Search Results

Persuaded.

Why do you think the F-35 is not good tho?

Quote from abradyson1: “I agree that the damage done towards buildings seems rather unrealistic. In terms of solutions, I would like to add some different ones to the mix. I agree that the cruise missile should have an increased velocity. However, I feel that allowing only cruise missile launchers to launch cruise missiles would make them too inefficient and clumsy to use. The advantage of using cruise missiles on planes and bombers and subs and ships is that it allows for rapid deployment of a …

Well. It's kind of a bummer to see that the cruise missile only have 250 km range, the ballistic missile has such a long reload time and the ICBM takes up 3 nuclear warheads but still have problems destroying a lvl. 1 airbase. Proper nuclear deterrence is "the military doctrine according to which the possibility that a country will use the nuclear weapons it possesses in retaliation will deter an enemy from attacking" BUT all the nuclear missiles do is "touch" your infrastructure and units in th…

Why East Asian Tech Tree tho? These are US allies (I hope I'm seeing the list correctly) and should just stick to the US doctrine techs. And there aren't no feasible bombers that are manufactured in these countries.

Why no? FYI That's what the F-35 was designed to do.

Quote from Oceanhawk: “More like, units are very effective when attacking or defending in a 3:1 ratio. 4:1 The 4 do a lot less damage and take more losses it is economically and military more efficient to have units operate in 3s for killing a single target. And if there a pair of enemy units, judge and see if its worth using a 6 stack or 2 stacks of 3. But usually I would keep things in 3s. Happy hunting, Ocean XD ” Great. Now I have to re-organize all my air troops. Moment please!

True, but nuclear weapons aren't commonly used (in fact it was only used in WWII and only in WWII because other nations doesn't have nuclear deterrence or the ability to bomb US mainland. Nowadays if you drop even the tiniest Davy Crockett at anything, you would still start a nuclear war. That's why bombers are still important. They are important for conventional warfare. You can't just roll out nukes in every war!

The age difference between the second aircraft and the third aircraft is simply too big. Any suggestions tho.

The same. China only have like 2 rare resources production states AND I LOVE stealth troops. They take up a lot of my r.r. stuff but I'm still getting a positive production rate.

Yeah. But it's already cheap. I also have 2 rare resources producing states as China. I could still get max. lvl. ICBMs before I could build the necessary buildings to build it. Try building max. lvl. arms industries at the states.

So light attack is like the max lvl. UAV, just overall slower (and should be cheaper)?

Very true. So, MOAB? Should it be added into the game?

Quote from Jamhougin: “Conventional ballistic missiles serve as a more convenient option, so they would kind of redundant. ” MOABs are HUGE! You can't just conveniently put it on a ballistic missile!!

Probably just add it so that the bomber drop MOABs instead of regular bombs.

Quote from Oceanhawk: “Quote from BoeingJet: “Quote from Oceanhawk: “Quote from BoeingJet: “Why do you think strategic bombing is unimportant? It had been quite important during the WWII, and it provides the only stealth nuclear deterrence platform. It could destroy targets across the globe. Only it could carry armaments large enough to destroy strategic targets i.e. Industrial complexes. Not even electronic warfare could deal against light bunkers, but strategic bombers can. Even though nowaday…

Can you even say the A-10 is "light attack?" Or trainer aircrafts tho. Maybe instead the A-10, it could be A-6 Intruder since it is less OP in most ways. Also, I think your unit suggestion is too "old". They are not really new and all prop powered.

Mmmm. Interesting. Maybe if the F-35A Lightning II for stealth strike fighter, F-35B Lightning II for VTOL fighter and F-35C for top carrier strike fighter.

Quote from Oceanhawk: “Quote from BoeingJet: “Why do you think strategic bombing is unimportant? It had been quite important during the WWII, and it provides the only stealth nuclear deterrence platform. It could destroy targets across the globe. Only it could carry armaments large enough to destroy strategic targets i.e. Industrial complexes. Not even electronic warfare could deal against light bunkers, but strategic bombers can. Even though nowadays a lot of strategic bombers are converted int…

Quote from Oceanhawk: “I cant believe your name is "boeing" and you know close to nothing about planes... ” You know my name is BoeingJet just because I'm too lazy to remember other names, right?