Georgi Stomana

Do nukes actually cause that much EMP though? I was thinking of weaponized EMP as it's own weapon, nukes themselves already sound extremely deadly.

Welcome.

50%!? Now I feel awful for complaining about 3% in GPA.

Have you considered how they might change the game though? I mean even now in the current war many of the top nations aren't bothering much with anything except throwing missiles at each other. I'm afraid that once nukes become widespread it will make the conventional military units almost useless. Do you plan to add any kind of consequences in the game for those that use nukes?

There are literally people out there who don't know this is the X-Files theme.

Yeah I've been thinking this too, military improvements don't seem to have upkeep (only the units themselves do) so you could build a city with 500 infra or so, some power, and then all air bases/factories. Not sure how many ppl actually do this in PW though.

When you think about it, nukes in PW seem to be a decent "neutral" weapon. Quickly beige your enemy to get back to peace plus damage the attacker to deter him from doing it again. I imagine those in alliance-wide wars would prefer to drag it on.

That sounds good actually. Makes me wonder if you could also do something like that with the crime rate, maybe use spies to stir up internal revolt?

Electromagnetic bombs which shut down power

The problem is that in PW population is represented by infrastructure, and chemical/biological weapons kill people while not touching infra.

Sounds cool, Conscription maybe?

I wonder if Orbis will develop any diplomatic agreements where nukes are not used in war unless one side uses them first, I know (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had something similar before nukes become completely commonplace.

Hmmm, it's already going on. It seems that market demand isn't very strong in this game, even in times of war.

That's what you get for collapsing the USSR Miki.

It maybe so that I am neutral, but that doesn't mean I'm not an avid reader of war reports on PW I'm sure one day I'll get experience fighting a raider or something

The Democratic Republic of Koprivshtitsa hereby expresses deep concern regarding the repression and propaganda used by the Silistrious government against the Socialist Worker's Party in their elections.

So it would be interesting if in addition to the battle reports telling the player how much infrastructure was destroyed, it would also say how many civilians/population were killed.

Have you ever considered adding a draw/stalemate battle outcome?

More like: Currently Missiles do 100% damage OR 0% damage (if you have Iron Dome). In my example they'd do 1-100% damage.

Yes, but it's just 25% with an all-or-nothing outcome. It's like if Ground Battles were decided by having one side win and take 0 casualties, while the enemy loses 10,000 soldiers and 500 tanks, it does nothing but infuriate the player because it's too random.

I wouldn't have a problem with Missiles damage if they was more viable ways to defend against them than an expensive Project that only gives you a passive 25% chance to avoid. Basically think about it like this - Ground, Naval and Air Attacks can all be defended against, you can build up lots of soldiers and tanks, aircraft or ships which basically mean if your forces are strong enough the enemy can do very little damage to you, your forces can be degraded incrementally in battles but the more forces you array the less damage will be done to you. This is TOTALLY not the case for Missiles, they don't conform to the way war otherwise works, and this is bad from a gameplay perspective even ignoring realism. You either get hit, or you don't (if you have Iron Dome). Here's an idea: Rename Missiles to Missile Group and have the game say in the description that you're not buying 1 Missile, you're buying 100 in a group that are all fired at once at an enemy city, so rename Missile Strike to Missile Barrage. The Iron Dome could intercept from 1-100 missiles per barrage attack (with 1 missile = 1% dmg), so you could get lucky and take down 87 missiles and have 13% damage, or you get unlucky and only intercept 13 and 87% damage. But most of the time it would probably average out to half-damage. The cool thing about that would be that you could add improvements which reduce the minimum percentage, like SAM Sites which use Munitions. Then the mechanic makes sense and you have a better way to defend which isn't all-or-nothing.

What I think would be cool would be if the Iron Dome and Vital Defense were combined into something like the "Anti-missile Defense System", which gave something like 45-50% chance to intercept both missiles and nukes, but to balance it the price would be A LOT more expensive, and when you intercepted a nuke the nuke still detonates in the sky, so you still take minor infra damage and radiation fallout even if you block it.

NEVERMIND...