron Dome) and when they do, they can even out the infra damage from all of your attacks. And if this is to "encourage missiles" then that isn't really the point of a war. Missiles can help do a lot of damage and people can switch between missiles and different attacks. If war is just all about missiles, then what is the point of using any other attacks? Just a suggestion. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo-Nexus Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I'd support this Quote Concilium Populusque Mandalórus ("The Council and the People of Mandalore") : Carter and me have nukes, and Saxplayer is just sassy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codonian Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I don't like that suggestion, The only way for me to fight back right now is... Missiles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I've been saying this for a while, glad to see others agree with me. 1 Quote You're no longer protecting the II? We have still teamed with II and TAC (and others) to rival The Covenants. This is getting complex. #FA_Problems Big problems for TSG. Really, not kidding. If Casey and Cyradis are King and Queen does that mean they're married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 I don't like that suggestion, The only way for me to fight back right now is... Missiles. Which ruins the whole point of warring. If you're in a war, why should you be able to sit back and fire missiles because you're losing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codonian Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Which ruins the whole point of warring. If you're in a war, why should you be able to sit back and fire missiles because you're losing? Not my fault I have lousy allies, Saying that, aren't you attacking someone I'm attacking... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 Not my fault I have lousy allies, Saying that, aren't you attacking someone I'm attacking... Yes, and I am destroying them via everything but they are doing more damage because they have missiles that they are launching. All I'm saying is that war doesn't become strategic at that point, it just becomes a war of "Who has the most missiles?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codonian Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) Yes, and I am destroying them via everything but they are doing more damage because they have missiles that they are launching. All I'm saying is that war doesn't become strategic at that point, it just becomes a war of "Who has the most missiles?" Let's put this into a scenario, Say America was to be attacked by Russia and there were no nukes. Russia is now surrounding the US and partly invaded. Does the US fire missiles at them or go "Nah bro, We won't do that you have us blockaded" Edited May 24, 2015 by Codonian 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 Let's put this into a scenario, Say America was to be attacked by Russia and there were no nukes. Russia is now surrounding the US and partly invaded. Does the US fire missiles at them or go "Nah bro, We won't do that you have us blockaded" This is P&W, not real life. It takes away from the strategy of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 You can spy their missiles away so that they can only launch 1 a day at 1 target. If that target has a dome, only 50% of those will hit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) So, I know that this was implemented for a day and then gotten rid of, but my question is why? Having Ground Control, Air Superiority, and a Blockade will prevent your opponent from launching missiles at you. I honestly like this idea. Now, if you're in a war and you're losing very badly, you can just lob missiles to even out the infra damage. War should be about the enemy fighting back. Right now, people who have had their military wiped can just lob missiles and have them sometimes hit (Iron Dome) and when they do, they can even out the infra damage from all of your attacks. And if this is to "encourage missiles" then that isn't really the point of a war. Missiles can help do a lot of damage and people can switch between missiles and different attacks. If war is just all about missiles, then what is the point of using any other attacks? Just a suggestion. I like the suggestion a lot, it isn't even as bad as people make it out to be. If you break one of the three, missiles away. Edited May 24, 2015 by Ansom 1 Quote -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 You can spy their missiles away so that they can only launch 1 a day at 1 target. If that target has a dome, only 50% of those will hit. They can still just keep firing them. If they have a lot then they can just fire them anytime they want, if it makes it past the Iron Dome then they can just turn the whole war around to do more infra not because of strategy, but because of who has more missiles or the luck of them getting through Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I can't recall the exact reasoning but I believe it was something like it rewards those already winning while punishing the losers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 I can't recall the exact reasoning but I believe it was something like it rewards those already winning while punishing the losers. Why should those that weren't prepared for the war/being destroyed by a bunch of alliances be able to just fire missiles at the people who were prepared and had to be hit them via water, air and land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) I like the suggestion a lot, it isn't even as bad as people make it out to be. If you break one of the three, missiles away. Oh, it's just that easy eh? I'll blockade you, get air superiority, and ground superiority with you have 0 units. Since it's so simple to get out of that, you shouldn't have any trouble breaking 1 of them, let alone keeping it. Why should those that weren't prepared for the war/being destroyed by a bunch of alliances be able to just fire missiles at the people who were prepared and had to be hit them via water, air and land So having a missile stockpile doesn't count as having a preparation for war? Edited May 24, 2015 by Judge Dredd 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 Oh, it's just that easy eh? I'll blockade you, get air superiority, and ground superiority with you have 0 units. Since it's so simple to get out of that, you shouldn't have any trouble breaking 1 of them, let alone keeping it. So having a missile stockpile doesn't count as having a preparation for war? Then wouldn't that be his mistake to have no troops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codonian Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Wouldn't it be the attackers fault for not being able to counter the missiles, Like... With more missiles? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) Why should those that weren't prepared for the war/being destroyed by a bunch of alliances be able to just fire missiles at the people who were prepared and had to be hit them via water, air and land You can be prepared for war and still be beaten, it's about balance and a war where one nation can hold another nation at arms length like as if the nation were midget is bad. Missile Projects is a choice to buy and an expensive one, it can't be made totally useless if you simply lose 3 battles. Edited May 24, 2015 by Clarke 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Then wouldn't that be his mistake to have no troops? Wouldn't it be your mistake to attack a target with a ton of missiles without spying them away first, having a dome, or having enough people fighting him so that the missiles get spread out and worn down quicker? I'm sorry your in a war and taking damage. It must be horrible for you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviljak Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) I disagree. The game should be fun. However, missles could be limted by reducing their dmg capabilities by 40%. Edited May 24, 2015 by Eviljak 2 Quote Esteemed janitor for Church of Cynic ~ may i clean the hearts of men with my blessed toilet brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 Wouldn't it be your mistake to attack a target with a ton of missiles without spying them away first, having a dome, or having enough people fighting him so that the missiles get spread out and worn down quicker? I'm sorry your in a war and taking damage. It must be horrible for you. That's not the point, the point is... people can cower without having any real military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Sterling Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I totally agree. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=46015. Ren is going to win this war but he didnt really win because zapp was able to spam missiles over him. Ren never should have taken any where close to this much damage. Quote Genesis, best band NA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadin Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Honestly, missiles are nerfed enough, especially against nations with iron domes. This solves nothing. All it does is make missiles shit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 Honestly, missiles are nerfed enough, especially against nations with iron domes. This solves nothing. All it does is make missiles !@#$. No, it doesn't. It just makes it so that people can't be flat out losing a war and then rely on missiles to do more damage, now that is just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I'd think adding a percentage to avoid missile with each control you have would be better. for example, 10% each. so with all 3 areas controlled and with a ID would give 80% chance to shoot them down. leaving 20% so the loser doesn't just give up. saying that, this would make an already attack first weighted war system even worse. 2 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.