SM IS KILLING THIS GAME
Postări: 32
Vizitat de: 166 users
Postarea originală
Postat de Nostromo, 29.03.2013 - 17:35
So: is not reasonable nor realistic to add the strenght advantage to the cheaper cost, so that you can buy bomber and stealth like an Imperialist player but attacking with strenght levels like no others.
And is not reasonable, nor realistic, to add the cheapest cost of air transports (-200!) to both their own strong (attack, and above all defense and crit.) and their own capacity. It means that with 1200 I can have 2 airpl and carry 8 land forces, the sm player can buy 3 airpl carrying 15 land forces!
Balance it pls, or the game will be no more various and interesting, as it could be.
|
Despite any argument you make about SM expansion it does expand just as fast as blitz like it or not. Blitz tank has 10 movement SM bombers has 17. If you are blitz and useing bombers then you have 18 movement. I get what your saying with the transports, that is time consumeing and does take a toll on your economy (still has almost as much movement as blitz air transport). BUT in comparison to its benefits and nerfs SM may not look over powered when just looking at the stats but it IS in the game plain and simple. It isn't just me makeing this argument which only prooves there is a lot of others out there who know that SM is too strong. I don't see how you can possibly defend it. As long as your a decent player with SM all you have to do is not screw up your first turn expansion then the rest if a breeze if you manage your money, which isn't hard if you get the right countries. First 2 turns an SM player can us their range and practically surrond you and unlike blitz who you can easily counter attack SM players can defend too. Which was the whole point I was getting at was the nerfs not the expansion alone.
---- I hate to advocate drugs alcohol and violence to the kids, but it's always worked for me.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
This has just become a QQ thread.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
- 1
- 2
