Answering Questions

JohnFKennedy wrote:

TANKERS!!!!
Also bro if u want robots go to iron order 1919

JackThaParrot wrote:

I was playing on mobile and I disabled and the enabled textures and now everything is deep-fried

Dealer of Death wrote:

JohnFKennedy wrote:

TANKERS!!!!
Also bro if u want robots go to iron order 1919

tankers, pah!
and I don't want 1919 steam powered robots, I want giant nuclear powered Kaiju fighting Mech suit robots

JohnFKennedy wrote:

Dealer of Death wrote:

JohnFKennedy wrote:

TANKERS!!!!
Also bro if u want robots go to iron order 1919

tankers, pah!and I don't want 1919 steam powered robots, I want giant nuclear powered Kaiju fighting Mech suit robots

Uh I would like CoN to be as realistic as it can be aslong as it is still fun.

playbabe wrote:

bruh who care about realism, I want ww3/4 alt fantasy sich as red alert and c&c

The Destroyer 4 wrote:

playbabe wrote:

bruh who care about realism, I want ww3/4 alt fantasy sich as red alert and c&c

I just don't want weapons and vechiles in my game that don't exist... yet.

The Destroyer 4 wrote:

Its not into the future. READ CON DESCRIPTION!

Most vehicles in the game is either stuff we already have or new variants in progress.

JohnFKennedy wrote:

Well I think that actually this is a war set in the NEAR future. With all the modern units. So actually Destroyer is kinda right.

Dealer of Death wrote:

The Destroyer 4 wrote:

Its not into the future. READ CON DESCRIPTION!

Most vehicles in the game is either stuff we already have or new variants in progress.

The Name of the Game is Conflict of Nations WORLD WAR THREE.
Have we had or are currently having WW3? No. Therefore logic dictates it is set into the future.

Case closed.

bobqz wrote:

Sorry this will be long but it is relevant and interesting even though CON is just a game and not a simulation. This is from "National Interest" an article I found on the web....."However, interestingly, alongside the weapons and technology-related reasons why the Abrams is still so relevant to modern war, there is another clear reason why the tank is not likely to go anywhere anytime soon. The need for heavy armor.
This raises an interesting question, particularly given that the Army’s Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program is focused on building lighter weight, artificial-intelligence-enabled more expeditionary armored platforms with vehicles such as its Mobile Protected Firepower light tank and new Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle infantry carrier. Unlike an Abrams which is simply too heavy for air transport, these new vehicles can deploy through the air and therefore operate with an ability to hit warfare much faster should combat quickly break out.

The strategy here is of course to engineer armored combat vehicles that are more deployable and able to better support advancing infantry by crossing bridges or reaching places otherwise inaccessible to a seventy-ton Abram. The thinking is to leverage advanced, long-range artificial-intelligence-enabled targeting sensors, lightweight armored composites, active protection systems, improved precision ammunition and, perhaps most of all, manned-unmanned teaming so that forward operating robotic vehicles can absorb the most combat risks and face enemy fire.

This approach, however, stands in a delicate balance with current Army thinking that there will likely continue to be a need for heavily armored vehicles such as the Abrams, for many years to come. Why? There simply might not be enough technical breakthroughs with efforts to build lightweight composites as survivable as heavy armor in the immediate future, Army weapons developers have explained. So while newer, lighter, faster vehicles may be less likely to be “hit” given its speed, technical defenses and use of unmanned systems, something like an Abrams is likely to still be necessary for certain high-impact areas involving massive, force-on-force armored warfare amid incoming enemy fire. What the Abrams may lack in speed, mobility and fuel efficiency may be more than compensated for by its fire power and heavy protective armor. After all, an Abrams can, in many instances, survive an incoming hit from an RPG or even anti-tank missile in some circumstances, and it is just not yet clear if there are yet lightweight armor materials able to do this. However, many weapons developers also recognize there is only so much a legacy platform can be upgraded before a new one is needed to meet modern threats, despite the continued prominence and superiority of the Abrams. "

JohnFKennedy wrote:

Well I think that actually this is a war set in the NEAR future. With all the modern units. So actually Destroyer is kinda right.