PDA

View Full Version : -Remote Assault Poll-



War_Peace
09-17-2005, 08:46 PM
Ok now, this is a concern for all: Should "Remote Assault" be possible?

What is "Remote Assault"? It is to attack a city with Nukes(currently)

I say, any kind of "Remote Assault" should be prevented(Nukes, airstrikes, bombing, etc...) If you want to attack a city, you should get your troops out there and do that action!

Maybe some kind of "Paratroop-ing" may be added to the game later(in order to improve variety) But again, troop for troop...

This poll is to ask this BIG question: YES or NO to Nukes (which represent any kind of "Remote Assault" here)

Remember these before you answer:
- Nuke owners will say "YES" naturally but if Mickey wants they can get their Geos back any time...
- Is it good that some guy out there just clicks on a button and... whoooop: Nuclear radiation and lots of corpses...
- War was good before the WWI. "Remote Assault" has been invented and there are no real wars any more... Especially today... Click: Boom!

My vote is NO. - NO to "Remote Assault" - No to NUKES!

Please vote! "VOTE OR DIE!" in fact!! :) (P. Diddy)

Mickey
09-17-2005, 09:52 PM
(added the actual poll)

War_Peace
09-17-2005, 09:54 PM
Hurray!

GO NO, GOO!...

blitzkrieg
09-17-2005, 10:06 PM
I haven't really thought if they're good or not, I like the variation in attack that they provide and believe more variation in necessary for the longevity of the game, so I suppose I'd vote yes, keep the nukes. But we also do need the troop variety to be increase tank platoon for sieging towns and air forces for troop to troop battles - like intercept missions on approaching troops.

michael fontenot
09-18-2005, 10:30 AM
I'd like to see nukes done away with all together and just keep it soldier to soldier too. But I would like to see some type of attack variation to replace it. Transport trucks to speed up time to travel, paratroopers etc...

rasqual
09-18-2005, 03:47 PM
We need force differentiation. Air forces would provide rapid and powerful control of geography. Eventually, I think Navies should be required so that water becomes a genuine geographical player in the game.

Geez, wouldn't it be cool if the G-force method of control would allow players to actually make the air raids themselves, in real time?

LOL

GE has no hooks to make that possible, that I know of, but it's SO perverse that you can fly around in the UI but that it's impossible to make that work for anything in this game.

andrew1
09-19-2005, 04:46 AM
THE ONLY WAY TO FIGHT IS TO SEND SOME TROOPS PARATROOPERS PLANES ect. :happynope

Unforseen
09-19-2005, 05:05 AM
I'm voting no, but I think it would be impossible to defeat war_peace without nukes. If we don't deal with him this would become war_peace versus the rest.......

rasqual
09-19-2005, 05:21 AM
I'm beginning to suspect that the Doomsday Machine has been triggered.

Timmetie
09-19-2005, 05:45 AM
i just got nuked by some1 with a bit of a grudge against me and nothing to lose! Say no to nukes!

Or ill nuke you!

War_Peace
09-19-2005, 12:45 PM
I'm voting no, but I think it would be impossible to defeat war_peace without nukes. If we don't deal with him this would become war_peace versus the rest.......

I never stay in a city that doesn't have a Nuke Shield...

All this game, I nuked one guy and that was out of pure grudge...

!NO TO NUKES!

Lukepuuk
09-19-2005, 01:31 PM
i just got nuked by some1 with a bit of a grudge against me and nothing to lose! Say no to nukes!

Or ill nuke you!

'or i'll nuke you!'
LOL

I'll also say no.
By the way, the big guys in the game have nuke shields for 90% so that won't do no good anyway.
Nuke's are much too easy now.

Timmetie
09-19-2005, 04:17 PM
o, and could we at least make it so that you need a city to launch your nuke from? so 2 cities to buy and 1 to launch, so as to stop people who have nothing to lose to nuke cities? there is no way to stop them.

Lukepuuk
09-19-2005, 04:31 PM
Like yesterday when someone nuked you just because you took over the city.

tukamotton
09-19-2005, 04:37 PM
I Believe in nukes more expensives.
Nuke Shields expiration.
Use submarines, planes and tanks to attack fast.
Transportation costs.
Gold, Silver and Cacao Resources.
SATELLITES.
Alliances.
Smart Services.
Population Cycle (people live and die!)
OTHER PLANETS!!! (what about Mars?)

THIS GAME IS GREAT!

Lukepuuk
09-19-2005, 04:38 PM
Other planets?
Ok I'm off. I'm conquering Jupiter.
LOL

aravan
09-19-2005, 07:14 PM
I voted no. However, if the costs were exceptionally high - (just like in the real world) - maybe 5,000 Geos or higher I might change my mind. I certainly agree with the idea of having different types of combat armies that improve your chances of winning a battle.

andrew1
09-21-2005, 04:31 AM
I Believe in nukes more expensives.
Nuke Shields expiration.
Use submarines, planes and tanks to attack fast.
Transportation costs.
Gold, Silver and Cacao Resources.
SATELLITES.
Alliances.
Smart Services.
Population Cycle (people live and die!)
OTHER PLANETS!!! (what about Mars?)

THIS GAME IS GREAT!
Your smart i think all your ideas are good exept other planets is going over the line :lol:

michael fontenot
09-21-2005, 05:08 AM
I voted no. However, if the costs were exceptionally high - (just like in the real world) - maybe 5,000 Geos or higher I might change my mind. I certainly agree with the idea of having different types of combat armies that improve your chances of winning a battle.


completely agree..100%

RossumsChild
09-21-2005, 04:31 PM
I think it would be more rewarding to remove them for now, evolve the land-game, and then it would be possible to re-integrate them later if it was desired.

cowtreky
10-25-2005, 03:06 AM
No to nukes!!!!


Yes to mars!!!!