MethylMercaptan Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of DarkHearted led by WiseWizard. The attack was a moderate success. Your forces lost 216 soldiers and 0 tanks, while WiseWizard's defenders lost 0 soldiers and 1 tanks. You used 0.00 tons of munitions and 0.00 tons of gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 2.30 infrastructure in the city of Growliath. You stole $0.00 in the attack and destroyed 0 improvements. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=49891 2.30 infrastructure might as well be 0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 12, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 12, 2015 How many units did you attack with? Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MethylMercaptan Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) 2000 soldiers. Seems like there should be a minimum damage if there isn't already. Even 100 soldiers should be able to do more damage than that, otherwise it's not a victory, it's just a waste of war points. Edited June 12, 2015 by MethylMercaptan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The aim of ground attacks isn't to destroy infra, it's to get superiority and destroy the opponents ground force. If you want to destroy infra you need to use an airforce or navy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MethylMercaptan Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 The aim of ground attacks isn't to destroy infra, it's to get superiority and destroy the opponents ground force. If you want to destroy infra you need to use an airforce or navy Ok, but why? Why shouldn't having soldiers storming the cities of the enemy destroy at least a considerable amount of infra? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If there's a limit on infra damage, people would just send tiny weeny amount of soldiers everytime when the enemy is down But really, all infra damage is directly tied to how many units you send. If you only care enough to send a handful of it, be prepared to get only a handful of infra damage too. You can't expect to shill out 50 infra damage with just $7,000 worth of troops and bullets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MethylMercaptan Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) If there's a limit on infra damage, people would just send tiny weeny amount of soldiers everytime when the enemy is down But really, all infra damage is directly tied to how many units you send. If you only care enough to send a handful of it, be prepared to get only a handful of infra damage too. You can't expect to shill out 50 infra damage with just $7,000 worth of troops and bullets I don't see the difference between sending 20000 and 200 against a negligible defense if you can choose to not use munitions in battle. Either way the attacker doesn't spend anything. Without a lower minimum you have very little damage being done in wars involving smaller sized nations, nations who should be able to rebound from infra damage more easily than nations with more infra. I'm not saying 50 infra, but it shouldn't be 2. If my battle that I supposedly "won" and that I expended 6 hours of war points for can be covered 10x over with the income my opponent gains in a single turn, then it's not a win. Edited June 12, 2015 by MethylMercaptan 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.