So Whats the next thing admins?

We had casual games and then kongregate.

Whats next?

Cargo ships (whatever they are).

Nukes at some point (these HAVE to get in to the game).

A rating system for scenarios where you can rate the scenario at the end of the game rather than going to the scenario menu.

Pop casualties and cargo ships are the next to enter i believe, i hope nukes don't make it in game, it's a stupid idea.

作者： nonames, 06.04.2012 at 09:14

nukes don't make it

true dat

作者： Garde, 04.04.2012 at 15:26

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. "5. Nukes would be unable to turnblock or stop units from moving', oh, so I can make a bomber kamikaze into a tank, and that stops it right? So shooting A FUCKING NUKE doesn't block it? Funny shit bro.

noobs trying to make nukes^^

I hope we get a Scenarios 2.0 soon, with rare units able to edit, and letting only one country use one kind of unit (German empire has their own tank, British have theirs etc). I'd love to have some more cool options
Cargo ships sound pretty cool, but pop casualties sound like an awesome challenge!
I believe Nukes SHOULD be in the game, but in the way me and Tunder3 agreed on, it was the most thought out way of it so far. Or, the admins could just make rare units in scenario (to be edited of course), then we could have better WW2 and WW3 scenarios (Oh, and then I could make a World war 1 scenario with Mk. I tanks, Tsar tanks, and German tanks...Nerdgasm).

Maybe one/2/3 draw turns?

作者： Garde, 06.04.2012 at 10:59

I hope we get a Scenarios 2.0 soon, with rare units able to edit, and letting only one country use one kind of unit (German empire has their own tank, British have theirs etc). I'd love to have some more cool options
Cargo ships sound pretty cool, but pop casualties sound like an awesome challenge!
I believe Nukes SHOULD be in the game, but in the way me and Tunder3 agreed on, it was the most thought out way of it so far. Or, the admins could just make rare units in scenario (to be edited of course), then we could have better WW2 and WW3 scenarios (Oh, and then I could make a World war 1 scenario with Mk. I tanks, Tsar tanks, and German tanks...Nerdgasm).

no i believe nukes would be a fun, sure but when have you ever seen a nuclear missile used in war? twice, both on the same day, and it was a foolish mistake created by children playing with an unknown technology. Have you ever heard of Mutually assured destruction. It is a war strategy in which basically if one side launches a wmd, the other side launches a wmd, until both sides are completely obliterated, leaving no victor, you are childish if you think this is a sensible route to go down.

I have seen some downright retarded ideas like "they lose all their units but the city stay the same" Look, nukes nowadays can wipe out an entire country, possibly an entire continent, making the land completely uninhabitable for thousands of years, that is how powerful they are, they are not toys, they are simply just a way of defending a nation.

So let's think about the cost. Some people of though 2000 money, ok. So what you are implying is that it costs 30 times as much to build a nuke than to train and equip a squadron of infantry (which can't obliterate an entire city). I believe you are wrong on that assumption.

作者： nonames, 06.04.2012 at 12:14

no i believe nukes would be a fun

Ok now read the rest please

ELO, amok said it would be implemented in a few weeks when I asked him around 3 weeks ago, meaning it should be here soon.

作者： nonames, 06.04.2012 at 12:14

作者： Garde, 06.04.2012 at 10:59

I hope we get a Scenarios 2.0 soon, with rare units able to edit, and letting only one country use one kind of unit (German empire has their own tank, British have theirs etc). I'd love to have some more cool options
Cargo ships sound pretty cool, but pop casualties sound like an awesome challenge!
I believe Nukes SHOULD be in the game, but in the way me and Tunder3 agreed on, it was the most thought out way of it so far. Or, the admins could just make rare units in scenario (to be edited of course), then we could have better WW2 and WW3 scenarios (Oh, and then I could make a World war 1 scenario with Mk. I tanks, Tsar tanks, and German tanks...Nerdgasm).

no i believe nukes would be a fun, sure but when have you ever seen a nuclear missile used in war? twice, both on the same day, and it was a foolish mistake created by children playing with an unknown technology. Have you ever heard of Mutually assured destruction. It is a war strategy in which basically if one side launches a wmd, the other side launches a wmd, until both sides are completely obliterated, leaving no victor, you are childish if you think this is a sensible route to go down.

