Comming Soon!

[Mr President]

I think adding bombers to the defensive equation does make a pretty big difference, unless I am looking at this wrong. If bombers can both attack and defend, then what is the point of jets? At level 8 jets have a strength value of 4.42 compared to bombers strength of 8.5. The whole point of bomber's high strength was no defense, meaning that in order to use them you had buy SAMs too, making them too expensive to use effectively during a long-term war. Bombers doing both + SAM upgrade = no purpose for jets. I would definitely encourage any nation I was a part of to go bombers/SAMs over jets any day with the change.



He doesn't want them to be included in SAs. Literally he's right, it doesn't make sense, but I don't think it is the deal breaker that he is making it out to be.



The only reason I am for the change is because it helps explain things more easily to new players. Vets know that casher buildings need to be built in a 2:3 ratio, but trying to explain it to new players can be a little frustrating at times.



I can see both sides for tax, only reason I would be against removing it is during war time, setting it to 0% can give you a major population boost to defend against GA. (Which I guess is a pretty big bug...so maybe it would be best to remove it.)

I've never used tanks, but even for those who use that strat tanks are useless after the first week. I would be okay with seeing them removed.

good points crimson.

[MAGGIO]

good points crimson.

we may need to refresh unit name/type anyway, we don't live in the 90s anymore

the year of the drones ;0

[Hedge]

if we are going to take away a unit from air units it should be jets and just keep sams and bombers jets have no purpose really
now as for the sams being part of SA well you can use bombers and jets when doing a SA why shouldnt sams count its perfectly reasnoable to me
as for removeing state tax why?

[zardozr]

Sams should only count when defending against a force of bombers or jets though, even in the description of them it says that they are for defense in air raids and yet they are bought in mass quantities in order to defend against SA......which makes no sense what so ever.

If people are in favor of having that unit for its defensive strategy then the unit name and its description should be changed, any new person started out will not know that SAMS are good for anything but defense in air raids.

[Hedge]

true the only problem i see is that the description is wrong but otherwise i see no problem

[zardozr]

So you don't see a problem with SAMS counting in defense against a force of nothing but infantry and ships? Surface to air missiles should only do damage to aircraft but currently they are being used to defend against attacks by infantry.

[MAGGIO]

First off its really cool to hear feedback from players of today. @Hedge, and @Zardozr the previous system worked better which was the AR. It was Jets vs. Jets + AGM. Jets had low NW so there would be millions of jets vs millions of jets+a few mil agm. the AA would lower the readiness so you would really dig into a state. It just seemed way better to me.

#2 I think this is a good time to consider getting rid of specific unit titles. Jets, Inf etc... the arguments will NEVER Stop as to what specific title should vs other specific titles... for example how much a "bomber" can defend. you change all that to "air forces" and you remove the specifiness out of the argument. SMOOTH SAILING


sidebar, Special Ops for Spies, then we could have a drone strike that kills buildings as an op COOL

[Dogma]

I don't think Bombers should defend at all since not that many bombers outside the B 17 and the B 29 had any defense. I don't like the idea of combining the casher buildings as it is something that needs to be learned and takes thought. I am ok with going back to AR killing land, but I think we need to keep the BR as well as it presents another strategy in war.

I am seeing suggestions to make the game easier to play, the level of difficulty is why I still play after 11 years so yall do what you want there, I will just B**** about it.

[MAGGIO]

I don't think Bombers should defend at all since not that many bombers outside the B 17 and the B 29 had any defense. I don't like the idea of combining the casher buildings as it is something that needs to be learned and takes thought. I am ok with going back to AR killing land, but I think we need to keep the BR as well as it presents another strategy in war.

I am seeing suggestions to make the game easier to play, the level of difficulty is why I still play after 11 years so yall do what you want there, I will just B**** about it.

yeah what cant we have both the AR and the BR? good points dogma. i dont really care either way about merging buildings i like that little twist on the strat so im on the fence.

to you exact statment about b17 and b29 dogma, the argument will always continue as long we call them jets and bommbers instead of air forces.

[MAGGIO]

if we could do an AR and a BR why would we do one vs. the other?