rasqual
08-15-2005, 08:06 PM
How about having a time period between deciding to attack, and actually being able to? With the enemy being notified about the pending attack?
This would be more realistic, and it would give the enemy a chance to defend himself (add armies), plead terms with the aggressor, call upon allies for assitance, threaten the aggressor with the prospect of allied attacks on the aggressor's other holdings, and so forth.
The diplomatic/alliance/government widgets have to start being developed, man!
And another thing. Nukes seem to be only good for wiping out armies. They're being used tactically, not strategically. I know, I just nuked a couple guys. Again. ;-)
But nukes should be more strategic, having more deterrent than tactical value. Or perhaps I should say it this way -- you've provided tactical nukes, but no strategic nukes at all.
Furthermore, nuclear proliferation is insane. I think there ought to be some kind of limit on who can even HAVE these things. Needless to say, in a real world it's the most powerful countries. And this is good -- because the most powerful countries are the only ones who can promote geopolitica stabilities not only through armed power, but economic power as well.
Nuclear proliferation has to be tied to economic capability of even creating the things. Just being able to "buy" them in a store is a bit crazy. Among other things, I'd also say that eventually the "store" has to go away. Here, again, we encounter the "space" issue. Where are these things being produced? Space? They're just appearing, out of thin air, on the planet. No, doggonit, arms need to be *traded*. And only developed countries develop sophisticated weapons. And such countries develop because of economic success, because of natural and human resource exploitation.
In some sense, the game has everything backwards. We have colonialist powers bent on emperialism, but there's a vacume at the center of their civilizations. There's no economy driving this. Weapons are beamed down from space!
;-)
There HAS to be wealth production, and wealth production determines economic power, and economic power determines global trading advantages, and these form economic alliances, which serve as a check on aggression, and the wealth allows creation of standing armies for defense, which can be abused for aggression by ignoble leaders, and soldiers need to be paid, fed, and have good morale which can suffer a hit during difficult deployments, and let me pile more on . . .
;-D
This would be more realistic, and it would give the enemy a chance to defend himself (add armies), plead terms with the aggressor, call upon allies for assitance, threaten the aggressor with the prospect of allied attacks on the aggressor's other holdings, and so forth.
The diplomatic/alliance/government widgets have to start being developed, man!
And another thing. Nukes seem to be only good for wiping out armies. They're being used tactically, not strategically. I know, I just nuked a couple guys. Again. ;-)
But nukes should be more strategic, having more deterrent than tactical value. Or perhaps I should say it this way -- you've provided tactical nukes, but no strategic nukes at all.
Furthermore, nuclear proliferation is insane. I think there ought to be some kind of limit on who can even HAVE these things. Needless to say, in a real world it's the most powerful countries. And this is good -- because the most powerful countries are the only ones who can promote geopolitica stabilities not only through armed power, but economic power as well.
Nuclear proliferation has to be tied to economic capability of even creating the things. Just being able to "buy" them in a store is a bit crazy. Among other things, I'd also say that eventually the "store" has to go away. Here, again, we encounter the "space" issue. Where are these things being produced? Space? They're just appearing, out of thin air, on the planet. No, doggonit, arms need to be *traded*. And only developed countries develop sophisticated weapons. And such countries develop because of economic success, because of natural and human resource exploitation.
In some sense, the game has everything backwards. We have colonialist powers bent on emperialism, but there's a vacume at the center of their civilizations. There's no economy driving this. Weapons are beamed down from space!
;-)
There HAS to be wealth production, and wealth production determines economic power, and economic power determines global trading advantages, and these form economic alliances, which serve as a check on aggression, and the wealth allows creation of standing armies for defense, which can be abused for aggression by ignoble leaders, and soldiers need to be paid, fed, and have good morale which can suffer a hit during difficult deployments, and let me pile more on . . .
;-D