 |
|
|
|
Monday, August 8, 2011 - 06:56 pm  Someone posted this on the voting poll. Lets all vote and maybe if we lucky the GM will listen
| |
| Monday, August 8, 2011 - 11:52 pm Why stop space wars?
| |
| Tuesday, August 9, 2011 - 12:07 am Yes i agree supersoldier, there is still so many things to fix down here on our planets why should space features be added when we can still make planet features even better. Space should have never been built the way it was, it should have focused more on adding space stations and building international space stations and also spy sats, and weapon sats, and communication sats, space stations should have been built through country efforts mixed with space programs, and than once a station is built those who built it would be than able to sell to everyone and store their products their. Space would be open to buying from everyone but selling would only be allowed to those who built a station by themselves or with other people or those who rent one. Space should have been different and not the way it is done now. I have steered clear from space and have only used it three or four times, right now i see no reason to change that.
| |
| Tuesday, August 9, 2011 - 03:40 am I totaly agree, adding more space features is not only the least of our worries right now it would slow the server even more.
| |
| Tuesday, August 9, 2011 - 03:47 am i for one think that adding space war will add a flavor that the game has been missing. provided it gains popularity.
| |
| Tuesday, August 9, 2011 - 10:58 am Don't get me wrong its a great idea Josias BUT at this current times not the best update/addition here's why Feds stills cant support each other due to war levels War levels in general Common markets need more meaning Quality has no effect in countries (why bother getting higher Q) Navies are STILL stuck @ 100Q Navies have very limited attack Some weapons are worthless (Like seals, Land to sea, Off Anti air) Corps use of goods and production is out of control(either use to much workers or make to little) Weapons cost to much (said yourself) war in general costs to much Security counsiel needs more ways to be involved globally There's still no transportation of goods(they just seem to magically appear with no need for roads, rails, sea transportation Loans are totally ruined(your lucky to make any money) CEO's are taking a beating (magically losing money ATM) Relief aid is totally pointless. Offers little to no benefit other then you can pat yourself on your back. Little room to player war. (you can only sell 3M pop per day and it effects welfare, how you supposed to pop raid?) Constant devalue of the Gold Coin(This is done solely so people will buy shuttles but also effects things like people who spent a ton to get them now there less then 50% value). Also raises the issue of the Gold Coin in general @ GM rate of 5GC per million that's saying 1T SC$ = 1M pop is outrageous. Game is catering so much to free players who stick around maybe a week(2 if they are trying) compared to people who pay 4USD a month to play. There's no reason to use space. GM forcing us with nukes, space goods, selenium, some weapons. They ever think that maybe if some corps every once in awhile made 50% more or less that might encourage people to buy(world makes less aluminium and you need it for weapons you should look into space might help growth) Shuttles carry limited resources. The GM says that shuttles will be able to move troops in war time. At the moment a shuttle carries 2000interceptor missiles of 10Special forces squads(which happens to be 120men) Your telling me they take more space then 2000rockets? Even then what am i'm going to do use a shuttle to move 100jeeps and say i'm ready to attack your city? The top most discussed is TOTAL FAILURE of communication to players. Jozi chat was promised in February. Tommi is worthless, Hell the GM are so out of touch they didn't even know that people could be war level 7 on one world and war level 0 on another. Unless the GM gets a PR person and listens/reads the forum's and comes into the chats daily we going to lose more people. Look at how many vets/great players have left already. SC is a shell of its former self.
