So one of the biggest things I feel the war system is lagging is a detailed Ground system warfare. We have this system with Air. I thought something like that could be used for the ground system and to show what I mean with out a wall of text, I made a little HTML screen example



A variety of tanks and troops to choose from exactly like planes


This would be a major improvement in CN warfare, basically like air unites we could buy types of tanks and soldiers and buy stronger ones with the more technology we collect. This adds all new types of strategy to war, now you will really need to know what they have which will make spying more important and general ground attacks in general will feel much different.


Edit

Problem: Balance, to keep everyone buying lvl 9, so that is an issue and there was a couple solutions posted below I will link up here










I also personally like the idea of a Defense, Offense splitting and no strength system like the planes, machine gun would be great at defense but not as great at offense vs regular troops that would be good at offense and like the above both would only be good against troops, AT would be good against tanks defensively but it offensively it would be better to have tanks. Demo, and spec ops would also be great offense. As for armored cars, the Humvee could be a good defensive vehicle and add a bonus to troop survival, APCs could be the offensive counter part. Tanks would be great offense being countered best with AT troops. AA would be defensive only and a deterrent to aircraft.

Topic Approved

Well, you need to make the system so players NEED a variety groups of soldiers and vehicles. You can't just have like 10,000 rocket launcher soldiers and expect to "WTH?" pwn your enemy. Plus, you also need a balance of the rifle men and the machine gunners. The machine gunners need time to set up their machine gun nests, need cover from sneaky enemy soldiers, and someone has to charge into their enemy lines.

You should add sniper troops and military trucks to the list. The trucks should boost your military ground forces' efficiency.

I agree with the above.

However, I feel that these new units should be more like the Navy, then aircraft. For instance, Rocket Launcher soldier would do better vs Tanks, trucks, vehicles etc, but weak vs all other infantry type. basic stuff like that.

This would change CN in soo many awesome ways.

My suggestions for the list:

Pro: a type of unit that can destroy another type(s) of enemy unit easily.

Con: a type of unit that is vulnerable against other type(s) of enemy unit.
--------------------------------------
Rifle men:

Pro: AT troops, rifle men, engineers, snipers, medics, explosive experts.

Con: Vehicles, machine gunners, snipers, rifle men, special forces, explosive experts.
----------------------------------------
Machine gunners:

Pro: Rifle men, AT troops, engineers, medics, explosive experts, lightly armored vehicles (Humvee)

Con: Vehicles, snipers, special forces, machine gunners, explosive experts.
--------------------------------------
AT troops:

Pro: Vehicles, snipers (when you have a rocket smashing into your sniper nest, you are going to get owned even if you take cover), machine gunners, engineers, explosive experts, medics.

Con: Vehicles (road kills anyone?), snipers, rifle men, special forces, explosive experts.
-----------------------------------------------
Snipers:

Pro: Reducing vehicles efficiency (by sniping the driver and the machine gunners and/or the tires), rifle men, AT troops, special forces, engineers, machine gunners, medics, explosive experts, snipers (sniping warfare, ever heard of that?)

Con: Snipers, AT troops, rifle men,
--------------------------------------------
Special forces:

Pro: Rifle men, AT troops, engineers, machine gunners, medics, explosive experts.

Con: Vehicles, snipers, machine gunners, special forces, explosive experts,
-----------------------------------------------
Engineers:

Pro: Increase your vehicles' efficiency, decrease the loss of your vehicles.

Con: Rifle men, machine gunners, snipers, vehicles, special forces, AT troops, explosive experts.
------------------------------------------------
Medics:

Pro: Increase your soldiers' efficiency and reduce the loss of your soldiers.

Con: Rifle men, machine gunners, snipers, vehicles, special forces, AT troops, explosive experts.
---------------------------------------------------
Vehicles:

Pro: Medics, engineers, rifle men, machine gunners, AT troops, special forces.

Con: Snipers, machine gunners (only the lightly armored vehicles are vulnerable Humvee), AT troops, explosive experts, efficiency reduced by snipers (if your driver/machine gunner/tires gets shot, ouch).
------------------------------------------------
Explosive experts (they lay land mines and other traps rigged with explosives):

Pro: Rifle men, machine gunners (if they set up their machine gun nest on a land mine, ouch), vehicles, AT troops, special forces, engineers, explosive experts, medics.

Con: Rifle men, machine gunners, snipers, AT troops, vehicles, explosive experts, special forces.

EDIT: Medics, Explosive experts, and Vehicles added.

I like this, but as stated before, it needs more variety. If it becomes more like aircraft, then everyone will just buy all the level 9 stuff and we'd be at the same spot as we would before. All it would really effect would be those who are underneath, what, 500 tech?

What kind of criteria should be implemented? X amount of this type of troop etc etc.

What I think we should do first is decide what KIND of troops/tanks would be implemented, then what the requirements for each be, then their strengths and weaknesses, much similar to what HHAYD suggested.

I completely agree with the suggestion, it really would add tremendous dynamic to the game.

Old rock-paper-scissors problem and depending on how many different sorts you use it can be a pain to balance.
Look at Starcraft for example, it´s known as the best balanced game and it is still patched after nearly 10 years, then look at Dawn of War it was unbalanced due to too many races and units.

The problem in CN is it´s a static game (no realtime fighting) and the math behind the best efficiency of any unit combination won´t be difficult if the numbers are known and even Admin won´t tell us someone is going to use reverse engineering to figure them out.

I have no solution for this but the best i can think of, start with a minimum of different unit types not more than 3 for ground units and hide the numbers. Give those units very very different special abilities so they interefere as less as possible and scale the efficiency like if you have more than 50% of one type the efficiency rate is growing much slower.

Example:
Standard Soldier/Tank (no bonus, no malus, good in defence and offence)
Attack Soldier/Tank (offence bonus, defence malus)
Defend Soldier/Tank (defence bonus, offence malus)

Anti Air Soldier/Tank (heavy malus on both offence and defence in ground attacking units, very high bonus in shooting down planes)

Anti Navy Soldier/Tank (heavy malus on both offence and defence in ground attacking units, very high bonus in sinking ships)

I think that this could be best implemented sort of like the current Naval system, meaning that there is a total unit cap, rather than a unit cap for each individual unit, that would force one to choose how to structure their army to suit their nation.

By units, I mean companies. One could buy "X" number of rifleman companies, and "Y" number of humvees depending on their infra level, improvements, wonders etc. Certain improvements such as guerrilla camps or barracks may offer up additional unit types or increase the unit cap available for one to work with.

If a small cap is used, it will force people to mix and match various units into their army to suit their present needs. For instance, if they only had room for 6 companies, but there are 10 unit types, they would have to choose which types of companies to buy in order to face their threat. If their opponent used most of their vehicle unit slots for tanks, then the smart play would be to load up your infantry company slots with AT soldiers to counter the threat of tanks.

Another thought I had would be to base the effects of battles on how one structures their army. Let's say predominantly tank-filled army attacks and defeats you. Instead of focusing so much on stealing that tech, an armored column would likely be there to just blow stuff up. The infra damage done in that battle should reflect that, possibly giving an infra damage bonus to the victor. If an army with a special forces company defeats an enemy, then perhaps a randomly selected piece of intelligence (that you would normally get from a spy op) could be given to you in the outcome. There are honestly a lot of things you could do with customizable armies, I'm just kind of draining my thoughts into my keyboard as I type...

Honestly, forcing people to make tough decisions is what makes a game tactical. And tactical games are fun games.

