Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Airstikes and Terrorism

  1. #1

    Default Airstikes and Terrorism

    I know it's not an easy subject(terrorism) but these days it is a fact and it's not something which origins are only known for in the middle-east, but comes from almost every country.
    Even command and conquer had a terrorist unit, but they renamed it a 'commando' or a 'Tanya'.
    A terrorist could be quite expensive and deliver a blow to an army unit or a city. One guy or girl taking out larger amounts of units.

    Second, how about being able to buy airplanes which can only take off from your home base and can attack incoming armies(or a terrorist unit).
    Where you can just select an army unit to attack and perhaps only moving armies or armies camped outside cities. It's a strategic way and also helps with allies.

    Any comments, both good and bad are welcome.

  2. #2

    Default

    Luke,

    I like the way are you trying to improve this great game - but, in my opinion, it would be a bad idea to add "terrorists" - although, perhaps something even as cosmetic as name change ("comandos","special forces") might be acceptable. I just feel that in light of the attacks over the past few years it might be better to steer clear . . .

    Just my 2 cents though . . .

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Oiyh!!

    Guys!! Stop making such ideas! Go play Command&Conquer: Generals or something...

    This is a fun web-based play and I want it to stay troop for troop. Like the old way, the good way...

    Old school maan!...

  4. #4

    Default

    I already said it was a touchy subject.
    That's why I came up with names other games thought for it.
    Let's just say, a more expensive unit which is better then a normal troop.

    And the airstrike idea was brought up because I would really like to say a way to intercept incoming armies. Now with your normal army this is almost impossible to do I think. The trajectery of the path would make it very hard for you to intercept it.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Let's keep it simple and fun. Meaning: No en-route attacks...

    "Stronger Units/Army Upgrades/Ranking System" may be cool...

  6. #6
    Senior Member rasqual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    459

    Default

    If there were terrorists, I'd suggest letting them work the soft underbelly of their targets. I think suggestions have been put forward about "morale" coefficients and the like, a "will to fight" on the part of an occupied territory from which, we understand, recruits for the military are drawn, taxes are levied, and so forth.

    A terrorist attack would not need to kill any number of people in the game, IMO -- the NUMBER is statistically insignificant. A terrorist attack would simply reduce the will of a populace to let their government go to war (yeah, that's assuming democracy, another collection of concerns here). This would raise the political cost of waging war, would reduce the recruiting pool (it would be good to have a demographic widget for this, Mickey -- tell me, has anyone recruited armies out of thin air, as yet? Have any players with only one city of 500,000 yet expended forces exceeding some insane proportion of that population? Real-world this, man! Conscriptable citizens should be only a sane proportion of the citizenry; occupiers should be forced to make do with what they have -- we've gone from having troops fall from space when attacking to having recruits show up in boot camp manufactured from scratch!) Now where was I? Oh, yeah. Since there's no way to code for "morale" just now, it'd have to be instanced as an economic liability. Troops with a citizenry back home that's not supporting all this aggression that's creating terrorists abroad, would require more cost to keep 'em going.

    Lotta potential, here, but it's not just an issue of terrorism. The "morale" engine" would see terrorism as just one of many different kinds of morale modifiers -- whether the occupier is proving basic "civilization support services" (not to speak of the dole ;-) and so forth. Are enough resources coming in? Are the taxes too high? Are the citizens' children dying too much in foreign wars (as opposed to defensive wars)? Are the citizens' children dying to much in LOSING wars? Or do they come home as heroes, increasing the morale of the citizens, inspiring more young people to enlist, and so forth (hey, how about that? Why have only conscripts? If morale's high, have volunteers join a pool of troops that could be allocated to armies -- this pool would be a "boot camp" and would grow as (a) you conscripted citizens and (b) they volunteered on their own.)

    I lost myself in perentheses and will stop now. ;-)

  7. #7

    Default Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukepuuk
    I already said it was a touchy subject.
    That's why I came up with names other games thought for it.
    Let's just say, a more expensive unit which is better then a normal troop.

    And the airstrike idea was brought up because I would really like to say a way to intercept incoming armies. Now with your normal army this is almost impossible to do I think. The trajectery of the path would make it very hard for you to intercept it.
    Intercepting would be fun you could stop your cities from getting massicared. Have a bunch of troops circling the city then one targets your city intercept it.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukepuuk
    I already said it was a touchy subject.
    That's why I came up with names other games thought for it.
    Let's just say, a more expensive unit which is better then a normal troop.

    And the airstrike idea was brought up because I would really like to say a way to intercept incoming armies. Now with your normal army this is almost impossible to do I think. The trajectery of the path would make it very hard for you to intercept it.
    I wanted airstrikes, tanks, mortors, bunkers and such. Be able to intercept troops headed to your city by sending your troops to ingage them in route came up and it is a good idea. They are all good ideas.

    If this game goes premo for 20.00 a year than air attacks and mobilized ground attacks should come into play.

    I think the free version should improve but stay simple. Intersecpt troops with troops sounds fun.

  9. #9

    Default

    Exactly. I think eventually it would be great to see the game going that way.
    Don't need to have it by morning though .
    Until now we have 2 weapons(not counting just threatening) and those are troops and nukes.
    Nukes are almost impossible now because everyone buys a nuke shield.
    And they are no fun and the best way to make fierce enemies.
    They are only good for retaliation.
    Eventually airstrikes and such would give the game that little extra to make it twice as addictive.

  10. #10
    Administrator Mickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,462

    Default

    So let's expand on airstrikes a bit. How would they work?

    - Buy a group of planes for a strike.
    - They travel much faster than armies.
    - They can't capture cities.
    - I suppose they must be able to be killed, but how?

  11. #11
    Master of the Universe Beezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    524

    Default

    Short-ranged, surface-to-air missiles which can be purcahsed in the store.Not strong enough or don't have enough range to take out an entire city, but if launched at the proper time, they can detroy several of the planes flying over. Maybe not destroy all of them, but enough to reduce the number of troops/armies that would be lost in the air strike.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey
    So let's expand on airstrikes a bit. How would they work?

    - Buy a group of planes for a strike.
    - They travel much faster than armies.
    - They can't capture cities.
    - I suppose they must be able to be killed, but how?
    How about only being able to send them from your home base?
    That would make your programming a lot easier.
    Just calculate the time from home base to moving or camped out army.
    And voila...no more brain killing math on how to make troops intercept other troops. And it really helps defend a city(if the place where the plain takes off is close enough) as well as allies.

    Now I didn't say this was going to be easy but just a thought.

  13. #13
    Administrator Mickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,462

    Default

    So if you attack a city that doesn't have the missles, you'll do damage to them but not sustain any losses?

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey
    So if you attack a city that doesn't have the missles, you'll do damage to them but not sustain any losses?
    Hmmm I see a problem there. If you keep the airplanes you could go back and back for as long as you want. If your opponent is asleep or does not have enough cash you could kill them with a single airplane.

  15. #15
    Administrator Mickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukepuuk
    Hmmm I see a problem there. If you keep the airplanes you could go back and back for as long as you want. If your opponent is asleep or does not have enough cash you could kill them with a single airplane.
    Exactly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •