Special Forces should be able to occupy territory

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • OG is a slang term for someone who's incredibly exceptional, authentic, or "old-school." It can be earnestly used for a legend like Michael Jordan or more ironically, like for that friend who can unwrap a Starburst with their mouth.

    Is that you mean wid OG? or something else? but whatever I am good. It dose not mean I need all info, but sometime I get confused wid those kind of words. :)
    Have fun, nothing personal.

  • Sidellan wrote:

    Why are special forces units the only infantry that can not occupy territory? At least on higher level it would make sense.
    coz they are stealth, they can be air drop, they have high attack value. choose correct opponent to use them and they can change all the tide. And they can't take / occupy territory coz the game did not built them for that. For taking territory they should lose the stealth ability, and may be the game don't want that kind of outcomes. so that's it from my personal view.
    Have fun, nothing personal.

  • booombooom wrote:

    OG is a slang term for someone who's incredibly exceptional, authentic, or "old-school." It can be earnestly used for a legend like Michael Jordan or more ironically, like for that friend who can unwrap a Starburst with their mouth.

    Is that you mean wid OG? or something else? but whatever I am good. It dose not mean I need all info, but sometime I get confused wid those kind of words. :)
    Well, I meant it in the original classic sense of Original Gangsta, like I was asking if you were someone who was around from near the beginning of CoN, because I didn't get involved with it until 2019.
    *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
    The KING of CoN News!!!
    The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


    "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

  • Teburu wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Teburu wrote:

    not allowing an invisible unit to conquer stuff is kinda common sense?
    Because it's unrealistic and never happens in real life. SEAL teams have never secured land .
    i think you missed the point where this is just a game and thus subject to balancing
    It is reasonably well balanced in my opinion because in most games players get recon vehicles that can see SF and are much easier to make than SF. Drones are also extremely easy to get and expose SF too. Now this isn't as related to the topic, but western SF shouldn't have a disadvantage compared to other nation's SF when considering in real life navy SEALs are at a bare minimum an equal to SAS, not less than.

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    How can a unit occupy and stay stealth? They kind of reveal themselves to siege :D
    It's kinda the whole point of anti terrorism in modern warfare.
    As far as I know, Anti-Terrorism goes in, kills all Terrorist they seem to find and go out ^^

    Welcome back @booombooom?
    This is not always the case. There are also cases where SF take out terrorists and have to secure land until reinforcements arrive. If SF can't save or secure land, that would be like saying US SF took out ISIS groups, but ISIS still occupies the land that they were killed in even though there are none of them left alive. No, SF take out terrorists, hence securing the land of the host nation to govern over again.

  • Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    How can a unit occupy and stay stealth? They kind of reveal themselves to siege :D
    It's kinda the whole point of anti terrorism in modern warfare.
    As far as I know, Anti-Terrorism goes in, kills all Terrorist they seem to find and go out ^^
    Welcome back @booombooom?
    This is not always the case. There are also cases where SF take out terrorists and have to secure land until reinforcements arrive. If SF can't save or secure land, that would be like saying US SF took out ISIS groups, but ISIS still occupies the land that they were killed in even though there are none of them left alive. No, SF take out terrorists, hence securing the land of the host nation to govern over again.
    There is quite a difference between securing a spot to land for reinforcement and securing a whole country side, isn't there?

    And no the SF do not take back the country from ISIS, the governing country takes it back after it got cleared out, since they face no resistance.
    Otherwise the SF would need to stay put all the time.

  • Beyond reality talks, Special Forces that could conquer territory are just so blatantely OP and unbalanced there is no point to discuss it. Not only does it make a lot of units redundant, but it draws so much operational value to itself it's ridiculous.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

  • Job_ee wrote:

    Teburu wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Teburu wrote:

    not allowing an invisible unit to conquer stuff is kinda common sense?
    Because it's unrealistic and never happens in real life. SEAL teams have never secured land .
    i think you missed the point where this is just a game and thus subject to balancing
    It is reasonably well balanced in my opinion because in most games players get recon vehicles that can see SF and are much easier to make than SF. Drones are also extremely easy to get and expose SF too.
    Well i guess then we're lucky they don't depend on your opinion to balance
    I am The Baseline for opinions

  • Sidellan wrote:

    Why are special forces units the only infantry that can not occupy territory? At least on higher level it would make sense.
    Because they are stealth...they need a weak spot in some kind
    such as paratroopers cant walk...it seems as if someone broke their legs...and arms too as there stats suggest they fight with bare teeth
    @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    How can a unit occupy and stay stealth? They kind of reveal themselves to siege :D
    It's kinda the whole point of anti terrorism in modern warfare.
    As far as I know, Anti-Terrorism goes in, kills all Terrorist they seem to find and go out ^^ Welcome back @booombooom?
    This is not always the case. There are also cases where SF take out terrorists and have to secure land until reinforcements arrive. If SF can't save or secure land, that would be like saying US SF took out ISIS groups, but ISIS still occupies the land that they were killed in even though there are none of them left alive. No, SF take out terrorists, hence securing the land of the host nation to govern over again.
    There is quite a difference between securing a spot to land for reinforcement and securing a whole country side, isn't there?
    And no the SF do not take back the country from ISIS, the governing country takes it back after it got cleared out, since they face no resistance.
    Otherwise the SF would need to stay put all the time.
    Then why does the media say that ISIS lost territory, literally speaking? SF take out terrorists, then it becomes the nation's land again unlike the game that say SF takes out troops in a land, but the country that the troops were conquered in still owns that land, even though the SF occupy that land. It sounds ridiculous.

