Posts made by Kaladesh

personally i do not like any of those since all of them are quiet strong … in my view even to strong. i admire your ideas b.andersson, but a tank figthing with a 4 or a tank using opening fire is just to strong.

i could agree on the second but however this does favor the germans in the first who off course would be the most obvious to use a lot of tanks.
opening fire just in the first round might as well be better than opening fire the whole combat but again for a german player who is relying on its tanks this would be to strong anyways. i do not feel very comfortable about this, remember a development should regard more than one nation (which is the case with coastal bombardement which would be of use for japan us, uk and even germany when having seafights) but this heavy tank stuff would be most interesting for germany only (maybe us) so it would be more a national advantage rather than a development for all.

hmm attack and defend on 5 definetly seems to strong to me. thats a unit thats hits nearly all the time taking two hits. having some trannies or stuff around as cannon fodder does make them quiet unsinkable (at an affordable price).
first strike on the other hand is strong as well but not as strong as att/def at 5. so i would favour this. if this does make the bbs more interesting for japan i do not know, since it is the price that japan has to worry about, not the power of the ships. japan is not the wealthiest country and has to put some ipc to asia so i as a japanese player certainly would not buy bb even if they would attack and defend on 5 since they can’t fight against moscow.

@stuka:

That’s like saying quarter pounder or quarter pounder with cheese.

Stack on the cheese, man!!! :D

WORD!

to me … the whole issue about “free market” and “capitalism” and “communism” … is quite an interesting thing.
In my view, neither of those “systems” is the right. Unfortunately i can’t name another or even a better one. So one has to look at each system, seeing, what it was meant for, what intends it has and in this context one might see that each of them has advantages along with disadvantages.
The main fault in my opinion is, that a lot of people just see advantages in the system they favor and disadvantages in other systems.
Getting to far from the point now and to get back to the topic i agree, that this “free” market doesn’t exist.
There allways need to be rules of course, since as F_Alk ( i guess it was him) stated the best way to get an advantage in this system is to “eliminate” competitors, allthough the whole system is about competition. When those competitors are “gone” the remaining one might control this market (monopol)
So rules have to be made just to make sure, the system as it is intendes, does not destroy itself.
CC is right as well, that there might be a point, where those regulations might become an interference. But again in my opinion whether it is an interference or if it is just an interference in the eyes of one competitor is the thing one has to consider, when speaking about those regulations.
To ensure, those regulations do not become an interference for the general system, the one controlling this regulations mustn’t be involved in the whole competition.
That is exactly one of the weak points and disadvantages of the whole system, since it has to be controlled to prevent it from destroying itself, but the ones who are in control are of course biased in their own favor.
So the government making those regulations has the ability to change them to their advantage or to the advantage of competitors who might stand behind this actual government, whether they are known or not.