The great "Nuclear Research Facility" debate

[Memph]

I'm not seeing it myself. I mean in the technical sense if I I hadn't gotten my NRF and VDS then I'd have an extra city by now and thus the ability to have 15000 more soldiers, 1250 tanks, and 90 planes which is something, but in a war scenario I'm not necessarily going to fight someone with 1 extra city who made the other choice, nor is one extra city an insurmountable advantage in a 6 on 6 war. I have 2 nukes around myself but plenty of conventional military (and even more soon). Don't get me wrong I know there are people out there who build a number of nukes and think that means they can then run 0/little conventional military, but nuke builders aren't all necessarily going to act like that.

It depends on the circumstances.

 

VDS and NRF are about $140m including resource costs, enough to get city 15 and about 1/3 of the cost of city 16. Alternatively it could be used to build up alliance mates to your level, ex city 11 + city 12 + city 13 costs barely more than those two projects. A 1 city advantage is still relatively modest, but 3 more cities is quite substantial.

 

VDS is an even bigger waste of money than NRF, especially if you have only 1800 infra/city, but back to NRF.

 

At your level you can have 1260 planes and 17500 tanks, which can destroy plenty of infra at a lower cost. At the 9-10 city level the ratio of nuke damage to conventional damage is higher, but the ratio of NRF cost to next-city cost is also higher.

[Memph]

Your analysis is highly flawed. On offense you should never be beiging targets, ever. That's why nukes suck. On the conventional front, with airstrikes, I can do infinite damage. Through nukes, you beige them for a minimum of 5 days, shielding them from infra damage, and allowing them to rebuild.

 

Nukes are not a weapon to be used in a winning war, period. You are demonstrably incorrect, as per usual.

If you were already able to do spy missions and find that their ability to rebuild military is limited, I think it's worth giving yourself more time to spy away their nukes especially if your alliance is heavily militarized and not very vulnerable if they decide to come off beige. Especially if you have high-ish amounts of infra/city and they have a lot of nukes. If any of the above is not true though, I can see how it might be better to just push on and attack without beiging at the expensive of eating a couple more nukes.

[Rozalia]

It depends on the circumstances.

 

VDS and NRF are about $140m including resource costs, enough to get city 15 and about 1/3 of the cost of city 16. Alternatively it could be used to build up alliance mates to your level, ex city 11 + city 12 + city 13 costs barely more than those two projects. A 1 city advantage is still relatively modest, but 3 more cities is quite substantial.

 

VDS is an even bigger waste of money than NRF, especially if you have only 1800 infra/city, but back to NRF.

 

At your level you can have 1260 planes and 17500 tanks, which can destroy plenty of infra at a lower cost. At the 9-10 city level the ratio of nuke damage to conventional damage is higher, but the ratio of NRF cost to next-city cost is also higher.

 

Not understanding your logic here considering I thought city wise things were supposed to even in your scenario. Now you're telling me one side due to the other having nukes is going to have a 3 city advantage in some of it's members? There are numerous variables involved in this and you've not laid them down clearly. The nuclear six could all be much older and larger than the non nuclear six for example. If they all started on the same day then yeah sure, but how likely is that to be the case? Very unlikely, making your analysis based off that useless.

 

Refer to my first post in this thread on my opinion there. You seem to be thinking I'm arguing something I'm not.

[Guest Rin]

It does what it's supposed to! Nuclear weapons aren't even that cost-effective IRL. They just inspire fear. They're like a luxury item. Something you buy to show off.

[Memph]

Not understanding your logic here considering I thought city wise things were supposed to even in your scenario. Now you're telling me one side due to the other having nukes is going to have a 3 city advantage in some of it's members? There are numerous variables involved in this and you've not laid them down clearly. The nuclear six could all be much older and larger than the non nuclear six for example. If they all started on the same day then yeah sure, but how likely is that to be the case? Very unlikely, making your analysis based off that useless.

 

Refer to my first post in this thread on my opinion there. You seem to be thinking I'm arguing something I'm not.

Well my original post was not in response to your first post, just an addition to the general discussion which was started by a member of an alliance where everyone has 9 cities and in a game where most have probably 7-10 cities. At that level and even a bit higher up acquiring nukes would require a significant compromise in war chests or city buying. My scenario was a somewhat general one geared towards people more typical of those considering nukes (9-12 cities).

 

You then countered with a more specific scenario, your own. The relevant difference is you're a bigger than average nation, which also happens to involve being in an alliance with only a couple nations around your size with most much smaller.

 

In my scenario NRF came at the cost of conventional forces.

 

In your scenario where you have both, it comes at the cost of fewer nations in your alliance at your size. Whether it's worth it for you I guess depends on how likely you think it is that you're going to get curb-stomped. If you don't expect to get curb-stomped very often and would only use a dozen nukes a year then imo there are better investments to be made. If you're concerned that you'll have to use them more often then that, like several dozen per year it could be worth it.