Great idea yes, i do support it.

something like this would require a lot of retooling in how the combat system works. Since this is a static game, as was already pointed out, and NOT an RTS, then this type of pairing system is a little flawed. You can assume that the current soldier system already has this kind of soldier setup, but that it is transparent to you. Keeping track of all of the different variables and adjudicating the results would be needlessly complicated. I don't see how this would add any value to the game. If this game had a combat system like AstroEmpires, then maybe you could do something like this, but otherwise, it's too much detail with too little benefit. I do not agree with this suggestion.

1. Why the fudge crackle is there AA platforms as a tank?
2. Standard Riflemen DO NOT have an Automatic Grenade Launcher.
3. There's exactly no Strength Difference between Level 1 and 2 units.
4. Lets keep this game simple alright?

This is something which has been proposed before and I am certainly not against it. As far as strategic it does add some strategy. However what I really like about this proposal is the possibility for more improvements and possibly wonders. They can add in as modifiers or add the ability to use new units ala naval yards. I think requirement ratios should be important as previously stated that having max soldiers of the "level 9 unit" makes the whole thing redundant.

We can't keep adding in new units types without overhauling how wars are actually faught.

The good news:

Cute graphic. I would like to see more people do this sort of thing.

The bad news:

A variation of this has been purposed before and was WAY too complex. This also fails. This isn't 'Command and Conquer'.

I would like to see 'soldier' broken down more. The best distinction would be mechanized infantry (which would have a better strength in the offensive because they are more mobile and have APCs) and regular infantry. I would LOVE to see tanks broken down more in terms of their base strength much as aircraft are. I also wouldn't mind see artillery added as a new unit (more strength in defensive with a base strength less than tanks but more than infantry) or for that matter aircraft broken down such that 'bombers' can be dedicated to ground combat support as certain types of ships can be.

Will we see any of these things? *shrug*

NO!

There is already a tech bonus for ground battles. That tech bonus is the type of troop you have. This just makes it harder for a smaller nation to compete with a big nation. If I have enough tech to buy level 9 troops but my opponent does not, then it leaves me at a HUGE advantage. There is already the tech bonus in place to give me that advantage. Also, planes and navy have the same thing in place.

This accentuates the gap between large and small nations and should not be implemented.

I don't have many concrete suggestions or criticisms of the OP, but a bit more ground attack variety would be nice.

The few things that come to mind are:

* Discrete units should have different effects so that we don't fall into everyone just buying a ton of the best units of a plain graduated system of strength.

* Where is the "Queen of Battle"? I never see artillery mentioned in ground attack suggestions and its influence on real ground war has been profound since its inception centuries ago.

I agree 100% ... but good luck. Let's just hope CN doesn't do to the army like it did to the Navies and make humvees more powerful than tanks.



That's an understatement.

This is the most feasible change that i'd like to see in the ground war system if it will be changed at all really.

No comment on the navy ships. You really don't want to get me ranting on that mess.


But you could make different classifications for ground units without graduating them for strength.

Examples:

SpecOps and Heavy Weapons teams. The SpecOps have an offensive advantage, while Heavy Weapons teams have the defensive bonus. The players is then left with the decision to beef up offense or defense or go for a mix. A good way to introduce tactical variety.

Artillery. Two uses. First as part of strengthening basic attacks and defenses. Or used separately and removed from the main attack numbers. If used that way then it lowers the opposition's DefCon effectiveness for the next attack. It doesn't actually change the opposition's DefCon, but gives the same effect for that next attack. This reflects the shock value that artillery is known for.

Motorized troops, like APC's, Humvees, and truck troops could be made into a short graduated system that is purchased again like tanks in a percentage of total regular troops and are resistant to Artillery's special attack.

Rocket troops could be especially effective against tanks, motorized troops, and all air attacks (including fighter-only attacks).

Air Cavalry could be especially effective deployed-only troops. Immune to recall after home force drops and immune by separation from nuclear blast attacks. While devastatingly effective, they are extremely costly and especially vulnerable to rocket troops.