| |
| Tuesday, August 9, 2011 - 01:42 pm FYI, about 14 [earth] months ago: W3Creative Releases Version 4 of its Simcountry.com Virtual World Simulation Game. Simcountry 4.0 Includes Space Travel and Many Other New Features. http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/w3creative-releases-version-4-of-its-simcountrycom-virtual-world-simulation-game-simcountry-40-includes-space-travel-and-many-other-new-features-156183.php BILTHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS, June 14, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Simcountry, first released in 2004, now runs 5 large virtual worlds, with thousands of countries run by players who take responsibility for all aspects of leadership, from education to warfare. W3creative founder and CEO, Jossi Gil, said: "Simcountry 4 is a major step forward and will add new dimension to this extensive environment where thousands of players are building countries, empires, enterprises and now also space stations and shuttles." Although war has traditionally been part of the game, many players decide to play the strategic war free version, building assets and gaining power by the strength of their economies. According to its makers, the game is an in depth, very large and feature rich MMOG where each player is a president of a country. Players cooperate with each other, trade, exchange knowledge, products and assets but also fight for dominance. For more information please visit: Simcountry Website: https://www.simcountry.com ..and, the one from about 8 [earth] months ago: W3Creative Now Offers a Free for All, Unlimited Playing of its Simcountry.com Virtual World Simulation Game http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/w3creative-now-offers-a-free-for-all-unlimited-playing-of-its-simcountrycom-virtual-world-simulation-game-186478.php UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS, December 15, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- W3creative founder and CEO, Jossi Gil, said: "Adding free playing for an unlimited period will make Simcountry accessible for a much larger group of players. It will allow them to get a closer look at the wide variety of Simcountry features and participate in this growing community of enthusiastic players. "Free Playing is a major step forward and will add new dimension to this extensive environment where thousands of players are building countries, empires, enterprises, space stations and shuttles." Although war has traditionally been part of the game, many players decide to play the strategic war free version, building assets and gaining power by the strength of their economies. According to its makers, the game is an in depth, very large and feature rich MMOG where each player is a president of a country. Players cooperate with each other, trade, exchange knowledge, products and assets but also fight for dominance.
| |
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 - 09:13 pm
Like you would know SS. Apart from the thing about war levels and feds, every point you made is about stupid, or has been discussed and agreed/disagreed by the game makers. Agreed items such as quality in countries are on the list we have been told. Weapons should be expensive, see real life, and as Psycho has said, devaluation of GC compensates some. Security council? see UN. Common markets are usable. "Some weapons are worthless (Like seals, Land to sea, Off Anti air) " transalated means "I dont know how to use them". No transportation? HUH? Space... well, a work in progress I hope. Cant say I use it much. Anyway SS, I know you try to do good for the game, but you mostly just parrot what you hear from other people and not what you have learned from your short time here. And most stuff you hear is nonsense from people who have figured things out about as much as yourself. Space wars, maybe, one day...
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 01:06 am (note that i talk to Crafty in the chat) Crafty shared some views and now I know his point of view on space I do agree with him. I love the idea of space(and wars)otherwise I wouldnt moved 10M trucks and several million interceptor missiles when automation first came out) and i still make shuttles/use space. My issue is that we will keep using it and forget a lot of old things that need to be fixed. We as players can remember the issues we have for awhile because we play. The GM doesnt and they only add what is most popular or discussed. December 21, 2010 132. Max Fighting Level [ top ] The maximum fighting level of all military units is now increased to 180. 276. Navies [ top ] ----(This update was supposed to be in 2010) Navies in Simcountry have always been very large. There was in fact no limitation on the number of weapons per navy ship. This is of course unrealistic and an update is long overdue. The problem became even much larger after the introduction of army units that are limited in size. The only limitation on navies is in the number of weapons, per type of weapon, which can be used in a single attack. The problem will be solved in two steps. The first one is installed in Simcountry today. The number of navy weapons that can be used in a single attack is now reduced to 400 per weapon type. This limitation will reduce the problem as the defense will become relatively larger while an attack will become less devastating. The next update that will be installed next week on Tuesday Feb. 10, will reduce the max size of a navy, in several steps, to the size of a large military unit and also set a maximum to the total number of weapons that can be used in a single attack. Very large navy units will see their numbers decline and the unused weapons will be placed in the reserves. To keep large numbers of navy weapons active, you should have more navies and distribute the available weapons over a larger number of navy units. We will make sure that the navy remains an important part of the war game but will prevent it from being much more destructive than any other unit in the game. That was 1+ year ago and yet navies still sit at 100Q and havent been changed. Space was added before navies where fixed. I know a lot of this sounds parroted but its because it is. Myself and other cry for the same updates. When I started I asked about nukes attacking forts(now I realize that wasnt my smartest request) That was in November chat of 2010. They said weeks its been months Tactical Nukes and Chemical Weapons Both weapons will be upgraded in the coming weeks and become usable against more targets. Strategic weapons will not become usable in C3 wars for now. They might become part of C3 wars in higher levels. Also Common markets are good I use them myself (though I dont ASQ) when I say updating them I mean being able to set prices. For common market players. If I can sell my goods at base price, or even market with no extra mark up to my allies that be huge. Oil costs 1,174 per ton, the base is 730. The difference is 444 per ton(1643 per ton if its 370Q) Now lets say you ASQ a gasoline corp (uses 1.4M tons of oil a month) Market price = 4344 per ton (times) 1.4M = 6.1B a month Base price = 2701 per ton (times) 1.4M = 3.7B a month The difference being a whopping 25B a year saved + all the other goods you can have cheaper. So really you making a ton of extra profit. Being able to sell @ base and not market to allies would open so many doors. Allowing contracts between players would put us on the road to self suffiency. Selling a % of you production at base price would reduce profit but help with suffiency and make CM more meaningful.
