1 |
I think static anti is fine, but what about decreasing slightly the covered area (and the cost) ?
|
1 |
I think static anti is fine, but what about decreasing slightly the covered area (and the cost) ?
|
2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
3 |
Similar to AA, you could better choose which area to protect in priority and since you would not protect all antis the way you do for the current ones which are critical, nuke would be less "all-or-nothing" weapon for the attacking team. There would always be a bit of battlefield not covered or to be easily disabled.
|
3 |
Similar to AA, you could better choose which area to protect in priority and since you would not protect all antis the way you do for the current ones which are critical, nuke would be less "all-or-nothing" weapon for the attacking team. There would always be a bit of battlefield not covered or to be easily disabled.
|
4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
5 |
Maybe
also
revert
the
change
whereby
anti
blocks
nukes
which
are
only
flying
through
its
area
or,
better,
make
it
a
bit
like
air
vs
AA,
so
that
nuke
flying
through
an
anti
area
(
but
hitting
an
uncovered
space)
would
suffer
a
partial
loss
of
damage,
but
not
a
complete
stop.
If
you
really
need
a
RL
explanation,
you
could
say
that
the
nuke
lost
a
couple
of
warheads
but
not
all
of
them.
|
5 |
Maybe
also
revert
the
change
whereby
anti
blocks
nukes
which
are
only
flying
through
its
area
or,
better,
make
it
a
bit
like
air
vs
AA,
so
that
nuke
flying
through
an
anti
area
(
but
hitting
an
uncovered
space)
would
suffer
a
partial
loss
of
damage,
but
not
a
complete
stop.
If
you
really
need
a
RL
explanation,
you
could
say
that
the
nuke
lost
a
couple
of
warheads
but
not
all
of
them
(
not
very
realistic
I
know
but
who
cares)
.
|
6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|