Other than the motorized troops graduations each class of specialty troops has unique attributes in war. Then by making them linked to the regular soldier count and require several groups of them to share the same allowance percentage for total numbers a player can buy. Tactical choice. With this limitation a player is forced to make tactical decisions about his force mix. Players would have good tactical variety choices, but could not simply max out all the flavors. Furthermore, these troops might be listed in discrete groups on the player's military pages they would be lumped into the mass groups of troops and tanks on the visible nation page. The opposition would not be able to see what the opposition has as far as specialty troops.

How about you buy sqauds instad of invisable units. So one sqaud is = to 10 men of that type.

Artillery should be added in, it’s in Admin’s other game, why not make it here?
I like the idea of more ground vehicles, the solider idea could work, but the vehicle idea I support.

A number of nation-builders/nation-wargames have already included artillery.

The ground unit build list should include all three major components:

1. Infantry --- limited to regular grunts and mechanized


2. Armor --- a small shopping list of tanks from light to MBT

3. Artillery --- limited to towed and self-propelled; SP arty would be structured basically they same way as regular infantry and mechanized infantry

I don't see enough benefits to outweigh the ridiculous increase in unnecessary complication.

I like the idea. Granted it needs balancing, but I think nations who have been working hard for a long time to build themselves deserve more than a slightly loaded dice to decide their fate...

Unless the mods completely change the game, it's pointless to have a more complicated ground attack system. In CN, wars ultimately rely on how much tech you have and many soldiers you can get, so it's not really feasilbe to even attempt to a balance a system that is so inherently "unbalanced." For instance, to use the Starcraft analogy, imagine if you start off with 20 more pylons/depots/OL and have +50 armor and +50 attack for all units. Unless you suck horrendously, you will win.

Furthermore, you really cannot treat the military like aircrafts and navies because unlike those other two, the ground troops loot opponent's money/tech/land and they require the opponent to actually have a military. I suppose navy style "bonuses" can be added, but they will simply give larger nations even more ways to absolutely crush weaker nations. Also, the notion that one can specialize armies for specific tasks is faulty since aggressor nations can simply build an army specifically designed to pick apart the defender's army. In other words, the attacker will pretty much always win since battles are not dynamic (given that all other things are constant).

If you really want to implement this, I believe that tech bonuses should be removed altogether from ground troops (except for having access to certain troops), and ground attacks can be done regardless of opponent's ability to defend. This will radically change CN and a pain to balance, but I suppose that it will make the game far more interesting.

make war more entertaining = more wars = more activity?

What will be the differences between these. Will they just be like level 1 and level 9 bombers? If so, everyone will just buy level 9 soldiers. Which would just be stronger soldiers, and more tech already means stronger soldiers. How does this add something to the game?

To be honest, I hate crossposting ideas from other games

But this could use a "rapidfire" type thing similar to the way navy works.

This means Rocket launchers will have higher strength when they hit tanks, but they won't target tanks, they'll randomly hit any target, but if they hit a tank, they do extra damage.

MG'rs will do extra damage to regular infantry, but do less damage to tanks than they should.

Obviously there's a lot of math and balance to this.

I agree with this. Additions made to the war system should be put there simply to add a component of stratgy to the game. Perhaps some units would be more geared to defense, some to offense, some in between, etc. However, a good element to condiser would be special forces. Perhaps there could be a wonder/improvement geared to the creation of special forces, and they could have some sort of increased effect on ground battle success. Alternatelty, special forces could pre-attack the enemy and create losses, or they could do damage to tech, infrastructure, or something of the like.

I am fond of the idea, like everyone else said it needs balancing and a system, but I think it could be a nice addition.

That's in conjunction with what I was thinking of replying with, because we're always look for mre dynamic ways to fight wars such as: with more destructive options - toys, but yet pretend to look like innocent little babies all over the other forums so if we're going to drive ourselves nut with this then I better see something dynamic like this for building infrastructure, and texxs too

If you had 5,000 tanks deployed and your enemy has 5,000 defending anti tank units, who is going to win?

