Global Triumph

I would say that if it's a radius, the destruction would be in all of those directions, in a circular arrangement.  Two squares left, two squares north, etc., and then rounded on the diagonals to make a circle.

If the radius was figured that way, then missile damage radius would, in effect, be five, and nuke radius nine.  See what I mean?

That sounds more like the diameter than the radius. and if you are right, the radius of missiles would be 2.5, and nukes would be 4.5. and i assume you got the odd number by counting the center square with the adjacent squares (either 2 or 4)

I imagine that it was intended to be difficult to fight off oncoming attatcks, otherwise everyone would be sending nukes and missles all over the place to fight with instead of invading a country with ground units. i think that fighting a war with air attacks is cheap, especially beacause its is almost impossible to take out an airport/air base unless you attack it on the ground.

However, i do think highly of airstrikes tht are used in a strategic way for example, im trying to use missles to destroy a land base sitting on the border of an ally that keeps poppin enemy units out of it. tho its ive launched 3 missles and still havnt got it completly destroyed

Let's see who you are.

Oh!  Johnny fixed the anonymous thingy!  Damn you Johnny!

Anyway, I think airstrikes are perfectly legitimate.  And its not impossible to take out an airbase, just tough.

Have you checked to make sure that your missiles are not flying over other units and may be getting damged by those units, causing your missile to do less damage when it hits?  I think that's how it works.

I think launching more missiles at the same time is more effective as well.

there is no problem that cannot be solved by throwing missiles at it until it goes away.

This.

hmm maybe thats what happening. i still like the fact that missles are some what expensive, if they were cheap than id be leveling the hell out of everyone in range (that was an enemy of course) along w everyone else and i think that would defeat the purpose of this game

The damage distance is from the attack sector.  The damage occurs in any sector less than the radius (a basic circle pattern).  So, for a bomb, it will affect sectors three out directly north, east, south, and west.


I'm also going to have to say that missiles cost way too much.  It seems to take 2 missiles to kill a tank at full strength, or a 1:1 ratio of dollars to dollars to kill.

It may actually take three or more, taking flight damage into account (even from the tank when its one square away and about to hit).  It really needs to cost more, though, because missiles have the ability to destroy an enemy long range.  If it was cheaper to build missiles capable of taking out a maxed tank, you could just stock up on missiles and easily destroy anything that approaches.

thank you Johnny :) thats my point exactly. and w the whole full strength tank thing, i think of them as a platoon of tanks and not just one strong tank. in reality you cant take out a platoon of tanks with jus one missile, it would take several, one bomb might not even work but i guess bombs in this game are more like nukes?