I would like to see an option where you could blow up your own bridges. Not sell them, but destroy them.
Plans / To-Do List
51 to 62 of 62
You can actually do it with air attacks. I've used jets on bridges many times.
You can actually do it with air attacks. I've used jets on bridges many times.
Its the cost thing. If you are in a battle with a larger county it is to your benefit to not waste cash or units.
So how many?
I use jets when there's a straight shot. At least I know I won't lose any to enemy fire and won't really "waste" the money.
Seven would probably do it. Nine definitely should.
I use jets when there's a straight shot. At least I know I won't lose any to enemy fire and won't really "waste" the money.
I use jets when there's a straight shot. At least I know I won't lose any to enemy fire and won't really "waste" the money.
If a treaty is broken, the other party should also have the ability to break it and therefore nullify the 21 day period. Attacks shouldn't be able to be made for 1 day after both break it.
Has the topic of Artillery ever come up? Supporting fire-power has been a standard part of warfare for the past few hundred years.
I suggest something that moves slowly, has relatively weak armour, but can indirectly attack something, say, 3 or 4 sectors away.
I suggest something that moves slowly, has relatively weak armour, but can indirectly attack something, say, 3 or 4 sectors away.
Has the topic of Artillery ever come up? Supporting fire-power has been a standard part of warfare for the past few hundred years.
I suggest something that moves slowly, has relatively weak armour, but can indirectly attack something, say, 3 or 4 sectors away.
I suggest something that moves slowly, has relatively weak armour, but can indirectly attack something, say, 3 or 4 sectors away.
I liked an earlier thread about an aircraft carrier...say with a max of 6 or 8 jets, but you start with none...you upgrade sort of like an airbase but with a smaller attack radius so as not to make airfields mean less... also a troop transport ship for only infantry, I think it would encourage countries to use infantry more, perhaps 1 troop transport can carry 4 or 6 infantry...
Edited 1 time — last
I still like the idea of being able to split units after they are merged...
Has the topic of Artillery ever come up? Supporting fire-power has been a standard part of warfare for the past few hundred years.
Would it be possible to create a unit just by clicking the sector you'd like that unit to exist in?
ie. Any sector in range of a land base could have the soldier image when you click on it, and beside that you'd have the + symbol (just like creating a land unit normally). This would make it a lot easier when mass spawning units, even in comparison to the "Auto Move on Creation" option.
(Of course, different units have different movement abilities - certain units would need to be grayed out if they're beyond the build/move range)
-----
On another note, what else do you feel you need to complete before finishing the alpha version?
ie. Any sector in range of a land base could have the soldier image when you click on it, and beside that you'd have the + symbol (just like creating a land unit normally). This would make it a lot easier when mass spawning units, even in comparison to the "Auto Move on Creation" option.
(Of course, different units have different movement abilities - certain units would need to be grayed out if they're beyond the build/move range)
-----
On another note, what else do you feel you need to complete before finishing the alpha version?
Would it be possible to create a unit just by clicking the sector you'd like that unit to exist in?
I could also code it to always list the "create" option, but then users would often get messages about a base not being nearby, which would be frustrating and make them wonder why it even displayed the option. haha
<i>On another note, what else do you feel you need to complete before finishing the alpha version?</i>
I actually just started a <a href="http://gt.toomuchstupid.com/board/t_t231">new thread</a> about this!