[Fistandantilus]

Im not sure if this has been sugested before, but I think we should be able to steal infa through ground attacks. It dosnt make sence that we can only steal land but not the buildings on it. But there is also a more important reason why I think we should be able to, it would make non-inactive raids profitible, and the only reason a nation actualy goes to war is for polictal reasons(wich I think should change). Recently there has been alot of talk about this game being boring due to the lack of wars, and I think that this would change that. It would also be cool to expand your nation through conquest. It would also be a simple change to the game, just turn the infa destroyed by ground attacks into infa gained/conqured(CMs, nukes and aircraft will still destroy infa, obvously).

What do you guys think about this? I think it would be a great improvement to this game.

This post has been edited by Fistandantilus: 01 December 2007 - 10:03 PM

[raasaa]

has been suggested before.....stealing infra is not realistic...

someone else pointed this out........"you cant steal roads & buildings "

[Carnage]

raasaa, on Nov 30 2007, 09:48 PM, said:

has been suggested before.....stealing infra is not realistic...

someone else pointed this out........"you cant steal roads & buildings "

yes been suggested before. stealing infra is realistic. If you can take control of their land, than you can take control of their buildings and roads within that land.

[Fistandantilus]

Carnage, on Nov 30 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

yes been suggested before. stealing infra is realistic. If you can take control of their land, than you can take control of their buildings and roads within that land.

QFT.


@ Raasaa: Also, please read the OP.

This post has been edited by Fistandantilus: 30 November 2007 - 09:49 PM

[DustyCloud]

No, because I don't think it's possible to steal houses. Besides, land is actually aceptable, that happens a lot. But what happens if your stationed in Greenland (me) and want to attack X over in America? Do your troops carry the houses back? It doesn't make sense.

[raasaa]

Conquer Infra --- search before repeating the same suggestion plzz

[Fistandantilus]

DustyCloud, on Nov 30 2007, 07:52 PM, said:

No, because I don't think it's possible to steal houses. Besides, land is actually aceptable, that happens a lot. But what happens if your stationed in Greenland (me) and want to attack X over in America? Do your troops carry the houses back? It doesn't make sense.

Do the troops carry the land back? Its exactly the same thing.

[killerterrier]

It is much more realisitc, because you might be trading the land through all sorts of wierd deals to gain land near your area. That is probably why you don't get all the land you take over.

[nightsight]

DustyCloud, on Dec 1 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

No, because I don't think it's possible to steal houses. Besides, land is actually aceptable, that happens a lot. But what happens if your stationed in Greenland (me) and want to attack X over in America? Do your troops carry the houses back? It doesn't make sense.

You don't move the houses/factories/mines/whatever, you kick the others out of them and move in their place. It is realistic. War doesn't destroy every bridge and road.

[Bob Janova]

Quote

search before repeating the same suggestion plzz

If you have some voodoo that will make the search box work, please inform the rest of us

[steodonn]

OK lads we won now grab that road over there and lets go home






no

[killerterrier]

nightsight, on Dec 1 2007, 02:39 AM, said:

You don't move the houses/factories/mines/whatever, you kick the others out of them and move in their place. It is realistic. War doesn't destroy every bridge and road.

How can you kick out someone who is about 100000 km away? And then have the infra like it is teleported back to your territory?

[Fistandantilus]

killerterrier, on Dec 1 2007, 11:15 AM, said:

How can you kick out someone who is about 100000 km away? And then have the infra like it is teleported back to your territory?

How to you carry land back when its over a 100000km away? You dont, you leave it were it is and rule it(so why shouldnt it be the same with infa?). If you guys want to look at it from a more real point of veiw, it would be much like haveing a colony. You conquer a forign powers land(And hopefuly infra) and it stayer were it is,but you just rule it and its now part of your nation/empire.

Plz read the OP people.

[MegaVolt]

If infra can be stolen then there should be somehow made sure that at least more infra is destroyed in a war then stolen.
Else we get an "infra inflation" just like the tech inflation: Tech got produced and produced and never destroyed. This changed recently. A system similar to the tech one is maybe interesting for infra as well.

[christhekiller]

stealing infra wouldnt be realistic you cant just take roads and houses back overseas with you

this would also apply to land though you cant take land back with you can you?

[Flamingmonkey923]

Taking land = taking everything on that land which hasn't been destroyed. We should take their infra:land ratio, divide the infra side by 10, and then use it to calculate how much infra you get based on how much land you've razed. Pretty simple, and pretty realistic... well at least as realistic as razing land is in the first place.

[Kung Fu Geeks]

screw realism for a second.

Do you have any idea what will happen to the game if you could steal infra

economically inflation would be even worse than it is now, because no nation would spend money on buying infra when they can steal it for much much much cheaper

alliances that already raid would quickly become more powerfull than those that dont war. (more infra == more citizens == stronger military)

Alliances that dont raid would quickly realize the disadvantages of not going to war and would either start raiding or start having more frequent large scale wars just to keep up with those already warring.

This could turn the game into utter chaos with alliances constantly at war.

Not to mention this could be exploited by having larger nations attack smaller ones that are still in range who then attack yet even smaller nations to replenish thier infra who attack still smaller nation to replinish thier infra. Then when you hit nations that are at ZI have the top level nations aid down 3mil to buy a ton of really cheap infra that will get stolen all the way back to the top. You're basically allowing a path for really cheap infra to flow via battles to top level nations at a miniscule fraction of the price

[The Russian Empire]

raasaa, on Nov 30 2007, 10:48 PM, said:

stealing infra is not realistic..

[thedestro]

Forget the realism bit and see if this will actually make the game better.

Then start arguing.

[Havvy]

Raze 90%, keep 10%. Oh, and epic picture TRE.

I agree with this suggestion in merit and would like to see infra being taken. Though, doing that will cause inflation to rise even more. I say the game should become more balanced in other aspects before causing putting this in.