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 01:06 am Side note I had a discussion in the Chat room. Make the worlds more social. Has the GM ever thought about expanding the Sec Counsel. If the sec Counsel consisted of 10 chairmen of the 10ten global feds. Then you have federation competition If there chairmen is in power gives them political standing in the world. Jobs of the counsial Stopping nuclear related issues (production, sales, buying nuclear weapons or materials) Forcing a peace treaty for XX amount of time (high enough vote) ending a war. Be able to ban a country from buying weapons/ammo from the world market for XX amount of time The world bank is run the same all CM would have a market leader. Top 10 leaders of there CM join the world bank. Its jobs would be Sending Relief/Development aid(cash only maybe also say they must have at least 500B in there country and no loans) Boycotts of a country(s)/CEO. If 50% vote for it then a level 1 starts and is open to all other players only main country of an empire votes once enough vote for it to level up it auto levels. (works like a normal boycott), Big difference is CEO would be effected so a CEO could be boycotted Sending Loans- Instead of the Game auto giving world bank loans players always take player loans. World bank would have a lower interest rate would news/old players would need to ask and apply for a loan. This would allow players to take large loans at a lower interest rate. Only issue is a player can only have 1 World Bank loan per country. Also maybe set something there if someone has a loan from the World Bank, military spending (buying weapon/ammo is blocked)
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 01:24 am I like the ideas from SS in the post above.
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 02:18 am im not going to bother reading all of it, but i'll point out that the part about navies being reduced in size, and then complaining that they are still 100Q as proof that W3C is not keeping up... well, navies were reduced to 400 max usable weapons LONG before fighting levels. and the max number of weapons per fleet, is now less than half of what it was... come on, quit trying to stir the pot just because you haven't had your V8 truth is they have allot of thing that they can fix. but Sup, for the most part, you are blowing smoke.
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 04:42 am I agree with you SS, gm should get their heads out of the clouds and fix the world problems first.
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 04:47 am I think it would be more prudent to fix the existing game before embarking on this whole new component of space wars....... unless it is the intention to become a space war game :S The game with its original concept I thought was spot on and had such potential for success. :-( I honestly think this 'expansion' of the game will be a recipe for failure (at the present time). I strongly encourage the game makers to seriously think of improving on the original concept before taking anything else on. What's the saying... don't bite off more than you can chew... Josias..... I quote you "but Sup, for the most part, you are blowing smoke." This from one who blows smoke out his rear all the time?????
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 05:19 am I see super is trying to make a point here that the game glitches need fixed before adding more to it. Whats wrong with that? How is that blowing smoke?
| |
Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 07:20 am
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 09:01 am i like number 12 alot of the above.
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 09:13 am make a IMF in this game and take out the development loans from sec council. countries deposit money in IMF and get voting right, countries who want to refinance their debt can request money from IMF. loans should be done based on a countries credit score- finance index and loans should be a last resort, instead countries and enterprises should issue bonds and than if their is demand some players will buy it for their enterprises or countries. they all are issued and start at .50 percent interest a game year and go up by .05 each game month they are not bought by some playerss. they are posted on a trading bonds page and on that page shows bond money requested and interest along with finance index score and country assets.
| |
| Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 06:54 pm Respect for that SS. And although I am not a great user of common markets I do like your ideas. I like a lot of ideas, and reckon a lot are in the pipeline. I have accepted that W3C are trying to make the game more attractive so have more revenue but the cost of this is a less than perfect product. If it works they will be able to do all kinds of good stuff and it still is a very good game, if it doesn't... well, I guess there will still be a couple of us here.
