Colonialism Or Manifest Destiny? (Oh, and Special Forces) (Little Upsilon)

Is it better, when expanding an empire, to take countries that share a common border or go the route of the British and take islands and areas farther away?

Also, what is the purpose of Special Forces/Rapid Response troops?

It is definitely better to take countries that are right next to you. They will be much easier to defend, plus you will be able to share air support if the colony is attacked. It will be much easier to send forces from your main country.

I never really found any good use for special forces other than painting. Rapid deployment units are airdropped into enemy territory and once they are dropped, they set up a remote airstrip that you control.

The thing you forgot to say about the rapid deployment units Vladimir is that you have to wait at least 24 real hours for them to build an airstip there. I know Ive done it myself when I was taking over the province of falkland and the kingdom of kent (my other 2 countries). Also like you say Vladimir it is much better taking over countries next to you as you can soon reinforce a country that is being attacked. A colonial empire would only leave all of your countries much more vulnerable to attacks from others and getting reinforcements from one country to another takes time. And Sonata it depends what other countries with presidents you have nearby you could go either way with this. If you have petty small time presidents you could wait until they abandon or bankrupt their country through military expenses, Or if you have a big time large empire next door to you I would defini

It's easier to take countries that aren't right next to you for two reasons:

1) While conquering a bordering country, one needs ground support, so one must always have a ground unit withing 50 km of the attacking unit.

2) If your clustered empire is nuked anywhere, all of your countries will suffer fallout effects. Having countries sufficiently far apart can avoid this.

Furthermore, SF are for painting remote countries without the use of an airstrip, ammo, or excessive amounts of supplies. Rapid deployment units are for building airstrips should you want other kinds of land forces in your enemy's country.

If you cluster your empire, remember to keep lots of Nuclear Defense Missiles at each nukable location in your empire and keep all your Garrisons fully upgraded. Fallout is an issue, but a preventable one.

If you spread out your empire, I'd recommend keeping your countries in a small, federated, three-country-minimum clusters each with equal numbers of wings (because of the way federation air defense works, 1 wing is drawn from the home country and two wings are drawn from the federated countries). This would limit you to two or three clusters depending how large you're building an empire.

Whats the effects of the fallout on this game? what kind of damage does it do Scarlet? Is it like population/city damage etc? tell me the details

Nuclear disasters basically work exactly the same way as Earthquakes do. It will destroy the target that it hits so it may do a little population damage from that, but most of the effect is in the form of the disaster. It might also destroy private corps, not sure if it will destroy any state corps. It is important to note that population losses from the nuclear disaster DO NOT reduce the War Index at all. The exact numbers of losses will be different from earthquakes, but disaster size is based on the type of Nuke that lands. Okay: Strategic Bombers > Nuclear Submarine Missiles > Nuclear Missiles > Tactical Missiles > Chemical Missiles. Strategic Bombers will have fallout effect two countries away I believe, and Nuclear Submarines and Nuclear Batteries will effect the bordering countries. The other two just effect the country that is hit. If I'm wrong, somebody please correct me.

*affect.

That is all :P

Pff . . . I got the noun distinction down, the verb one evades me every time.

You effect a change, you affect an outcome.

separate/seperate
There is 'a rat' in sep-a-rate.

practice/practise
I go to football practice to practise football.

The distinction is clearer with advice/advise:
I give advice (noun)
I advise someone (verb)
This works for most -ise verbs.

Separate is a funny word. It has three syllables when I'm saying the verb and two syllables when I'm saying it as an adjective or a noun. Yet it's spelled the same in both cases!!!

As for the practice/practise distinction, I've NEVER seen "practise" used before just now. In fact, my spellcheck is giving me the squiggly lines.

Ah, that'll be proper English then, not your derivative ex-colonial American English.

(I'm not really that annoyed by US English - it's actually a lot closer to the UK English of the late 18th Century. For some reason, English as spoken/written in England has evolved more than it did on the American continent barring a few spelling simplifications. Following American independence, there was slightly less interplay between the two variants and they diverged over the decades.)

And of course, There/Their/They're.

what is this, english class

jus playin guys, lol. Im goin thru sum shit so i need to have fun. Please continue to humor me

or, "psycho" (how normal people spell it), vs. "pyscho", "pschyo", or however else (how in-sane people, and "psycho" and her multiple personalities spell it)

lol? I guess :s