Search Results
Search results 1-20 of 745.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
Air Power?
Postnever heard of it, but sure maybe a machine gun pointing at a low flying plane have some credibility. is there an article for me to read this?
-
Quote from Quasi-duck: “Quote from V1nd1cat0r: “i think this idea adds realism but dosent complement the game system in place, IDK maybe were looking at it the wrong way? anyway having routes to boost your economy is pretty handy given if you have a lot of territory at sea, but with the cost of actually protecting them and micromaneging subs which currently not very good not that bad, i think we should have a different function. i suggest when the port is up and the routes are connected it provi…
-
i think this idea adds realism but dosent complement the game system in place, IDK maybe were looking at it the wrong way? anyway having routes to boost your economy is pretty handy given if you have a lot of territory at sea, but with the cost of actually protecting them and micromaneging subs which currently not very good not that bad, i think we should have a different function. i suggest when the port is up and the routes are connected it provides vision, signifying your territory, like an a…
-
Air Power?
Postit is unrealistic for infantry and armor to have some value against bombers, i think we should remove AA values of all ground units other than the Anti-air, its funny to imagine a rifle downing a bomber hundread feet in the air. talk about lucky shot.
-
CHARGE
Postwelp, back to sqaure one i guess.
-
Stats
PostI thought we already have that?
-
I recomend not building the infrastructure on provinces that don't produce any resource, the structure cost quite a bit of everything and on a province with nothing to offer but money would be a waste of investment. It increase the move speed of all land units in the province but again don't build it on resource less province it's a complete waste.
-
I say we already suggested this some time ago, but it was about morale and not economically, I believe it's about communications if my memory is correct (God I sound so old) Anyway it makes the game more realistic, in WW2 EVERY country rely on trade to keep the war effort going, well except the Axis powers since they try to be self sufficient, without trade Britain would fall without US aid, and the pacific campaign would be a standstill, countries that stay neutral provided the materials for th…
-
SAM
PostQuasi-boy then!
-
CHARGE
PostMaking the battle short is not bad per se, it's how we do it. I'm alright shortening the combat time but I disagree we have to pay for it, my units included.
-
SAM
PostI like it, but does it attack at range or acts like a unit? You said it's a building so...
-
CHARGE
PostTo quote from someone I don't know. "We have machine guns and they have none" Basically in WW1 "charging" or rushing againts an enemy fortified position is downright suicidal, the japs did it (for some reason) and when WW2 came it's better to fight behind bunkers and gun nest than charge againts a wave of tanks using katanas. Granted if it's purpose is to hasten the combat rounds, but it gives a LOT of disadvantage such as: -if the enemy counter attack and your stuck with fanatics who prefer usi…
-
Submarines are visible when it attacked another unit, it is invisible on the move or waiting but will stay invisible unless it attack, although they can't pass through units and fleets tend to shore up destroyers, well they pretty fall back in the later days. New buildings that raise the morale of specified unit types make it a bit redundant. Why build something that benefit one type only and not all, spending a lot of time and resources to get the structure up. Parachute units are on the works.…