I wonder if it is possible for the developers to build in a "self destruct" option in the bunker units. Since this is a fixed defensive unit, it would seem to me that a player should have the option of destroying it whenever he wants. It would add a new demension to the game. Perhaps, it could be set up where a player can fire on his own bunker units, kind of like an advanceing army having to destroy its' old fortifications to speed its' advance. Does anyone else share this view point?

I like the self destruction thing.

But there has to be a major counterweight to it..

It's ballanced nice now, 2 hitrange but no moving..

how about this, they cost 1 to build, make it cost an additional 1 or 2 to destroy. this way you would have to leave a small amount in the treasury of the country you place them in or they could not be removed later in the game if you change your mind about which way you wish to move the troops.

On the other hand, now they are fixed for sure, and you or the enemy can really count on this to plan moves..

well...that's the trick, and I've tricked myself several times with bunkers.
If I don't think twice before placing them, I am asking for trouble....So....You can buy an lav or a bunker...It's almost like moving pawns on a chess board...once moved they remain until destroyed and mistakes can't be recalled.

is this not suppose to be a war game? In a real life situation a country may build fortification to suit the situation and then tear them down as the situation changes. As the game already mirrors many of the actual problems facing a nation in conflict--revenue, support, supply lines, ect, why not add the addition option of tearing down your own fortification. If you add a cost for the demo it would not allow a player to use up all the resorces if they wish to be able to demo later in the game. I think this would add more options and depth to the game for both sides.

I think the fact that you can't get rid of a bunker after placing it is essential to the unit's balance. Having a unit with a range of 2 for 1$ is a huge advantage. In this case the advantage is offset by the fact that the unit is completely immobile.

The best way to leave your options open is to always build a couple LAVs instead of pillboxes so you can move units through if you decide that is the way you want to go.

Yeah I remember a game where you placed bunkers all over the border, making it impossible for me to enter, and for you to leave the country


Ah well, I think the game is ballanced, should leave it like this.

well if u start blowing up ur own units in rl then you'll have a rebellion on ur hands..

These days it's called a terrorist..

Suicide bunkers....will go to heaven and jump on beds with little girls til Allah tells them for the last time to stop.

I'm a new player and I've just managed to box myself inside my own country with pillboxes my more experienced opponent realised what I'd done immediately and stopped attacking

Spent a while looking for the friendly fire or self destruct button, which has been present in most strategy games I've played, to no avail and the forum search turned up this post.

This coupled with the fact that I can't find a resign button, plus the game being on a time limit AND my game number being maxed is really really frustrating.

However despite its shortcomings this does seem like a great game and unique in its field as far as I know of.

If you read most of the above posts you can see that many of us disagree on being able to destroy bunkers, some are for it and some against. As it stands now, there is no way to destroy one once you place it, but you can use the transport coptors to jump your troops over the bunkers. If you wish to surrender, you can do this from the option window the next time you are playing your turn. You can also just leave the game sit and message your opponent to "time you out" when the time expires. If you don't message, unlike myself, he may just leave the game sit instead of hitting the "finish" tab

Yeh found the surrender button. Had to use it a few times as well

The pillbox thing is exacerbated obviously by the demo unit set. To add my 2 cents to the debate (although this is probably all academic since it won't be changed).

Ok its 2 range for $1.

Self-destruct you lose a dollar worth of unit. In a game with finite resources this seems balanced.

Option 2 let a player shoot at his own units. Now destruction costs you $1 of unit and 5 damage points.

I can't really get my head around where it becomes unbalancing. Still the game certainly does work as is, just a shame the way it can aggravate new players. Ideally I guess you could get the client to detect when a player was blocking themselves in and warn them? That would keep new and old players alike happy.

I would opt for a self destruct cost of 2 or 3. This way you would have to pay more of a price for having the 2 range at a 1 cost and then being able to destroy it. That said, it probably really does not matter or need to be changed because i doubt that there are very many people that get trapped more than once--usually when you are just starting to play. As such, it can be considered to be just another lesson--like getting a transport trapped, that has to be learned to advance your skill.

The real killer would be to let YOUR units move through the pill boxes, but your opponent not Well, in this case its cost would have to be raised to 2 (double) or, in alternative, their hitpoints lowered to 3.

This would allow your units to be shielded by them and then to leave, leaving them on guard...

OR, very funny, they retain the current price, etc., but as soon as your units move past them they just go KABOOOM!.... So, passing them (THROUGH, not besides, well uderstood!) would be a great matter for thought!... You can't have the cake and eat it too, can you?...

But I'm getting carried away...

Generally the pill boxes are fine as they are. They are not too strong and I more often than not prefer mobile LAVs to them in defensive combat. Maybe self destruction/firing upon by friendly units is a good addtional feature for them.

But the Laser Tower needs serious revamping. Its much too weak for its price. In most games I dont even buy a single one. The rest of the units are ok in their balancing.

Towers are pretty neat.
Some people have said that subs are unnecessary units, but anyone who has really played knows different.
Sometimes there is even a tower duel!
They have an application.
The only unit which still needs to be fixed is the AA unit, which should prevent copters from landing units within the umbrella, and from flying over them. (?)

[quote="TheDS"]I've yet to see a situation in which a tower would be a better buy than a rocket launcher.
Have you never tried to hold a invaded country for as long as possible? Sometimes a tower placed in a remote spot or the capital will enable you to keep your opponent from gaining control of the country for several turns or untill your troops arrive, while a rocket launcher would be destroyed after as little as one shot.

as for the pill boxes--sometimes you need to defend--sometimes you need to attack--that extra range can give you just the advantage you need to gain the results you desire. If it helps you enough in defense to enable you to press onward with an attack then it has done its job and can be left behind with little regret

Personally, I'd like to be able to load any weapon into any land or sea transport (excluding bunkers, towers etc.). Imagine putting say 4 battleships in a sea transport, or 2 in a land transport. In the case of the land transport they would have to offload at the shoreline into water not on land, but would still be able to move the same distance as normal after offloading, like the amhibian does. In the sea transport, it could move 5 spaces, then offload the battleships to move 4 more spaces, same for destroyers with 3 moves after offloading. The same for helicopters, pick up a destroyer, battleship etc and move it, as long as it's offloaded in the water. This would add a totally new bit of strategy to the game muahahahahha..............!