| The Goldern Khan (Fearless Blue) | Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 03:29 pm 
Reactivation at a flat 10% is unhelpful. Maybe a maximum number would be more effiecient.
-During war you need your weapons deployed. Reactivation only allows 10% of undeployed forces.
- If you have a few hundred weapons activating 30 or 40 a month is a little silly. |
| C.Rabs (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, June 29, 2009 - 09:38 pm
choosing to keep ones army as inactive is done to save money so maybe the trade-off is to charge extra to activate more weapons (or a booster). not very thought out on my part just some word vomit for ya |
| Noproblem (Fearless Blue) | Friday, July 24, 2009 - 06:57 am
Bump. Khan is right of course.
What about it, Tom?
Maybe in war all could be done. |
| UzaohIcewind (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 10:08 am
I cant imagine any real world country being able to go we are at war and having all the reserves and such up and running with no for planning |
| Plato (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 05:58 pm
I like the system as it is now. To allow instant activation of the reserves takes away the calculation of risk that must go into maximizing profits.
I would, however, be in favor, a something like on the Shares page where we can set the portfolio percentages. I similar page for unit activation levels would be pleasant. |
| Jo Jo the Hun (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 02:35 am
I agree with Plato. The idea of the current system is good, but being able to set a target level of reactivation would help you attain maximum reactivation when needed. And/or, add the option to automatically maximize reactivation toward your targets when declared upon. |