I have seen some downright retarded ideas like "they lose all their units but the city stay the same" Look, nukes nowadays can wipe out an entire country, possibly an entire continent, making the land completely uninhabitable for thousands of years, that is how powerful they are, they are not toys, they are simply just a way of defending a nation.

So let's think about the cost. Some people of though 2000 money, ok. So what you are implying is that it costs 30 times as much to build a nuke than to train and equip a squadron of infantry (which can't obliterate an entire city). I believe you are wrong on that assumption.

Nuclear weapons have only been used twice yes; but over 60 years of history involved The Bomb. It was the fear of billions of people. I do not believe the admins aim for 100% realism with this game; if they did, well...it would be a lot different. So bringing up how powerful modern Nuclear weapons are is pointless; because if Nukes are added, they would most likely be made to work with population casualties, or as god-weapons (Fuck. Yes.). Anyhow, many different Nuclear-threads are very "childish" in aspects of interpreting the damage and cost of a Nuclear Arsenal; but, the best iv'e seen so far is Tunder3's thread. Sure, it's anything but perfect, but it's a lot better than "Nuke shud cst 2k and kill errything". Nuclear war could be a cool concept for Afterwind (Considering the namesake, of course). Besides, modern nukes are only used for intimidation. No country would ever use them, even Al Qaeda or 4chan wouldn't use them. Mutually assured destruction is the reason. Hell, once I found an Afterwind in a match, and when I was being invaded I said "Leave or i'll use the fucker" and they backed off. Intimidation really does work when you have the bang and the buck to back the statement. Some people may just want to use nukes for fun, hell, we all do. Nuclear weapons could/should be added if the perquisites of Cost, Defense, Method of obtainment, and use are fulfilled. I think the idea of Silos is great, as you must purchase said Silo and upgrade it before buying big-boy nukes. Hope I didn't ramble I this post, sorry if I did ;_;

作者： VAGlNEER 2.0, 06.04.2012 at 12:45

ELO, amok said it would be implemented in a few weeks when I asked him around 3 weeks ago, meaning it should be here soon.

This is the only update I care about.

作者： DURRHUNTER, 06.04.2012 at 10:50

作者： nonames, 06.04.2012 at 09:14

nukes don't make it

true dat

作者： Garde, 04.04.2012 at 15:26

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. "5. Nukes would be unable to turnblock or stop units from moving', oh, so I can make a bomber kamikaze into a tank, and that stops it right? So shooting A FUCKING NUKE doesn't block it? Funny shit bro.

noobs trying to make nukes^^

You shut up that's a good idea. You all want god nukes that would be OP and ruin the rest of the game. Better no nukes at all then mega nukes

作者： Mr. Kurtz, 07.04.2012 at 14:21

作者： DURRHUNTER, 06.04.2012 at 10:50

作者： nonames, 06.04.2012 at 09:14

nukes don't make it

true dat

作者： Garde, 04.04.2012 at 15:26

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. "5. Nukes would be unable to turnblock or stop units from moving', oh, so I can make a bomber kamikaze into a tank, and that stops it right? So shooting A FUCKING NUKE doesn't block it? Funny shit bro.

noobs trying to make nukes^^

You shut up that's a good idea. You all want god nukes that would be OP and ruin the rest of the game. Better no nukes at all then mega nukes

Nuke = Weapon of mass destruction. As Arbit. has said, they are powerful enough to send countries back into the stone age. Making a nuclear weapon with ∞ atk and def isn't OP, it's a damned nuclear weapon, and that's why me and Tunder3 agreed on building a silo and ICBM base to make one that powerful, it costs a lot of money, and most people won't buy it. That's the point. Nukes aren't tomahawk missiles, they kill everything.

作者： Mr. Kurtz, 07.04.2012 at 14:21

作者： DURRHUNTER, 06.04.2012 at 10:50

作者： nonames, 06.04.2012 at 09:14

nukes don't make it

true dat

作者： Garde, 04.04.2012 at 15:26

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. "5. Nukes would be unable to turnblock or stop units from moving', oh, so I can make a bomber kamikaze into a tank, and that stops it right? So shooting A FUCKING NUKE doesn't block it? Funny shit bro.

noobs trying to make nukes^^

You shut up that's a good idea. You all want god nukes that would be OP and ruin the rest of the game. Better no nukes at all then mega nukes

unturnblocaable nukes? are you fuckin crazy?