[Big Boss]

Currently, I use my nukes for a reasonable deterrent to attacks and raiding, and you can bet by the end of the war at least 4 of your cities would be smoking piles of radioactive ash. I do see some of the payoff as well as some of the setbacks, but defensively, they're probably the best item you could use. sure i could spend some 56 million on a force of soldiers and tanks, or even more on conventional war, but at the moment with the war system being unbalanced as it is, i could expect about 28 million in losses before i could launch my first nuke, reasonably. 

However, there is light in that situation. Nukes are far cheaper and more upkeep but do tremendous amounts of damage and let your alliance members with larger conventional arms attack those who attacked yourself. in this scenario it's far better off to have nukes, and then reasonably declare, be overwhelmed and end up in the clear at least with 10k infra damage per day, less if they possibly have a VDS, but i digress. in a 5 vs 5 conflict on the defensive, they'd maybe get 1200x5 out per day, but reasonably it's possible for me to get out 1800x5 if not more, sans improvements in the particular. 

 

By the end of 5 days, against 5 enemies of any caliber, it's reasonable to expect them to get 30,000 infra damage, while i dish out at least 45,000. by the end of the war, although their armies are relatively untouched, which is questionable at best, they'd lose far more in a 5x5 than we would, infrastructure wise. 

[Hodor]

Nukes are an effective deterrent and serve no other purpose. The reason they are an effective deterrent is because they deal so much damage in a losing war.

 

I doubt anyone would hit Sparta right now if they were unaligned for this exact reason.

[Peter Quill]

Round 2 coming soon.

No.

[Conner Temple]

No.

Round 3 good enough? You make it worse by denying him, accept him and he stops, threat him and he rogues nukes in your direction with my private funding.

[Peter Quill]

Round 3 good enough? You make it worse by denying her, accept her and she stops, threat her and she rogues nukes in your direction with my private funding.

FTFY

[Conner Temple]

FTFY

Well sorry I don't know what gender fraggle is.... geez!

[jolyat]

It's totally worthless, nobody should buy it

 

*puts tarp over his NRF*
> _ >
< _ <

Edited December 15, 2015 by jolyat

[Wayne]

Nukes are an effective deterrent and serve no other purpose. The reason they are an effective deterrent is because they deal so much damage in a losing war.

 

I doubt anyone would hit Sparta right now if they were unaligned for this exact reason.

 

Nothing more disappointing then getting a Nuke Nation in your war orders

[Vosunda]

Each nuke I have adds an inch to my e-peen.

[HopeSolo]

Nukes are an effective deterrent and serve no other purpose. The reason they are an effective deterrent is because they deal so much damage in a losing war.

 

I doubt anyone would hit Sparta right now if they were unaligned for this exact reason.

this Hodor so much Hodor.

 

it's not that it's a good weapon in the current war system. it's a deterrent for picking what otherwise is an easy target if you swarm an alliance. for smaller alliances like Sparta or Alpha, the serve a different purpose than a really large alliance or one with many allies. 

[Fox Fire]

This game still has time to continue going. The price seems fine as it is. Nuclear weapons should be hard to get. The damage you can do with nukes and their role as a deterrent seem fine as well. In the long term, they would probably pay off.

Something interesting is that there is currently $20 billion in existence, 3/4 of which is in national hands. If we sum up the money in national hands and divide it equally, each nation only gets $3,882,121. Though I imagine most people posting here probably have more that. I'm not sure what the trend is with the cash in the world- I've never followed it. But I think nukes are reasonably priced, especially if you have people helping you.

[Bilal the Great]

I will buy NRF just to show everyone that attacks me that I can &#33;@#&#036;ing afford it.

[Charles Bolivar]

I would rather have nukes and not need them than need nukes and not have them,

[A-Dean-G]

I would rather have nukes and not need them than need nukes and not have them,

[Placentica]

Yes Charles.  Nukes are worthless in a winning war, but I have them for a deterrant in a losing war.

[Ayayay]

Radio show stuff.

 

Nukes are rubbish unless you're losing a war and trying to inflict damage on your way out, or if you get 3 people to nuke someone with lots of cities above 2500 infra so that post wars all of his cities have been nuked.

Doesn't really work, tbh. 

[vonnorman]

I can easily do the same #of damage per day with planes as nukes did to me in the same time. Nukes are like missiles, turtle and fire, hope they hit, prepare to take alot of damage.

[Aphelion]

The good thing about nukes being shitty as they are right now is that it makes conventional warfare still relevant. If they were more powerful, every war will become a boring game of who has more nukes. At least with the current state, coordination and planning is still necessary in wars instead of just a "sit back and fire n00ks" kind of scenario.

[Buorhann]

The good thing about nukes being shitty as they are right now is that it makes conventional warfare still relevant. If they were more powerful, every war will become a boring game of who has more nukes. At least with the current state, coordination and planning is still necessary in wars instead of just a "sit back and fire n00ks" kind of scenario.

The silver lining...

[LordRahl2]

Nukes are a great sink for whales.