Leaderboard

I'm not making a claim about any particular implementation. I'm saying that in general, open source software is more secure because more people have reviewed the source. Closed-source software has been generally been reviewed fewer times by fewer people. And we have a long long history of proprietary software makers who simply ignore security problems with their products, even after they've been notified. I am particularly suspicious of closed-source security software, since the risks are higher, and since we have seen examples of trojans disguised as security software. Nothing personal against you; it's just that you've been preceded by a lot of charlatans.

There could be a rather simple way of addressing a few concerns, while adding some (minor) depth to the concept of formation combat. Since we'll probably slash the number of formations (and revamp how they are represented in the UI), we can also give some formations a couple of options, like this: Add Depth: Brings that "security" to the soldiers so they gain 100% of the armor buffs, but as Fexor points out, fewer of them are actually in combat and dealing less damage to the enemy. Add Width: Less stable and less secure, perhaps easier to "break", the soldiers only gain 50% of the armor buffs, but because more of the men are on the front lines they are dealing more damage to the enemy. Something like above gives some realistic mechanics to the depth of a battle formation. They would allow the player the option of security for his men or dealing more damage to the enemy. Also, keep in mind, soldiers being attacked on the sides of the formation won't just stand there and do nothing. They'll fight back, so in a lot of cases it's not just the front line dealing damage to the enemy.