Collateral damage

Can we have an option to disable collateral damage because in competitive games after attacking same cities over and over again it sometimes destroys the ability to produce enough units to compete fairly

Big no

720 no scope collateral headshot quad feed

I like it. Its useful if you know certain cities are key to an opponent for income but you know they'll be hard to hold. For example against a ds or blitz player, you can bombard their income and reduce it that way.

Big yes.

IRL, it isn't the same if you attack a city with only infantry than with tanks.

It should be kept from largue rushes of tanks and bombers, but don't have collateral for attacks with infantry/militia/marines.

No no no, the whole point of collateral is to ruin someones economy.

كتب بواسطة Froyer, 09.04.2020 at 16:07

Big no

BIGGER no.

Why would you want to remove a complex and useful part of atwar gameplay which is used both competitively and in random games?

Might as well just remove unit upkeep while were at it, and maybe unit stats too, we can be like warzone, 3 niggas kill 2 niggas, 2 niggas kill 1 niggas. Sry for the rant, but No!

كتب بواسطة I_Hate_You_All, 09.04.2020 at 18:49

Big yes.

IRL, it isn't the same if you attack a city with only infantry than with tanks.

It should be kept from largue rushes of tanks and bombers, but don't have collateral for attacks with infantry/militia/marines.

Unless I'm missing something infantry, militia, and marines don't have collateral. So what's the ask here?

كتب بواسطة McHammers1, 12.05.2020 at 15:41

كتب بواسطة I_Hate_You_All, 09.04.2020 at 18:49

Big yes.

IRL, it isn't the same if you attack a city with only infantry than with tanks.

It should be kept from largue rushes of tanks and bombers, but don't have collateral for attacks with infantry/militia/marines.

Unless I'm missing something infantry, militia, and marines don't have collateral. So what's the ask here?

Try to conquer a city with 40+ inf stacked with only inf and militia, u will win the battle but there won't be many reinforcemnts after that...

كتب بواسطة I_Hate_You_All, 12.05.2020 at 16:03

كتب بواسطة McHammers1, 12.05.2020 at 15:41

كتب بواسطة I_Hate_You_All, 09.04.2020 at 18:49

Big yes.

IRL, it isn't the same if you attack a city with only infantry than with tanks.

It should be kept from largue rushes of tanks and bombers, but don't have collateral for attacks with infantry/militia/marines.

Unless I'm missing something infantry, militia, and marines don't have collateral. So what's the ask here?

Try to conquer a city with 40+ inf stacked with only inf and militia, u will win the battle but there won't be many reinforcemnts after that...

Done. I used 49.





As you can see the reinforcement is exactly the same. 8 units. The infantry did kill 4% of the population, but that isn't significant enough to affect reinforcements. For a city to be reduced to even 75% population by just infantry it would need to be taken and re-taken 6 times. At the point where there have been 6 battles in a city in the course of a war there's no way you can argue the population would be the same, tanks or no tanks.

As for income, that always reduces to 50% no matter what units take the city. It also always goes back to 100% within 2 days. That said, even though it says 100% the income is actually a factor of the population and may be lower than what is was originally. But again, it's hard to significantly reduce population with infantry so it doesn't matter.