Population Casualties

Hurry up and release it already! If the community keeps arguing about balance nothing new will ever get into the game. If it takes any longer to come out, I might melt into a puddle.

The fact is people are far more interested in custom maps and a competitive ranking system than they are about population casualties. And for good reasons.

Population casualties would ruin any kind of competitive gameplay,

yeah i'm sure you could say, i will strategically bomb these cities so even if the enemy retakes them, i will still have time to reinforce. but if this were the case, sm would be superior, and sm doesn't need any more buffs. haha.

Eshkruar nga nonames, 29.06.2012 at 20:37

sm doesn't need any more buffs. haha.

This alone is beyond enough reason to make sure population casualties stay low on the list

I think it would be nice in certain creatable scenarios, like world wars. with teams, you could effectively cripple a team member over time.

but it should be off by default in normal games, and be a premium feature.

Eshkruar nga nonames, 29.06.2012 at 20:50

and be a premium feature.

Careful with that, those words immediately classify your post as "Everyone who doesn't have access to premium flipping shit because they can't use a feature"

Eshkruar nga nonames, 29.06.2012 at 20:37

and sm doesn't need any more buffs. haha.

SM needs a nerf, thats what it needs.

Eshkruar nga nonames, 29.06.2012 at 20:37

Population casualties would ruin any kind of competitive gameplay,

yeah i'm sure you could say, i will strategically bomb these cities so even if the enemy retakes them, i will still have time to reinforce. but if this were the case, sm would be superior, and sm doesn't need any more buffs. haha.

Solution = bombers do less or no damage to population.

Eshkruar nga Mr. Kurtz, 30.06.2012 at 12:39

Eshkruar nga nonames, 29.06.2012 at 20:37

Population casualties would ruin any kind of competitive gameplay,

yeah i'm sure you could say, i will strategically bomb these cities so even if the enemy retakes them, i will still have time to reinforce. but if this were the case, sm would be superior, and sm doesn't need any more buffs. haha.

Solution = bombers do less or no damage to population.

well I guess you could do this, but that makes no sense.

you would expect bombers and stealth bombers to cause more casualty, seeing as you are strategically dropping large amounts of ordinance on cities, you would also expect destroyers with cruise missles to have a large effect on pop casualty, while land units would specifically avoid civilian casualties.

Eshkruar nga nonames, 30.06.2012 at 13:24

Eshkruar nga Mr. Kurtz, 30.06.2012 at 12:39

Eshkruar nga nonames, 29.06.2012 at 20:37

Population casualties would ruin any kind of competitive gameplay,

yeah i'm sure you could say, i will strategically bomb these cities so even if the enemy retakes them, i will still have time to reinforce. but if this were the case, sm would be superior, and sm doesn't need any more buffs. haha.

Solution = bombers do less or no damage to population.

well I guess you could do this, but that makes no sense.

you would expect bombers and stealth bombers to cause more casualty, seeing as you are strategically dropping large amounts of ordinance on cities, you would also expect destroyers with cruise missles to have a large effect on pop casualty, while land units would specifically avoid civilian casualties.

Well, at least until sky menace gets nerfed...

Really, the only issue here is that SM needs a Nerf, OR people could just start using the freaking anti-air! We don't really need to nerf SM, we just need to make it easier to defend against, for example, Ivan and amok could make anti-air more mobile and available to people who haven't bought premium. Now that that issues aside, population casualties is a great idea, like, lets say each time you buy a reinforcement it takes away 10,000 people for recruitment from the population, and the population regains every round. And the enemy can bomb cities, kill people, and make recruitment cost more/ less powerful units from that area.

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 08.07.2012 at 11:03

Really, the only issue here is that SM needs a Nerf, OR people could just start using the freaking anti-air! We don't really need to nerf SM, we just need to make it easier to defend against, for example, Ivan and amok could make anti-air more mobile and available to people who haven't bought premium. Now that that issues aside, population casualties is a great idea, like, lets say each time you buy a reinforcement it takes away 10,000 people for recruitment from the population, and the population regains every round. And the enemy can bomb cities, kill people, and make recruitment cost more/ less powerful units from that area.

1.I'm pretty sure someone already posted saying AA sucks.
2.SM needs a nerf, like a 20+ cost increase for bombers.
3. Pop. casualties would just make SM more OP. All they have to do is send a few bombers, get rid of your recruits, then steamroll you.

Eshkruar nga Gking19, 08.07.2012 at 13:34

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 08.07.2012 at 11:03

Really, the only issue here is that SM needs a Nerf, OR people could just start using the freaking anti-air! We don't really need to nerf SM, we just need to make it easier to defend against, for example, Ivan and amok could make anti-air more mobile and available to people who haven't bought premium. Now that that issues aside, population casualties is a great idea, like, lets say each time you buy a reinforcement it takes away 10,000 people for recruitment from the population, and the population regains every round. And the enemy can bomb cities, kill people, and make recruitment cost more/ less powerful units from that area.

