Hey, now with all the new units from AA50 do we need to change the membership structure to add all of the new units?
Just wondering what the general membership thinks.
LT
The rating system we have already is flawed.
In a vacuum, Battleships are superior units to the Heavy Bomber.
@TG:
The rating system we have already is flawed.
In a vacuum, Battleships are superior units to the Heavy Bomber.
“MR BOMBER” is admitting ships are more powerful than BOMBERS? :? :?
:-o
As much as I love bombers and can vouch for them, I’m also a cold-hearted statistician.
On the attack a heavy bomber has a 44% chance of sinking a battleship, the battleship has a 66% chance of splashing a bomber.
@TG:
As much as I love bombers and can vouch for them, I’m also a cold-hearted statistician.
On the attack a heavy bomber has a 44% chance of sinking a battleship, the battleship has a 66% chance of splashing a bomber.
Not to start a silly discussion, :| ok, maybe :-P
But what is the criteria for a ‘superior’ unit?
Hit factor is one you touched on. What about other aspects like:
Range
Cost
Flexible/Multi-faceted
On all these aspects, the bomber wins out, ESPECIALLY in the mutli-faceted aspect:
Can support naval and ground operations
Can do SBRs
Possibly being upgraded to be a troop transport (paratrooper tech in AA50).
maybe your qualification of ‘in a vacuum….’ meant you were ignoring these other factors, but I believe the vacuum should be turned off in this discussion. :lol:
I think that any ranking based on post count solely is flawed to begin with…
I could spam the entire board on every topic I have never posted in, and become a bomber in no time…
Would that make me a great member?..
I could spam the entire board on every topic I have never posted in, and become a bomber in no time….
Would that make me a great member?..
No, it would just make you a member. :wink:
i’d still much rather be a battleship than a bomber any day
maybe your qualification of ‘in a vacuum….’ meant you were ignoring these other factors, but I believe the vacuum should be turned off in this discussion.
“In a vacuum” refers to power and toughest only. The biggest dog wins.
If we go off of other criteria, like SBR and range of bombers for instance, then Infantry would be the most effective unit in the game. Pound for pound they are the best unit.
@TG:
maybe your qualification of ‘in a vacuum….’ meant you were ignoring these other factors, but I believe the vacuum should be turned off in this discussion.
“In a vacuum” refers to power and toughest only. The biggest dog wins.
If we go off of other criteria, like SBR and range of bombers for instance, then Infantry would be the most effective unit in the game. Pound for pound they are the best unit.
w00t! I am the best!! :-D
(Im just a lowly Ground Pounder)
Im sure all agree that the CRUISER should be added… Maybe this will mess up the current system? But then again what do I know, Im just the INFANTRY… :-)
(Im just a lowly Ground Pounder)
Im sure all agree that the CRUISER should be added… Maybe this will mess up the current system? But then again what do I know, Im just the INFANTRY… :-)
Well at 82 posts you only have 18 to go till you make ART. :-)
Let me know where you are having your promotion party :-D
How about a fighter? It has mobility, firepower both in attack and defense. It can sit on a carrier to help defend navy, as it can defend land. It gives a punch to counterattack without left being in the front. If you get jet fighters tech, it becomes the most powerfull unit of the game, even though a battleship has two hits…it only stays in water. I vote for the fighter to be the most powerful unit of the game.
Hey, maybe “Alive chinese fighter” for the highest rank. It’s the more rare thing you can have after J1 :mrgreen:
