Should Canada Tank?

Day 906, 15:38 • Published in Canada Canada • by Ace_Blazer

Let's start off this article with a little history. Here are the battle statistics for the RW in Alberta which saw the fall of the last UK colony during WWIII. Notice the difference in gold costs? Back in the day, the largest damage production was done through tanking. PEACE countries in particular were renown for having some of the largest tank forces in the world. However, as a response to the baby boom the US was having, the US mobile forces were expanded and organized to include a large amount of people equipped with Q1s who could deal massive damage so fast that tanks couldn't respond. It was also a hell of a lot cheaper as the results in Alberta showed a kamikaze fight (10 fights at once) by mobile forces could beat out a more expensive tank force.

Of course equipping large amounts of soldiers with Q1s was in no way revolutionary, but the scale and organization with which it was done made it a more successful strategy. Another plus to this army in lieu of paying for a tank force, was the levelling up of it's soldiers, thus helping a greater amount of people instead of a small privileged group.

The CAF, because of the size of the country's economy, has never had a tank unit. Canada is a very politically active country that makes for a focus on equality for more citizens. This is why the expansion of the CAF during WWIII was not seen as harmful because it would help the economy, and level up its citizens unlike the gold draining tanks of other countries. The CAF turned into a very effective fighting force for a relatively manageable cost, consistently putting Canada on the top 5 lists in damage output which helped make Canada a valued member to it's allies. A larger number of Generals and Field Marshalls were also produced when a short time before there were only a few in the whole country.

Nowadays though Lana is starting to change things. This was most evident in the first battle for Western Australia when the Indonesians rolled out +40 str tanks dealing nearly 700 dmg in one shot. I can't tell you the number of times I've hit with the CAF at 23:30 eRep time and watched proudly as the wall moved 20k in some direction, and then looked on helplessly as one tank negated the damage of the whole CAF by itself: it was very demoralizing, but we could always reassure ourselves that Phoenix was going broke this way. While it is very expensive to tank, in the end it's tanking that decides the extremely important battles (Heilongjiang, Liaoning) when the battle is out of the reach of lower strength forces.


The face of the enemy.

It only takes a quick look at the rankings to show which alliance has the most tanks [it's Phoenix btw]. In my eyes warfare is slowly changing from equipping large amounts of people with weapons, back to predominantly tank forces now boosted by Lana. It's too late to expect the admins to do anything about equalizing the playing field, and who are we kidding? They expect newbies to buy gold to pay for Lana.


Admins basking in Lana gold

The question Canada faces now is should we provide gold/weapons to tank? And if so, how much? Like it or not, our highest strength citizens involved in military affairs are almost required to use Lana to help Canada remain relevant: it's something of a strength race between the alliances. Today's war has so far been along the lines of who can drain the most gold in the most appropriate place, and we're seeing parts of our military budget being used to provide weapons to tank. While it's nice to see the Canadian flag represented on the top hitters list, and to show our allies we're pulling our weight, is it worth it to use gold on these people while other citizens scrounge for weapons? The question might not even be relevant anymore with this current war calming down and things starting to normalize, but Canada might have to decide in the next war, and it won't be a pretty discussion especially in this political climate.