The Destroyer 4 wrote:
Talking about politics usually leads to argument. Because everyone has diffrent points of view on government, parties, minority groups, and others. Debates like this in the forum are like "shooting an enemy troop and saying you can't shoot me back" Which leads to other people shooting. Talking politics is risky because diffrent views can lead to diffrent opinions which can lead to an argument. You have to talk about politics with a very civilized old person if you don't want it to turn into an argument.
Penalty for NOT Declaring and just invading.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
These guys just shilling for their game, don't sweat em. But I thought when I first started playing this game a few years ago that Deceitful Act of War did carry a slightly greater morale penalty than Officially Declaring war. Maybe not. Not anymore anyway. I think you make a fair point though. Those claiming that Russia did not experience a morale hit in real life in February unto this day I don't think are fully informing themselves. Russia has taken a morale hit domestically, even if the majority there do the support the regime's actions, they knew harder times were coming and now here. Likewise, the US and European countries experienced domestic backlash politically during the Iraq & Afghan wars, and are still feeling the lasting effects of that. To that point I think the game actually has incorporated the morale hits fairly realistically, as the morale hit won't necessarily come right away, but the more days the war drags on the worse morale will get, whereas if the war is wrapped up quickly, there is little to no decrease in morale. But that is again mostly irrelevant to the point regarding Deceitful Act vs. Official Declaration. Maybe Western & European doctrine should carry a slightly greater morale hit with Deceitful Act, because the moral compass of the "west" tells us that a Deceitful Act of war is far more likely to be an unjust act of aggression, whereas in the "east" I'm not so sure they care. That could be one more thing to help offset the slight advantage Western Doctrine has over the Eastern Doctrine.
Good OP. -
How does western doctrine have an advantage over eastern….oh right…because eastern gunships aren’t actually buffed.
But what do you mean by US is still feeling the affects of the afgan Iraq war?
East…well russians hate losing, so if you wanna be russian president. Tip: don’t lose -
Western planes are better, do more damage for starters. Tanks have more HP if I'm not mistaken. I use planes a lot that's huge for me.
Are you kidding me did you miss the botched withdrawal from Afghan? The American peoples' appetite for unnecessary wars is mostly spent. Even Ukraine, neither party's constituents want American forces directly involved.
Nobody likes losing. People like dying for nothing or to enrich some tyrant even less, no matter where they're from.The post was edited 2 times, last by RevolutionV1984 ().
-
Somebody's been listein' to folks who aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
-
Feels like there should be a possibility to sign a friendship agreement in diplomacy.
It's to make 1 or both sides not to start a war against each other for some days (it should be possible to set the duration for this agreement). For signing agreement sides guarantee specific amount resources/money, so if someone breaks the agreement it should lead to resource/money seizure (it goes to victim player) and huge moral punishment and thus can even lead to riots in cities. Also that player can be banned for some in-game days from trading in market.
This agreement may be used often by neighbour countries for safety reasons.
UPD: Going to make a separate thread with this suggestion. -
RevolutionV1984 wrote:
Planes are better, do more damage for starters. Tanks have more HP if I'm not mistaken. I use planes a lot that's huge for me.
Are you kidding me did you miss the botched withdrawal from Afghan? The American peoples' appetite for unnecessary wars is mostly spent. Even Ukraine, neither party's constituents want American forces directly involved.
Nobody likes losing. People like dying for nothing or to enrich some tyrant even less, no matter where they're from.
But wait, the gameplay? SF gameplay needs little skill to master while Helis need more skill. MBTs are just a waste of resource -
KFGauss wrote:
Somebody's been listein' to folks who aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
The post was edited 1 time, last by RevolutionV1984 ().
-
japan samurai wrote:
RevolutionV1984 wrote:
Planes are better, do more damage for starters. Tanks have more HP if I'm not mistaken. I use planes a lot that's huge for me.
Are you kidding me did you miss the botched withdrawal from Afghan? The American peoples' appetite for unnecessary wars is mostly spent. Even Ukraine, neither party's constituents want American forces directly involved.
Nobody likes losing. People like dying for nothing or to enrich some tyrant even less, no matter where they're from.
What is "SF gameplay"? SF = Special Forces? Strike Fighters? Is it that hard to type out what you mean or do you expect me to mind read your acronyms? "Little skill"? I prefer to win, not suck and then claim oh but it takes less skill or whatever excuse. Helis are just worthless for most countries imo; poor range, worthless for Air Superiority and they're slower, take lot of damage. Only in the early stage of the game with countries that have enemy cities in very close proximity are helos worth while to research/produce. I tend to agree on armor in general, in fact I don't bother with armor at all much anymore. Air Superiority and Strikers are much better allocation of components and electronics.The post was edited 1 time, last by RevolutionV1984 ().
-
By "a lot", I suspect you are telling us that some folks u your info-bubble have made some claim that amplifies Russian propaganda; and that you DON'T mean that credible sources have accurately measured the attitudes of the USA population and reported that a substantial fraction hold some belief/opinion.
The post was edited 2 times, last by KFGauss ().
-
Expletived wrote:
I know I saw this in the pasta few years ago. Possibly in the CoW version. But isn't there a massive MORALE penalty for countries invading without declaring? Seems to be that just about every single noob launches an invasion without it and there are NO repercussions.
If you nuke, chem bomb cities, you get alot of revolts. Shouldn't this be the case as well?