The AT units.

So, are we going to create an anti-anti-tank to balance out the anti-tank? How about an anti-anti-anti-tank?

Cybernations is not a RTS game. If we implement a rock-paper-scissors military system, all one has to do is evenly distribute one's army across all units equally (33.33% rock, 33.33% paper, 33.33% scissor) and let the tech bonus do the rest of the work. In a game where there is no such thing as micro-management, limited access to troops (since soldiers are cheap as dust and we do not have a daily unit purchase cap), or even the ability to see what the opponent has, what's the point of complicating a system that isn't broken?

I suppose a spy operation that reveals the opponent's soldier distributions can be created, but this would mean that the attacker will win every time since he/she knows exactly what to build against his/her opponent.

Ever heard of snipers, machine gunners, rifle men, special forces, and explosive experts? Look at my suggestion on the first page.

I already have, and I ask you what's a better build than having the same number of all the units?

As a matter of fact, what's the point given that you don't even know what your opponent has?

Spying your enemy. Besides, in RL, when your nation is at war against another nation, do you expect to know the exact amount of military stuff your enemy has?

I believe I've already covered this is my initial post, but I'll say it again. If you can find out what your opponent has, then you can simply build an army that purely counters your opponent's army. In other words, attackers (who engage in soldier determining spy operations) will always have a significant advantage.

I do recall a suggestion that suggested each nation's military were to be rounded to a point where it is difficult to see how much troops or etc he/she has without spying.

No, you are not understanding my response. What I'm saying is that WITH SPYING, the attackers will ALWAYS have the advantage since they can easily build an army that exactly counters the army the defender has.

I'm asking in lieu of such facts (as well as what I've initially stated) how advanced ground units will affect the strategy or depth of CN besides just the illusion of control.

Well your smart for spying and building an exect oppitsit army.

People already build attacking or defending armies according to what their opponent has, to the extend the game allows. This is primarily in navy and air force since they actually have unit variations. I don't think adding advanced units will do much to change strategy in the game.

The only upset of balance I could see coming from this is lower-level nations and really help defensively. Nations in alliances would be instructed to stock up on defensive units, which would make them less likely to get hit all that hard from a raid or the beginning of a war. If an alliance coordinated right, even in the event of a surprise attack, it might actually prevent as many nations from getting anarchy'd in the first 15 minutes of a war, which would make the wars more interesting.

It could definitely make anarchying someone much harder if you didn't learn to fight right. Honestly, as long as the variations between the offensive and defensive capabilities are not too grand, I believe this would add more fun to the game. Making war harder and survival a tad easier makes the game better, in my opinion. An alliance shouldn't be able to roll a smaller one overnight based simply on sheer size. Look at past global conflicts. A bigger army doesn't always translate to easy victory.

It seems like people approve of this or would like to see something different done with the ground unit warfare.

Any input from anyone else?

Like Shinn stated it would end up being like a RTS game of rock-paper-scissors. If this were to be approved it would need some drastic changes which would probably end up being so far from the original idea it wouldn't be worth putting into the game. Please don't critisise my view. All I'm doing is giving feedback. All-in-all this really shouldn't be put into the game.

I hope this isn't too much of a grave dig, but instead of rock-paper-scissors (which caan be killed by spying), how abuot simply what they specialise at:

Assault troops (humvee/AK47): Steal more stuff like tech and cash
Destroyers (artillery/Flamethrower): Destroy more stuff like land and infra
Anti-vechile (AT cannon/bazooka): Destroy more tanks
Anti-infantry (machine gun/sniper): Destroy more infantry

I think that would work!

I think that before we do anything like this we should do more work to hide our military assets. I see no reason why the number of soldiers and tanks that we have should be common knowledge without a spy attack.

