<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Supreme Commander Talk &#187; destroyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.supcomtalk.com/tag/destroyer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com</link>
	<description>Transporting our ACUs to your base since 2007</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:03:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Addressing the issue of naval imbalance</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cyde Weys</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[destroyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naval balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sea control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[submarine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Commander]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Something is off with the naval balance in Supreme Commander, as I&#8217;m sure everyone who&#8217;s ever played a naval map is aware.  Submarines are just too powerful.  On a per-mass basis, they are by far the most effective unit at taking control of the high seas.  Until sea control is established, experienced [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inadequate anti-naval defenses</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/11/inadequate-anti-naval-defenses/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/11/inadequate-anti-naval-defenses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cyde Weys</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artillery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battleship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[destroyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naval battle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naval defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naval map]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Commander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tactical missile]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/11/inadequate-anti-naval-defenses/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One thing that has struck me after watching many replays on naval maps is that Supreme Commander lacks any good shore and naval defenses.  Supreme Commander has good defensive buildings against land targets and even better defensive buildings against air targets, but there&#8217;s simply nothing there to ward off naval units.  Cruisers, destroyers, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/11/inadequate-anti-naval-defenses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