1.I'm pretty sure someone already posted saying AA sucks.
2.SM needs a nerf, like a 20+ cost increase for bombers.
3. Pop. casualties would just make SM more OP. All they have to do is send a few bombers, get rid of your recruits, then steamroll you.

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 14.07.2012 at 12:05

Eshkruar nga Gking19, 08.07.2012 at 13:34

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 08.07.2012 at 11:03

Really, the only issue here is that SM needs a Nerf, OR people could just start using the freaking anti-air! We don't really need to nerf SM, we just need to make it easier to defend against, for example, Ivan and amok could make anti-air more mobile and available to people who haven't bought premium. Now that that issues aside, population casualties is a great idea, like, lets say each time you buy a reinforcement it takes away 10,000 people for recruitment from the population, and the population regains every round. And the enemy can bomb cities, kill people, and make recruitment cost more/ less powerful units from that area.

1.I'm pretty sure someone already posted saying AA sucks.
2.SM needs a nerf, like a 20+ cost increase for bombers.
3. Pop. casualties would just make SM more OP. All they have to do is send a few bombers, get rid of your recruits, then steamroll you.

1. I know...
2. It doesn't need to be nerfed, it needs to be more easily to be defended.
3. Have you even read my freaking post?! I said that after SM has been more easily defended, it would total sense to add pop. casualties
4. It won't be a few bombers, you would have to send HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of bombers to decimate a city, sending in 1 or 8 will do almost nothing.

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 14.07.2012 at 12:10

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 14.07.2012 at 12:05

Eshkruar nga Gking19, 08.07.2012 at 13:34

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 08.07.2012 at 11:03

Really, the only issue here is that SM needs a Nerf, OR people could just start using the freaking anti-air! We don't really need to nerf SM, we just need to make it easier to defend against, for example, Ivan and amok could make anti-air more mobile and available to people who haven't bought premium. Now that that issues aside, population casualties is a great idea, like, lets say each time you buy a reinforcement it takes away 10,000 people for recruitment from the population, and the population regains every round. And the enemy can bomb cities, kill people, and make recruitment cost more/ less powerful units from that area.

1.I'm pretty sure someone already posted saying AA sucks.
2.SM needs a nerf, like a 20+ cost increase for bombers.
3. Pop. casualties would just make SM more OP. All they have to do is send a few bombers, get rid of your recruits, then steamroll you.

1. I know...
2. It doesn't need to be nerfed, it needs to be more easily to be defended.
3. Have you even read my freaking post?! I said that after SM has been more easily defended, it would total sense to add pop. casualties
4. It won't be a few bombers, you would have to send HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of bombers to decimate a city, sending in 1 or 8 will do almost nothing.

I don't even know what you just said in 2&3. Are you saying make SM easier to defend against? If so, that still means nerfing it in some way. A price increase should be sufficient.
4.Ever heard of nuclear bombs? 1 bomber, 1 bomb, say good bye to the city.

For luck, most of the bombers dont use nuclear bombs.
They use a minor charge.

Eshkruar nga Gking19, 14.07.2012 at 16:20

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 14.07.2012 at 12:10

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 14.07.2012 at 12:05

Eshkruar nga Gking19, 08.07.2012 at 13:34

Eshkruar nga darkstorm777, 08.07.2012 at 11:03

Really, the only issue here is that SM needs a Nerf, OR people could just start using the freaking anti-air! We don't really need to nerf SM, we just need to make it easier to defend against, for example, Ivan and amok could make anti-air more mobile and available to people who haven't bought premium. Now that that issues aside, population casualties is a great idea, like, lets say each time you buy a reinforcement it takes away 10,000 people for recruitment from the population, and the population regains every round. And the enemy can bomb cities, kill people, and make recruitment cost more/ less powerful units from that area.

1.I'm pretty sure someone already posted saying AA sucks.
2.SM needs a nerf, like a 20+ cost increase for bombers.
3. Pop. casualties would just make SM more OP. All they have to do is send a few bombers, get rid of your recruits, then steamroll you.

1. I know...
2. It doesn't need to be nerfed, it needs to be more easily to be defended.
3. Have you even read my freaking post?! I said that after SM has been more easily defended, it would total sense to add pop. casualties
4. It won't be a few bombers, you would have to send HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of bombers to decimate a city, sending in 1 or 8 will do almost nothing.

I don't even know what you just said in 2&3. Are you saying make SM easier to defend against? If so, that still means nerfing it in some way. A price increase should be sufficient.
4.Ever heard of nuclear bombs? 1 bomber, 1 bomb, say good bye to the city.

1. I should have put it like like this: Anti-Air needs a buff, so people will actually use it against SM.
2. Ok, now that's just plain idiotic. In case you haven't realized THESE BOMBERS ARE NOT ARMED WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS! They are armed with CONVENTION BOMBS! How clear do I have to make it!?

1.And leave all the other non-premium players to rot? AA is a premium feature you know. I shouldn't be required to pay for something so I can do better in a game such as this. That's why I've constantly said "Increase the price of bombers".
2. Ok, I got it.