Disposing of alive units (self destruct)

Why in the world would anyone build subs in a lake?

I like the idea of disbanding units no longer needed however.

Nick1960 wrote:

Why in the world would anyone build subs in a lake?

I like the idea of disbanding units no longer needed however.

I see your point, however, I feel that it could be exploited to some extent. But I can also see much more depth in the game with this addition...

Let me just say something: I love treaties. I love negotiating for them, and I will take treaties over absolute victory/defeat any day (although this is a WW2 game, which was absolute victory/defeat). Usually I will take a large chunk of land and will force them [the defeated nation] to transfer half of their military over to me, instead of me destroying it. I also generally make them a vassal, if I can. It works out mutually well, and because this is an absolute victory/defeat game, I have much more bargaining power than a normal country would because the only other option is absolute annihilation.

For some people like me who like treaties, this could make for a decent bargaining and treaty plan. I could force them [the defeated nation] to transfer half of their existing military over to me, force them to delete a quarter of what is left, and allow me to annex ¹/₂ of their land to me. I could even get a vassilisation out of them.

There are pros and cons to both...

That sounds awful! Why would you want to sacrifice the poor men who fight bravely for their country? What excuse will you send their wives/mothers/children?

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

That sounds awful! Why would you want to sacrifice the poor men who fight bravely for their country? What excuse will you send their wives/mothers/children?

_{Personally, I think it is a fun idea, but like I said, it can be exploited to some extent. (I especially do NOT want ships in the Great Lakes. One of my enemies was building level three battleships in the Great Lakes when I invaded North America, and I didn't even use them. I went solely by land.)}

From a player who lives in the great lakes, I think the only way to make the lakes viable is to have a route from the ocean into the lakes (like in real life). I too had a problem of a couple of Canadian destroyers left just hanging around in the lakes. I had to move around them or build useless ships to battle them. We need the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Nick1960 wrote:

Why in the world would anyone build subs in a lake?

I like the idea of disbanding units no longer needed however.

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

That sounds awful! Why would you want to sacrifice the poor men who fight bravely for their country? What excuse will you send their wives/mothers/children?

purplepizza117 wrote:

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

That sounds awful! Why would you want to sacrifice the poor men who fight bravely for their country? What excuse will you send their wives/mothers/children?

_LOL

_{Personally, I think it is a fun idea, but like I said, it can be exploited to some extent. (I especially do NOT want ships in the Great Lakes. One of my enemies was building level three battleships in the Great Lakes when I invaded North America, and I didn't even use them. I went solely by land.)}

I do not understand how you think this may be exploited. You would gain nothing but the "stop for demand" of your few resources. Thus decreasing the -(negative production + production)/hour,day.

ISmellGunPowder wrote:

Nick1960 wrote:

Why in the world would anyone build subs in a lake?

I like the idea of disbanding units no longer needed however.

Sometimes I want them in a lake but this time I ordered them from "province tab" and if you look at your provinces, you don't always see where their ports are and you end up in the lake.

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

That sounds awful! Why would you want to sacrifice the poor men who fight bravely for their country? What excuse will you send their wives/mothers/children?

Sometimes the sacrifice of the few is the lesser necessary evil (in order fro a nation to survive.

purplepizza117 wrote:

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

That sounds awful! Why would you want to sacrifice the poor men who fight bravely for their country? What excuse will you send their wives/mothers/children?

_{LOLPersonally, I think it is a fun idea, but like I said, it can be exploited to some extent. (I especially do NOT want ships in the Great Lakes. One of my enemies was building level three battleships in the Great Lakes when I invaded North America, and I didn't even use them. I went solely by land.)}

I do not understand how you think this may be exploited. You would gain nothing but the "stop for demand" of your few resources. Thus decreasing the -(negative production + production)/hour,day.

purplepizza117 wrote:

Okay, my understanding was that you would receive a refund of all money/resources spent on the unit. In hindsight, it was foolish of me to think that...

However now that you mentioned it I think it would be interesting they added the following:

After disbanding/destroying a unit you would get a "refound":

1. 50% of man power of production value back
2. The unit would be scrapped therefore you'd also get some iron (perhaps if is a tank or a ship you'd recive 70% of iron back, aircraft 50%. IF infantry or militia 20% of money)

I would even pay for destruction if it is worth it in the long run.

Azkazan wrote:

I would even pay for destruction if it is worth it in the long run.

purplepizza117 wrote:

I feel that it could be exploited to some extent.

Maybe it should cost resources to disband a unit (disband makes more sense than self-destruct), but does not have a daily upkeep cost. There should be a mechanic to avoid exploitability.