"Planned Battles" SUCK! let's have some realism here

[Jihadjoe]

I read the first post of this, and found myself shaking my head slightly.

In reality it is far harder to gain money and resources to power a war machine, meaning the forces fighting would be far smaller than they are here.

A battleship for instance would cost a huge amount of cash, not a week's trading diamonds and niobium.

To represent that, people here excersize restraint when building forces. Hell. I know that in the LN all the members are capable of trading to the point where they could all fly a battleship...

Realistic? No.
Would it win a war? Yes.

We look at the game mechanics and go "well that doesn't make much sence if you apply a realistic veiw to it. So we play as if we can't afford all the kit in the universe.

Sure, there are roleplay arguments against arranging fights, but there are certainly good roleplay reasons for restricting forces to a reasonable level.

Major assualts dont happen all the time, so we tend to do small rubles with a few fighters on either side unless something huge is planned. The defence often has intel that there is an attack incoming (simulated by the opposing force telling them in this case), so that covers that one... You want realism? Then make it happen. Large attacks don't happen without any warning, logistics and espionage prevent that. So we simulate that here.

We want to have fun here. The roleplay may not be perfect but that is because the game we play isn't perfect. If you can't live with that then I doubt this is for you.

But somehow I doubt that your main concern here is infact the roleplay given that you were complaining about the four hour rule. If you were truly concerned about the roleplay then you would be deleting your ship each time it got blown up and thus never re-engaging or worrying about the four hour rule.

---