| |
| Friday, August 12, 2011 - 11:08 pm Something the GM should look into is the amount of soldiers killer per attack( This is be raised and lowered ) The Commonwealth of Majoma lost 38 Anti air batteries 36 Defensive missile batteries 35 Defensive interceptor missile batteries 237 Interceptors Total weapons lost 346 Troops lost 275-------Troops wounded 803 Firebase Phoenix lost 149Precision Bombers Troops lost 374-------Troops wounded 1406 What this says is 3people where killed or injured per weapon on the defender side. Yet 12 attackers where killed or injured on the attacker side? I can understand being more costly to attack but come on. Your telling me by just blowing up a bomber it kills the pilots and wounds people K's of miles away? The GM should look into the weapons Navies/land forces should see large amounts of people killed and wounded as for airforce's very little wounded or killed. This would be fair since airforces cost much much more then ground units. The increase in killed would also help the casility index during war helping to. Also destorying trucks and military weapons should count toward asses't damage. To supply 1 bomber wing (710bombers, 1000fighters) on FB it costs 6B in trucks ALONE. Counting these factors in the war index might make dropping it that much easyer
| |
| Friday, August 12, 2011 - 11:39 pm ^ I agree with the first point made. The number of casualties associated with airborne attacks dont really make sense. However, offensive forces as always need to be more expensive then defensive. Reducing the population cost would necessitate an increase in monetary cost to rebalance it, but I don't think anyone is in favour of increasing the cost of Fighters and Bombers in the name of realism. Besides, why bother changing the number of people killed in a battle when there are far more pressing issues? After all, the issues brought up so far have been established as being so important that space wars should be put on hold in favour of those. Secondly, the asset damage associated with destroying military units would be negligible considering that many countries have trillions in net cash. Destroying fortifications or towns with hundreds of thousands of people and likely having buildings worth billions barely registers in the WI as it is. Even destroying trillions in supplies and ammunition in a well-defended country would only lower it a few points. I'd imagine that the war index and how it is computed would be very tough to change and is hardly a tweak to the engine.
| |
| Saturday, August 13, 2011 - 04:11 am You know it be well worth it if those updates fixed some War index calculations. It would make warring a bit easier. Also If the GM tweaked it so that corps made 4times as much (400% more). Warring would be cheaper A fighter corp would make 96yearly(8planes a month) each would cost 182M base cost or 365M at max price. Making it easier to buy more. Also at the same time it would make all things like land based weapons/ammo cheaper. In stead of paying 100M per tank it would cost 25M which would be far cheaper. The most costly part of war is your interceptor defense. 200wings = 2.2M interceptor ammo. Which @ 8M per missile(which is its base(average cost) would cost a player 25T in just ammo @ 100Q. 250Q would cost an astounding 63T in just ammunition alone. Even if you bought the max spending a month it would take 22game months(4real days if you bought them each month). If corps made 4times more it would only take 6months(1 real day) but you keep in mind you still need to gain all that cash first. If the GM wants people to leave the war levels and war then they need to make war more affordable.
| |
| Saturday, August 13, 2011 - 11:22 am Whats the saying? Fight smarter, not harder.
| |
| Saturday, August 13, 2011 - 05:27 pm W3C has been trying to make the aggressive side wars, harder, not easier. where those changes to the WI might make sence, it goes in the opposite direction. the concept, (which i'm 50/50 on,) is that after spending a year working on building a country up, it shouldn't fall in hours. increasing the damage received defensively, and decreasing the offensive damage, goes the opposite way that the theme of sim country war is going. not everything *should* be easier. but the main deterent to war... over all, is the time and tedium of sim war. making wars "easier," should be making military smaller, so that their is less clicking. less tedium. but not making countries actually easier to take over. realism is cool, but a game needs to be playable. i'm personally tossed between making it easier to take countries over, and making it harder. i think that the harder you make it to win, (as opposed to making war survivable,) makes war less attractive as an option. for the person being attacked, who does not choose the war, making it easier to survive it, is cool. but their is a point that you can make it so easy to "survive," that is it impossible to "win" and at that point, we might as well break out the pillows, because that all sim war would be, a big pillow fight. further at this point, no one has to fight unless they make a choice to level up to WL3, or higher. so the heavy protection that was added almost a year ago, is a bit of an over kill.
