I've got you for that, Ross.

I'm on my phone, I CBA to check GDP but seriously, Mexicos got barely any GDP and is going to beninvaded by Retech.

Because that worked brilliantly, didn't it.

 

It would've of worked if other countrys hadn't unfairly protected you.

 

Unfairly? I think you already had the general idea that other countries would seize the chance to prove themselves worthy of remaining on Earth by opposing your tyanny.

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

It would've of worked if other countrys hadn't unfairly protected you.

Yeah because we have to sit back when you invade another player.

 

Ok, you didn't do anything.

 

Unfairly? I think you already had the general idea that other countries would seize the chance to prove themselves worthy of remaining on Earth by opposing your tyanny.

No, why would other countrys prove themselves worthy of remaining on earth? I didn't attacked you.

 

Doom, I was on my phone. I didn't know, I assume its not right.

Well considering I'm the United States, I do have a history of intervening all over the world.

 

 

I'm trying to cut back on that now, to find a healthy balance between Dusty's interventionism and Doom's isolationism.

Well considering I'm the United States, I do have a history of intervening all over the world.

 

Yeh [bleep] you, there wasn't any WMD's in iraq!!!

Oh wait, this was him.

 

Well considering I'm the United States, I do have a history of intervening all over the world.

 

 

I'm trying to cut back on that now, to find a healthy balance between Dusty's interventionism and Doom's isolationism.

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.

Well it would depend upon how you play it and how lucky you are as well as the placement of your country (europe is the epicenter in this game while last game it was slightly different)

EDIT: Hex after you said that a sizable fleet was being sent to destroy your coastal cities (going from north to south)

EDIT EDIT: Hex you said your troops were using M16-A1s right?

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.

Heh I wonder what would happen if your played isolationist in europe (well if you were in the north)

Grim, your not playing properly then.

You need to make ships before and you haven't done that.

 

My troops are all equipped with m16's, Kalashnikovs and a glock (mark III)

How do you know I did not have ships (I don't post half of what I do [kinda puts a load on archi though])

Grim, your not playing properly then.

You need to make ships before and you haven't done that.

 

My troops are all equipped with m16's, Kalashnikovs and a glock (mark III)

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)

So your troops are using what model of M16s? A1s?

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?

Or you know you could reload but I guess that would be crazy.

Or you know you could reload but I guess that would be crazy.

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.

I got confused between an mp5, and with the amount of money i'm putting into my army I can.

Unless no-one minds me switching to an mp5, they have two assult rifles. Incase one breaks or something.

I'm no invading Iran ATM though.

 

Can I switch to mp5?

Yeah but which would you switch it out with?

MP5K's with an optional suppresor.

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.

Yeh, I got confused - I thought an M16 was a mp5.

Sending 30 billion dollars worth of bombers, fighters and tanks to base in thailand as soon as they're ready.

 

Hellz yea my maps are getting better.

Dusty! did you make that, its amazing.

 

Spending 50 billion on making an army of 2 million + guns + tents.

Ready in three years.

body armour, Uniform, Ak-47, aa12 shotguns and lots of ammo.

 

1,256,204,700,049

_____________________-

-50,000,000,000 (Army)

-5,000,000 (tech)

_______________________

1,206,199,700,049