作者： DURRHUNTER, 07.04.2012 at 20:11

作者： Mr. Kurtz, 07.04.2012 at 14:21

作者： DURRHUNTER, 06.04.2012 at 10:50

作者： nonames, 06.04.2012 at 09:14

nukes don't make it

true dat

作者： Garde, 04.04.2012 at 15:26

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. "5. Nukes would be unable to turnblock or stop units from moving', oh, so I can make a bomber kamikaze into a tank, and that stops it right? So shooting A FUCKING NUKE doesn't block it? Funny shit bro.

noobs trying to make nukes^^

You shut up that's a good idea. You all want god nukes that would be OP and ruin the rest of the game. Better no nukes at all then mega nukes

unturnblocaable nukes? are you fuckin crazy?

THIS IS NOT CRAZY. Nukes are OP in real life so who gives a fuck.

They should make it so that players can see the rules, units and guidelines of the scenario before they actually pick their countries and strategies.

Many a time I've mistakenly chosen "Master of Stealth" in a scenario where marines are taken out.

Also, it's difficult to explain the function of a scenario in the lobby when people come and go up until the game itself begins.

作者： TDFall, 08.04.2012 at 17:38

They should make it so that players can see the rules, units and guidelines of the scenario before they actually pick their countries and strategies.

Many a time I've mistakenly chosen "Master of Stealth" in a scenario where marines are taken out.

Also, it's difficult to explain the function of a scenario in the lobby when people come and go up until the game itself begins.

This is definitely needed. I do the same thing, going into scenarios with SM on only to find out that they took out bombers. I just avoid scenarios because you can't tell what they take out unless you're familiar with it.

作者： Houdini, 08.04.2012 at 17:52

作者： TDFall, 08.04.2012 at 17:38

They should make it so that players can see the rules, units and guidelines of the scenario before they actually pick their countries and strategies.

Many a time I've mistakenly chosen "Master of Stealth" in a scenario where marines are taken out.

Also, it's difficult to explain the function of a scenario in the lobby when people come and go up until the game itself begins.

This is definitely needed. I do the same thing, going into scenarios with SM on only to find out that they took out bombers. I just avoid scenarios because you can't tell what they take out unless you're familiar with it.

I know that feel. Some kind of indication as to the types of units allowed would be nice.

作者： YOBA, 08.04.2012 at 20:35

作者： Houdini, 08.04.2012 at 17:52

作者： TDFall, 08.04.2012 at 17:38

They should make it so that players can see the rules, units and guidelines of the scenario before they actually pick their countries and strategies.

Many a time I've mistakenly chosen "Master of Stealth" in a scenario where marines are taken out.

Also, it's difficult to explain the function of a scenario in the lobby when people come and go up until the game itself begins.

This is definitely needed. I do the same thing, going into scenarios with SM on only to find out that they took out bombers. I just avoid scenarios because you can't tell what they take out unless you're familiar with it.

I know that feel. Some kind of indication as to the types of units allowed would be nice.

I just try too make sense of its time. If it is 1800s, it mot likely will not have planes 400ad probably won't have marines.

引句:

Gardevoir

Al Qaeda or 4chan wouldn't use them.

LOL 4chan

作者： KYBL, 09.04.2012 at 10:08

作者： YOBA, 08.04.2012 at 20:35

作者： Houdini, 08.04.2012 at 17:52

作者： TDFall, 08.04.2012 at 17:38

They should make it so that players can see the rules, units and guidelines of the scenario before they actually pick their countries and strategies.

Many a time I've mistakenly chosen "Master of Stealth" in a scenario where marines are taken out.

Also, it's difficult to explain the function of a scenario in the lobby when people come and go up until the game itself begins.

This is definitely needed. I do the same thing, going into scenarios with SM on only to find out that they took out bombers. I just avoid scenarios because you can't tell what they take out unless you're familiar with it.

I know that feel. Some kind of indication as to the types of units allowed would be nice.

I just try too make sense of its time. If it is 1800s, it mot likely will not have planes 400ad probably won't have marines.

You could ask the scenario creator, as sometimes they get creative and make Sentry planes messengers/couriers or something like that, though what the original post is this quote chain stands as good.

Oh god the amount of retardation here is astounding. Arnt there already nukes though? as a special units?

作者： Jim Jimmies, 11.06.2012 at 23:20

Oh god the amount of retardation here is astounding. Arnt there already nukes though? as a special units?

ofc

So have the afterwind units, the nukes, come in since the start of this thread? or do people mean more opd nukes?