  • Teburu wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Teburu wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Teburu wrote:

    not allowing an invisible unit to conquer stuff is kinda common sense?
    Because it's unrealistic and never happens in real life. SEAL teams have never secured land .
    i think you missed the point where this is just a game and thus subject to balancing
    It is reasonably well balanced in my opinion because in most games players get recon vehicles that can see SF and are much easier to make than SF. Drones are also extremely easy to get and expose SF too.
    Well i guess then we're lucky they don't depend on your opinion to balance
    Or reality either.

  • Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    How can a unit occupy and stay stealth? They kind of reveal themselves to siege :D
    It's kinda the whole point of anti terrorism in modern warfare.
    As far as I know, Anti-Terrorism goes in, kills all Terrorist they seem to find and go out ^^ Welcome back @booombooom?
    This is not always the case. There are also cases where SF take out terrorists and have to secure land until reinforcements arrive. If SF can't save or secure land, that would be like saying US SF took out ISIS groups, but ISIS still occupies the land that they were killed in even though there are none of them left alive. No, SF take out terrorists, hence securing the land of the host nation to govern over again.
    There is quite a difference between securing a spot to land for reinforcement and securing a whole country side, isn't there?And no the SF do not take back the country from ISIS, the governing country takes it back after it got cleared out, since they face no resistance.
    Otherwise the SF would need to stay put all the time.
    Then why does the media say that ISIS lost territory, literally speaking? SF take out terrorists, then it becomes the nation's land again unlike the game that say SF takes out troops in a land, but the country that the troops were conquered in still owns that land, even though the SF occupy that land. It sounds ridiculous.
    Because it is the media, it's called Propaganda. It sounds much better to say, ISIS lost territory. The reality is no game engine, if you occupy a city in the real world, it want peacefully obey to your commands after just a few days. You will need a huge amount of troops for a very long time to pacify that city. Do you really want that in the game?

    In the old times every province had a chance of insurgency, because people in small towns there can also insurge. Do you want that back too?

  • amazing how, in the real world, you can occupy territory for 20 years, and at the moment you leave, insurgents pop up :D
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    Job_ee wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    How can a unit occupy and stay stealth? They kind of reveal themselves to siege :D
    It's kinda the whole point of anti terrorism in modern warfare.
    As far as I know, Anti-Terrorism goes in, kills all Terrorist they seem to find and go out ^^ Welcome back @booombooom?
    This is not always the case. There are also cases where SF take out terrorists and have to secure land until reinforcements arrive. If SF can't save or secure land, that would be like saying US SF took out ISIS groups, but ISIS still occupies the land that they were killed in even though there are none of them left alive. No, SF take out terrorists, hence securing the land of the host nation to govern over again.
    There is quite a difference between securing a spot to land for reinforcement and securing a whole country side, isn't there?And no the SF do not take back the country from ISIS, the governing country takes it back after it got cleared out, since they face no resistance.Otherwise the SF would need to stay put all the time.
    Then why does the media say that ISIS lost territory, literally speaking? SF take out terrorists, then it becomes the nation's land again unlike the game that say SF takes out troops in a land, but the country that the troops were conquered in still owns that land, even though the SF occupy that land. It sounds ridiculous.
    Because it is the media, it's called Propaganda. It sounds much better to say, ISIS lost territory. The reality is no game engine, if you occupy a city in the real world, it want peacefully obey to your commands after just a few days. You will need a huge amount of troops for a very long time to pacify that city. Do you really want that in the game?
    In the old times every province had a chance of insurgency, because people in small towns there can also insurge. Do you want that back too?
    This is a modern game, not CoW. And despite most of the media being left leaning, calling all media propaganda is a bit obsessive. Not to mention DOD media (which is supposed to be unbias as most media these days can be) also record that ISIS lost territory and recorded proof that they actually did. Also part of the problem with this that I have is if world leaders ruled like how people played the game, there would be no terrorists bc they''d be worried about nations carpet bombing them, throwing nukes at them (yes it happens), and blown up until a population of 1, without fear of civilian casualties. With counties wielding so much power with no moral laws or limitations, there would be none. Most of the middle east would be a smoldering crater. I want to be the voice of reality. The point I'm making is that the game should be as realistic as it can be and still be fun, and I think SF taking land would be both accurate, fun, and more than fair with recon and drones which are easy to make so easily reveal them already. So you ridicule the most powerful military who's governed by other nation's who's feelings get hurt super easily and wonder why it takes 20 years to end a conflict. If the US wasn't restricted the way it is now in the middle east, there wouldn't be much of one left, minus Israel.