| |
| Saturday, August 13, 2011 - 05:45 pm and no, we don't need weapons/ammo corps producing 4 times as much. what we need, is to see the average military in SC drop by 75%. if you consider, if *every one* in SC was to reduce the size of their military to 25% of the current... create a new standard. in stead of the standard 100 interceptor wings, it changes to 25 i wing... thats 75 fewer wings to destroy. and if the relative standard offense is decreased by the same amount. the both sides are putting out the same relative effort. and the defense itself is just as strong as it was before. but for the aggressive side, it will take 75% less clicking. although hopefully the same amount of time over all... that would be a huge step toward resurrecting the war game. the problem, is people such as myself. we have tons, and tons of weapons. where will they go? if W3C magically removes 75% of all military assets, would they offer compensation? and players aren't going to volunteer to reduce their military size. because theirs some one that wont, and they'd become a holy terror... so we need an in game mechanism, that forces military reduction. having a limited amount of weapons and ammo production, will *eventually* accomplish that. additionally, we have fighting levels and upgrades, that can compensate for allot of the lost fire power. but those are rather limited in availability, and expensive, over all. so as time goes on, its getting harder and harder to maintain the 5M+ armies. from what i'm seeing, the current limitations to large armies... will take some time to really see the effects, but its the best thing to reducing military size, and make the war game playable for more than a handful of players. think this through. really. for the first time, we might actually have a "war of attrition," previously, you'd buy your stuff, and before to long you'd have it... what happens if you just can't buy the weapons and ammo? and the larger the size of the military, well, the harder they fall. plus, the cost factor... it will get harder and harder to support large militaries, with out a good econ. meaning, many of the people that are econ giants, will also become the warlords... (although its ironic that most of the current warlords are also top notch econ players as well.) we've been playing a game, with virtually limitless resources. and that has resulted in outrageously large armies, making war in sim country, a exercise in tedium, at the higher levels. i once fought a war for 8 hours straight, shooting units, hundreds of units... very few players want to do that... and rightfully so!!! who wants to spend months building a country, and then have to work it like a job to keep it in war?!? no, the answer to limited resources, is excepting less as a standard.
| |
| Saturday, August 13, 2011 - 07:45 pm meh, Josias, you cant have everyone getting the same amount of military, cut it like that and you make it completely level. Mind you, thinking out aloud here, it would make the smart fighter, the one who uses good tactics as opposed to overwhelming firepower, the victor...
| |
| Saturday, August 13, 2011 - 08:24 pm i agree with you. the point i was making was about military size, and production. but yes, it would be silly to start a fight that you have no advantage in. but much of the past of sim country, has all been assets. the war that happened about a year ago, proved that skill over comes assets. at least to a degree. you aren't going to take 100 i wings down, with 1k bombers. but prior to war, their is RL weeks and months of preparation. during which time, you come up with a plan... so by the time you declare war. you've put allot of effort into being ready. and you should have an advantage that you are comfortable with. oddly enough, it often seems that any advantage that a player works for, is "unfair," but thats beside the point i'm making. i'm not suggesting that every one be reduced to the same amount of military. far from it, i was painting a picture, if have 100 bombers, being reduced to 25, and you have 200 being reduced to 50, we'd have the same relative strength. but i'm not advocating that, just making an example. no, the current limitations to weapons and ammo, in the long run will reduce overall military sizes... and most likely those with better econ skills will be less effected than those that ignore econ and just go straight for war...increasing the production and availability of weapons and ammo, goes the opposite direction. and takes us back to hours and hours of endless clicking... i mean really, do you want your oppenent to make so many units that the map loads slowly... so slowly infact, that you're talking 30-60 seconds between shots, hours and hours of shooting units hundreds of units... because every one has huge armies? were as, if (for example,) every one had 25% of the weapons and ammo, it'd work out to 25% of the clicking... stream lining war, making it less tedious, and more attractive. a counter concern... is with less units to destroy, would countries fall faster... possibly. unless you can still get the same "relative," power, with smaller armies. so that in theory, as it is now, when you run out of weapons or ammo, and have to wait for the next game month... please, i'm not suggesting that W3C should just reduce the stock piles we have. i'm saying, that with limited resources, it adds a dimension the the game that was lacking before, attrition. i mean we kinda had that, i've been known to sacrifice 400k heavy jeeps to run my enemy out of heli missiles. but now, a stronger econ, means more weapons and ammo that country can purchase. because of limited avaiblity. making it possible to have your enemy practically defeated before the war dec. its not quite that yet. but its moving in that direction. i mean for all those people that want realism... here it is. wouldn't it be cool to be able to cripple a countries ability to war, before you dec. kinda like the fall of the soviet union? i mean, the concept i'm throwing out itsn't so cut and dried, it'd need tweeking to make it work right. but if you want to make war easier... reduce military size, not increase it. what we have now, is still a throw back from the old war engine...