This makes the game too complex. KISS method is the way to go, just imagine you have snipers and gunners if you want to make it more realistic.

first of all, thanks to Allan a Dale, who saved this bunch of text from total aniquilation xD

well, following the original idea idea, i propose implementing an advanced purchasing of ground troops and vehicles, AND MIXING BATTLE ORDERS FOR the Cruise Missile, Air fight, Navy fight and Ground Attacks ON A SINGLE ATTACK, allowing only 2 "shared" attacks per target per day, + nuclear strikes + spy ops with some different mechanics. (read faaaar below for this)

Instead of just copying the idea of aircrafts, that are splitted simply by technological level, the navy-like, role-based tiering, seems more interesting to me; lets think about it.


Lets start with units; i propose a role-based distinction in which units will have different capabilities and would play different roles (Based on Capabilities) on the battle. Lets start with the so-told capabilities:

Capabilities of Units:

• Assault: attack other soldiers and mechanized units mainly. Also causes damage (minor) to Navy and Aircraft units)
• Raid: lower own soldier odds, destroys Infrastructure and Tech.
• Landing (Marine-exclusive capability): Requires Landing Ships; increases ground unit odds, decreaces enemy ground unit odds.
• Board (Marine-exclusive capability): Requires offensive naval units (others than Landing Ship). Decreaces enemy naval units odds, low chance of looting enemy naval units.
• Airdrop (Parachuter-exclusive capability): Requires a Transport Helicopter or Bomber aircraft. Decreaces enemy ground unit odds, causes some less damage than Assault.
• Support: greatly increaces own Soldier's odds. Further increaces Soldier odds if enemy troops count none with Support Capability active.
• Air Cover (Dogfight for Fighters): attacks exclusively enemy air units.
• Land Cover: attacks exclusively enemy mechanized ground units.
• Naval Cover: attacks exclusively enemy naval units.
• Siege: Destroys a small amount of Infrastructure and Technology, slightly decreases enemy's ground unit odds. Probability of destroying some enemy mechanized units, low probability of (additionally) destroying some enemy aircraft units, lowerst probability of (additionally) destroying some enemy naval units.
• Hunt (Tank/Assault Chopper-exclusive capability): lowers own Soldiers odds, greatly increases Tank/Assault Chopper odds against Mechanized Units.
• Air Superiority (Fighter-exclusive Capability): lowers enemy aircraft odds, increaces own aircraft odds; causes some minor damage.

New unit types:

Soldiers:

• Infantry: cheapest to buy, they'll form the greatest part of everyone's army, together with tanks. No tech requirement, have lower odds against Mechanized Units, Artillery, Marines and Helicopters (new name for former "Tanks" ) Will be allowed to carry "Assaults" and "Raid"

• Marine: More expensive to buy, will require a Harbour and some minor tech. Will be capable of carrying "Assault", "Landing" and "Board". Lower odds against Mechanized Units, Artillery and Helicopters, higher odds against Infantry.

• Parachuter: More expensive than the Infantry, will require 30 tech (the same needed for Lv 1 aircraft). Will be capable of "Assault" and "Airdrop". Lower odds against Mechanized Units and Helicopters, Infantry, Marines, Artillery and RPG Infantry.

• SAM Infantry: More expensive than Infantry, will be capable of carrying "Assault" and "Air Cover" . Lower odds against Mechanized Units, Infantry, Marines, Artillery and RPG Infantry. Higher odds against all aircraft (including Helicopters)

• RPG Infantry: More expensive than Infantry, will be capable of carrying "Assault" and "Land Cover". Higher odds against Mechanized Units, and RPG Infantry. Lower odds against Infantry, Marines and Helicopters.

• Artillery Unit: More expensive than Infantry, will be capable of "Assault", "Land Cover" and "Siege". Lower odds against all other soldiers. Higher odds against Mechanized Infantry. (If Artillery defends or attacks alone against any Soldier other than Artillery Unit is looted by the opponent)

Mechanized Units:

• Tank: main support for Infantry, thought to fight other Mechanized Units, specially other tanks; Capable of "Assault", "Hunt" and "Raid". Higher odds against Soldiers (except RPG Infantry and Artillery), lower odds against RPG Infantry, Artillery, Helicopters, Bombers (any level), Mobile Artillery and Tanks.

