Thund3rbird Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Well amongst all the talk about the tech update the cruise missle update was lost in the initial shock. Cruise missle can now Destroy Tech. I personnally think that it somewhat (emphasis on the Somewhat) makes up for the tech change. But thats just me. :jihad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 i like it because there is absolutely no reason for a Cruise missile to hit a building and leave all its computers and electronics intact. its just realistic. and good for gameplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nymraud Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 You have infra and tech mixed up. Computers and electronics should be considered infra. Your tech level just indicates how technologically advanced your infra is. Unless you totally wipe out a country, you can't destroy the knowledge those people have to create technology. I don't think tech should be destroyable for that reason and for the reason that now nations can be totally wiped out in war, admin, that's a good way to make the population of people who play this game get smaller and smaller. Getting ZI'd is bad enough, during large global wars, people who get annihilated will probably quit the game after realizing their months if not years of work have been destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 i like it because there is absolutely no reason for a Cruise missile to hit a building and leave all its computers and electronics intact. its just realistic. and good for gameplay. I don't like it because I didn't realize tech was a measure of how many computers a nation had in its buildings I think better for gameplay (and i know I didnt come up with this) would be for ground to do tech damage rather than stealing it, and for defeat alerts to steal tech. As war works currently; tech is swapped between nations most of the time, even if i lose all my battles and my enemy wins all their battles the tech still exists, just in another nation so overall the tech never stops circulating and more is created constantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandrov Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Yeah, I've always thought Tech was a measure of how advanced your nation is, not how many technological infrastructure there was. However, that being said I still enjoy tech being destroyed by CMs. CMs were pretty redundant in that they could only destroy infrastructure and tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Bwalla III Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 You have infra and tech mixed up. Computers and electronics should be considered infra. Your tech level just indicates how technologically advanced your infra is. Unless you totally wipe out a country, you can't destroy the knowledge those people have to create technology. I don't think tech should be destroyable for that reason and for the reason that now nations can be totally wiped out in war, admin, that's a good way to make the population of people who play this game get smaller and smaller. Getting ZI'd is bad enough, during large global wars, people who get annihilated will probably quit the game after realizing their months if not years of work have been destroyed. i agree 100% with this. i was under the impression that infrastructure can be destroyed, but knowledge can't be destroyed and that technology level = the amount of knowledge people had in order to build advanced infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCyber Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 i agree 100% with this. i was under the impression that infrastructure can be destroyed, but knowledge can't be destroyed and that technology level = the amount of knowledge people had in order to build advanced infrastructure. Knowledge defenitely can be destroyed.. kill the person that has the knowledge and it's gone.. destroy the computers the knowledge is stored in and it's gone.. burn the books the knowledge is written down in and it's gone.. so destroying infra defenitely has an effect on knowledge (considering infra does include things like computers, books etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 I'm really not sure yet, I suppose it will control the amount of tech that some nations build up. But I'll have to see how I feel after war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitauts Posted November 6, 2007 Report Share Posted November 6, 2007 It may be more' realistic' as (DAC)Syzygy mentions, but it has unbalanced the game to the point that wars are now extremely expensive and lopsided. Older established nations will crush newer smaller ones with more ease. All you need to do is use CM's to drop the tech of your enemy below 500 and then proceed to ZI the nations as it can not replenish its level 9 fighters and it gets bombed into oblivion. As I have mentioned before.. Changes need to be made in the game to give more advantage to NEW and up and coming nations. Giving advantage to large nations over and above what they already have is just a death knell for cybernations. I completely oppose this change. So what? the game consists of just a few large nations and crony players and discourages new allainces and players? King Vitauts, upset. (and no, I am not a new player.. but I have been there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelrat Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 It may be more' realistic' as (DAC)Syzygy mentions, but it has unbalanced the game to the point that wars are now extremely expensive and lopsided. Older established nations will crush newer smaller ones with more ease.All you need to do is use CM's to drop the tech of your enemy below 500 and then proceed to ZI the nations as it can not replenish its level 9 fighters and it gets bombed into oblivion. As I have mentioned before.. Changes need to be made in the game to give more advantage to NEW and up and coming nations. Giving advantage to large nations over and above what they already have is just a death knell for cybernations. I completely oppose this change. So what? the game consists of just a few large nations and crony players and discourages new allainces and players? King Vitauts, upset. (and no, I am not a new player.. but I have been there) In a 1on1 you are correct but if we speak about alliance wars still the smaller/newer ones have a big advantage far more cheaper Infra to rebuild. So if you have a fight 1 big vs 3 smaller ones, the big one will loose more if you calc in $ and now more smaller ones are in range of the bigger ones, so you can zerg rush them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossGarner Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Honestly I think Cruise Missiles should be changed. Before they were a 14 infrastructure a day penalty for being in a real war, now that also includes 4 tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallfrog Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Yeah, I've always thought Tech was a measure of how advanced your nation is, not how many technological infrastructure there was. However, that being said I still enjoy tech being destroyed by CMs. CMs were pretty redundant in that they could only destroy infrastructure and tanks. Actually, they where pretty useful, a nice way to keep beating your opponent down. Its the only way the guy I'm against has damaged me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 It may be more' realistic' as (DAC)Syzygy mentions, but it has unbalanced the game to the point that wars are now extremely expensive and lopsided. Older established nations will crush newer smaller ones with more ease.All you need to do is use CM's to drop the tech of your enemy below 500 and then proceed to ZI the nations as it can not replenish its level 9 fighters and it gets bombed into oblivion. As I have mentioned before.. Changes need to be made in the game to give more advantage to NEW and up and coming nations. Giving advantage to large nations over and above what they already have is just a death knell for cybernations. I completely oppose this change. So what? the game consists of just a few large nations and crony players and discourages new allainces and players? King Vitauts, upset. (and no, I am not a new player.. but I have been there) ^^ ThatIt's so damn easy for an superior opponent to crush an inferior one. I oppose all changes making it even easier for the big guy to smash the little guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rude Empire Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 not sure mainly as it will be on ur side if you hit them and make damage plus tech damage but what about you getting hit back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Bwalla III Posted November 8, 2007 Report Share Posted November 8, 2007 Yeah, I've always thought Tech was a measure of how advanced your nation is, not how many technological infrastructure there was. However, that being said I still enjoy tech being destroyed by CMs. CMs were pretty redundant in that they could only destroy infrastructure and tanks. yeah but you can't destroy EVERYTHING. in the end the leader is always going to survive (unless CN adds an "assasination" feature). And the leader may or may not possess the knowledge of "technology". But on CN, whose the dictate that? for the most part...i don't like this change. infra was good enough. Once you're ZI'ed, technology doesn't really matter until you get aided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustyCloud Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 i like it because there is absolutely no reason for a Cruise missile to hit a building and leave all its computers and electronics intact. its just realistic. and good for gameplay. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.