🚀 go-pugleaf

"Neil Adamson" <ada...@uk.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:b47529$1mbc$1@sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com...
>
> "Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3e667722@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
> > The Carriers in RA2 were so cool, I always tried to build a couple to
> annoy my opponent with, if the map allows as you said. But some long-range
> naval artillery would be a nice addition to Generals.
>
> Fair comment. Trouble is that against any sort of opponent you then need
air
> defence for the carriers, then AS defence for the Aegis, then anti squid
> defence for the destroyers and before yo uknow it, all you resources have
> been sucked out of the land battle, where, IMHO, you can win it without
> carriers.

Exactly. You have to choose between the Navy or the ground force and since
here is a limit to how far inland the Navy can hit I generally don't build
it. Carriers are great, lots of fire power and the planes are replaced free
when they get shot down, but then you have to support them. Aegis are great
Anti air machines, they can bring down a Kirov in a few shots, and the
destroyers are good against subs with Dolphins to help.
But building the Naval yard means you must build a fleet of ships quickly
just to protect, using resources that are needed for your ground force.

>
> Also, I never build superweapons, but allow my skirmish opponents to.
Keeps
> the adrenaline flowing.
>
> If it's worth doing, it's worth doing the hard way.
>
> ;o)
>
> Neil A
>
>