-
Tf? Then how are we supposed to continue in the game? The game works fine as it already is!
why would the people be upset you won. Use some logic. Whether the person declares war first before attacking you or just moving his troops in doesn’t matter, because he is still going to invade you at that moment. So its not going to make a difference when you get offlined, in which this “expletived” has thought it would make a difference -
probably that means, u should not be able to declare a war and start a war right away, like if u declare a war from the diplomacy there should be a time delay, like a day, before u will be able to send your troops to someone's territory, and in the case if u had Right of Way, u should not be able to declare a war, from the diplomacy, only with morale/trading sanction punishment etc idk
so:
1. declaring war from the policy u get no punishment, but there will some delay before your troops will be able to start attacking the other player
2. starting a war without declaring it, lowers your morale as a punishment, maybe u get banned from trading for some period of time, etc
3. if player had a Right of Way, and he moved his troops into another player's territory and wants to start a war, he cannot do it from diplomacy, so war starts immediately and he gets punishment as in the 2 case
that's how I see this suggestion to make a punishment for not declaring a war, otherwise it's pointless to do any change in the game -
KFGauss wrote:
Somebody's been listein' to folks who aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
Featuring the idiots of the CON forum"War does not determine who is right; only who is left."
Always strive to be better
Don't try and be the best
A better world is always within out fingertips
But Utopia just causes more stress. -
KFGauss wrote:
By "a lot", I suspect you are telling us that some folks u your info-bubble have made some claim that amplifies Russian propaganda; and that you DON'T mean that credible sources have accurately measured the attitudes of the USA population and reported that a substantial fraction hold some belief/opinion.
marketrealist.com/p/how-much-m…-the-us-sent-to-ukrainie/
Is English not your first language, or is your reading comprehension just piss poor? Because "by a lot" was in regards to how much military aid we've sent to Ukraine. Troll idiot.
As for gauging popularity of such policies, we have these things called polls, maybe you heard of them in your country?
newsweek.com/americans-strong-…ing-polls-suggest-1706361
news.gallup.com/opinion/pollin…blic-opinion-ukraine.aspx
We have well respected Senators, popular media pundits, and regular people all over social media who support Ukraine and oppose the Russian invasion expressing real concerns about where the money is going and also that we have no shortage of ppl in need here in the USA.
realclearpolitics.com/video/20…ming_the_us_economy.html#!
Claiming I'm the one in an info bubble is such classic irony and typical projection coming from a leftist who can't even be bothered to research the topic for 30 seconds before making some snarky self-righteous totally off base comment.The post was edited 1 time, last by RevolutionV1984 ().
-
Did you happen to maybe just look up the cost of the weaponry/ammunition, command & control equipment, surveillance gear, logistics equipment and support, and everything else we've been sending or helping purchase (don't forget spare parts, diagnostic and repair tools, maintenance manuals, training, shipping containers and transportation fixtures/vehicles, etc.)?
After tallying all of those physical items' costs, were you then still suspicious?
And if you were, can you tell us the details that support your suspicion?
Can you name the form of the "corruption" you suspect? What has been diverted? To where was it diverted? Who benefited?
I'm going guess the answers are all, "No."
The extremely effective and sophisticated systems, and the ordinary consumables used by armies operating at the levels of effectiveness the Ukrainians are operating at are hella expensive. That's why (in the right hands) they can turn the tide.
I'm not a leftist.
I do know the difference between Russian Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt propaganda repeated by detestable shills, and legitimate journalism. -
alr lets turn the convo from politics to this page's actual topic lol
-
Should there be a penalty for beginning a declaring war in the game (remembering that it's a game, and NOT a simulation)?
It could make sense for that to exist.
How populations behave in the real world is a complicated multi-dimensional topic that's not going to be accurately described in a CoN forum.
However, whether or not the developers choose to include a penalty in their game has been answered so far, by the fact that there isn't one (or the penalty is undetectable).
This all makes me suspect that they aren't going to add an unannounced-war penalty. -
KFGauss wrote:
Did you happen to maybe just look up the cost of the weaponry/ammunition, command & control equipment, surveillance gear, logistics equipment and support, and everything else we've been sending or helping purchase (don't forget spare parts, diagnostic and repair tools, maintenance manuals, training, shipping containers and transportation fixtures/vehicles, etc.)?
After tallying all of those physical items' costs, were you then still suspicious?
And if you were, can you tell us the details that support your suspicion?
Can you name the form of the "corruption" you suspect? What has been diverted? To where was it diverted? Who benefited?
I'm going guess the answers are all, "No."
The extremely effective and sophisticated systems, and the ordinary consumables used by armies operating at the levels of effectiveness the Ukrainians are operating at are hella expensive. That's why (in the right hands) they can turn the tide.
I'm not a leftist.
I do know the difference between Russian Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt propaganda repeated by detestable shills, and legitimate journalism.
-
RevolutionV1984 wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Did you happen to maybe just look up the cost of the weaponry/ammunition, command & control equipment, surveillance gear, logistics equipment and support, and everything else we've been sending or helping purchase (don't forget spare parts, diagnostic and repair tools, maintenance manuals, training, shipping containers and transportation fixtures/vehicles, etc.)?
After tallying all of those physical items' costs, were you then still suspicious?
And if you were, can you tell us the details that support your suspicion?
Can you name the form of the "corruption" you suspect? What has been diverted? To where was it diverted? Who benefited?
I'm going guess the answers are all, "No."
The extremely effective and sophisticated systems, and the ordinary consumables used by armies operating at the levels of effectiveness the Ukrainians are operating at are hella expensive. That's why (in the right hands) they can turn the tide.
I'm not a leftist.
I do know the difference between Russian Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt propaganda repeated by detestable shills, and legitimate journalism.
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0