• APC: REAL main support for infantry in terms of specialization. Capable of "Support" and "Assault". Lower odds against RPG Infantry, Artillery, Helicopters, Bombers (any level), Mobile Artillery and Tanks.

• Mobile SAM: mechanized version of the SAM Infantry, higher power + superiority against Soldiers. Capable of "Air Cover" and "Assault" Lower odds against Tanks, RPG Infantry, Artillery and Mobile Artillery. Higher odds against all aircraft (including Helicopters)

• Mobile Artillery: mechanized version of the Artillery/RPG Soldiers. Capable of "Siege", "Land Cover" and "Assault". Lower odds against RPG Infantry, Aircraft and Tanks . Higher odds against all Mechanized Units and Soldiers (except those for which odds are lower)

Aircraft:

this will be short, dont worry I'll just add a new type, apart from Fighters and Bombers. This would be the Helicopters:

This would requires some good tech and be Really expensive. All of them would have lower odds against SAM Infantry (except Assault Heli) and Mobile SAM units (Except Rocket Heli) and Fighters (Except Rocket Heli), and higher odds against other Mechanized Units (Except Transportation Heli) and Soldiers:

• Assault Helicopter: focused on attacking other choppers, mechanized units and soldiers. Capable of "Assault", "Hunt" and "Siege".

• Transportation Helicopter: air version of the APC; Capable of "Support" and "Assault"

• Rocket Helicopter: Air-to-something choppers; capable of "Land Cover", "Air Cover", "Naval Cover" and "Assault".

To all bombers: "Assault", "Land Cover", "Naval Cover" and "Siege"
To all fighters: "Assault", "Dogfight" (same as "Air Cover", different name due to the Tradition ) and "Air Superiority".


Navy already has set roles on them, the only addition would be the "Landing" for Landing ships mixed with Marines, and "Boarding" for the rest.

Cruise Missiles should be capable of running "Air Cover", "Land Cover", "Naval Cover" and "Siege".



Now.. to the foretold war mechanics!

When ordering an attack against a nation, one will be able to choose different roles to each type of unit sent to the attack (from the capabilities that each unit has), AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS SENT (in the case of CM's, Aircrafts, and Navy; yeah, please! allow us to shoot maaaany CM's at once =D u can lower their efficiency ^^"). Then, units will carry the orders given to them. IF THE ORDER CAN NOT BE CARRIED (example: Mobile SAM ordered to carry "Air Cover", and the defending side has no aircraft) the unit will carry "Assault", except for CM's that will carry "Siege" (if u check quickly, all units have Assault except CM's)

This way, one will be able to carry two Attacks + two Spy Ops + 1 Nuke Strike per day per target.

Also, a Defensive Strategy option should be added to set the roles defined to different units when defending (As you set the Offensive Strategy every time u order an Attack, the defender also has to be able to set some strategy) U'r free to comment, obviously.

EDIT: mayor formattting done; hope it helps the reading ^^

@ccjmk

KISS
Just KISS

It sonds really good, but looks FAR too complicated for most people to understand (and keeping 2 attacks seems to be as outdated as '75 tech for nukes').
We should make a simple change at first, like erm, I dunno, maybe mine
Anyway, we should have some sort of overhaul (especially hiding military), but let me just remind everyone of my idea:

Assault troops (humvee/AK47): Steal more stuff like tech and cash
Destroyers (artillery/Flamethrower): Destroy more stuff like land and infra
Anti-vechile (AT cannon/bazooka): Destroy more tanks
Anti-infantry (machine gun/sniper): Destroy more infantry

That is a really good change which would definately keep it away from an RTS game feel. (sorry if that sounded sarcastic, because...it wasn't.)