Some thoughts.

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[AmPM]

And people probably don't prefer to play us in a ww2 game not because their role in ww2 wasn't important its more because they never risked anything. Its like taking part on a soccer tournament watching the first matchup of cup favorites where the teams had a hard fight just to rush the field some minutes before final whistle to support one team.
It's like letting something else doing the dirty work and getting a win by risking almost nothing.

How did the British risk anything more?

Oh right, you were closer so got bombed ineffectually.

The US fought in both the ETO and PTO.

Oh, are you going to say we weren't there at the beginning? You mean like when Western Europe said, "Hmmm....Hitler, you shouldn't be doing that, but we won't do anything to stop you." then got ran over, and the French and Brits ran back to their homes as fast as they could?

Maybe it's about the desert war in 1940-41? About the only legitimate time we were doing less direct fighting.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm in the US military and I'm all for letting the rest of you deal with the worlds problems instead of us. I figure it would take a couple months before the QQ starts because we aren't helping with such and such UN/NATO mission.

If anyone wants to know why the Middle East is such a pain in the ass right now, you can directly blame European Colonialist powers for putting the lines on the maps the way they are =)

[RoyalHants]

How did the British risk anything more?

Oh right, you were closer so got bombed ineffectually.

The US fought in both the ETO and PTO.

Oh, are you going to say we weren't there at the beginning? You mean like when Western Europe said, "Hmmm....Hitler, you shouldn't be doing that, but we won't do anything to stop you." then got ran over, and the French and Brits ran back to their homes as fast as they could?

Maybe it's about the desert war in 1940-41? About the only legitimate time we were doing less direct fighting.

we risked our whole country and empire (most of it) you woulda been happy on your far off continent britian was fighting to survive US was fighting for ofther countrys freedom

[AmPM]

we risked our whole country and empire (most of it) you woulda been happy on your far off continent

You didn't risk anything, after the Battle of Britain and with the superiority of your navy Germany never would have successfully invaded.

Your Empire? You mean all those nations struggling against British rule? They were on their way out anyway, also, Canada and Australia were never at risk, one being an island, the other being directly above the US. All you had to lose was Africa, the Middle East and India. They all left of their own accord anyway.

we risked our whole country and empire (most of it) you woulda been happy on your far off continent britian was fighting to survive US was fighting for ofther countrys freedom

Yes, fighting to survive is much less noble than fighting to protect others.

[RoyalHants]

and so if the BEF had gone on a charge of the light brigade into the german lines rather than escape and the british and commonwealth fighter pilots of BoB (batlle of britain) had flown sorties over europe rather that protect britian it would ve been better? than tying to survive and protect the largest navy in the world ? i dont know about you but id rather be a bit less noble and win ww2 rather than lose it

[Mysthalin]

WW2 E-peen swinging Inter-national olympics! Who will come out on top?!

[RoyalHants]

anyway this aint no political debate the truth is britain along with the rest of the allies couldnt have won without america
and america couldnt have won without britain and both of us couldnt have won without the russians so lets end it here

[Spartan_Marine88]

anyway this aint no political debate the truth is britain along with the rest of the allies couldnt have won without america

Actually we could have won without america, it was the Russians that won it for us.

It would have taken longer, and the Russians prolly would have controlled all of europe making the cold war very different in outcome

[Nevyen]

How the hell did we get to international e-peen when i thought the discussion was about game theories.

Good lord

Oh and as far as the increasing the cost of a unit beyond its notional price system is concerned as Bigdick puts forth and wind see as worthy.

It was tried and smashed by this community about 2 years ago.  No-one liked it in-fact people bitterly complained about its application as it was "stifling their creativity at a macro level."

[AmPM]

Cause thats how we roll!

[Nevyen]

I now look forward to the 5000 word sermon from wind on the historical aspects of the dust up your all having !

[Groundfire]

*sits back with a bag of popcorn*

[Spartan_Marine88]

How the hell did we get to international e-peen when i thought the discussion was about game theories.

