vastly increase improvement damage from nukes

[Fox Fire]

I'm already to the point that I have no intention of ever getting larger because the cost to rebuild is.... Well simply put; !@#$ that. 

So sure, increase nuke damage. IDGAF, really. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Fox Fire]

Inb4 competition and blah blah blah. 

Who cares? I know I'm not going to be on top so why try? I can sit quite comfortably on the lower tiers with a shit ton of cities and wage war for almost nothing. 

"So change all the formulas for cities around so that people with tons of cities have less advantage!!!"

My response to that is:

"!@#$ me, is this game ever consistent? I seriously can't be bothered to keep up with it's monthly !@#$ing mechanics changes, so who the !@#$ cares anymore? Not me I say. It's far too often I say. God forbid anything is consistent I say".

[LordRahl2]

Fox fire, drunk I assume, makes a solid point. There are constant calls here from people to change the game mechanics. Mostly to make people who chose less than optimal ways to play the game.

Leave the game alone and let it be our sandbox Sheepy. If people cannot read or check your formulas before building something then that is their fault man.

Edited February 7, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Nukes should have more available counters outside the Vital Defense projects, like I dunno maybe SAM sites which increase the chances of taking down a nuke but those sites can be destroyed by aircraft/ground attacks? (Tell me if it's a terrible idea as I'm new to the game)

[Alex]

3 improvements, and the third one have a 50% chance to hit a power plant

 

They already can hit power plants.

[Hooves]

They already can hit power plants.

Confirmed

[Nintendo]

 

3:51 PM <•Sheepy> Another idea that I had previously was that ground battles, airstrikes, and naval battles would all have a 30% chance of destroying a random (non power plant) improvement

3:51 PM <•Sheepy> Missiles would destroy 2 (non power plant) improvements

3:52 PM <•Sheepy> Nukes would destroy 5 (power plant included) improvements

 

 

I don't agree with the first point, but the Missile and Nukes suggestion actually sounds good to me.

[LordRahl2]

I don't agree with the first point, but the Missile and Nukes suggestion actually sounds good to me.

 

Why?  How would that actually improve the game?

[Kenneth]

The sheer amount of infrastructure and population lost are big enough repercussions. Zeroing improvements would be excessive.

Edited February 7, 2016 by kenneth

[Atzuya]

They already can hit power plants.

True, but depends on how many improvements a city have, the chance for it to hit any power plant could be anywhere between 5-10%. Bumping that to constant 50% can greatly improve the nuke's worth without changing anything else.

[LordRahl2]

True, but depends on how many improvements a city have, the chance for it to hit any power plant could be anywhere between 5-10%. Bumping that to constant 50% can greatly improve the nuke's worth without changing anything else.

 

And all high score strategy changes to having 3 people dow and launch 15 nukes killing 1/2 the opponent's cities power.  What fun?

[Spooner]

 

3:51 PM <•Sheepy> Another idea that I had previously was that ground battles, airstrikes, and naval battles would all have a 30% chance of destroying a random (non power plant) improvement

3:51 PM <•Sheepy> Missiles would destroy 2 (non power plant) improvements

3:52 PM <•Sheepy> Nukes would destroy 5 (power plant included) improvements

 

 

Honestly, this is pretty balanced. I would support this.

[Crust]

Fox fire, drunk I assume, makes a solid point. There are constant calls here from people to change the game mechanics. Mostly to make people who chose less than optimal ways to play the game.

 

Leave the game alone and let it be our sandbox Sheepy. If people cannot read or check your formulas before building something then that is their fault man.

 

I'd agree if there was one place where all the game mechanics were stated. I swear it's impossible to find any consistent information on how everything works. Maybe spend more time putting in information on the wikia instead of changing the game mechanics every week?

[Magnanimus]

At present missiles act as a mini-nuke. Imo, missiles should not target improvements but should be able to destroy higher amount of enemy soldiers/tanks or Aircraft/Ships or missiles/nukes. While launching a missile strike you can choose your target to be one of the above combination and this will lead battles to not be one-sided and give higher strategical importance to missiles.

