Strength Equals Victory
The game is changing. From the time when I first started, it has changed greatly and in the future it will likely change more. We can adapt or die. The Battle in Heilongjiang showed us a many key things. Gold is important and so are numbers, but player strength is key. We need to take full advantage of the new training module if we are going to be able to confront our enemies in the future. We need to get stronger. A massive baby boom would definitely help in this regard, but we also need to seriously consider investing in players.
Other countries, many in Phoenix subsidize the training of many of their soldiers. Any soldier that pays for half of their training receives the the other half from their government. It's costly for sure and that money will not be returned to the economy, which will more than likely have every economist screaming for my head. That said, if we are to maintain whatever competitive edge we have we need to help our soldiers get stronger. I am keenly interested in proposing this program to the Congress if I am elected President. It would have to be experimented with on a limited basis to begin with, but I believe it would pay off long term.
To give you and idea of what kind of damage this could do I want you to for example imagine 50 tanks that have been using the 200% training program. In one month they can gain over 3.6 points in strength. This ads roughly 65-70 points of damage to their hits when using a Q5. If those same 50 tanks hit at the end of a battle like Heilongjiang we are talking roughly another 160000 in damage. That is impressive. As our activities in regards to warfare expands we can go beyond the limited number of people in this program to other strength levels inevery branch of the military. While we cannot go full bore at the beginning, this is something we must seriously consider long term.
Rank Equals Wreckage
Next important in this equation is player rank. We need to re-access military funding and gun distribution. Communes work. They have greatly reduced the cost for the SEALS. A huge portion of SEALS work at them and we can conduct two or three missions a week on a very tight budget. Because of this we can give our soldiers higher quality of weapons and give them missions more often. We need to do this in the lower branches of the military. It's a short term investment that provides long term benefits.
Any soldier willing to work at a commune should always receive weapons and potentially receive better weapons. Our newer players need to rank in order to maximize their damage. We need to commit resources and time to making the Army, Mobile Infantry, Home Guard, and Training Corp the best they can possibly be. Battles are numbers games and if we ignore that fact we will quickly fall behind the opposition. Both strength and ranking programs require long term investment and a commitment not to institutions but to loyal Americans. If we can get our war machine rolling and resuscitate our economy we have to commit to these programs so we can have an edge and compete on the battlefield.
Rest assured, what I am saying is not popular, but it is right. We need to commit to our military and commit to the players with initiative. We need to increase strength and rank. This program is not about the economy, but it is about people. In order to retain interest in the game we need to invest in our citizens, particularly in the future of our military.