Im Canadian lol, so my comment wasn't about national pride, just that the Russians did pretty well on there own.

[EIRRMod]

i posted an idea how that may be fixed more than one year ago but either devs did not liked it or did not understood it

it was like introducing a cost increasing modifier for each unit type like by the first M8 for 280MP and the second one for x*280MP and the third one for x*x*280MP and so on where x is adjusted for each unit type

so the 10th M8 may be cost more fuel than a croc (e.g. if x=1.1 so 10% more pricing for each aditional M8 => 10th m8 = 207fuel) so people think about if they really want that or if they may try to get some use out of a different unit

This system has been discussed in depth, and mixed with a soft-cap system (ie say 6 rifles does not begin the 'cost multiplier' but the 7th, 8th etc does) - could very well be introduced.

[EIRRMod]

what if you had a "weekly" supply that allowed for 1-2 spam games but had low minimum available values so making this somewhat risky?

There will be temporary 'Action cards' that allow a boost to your reserve pool introduced in the warmap action cards section (early Jan)

[Nevyen]

Hey i thought you where on holidays!

[Nevyen]

This system has been discussed in depth, and mixed with a soft-cap system (ie say 6 rifles does not begin the 'cost multiplier' but the 7th, 8th etc does) - could very well be introduced.

This was a pp based sink about 2 iterations ago or was it 3.

if the system as Groundfire and I where talking about earlier (ie : the tax) was on the actual resource then hell yeah that would be allot better.

It would achieve the same outcome as my point of view just a different implementation of it.

Main reason being is that with the soft cap in place as well as the incremental costs on resources it would be efficient to build a balanced build that encompasses core units over the special units as it would cost you more in resources to achieve the same outcome on the field.

[Groundfire]

Well to do that, we would still need an oversupply system, which someone needs to confirm btw if we still got it or not.

This is what I want to see:
Every unit/upgrade that goes over into oversupply incrementally increases the resource price of that unit/upgrade by %10, %20, %30, etc. (ex. Hypothetically, if you go into oversupply on your "weapons cache" pool, the 8th or 9th RR would suddenly be 200muni or 210muni instead of 180muni. This can be applied to any unit as well to hinder spam based on your pool composition.)

So you still get your flexibility and customizability, you just gotta pay a premium for it. Which tbh, how it should be.

[Nevyen]

Yeah  how you apply the tax is mute its that the tax is applied to drive the environment back to balanced builds with the option to play with more "out" there builds but at the cost of having possibly less to work with in game.

Thus you could argue that a balanced build has an equal chance of competing against the cunning build the key difference being the players ability to execute in game skill.

It achieves the same outcome as what the table top environment applies. So in the end nice work Bigdick

[Unkn0wn]

Well to do that, we would still need an oversupply system, which someone needs to confirm btw if we still got it or not.

This is what I want to see:
Every unit/upgrade that goes over into oversupply incrementally increases the resource price of that unit/upgrade by %10, %20, %30, etc. (ex. Hypothetically, if you go into oversupply on your "weapons cache" pool, the 8th or 9th RR would suddenly be 200muni or 210muni instead of 180muni. This can be applied to any unit as well to hinder spam based on your pool composition.)

So you still get your flexibility and customizability, you just gotta pay a premium for it. Which tbh, how it should be.

Is pretty much what will need to happen anyway when we remove SPs entirely, we'll need a different 'cost' for oversupply.

But we should probably also bring down some pools as well, you can spam quite excessively without going oversupply.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Well to do that, we would still need an oversupply system, which someone needs to confirm btw if we still got it or not.

This is what I want to see:
Every unit/upgrade that goes over into oversupply incrementally increases the resource price of that unit/upgrade by %10, %20, %30, etc. (ex. Hypothetically, if you go into oversupply on your "weapons cache" pool, the 8th or 9th RR would suddenly be 200muni or 210muni instead of 180muni. This can be applied to any unit as well to hinder spam based on your pool composition.)

So you still get your flexibility and customizability, you just gotta pay a premium for it. Which tbh, how it should be.

Seems fair to me.