| |
| Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 01:16 am I cant see it. People would still want bigger armies than the next guy, so it would still escalate. Put a cap on armies and lots of people would get max army, all the same. You are just taking a 0 or two off the numbers. The only way to improve in the direction you want would be to have far far quicker server access speeds. (or maybe more efficient programming). I have always tried to make ammo/weaponry unavailable to my adversary anyway, up to them to have stocks or friends to sell it them. Thats so easy now with space centers and shuttles. SC is like UK nowadays, "you cant touch me, thats the law, so I can do what I like...", sucks, but I'll deal with it some way.
| |
| Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 02:46 am the escalation of military is of course going to happen, thats a no brainer. the point is, making it harder, means that what is possible now, will not be possible in the future. because its HARDER. but its ok. W3C for YEARS has been trying to reduce the size of militaries. they have said this many times. increasing the man power of weapons, increasing base cost, increasing monthly costs, and ironically, nerfing the supply system... all have an effect. but it hasn't made the war game playable for more than a handful of hyper active players. the time and tedium of war isn't the only thing holding back the popularity of war. but its the current subject. their are 2 other magor problems with the war game, that will not be solved by rules. in the past they wanted to reduce the amount of game cash. to do this they intoduced Finincial Service fess for high levels of cash reserves, and they lowered the interest rate of loans... players were rather discouraged about these huge costs... and suggested that W3C could just remove a digit to lower the cash level. W3C had a long explanation as to why they couldn't, and came to the conclusion that it was easier to make game changes that force the players in the direction they want them to go... we saw that again a year ago, with all the defensive changes, to counter aggressive war lords, such a my self *tips hat.* maybe they could just remove a digit, but considering how long they've been working on this. i doubt it. a side point of the FF, they have recently started reducing the fees, and the fee thresh hold (or raising it rather.) as they accomplished their goal, those limitations where no longer necessary. and they are cautiously taking away hinderences...
| |
| Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 03:29 am as far as a cap goes, i favor a max UNIT cap. but i also would tie in number of bases with it... for instance, (an example only, just to get you the jist,) say a defensive airport can support, say 20 units, and create 5 units per game month... that means if you have 6 defensive airports, you'd be able to have 120 total i wings, and h wings... and could replace 30 of them a game month... for an offensive base, try taking the same numbers, 6 o airbases could support up to 120 wings, and create 30 new wings a month, (or maybe a smaller number would be more appropo for O, shrug,) that change would leave it possible to have hundreds, and hundreds of units, but with some draw backs. you can have more if you increase your number of bases, but then you have to defend them. and, of ocurse they can be destroyed, dramatically reducing your fighting capability. keep in mind the numbers i suggested, may not be the most apropo, i was just trying to get across the jist. i've suggested this in the past, with little positive response. so i don't expect any one to agree. its just a change i think would be good.
| |
| Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 06:59 am --- Tom Willard Thursday, March 24, 2011 - 11:28 pm Reducing the number of weapons in general is an old issue. this applies not only to aircraft but to all weapons. Today, the numbers are much smaller than they used to be. we had wars with millions of weapons. we have reduced and want to reduce more. when we reduced the size of mil. units by 10% there was a lot of shouting. but we want to do so again and again. this will reduce the cost of war. just smaller numbers of weapons and smaller numbers destroyed in each attack. this will also reduce shortages. ---
| |
| Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 08:32 pm There's already a limit to how many weapons a base can hold. At least we are both on the same page Josias, looking for ways to spice the game up, get more involvement. The negativity here sometimes drives me to screaming point.
|
