PDA

View Full Version : This is a thing that I can't stand! Would u!?...



War_Peace
09-10-2005, 11:46 AM
I know that the system works randomly and that is what pisses me off. Resources is a gamble, ok. But what the sense has this one right here!!?...

Attacker size: 128 troops
Defender size: 100 troops

Attacking army lost 47 troops.
Attacking army lost 50 troops.
Defending army lost 24 troops.
Attacking army lost 25 troops.
Attacking army lost 2 troops.
Attacking army lost 49 troops.

Attacking army killed (02)

Mickey
09-10-2005, 12:59 PM
It happens. Get over it.

War_Peace
09-10-2005, 01:51 PM
Still think that the gamble factor should be removed. It should be either more troops beat less troops or a ranking system...

His Lord Uberdude
09-10-2005, 02:08 PM
If you wanna look at history, these things happened quite a few times. Especially with such a small difference between between the armies.
Besides, what were you doing with an army of 128? :whoa:

Lukepuuk
09-10-2005, 02:13 PM
That's the fun thing about it.
This means in theorie that when you are lucky you could defeat an army of 10.000 with an army of 7.000....if you're extremely lucky that is.

War_Peace
09-10-2005, 02:28 PM
If I want to use my luck I go and buy a lottery ticket... That thing makes no sense...

Lukepuuk
09-10-2005, 02:30 PM
That's it...how about a global lottery :P

Costs 100Geo's. Winner takes all.

His Lord Uberdude
09-10-2005, 02:52 PM
That's it...how about a global lottery :P

Costs 100Geo's. Winner takes all.
I'm in! Lemme know when you're taking money. :lol:

Lukepuuk
09-10-2005, 03:22 PM
Depends on Mickey :cool:

Every day at 12:00am somebody wins the lottery. How much you win depends on how many people bought a ticket. :lol:

If a 100 people entered you would win 10.000 Geo's. Not bad...I would play.

Beezer
09-10-2005, 11:36 PM
There are several instances in history where smaller armies have defeated larger ones. Next time, just uses larger armies to attack with if you want to ensure a victory.

Charlemagne
09-11-2005, 12:24 AM
Oktober 25, 1415, battle of Agincourt.

6000 english soldiers fighting against 25000 man of France.
The english won, losing about 200 man, against a loss of 11000 Frensh...

Greetings,

accurrent
09-11-2005, 01:26 AM
Hey, look at the US, we defeated Britain (nothing personal).

Lukepuuk
09-11-2005, 01:35 AM
And then you started fighting eachother.
And that's how warfare is here. Just 2 armies walking towars eachother, shooting in turns...just like the American civil war.

War_Peace
09-11-2005, 10:43 AM
There are several instances in history where smaller armies have defeated larger ones. Next time, just uses larger armies to attack with if you want to ensure a victory.

Really now!!?... Then, bring the "4-star"ing (focking) ranking system!!...

Lukepuuk
09-11-2005, 01:41 PM
It will also be a much smaller contingent that will defeat the US in Iraq...and of course Viet Nam had the disadvantage as well... ;)

That is why perhaps a defending army should be in the advantage.
Almost everywhere in history the attacking army had to be at least twice as big as the defending one.
Now that doesn't have to be here, but a small percentage wouldn't matter.
But maybe other factors should come in order with this first...maybe being able to upgrade your armies or anything.

rasqual
09-11-2005, 08:06 PM
It will also be a much smaller contingent that will defeat the US in Iraq...and of course Viet Nam had the disadvantage as well... ;)Keep it apolitical. The winky doesn't excuse such irresponsible rhetoric.

War_Peace
09-11-2005, 08:11 PM
Old man spoke!...

I guess, our friend can't see that there is no "war" in Iraq...

Lukepuuk
09-11-2005, 08:17 PM
Old man spoke!...

I guess, our friend can't see that there is no "war" in Iraq...

Just more americans die each day then when they were 'officially' at war.
But we're getting off-topic here.

Steeefan
09-11-2005, 08:20 PM
Would you mind stopping this? thx.

rasqual
09-11-2005, 08:21 PM
Old man spoke!...

I guess, our friend can't see that there is no "war" in Iraq...
W_P, do you get the clue here, or not? I wasn't expressing a contrary opinion -- or any opinion at all -- about the writer's comment. I'm saying that this forum should be kept apolitical with respect to the "real world." Your response dragged things right back into politics. Are you disagreeing with my assertion that things should be kept apolitical? Are you prepared to assert that Mickey's forums should be open to free-fall flamewars?

Just wondering.

War_Peace
09-11-2005, 09:51 PM
Would you mind stopping this? thx.

I meant to mean this but... What the hay!?...

To rasqual: "Old man" was to you but the rest was to that friend... (Is this part clear?)

You know the answer...

Mickey
09-11-2005, 10:35 PM
Thread closed.

War_Peace - keep your political comments to yourself and off this forum.