|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 1:07:04 GMT
Do you hate it when you nuke a general and there is 1-5 HP left. Its get me mad
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jul 23, 2016 1:22:10 GMT
It completely kills me, especially if it's in a city I was about to paratroop in
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jul 23, 2016 2:18:57 GMT
Nope I laugh every time that happens and bless that general's family
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 3:57:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jul 23, 2016 4:14:02 GMT
I was being sarcastic as usual. Of course every single person here gets upset when that happens |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 4:20:59 GMT
A good portion of the time they nuke someone like Guderian or Patton. I get really mad when they do. I sometimes quit the conquest/mission
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 23, 2016 16:38:53 GMT
A good portion of the time they nuke someone like Guderian or Patton. I get really mad when they do. I sometimes quit the conquest/mission TBH, generals only really serve as a nuke magnet rather than actual generals in the 1950 and 1960. With that kind of a mindset, I didn't find it hard to continue after losing a general to nukes. Btw, for trying to kill off an enemy general, if a nuke left it with only 15 hp, then it stand to reason that the same missle without a nuclear warhead can be launched again to finish off with damage around 40 to 50ish. If not, a general with only 2% of its health tends to be not that much of a threat to your forces anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 16:53:59 GMT
A good portion of the time they nuke someone like Guderian or Patton. I get really mad when they do. I sometimes quit the conquest/mission TBH, generals only really serve as a nuke magnet rather than actual generals in the 1950 and 1960. With that kind of a mindset, I didn't find it hard to continue after losing a general to nukes. Btw, for trying to kill off an enemy general, if a nuke left it with only 15 hp, then it stand to reason that the same missle without a nuclear warhead can be launched again to finish off with damage around 40 to 50ish. If not, a general with only 2% of its health tends to be not that much of a threat to your forces anyway. Funny story: I was playing 1950 Turkey. And you know how China goes nuke crazy? Literally every one of my generals survived. And it wasn't like they weren't on the front lines, because they were. Never did China hit any of my generals with nukes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 17:11:59 GMT
A good portion of the time they nuke someone like Guderian or Patton. I get really mad when they do. I sometimes quit the conquest/mission TBH, generals only really serve as a nuke magnet rather than actual generals in the 1950 and 1960. With that kind of a mindset, I didn't find it hard to continue after losing a general to nukes. Btw, for trying to kill off an enemy general, if a nuke left it with only 15 hp, then it stand to reason that the same missle without a nuclear warhead can be launched again to finish off with damage around 40 to 50ish. If not, a general with only 2% of its health tends to be not that much of a threat to your forces anyway. "Worse when another Supertank General takes it place with over 300HP. But when I did a test for USA one turn the Soviet Union Nuked to Europe Cities and one Canadian City. But to stop the nuke spamming capture those missiles bases and airfield and it should be easy from there" |
|
