Wisp

They already know about your nuke. And they already control all that land.

So is destroying entire cities of civilians.

Anyone care to join #Hegemony? I'm bored.

Pm inbound to Archi.

Can people stop arming their troops [developmentally delayed]edly? There should be no one gun that all troops use. Also, why the hell would you give them desert eagles? Also, p90's are a bad choice. Giving your troops SMG's with low range and stopping power isn't a good call.

A boar won't feed 200 people. Hex, you forced 2 million young men out of their homes and jobs and away from loved ones, to work with no pay, and then you don't even feed them. Then you give them guns. You would have been overthrown by now.

So, for ever 1000 soldiers they get one boar. And then the crops won't kick in for another 6 months or so. All your troops died or revolted a year ago, Hex.

So, Italian Military is now around 15,000 weaker, and 10 billion poorer, correct? Also, can I make a suggestion, lets say someone were to invade (for example) Pakistan. We go to wikipedia, and find their real military strength. Lets say for Pakistan they have 4 cities to defend, and 200,000 troops. 80,000 troops go into the cities, and then they have 120k army other than that. Instead of just an arbitrary number. And also, countries with antiquated militaries shouldn't be able to shoot down extremely advanced planes. Helicopters, yes, but planes, no. I'm not disputing this battle, just future ones. Anyways, the IAG boost from Tunisia is all going into repairing their Infrastructure.

For what it's worth, the US military gives soldiers around 1/10th a salary of what it takes to train them. So even if you didn't feed them ([developmentally delayed]ed), or pay them (They're gonna revolt.), it still costs you a [cabbage] ton.. Actually, think about what you just did . You just forced 2 million young people out of their towns and jobs to fight for you, without pay, and you refuse to even feed them. And then you gave them guns. Huh. That wasn't very smart.

An mp5k is a small smg. AK-47s and m16's are assault rifles. Don't give all your troops one gun. You might decide to switch the main battle rifle if you feel like it to something else, but as of now, your troops are carrying 15 extra pounds of gear (the gun, ammunition, and accessories) on their back for no reason.

The point is he's having his troops carry two different guns designed for the same roll, using two different types of ammunition. Meaning they need to carry extra clips for both guns.

Also, your supplies are HUGELY stretched. Your using 5.56x45 and 7.62x32 ammunition for your assault rifles. Also, why do you even have your troops carry multiple assault rifles?

Can you please just call them Ak-47's? And I have no idea why you would use those anyway, there are better AK variants at this point. Also, your troops aren't equipped with glocks. Glock is a company, and if anyone else makes their guns, it's not a glock. Also, Colt, and Glock sue you for stealing the designs for their weapons, and producing them illegally. Calling a gun a Kalashnikov could refer to a ton of guns, including the RPK, or even a pp-19 (designed by Mikhail's son)

Well, it would seem that in Europe Interventionism would be good, seeing as that's where the action is. In south america, I had no competitors for 2 games, so isolationism works there. And I really wasn't as isolationist as everyone says, I was very close allies with one other country. It's just no one messed with my interests usually, and when they did I fought a few wars.

For what it's worth, Dusty and I ended up being the most powerful countries in the first game (Dusty wasn't that active in the 2nd game, but I controlled a whole continent plus some then, so I was pretty well off), so it would seem that each extreme has it's benefits.

Mexico has a higher gdp than India, or it did 10 years ago. And Australia. And Russia. By far.

Greenland also has a population of 50k and a gdp of like 1 billion

It's pretty simple. Pick a country, take its gdp (from this list) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28nominal%29 And that amount has to last you for 10 years. If you want to increase it, you spend a portion of that on infrastructure. The more you spend, the more it improves.

Trench Knifes=/= trench spikes. Spikes are better, but don't have any use other than killing zombies. I have a trench knife, it's basically just a knife with brass knuckles as part of the handle. A machete is good, and I have a few good ones, and I also have a crowbar, so I'm set melee wise. Anyways, a shotgun is great in a city setting. You'll mostly be shooting at close range, and anything further than the 10m-20m effective range of your shotgun, you can use a pistol, or not shoot at all. If you have a semi auto shotgun, more power to you, but I personally prefer the pump action. And yes, I've used all types of shotguns (excluding clip fed semi/auto) single, double barrel, pump, and semi auto. In general though, a semi automatic rifle is perfect for a primary, if you're only fighting zombies. Here is a list of my top 5 primaries: 1: AKM, 47 or 74. 2: M4 Carbine 3: Ruger Mini 14 4: Remington 870 5: Model 1894C (If .357 as sidearm), or H&K USC if using a .45acp pistol. Here are my top sidearms: 1: H&K USP Compact or Colt 1911 2: Any .357 Revolver 3: Glock 18 4: Glock 32 5: Taurus Judge

30,000 fully equipped Italian troops along with 3,000 main battle tanks pile out of transport ships and into Tunisia, heading for the one necessary city for capture. Meanwhile, 65 AMX and 40 Eurofighters harass the troops in that city, while attempting to avoid civilian casualties. 20,000 more troops are waiting to be deployed, and a further 50,000 are still in reserve.

Military Progress 50% of status quo ante.

There is no way the recoil from a 12 gauge could knock you down, unless you weigh 25 pounds. The ammo isn't that bad, just carry it on a bandolier ad you're fine. Good luck finding a silencer for any gun. And it sucks as a secondary. It's a full sized gun. A secondary should be a pistol, revolver, or maybe a machine pistol or small SMG.

A shotgun is actually a pretty decent primary. Why? 1: Common. 2: Common Ammo. 3: Can fire slugs. 4: Reliable. 5: Easy to use. It's ability to fire slugs makes it basically a rifle aswell, which negates it's main downside, lack of range. A pump action shotgun, if used correctly, isn't gonna jam. People really underestimate the range of shotguns, even with normal shells.

You'd need to spend twice that amount on 6,000 tanks, and it takes time to build. Also, you spend 3m on tanks and are selling them for 25m each. An m1 costs 6m+ by the way.

So then we have one guy with a maxed out army of 5 million, and someone with a maxed out army of 1 million. Guess the winner.