 

This will give an advantage to nations that are on the loosing side or are being ganged up by larger nations.

[LordRahl2]

At present missiles act as a mini-nuke. Imo, missiles should not target improvements but should be able to destroy higher amount of enemy soldiers/tanks or Aircraft/Ships or missiles/nukes. While launching a missile strike you can choose your target to be one of the above combination and this will lead battles to not be one-sided and give higher strategical importance to missiles.

 

This will give an advantage to nations that are on the loosing side or are being ganged up by larger nations.

Sounds ehhh, alright. But increase their AP requirements if you do this.

[Diocletian]

I haven't even built an NRF yet and I agree. Don't really have much to add to the discussion personally because Glorton nailed it. The pollution problem arising from nuke usage is bad, but it's super easy to side step the effects, especially if military/military improvements and/or power plants remain intact. Do the right thing sheeps, if not a massive bump to improvement destruction, at least give them the ability to kill a percentage of soldiers, tanks, planes, and possibly even ships. 

[James II]

I got nuked and laughed at the damage. Hardly did anything. 3 air strikes shouldn't do more damage then 1 nuke. Nuke damage should be increased, a long with the price of a nuke.

Give the ability to target a city, or military. If the military is abroad, and a city is nuked I don't see how damage could be done to both. But if a tactical nuke is used to kill soldiers, and strategic to damage cities. I could get behind that.

Edited February 12, 2016 by James II

[LordRahl2]

I got nuked and laughed at the damage. Hardly did anything. 3 air strikes shouldn't do more damage then 1 nuke. Nuke damage should be increased, a long with the price of a nuke.

 

Or my idea.  Lets not OP nukes.  Lets nuke nukes.

[Diocletian]

Or my idea.  Lets not OP nukes.  Lets nuke nukes.

 

Balancing their destruction = "overpowering" them, eh? No, it really wouldn't. 

[LordRahl2]

Considering the game play implications, yes, yes it would.

[Diocletian]

Considering the game play implications, yes, yes it would.

 

Considering such a move would simply put nukes a bit more on par with conventional warfare is a big, bad thing, I know. We wouldn't want certain groups having a slightly more even playing field, would we now? 

[LordRahl2]

Considering such a move would simply put nukes a bit more on par with conventional warfare is a big, bad thing, I know. We wouldn't want certain groups having a slightly more even playing field, would we now? 

 

What is uneven at the moment?

[Arthur James]

I would support this as to drive player out of the game, but then, I refer the old ones, but revenue is temporary moved to zero due to nuclear radiation is not eliminated.

[Fox Fire]

Fox fire, drunk I assume, makes a solid point. There are constant calls here from people to change the game mechanics. Mostly to make people who chose less than optimal ways to play the game.

 

Leave the game alone and let it be our sandbox Sheepy. If people cannot read or check your formulas before building something then that is their fault man.

 

I'd agree if there was one place where all the game mechanics were stated. I swear it's impossible to find any consistent information on how everything works. Maybe spend more time putting in information on the wikia instead of changing the game mechanics every week?

And here I thought I was completely alone in the idea that changing the mechanics every month was stupid. 

There should be some consistency around here. Regardless of whether or not people like it. 

However, the fact is, there is no consistency. Never really has been. This game is certainly not the PaW I started playing and it's consistent changes have lead me to mostly ignore the updates because It's simply WAY too often. How do you expect a game to play out with inconsistent rules? You can't. The game never plays out. It becomes a new game all the time. 

I'm not saying I'm opposed to improvements and suggestions. I'm saying it happens way to often for me to even bother trying to keep up and change my game play so often. One fundamentally changing update per year at most, should be just fine. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Dr Rush]

Considering such a move would simply put nukes a bit more on par with conventional warfare is a big, bad thing, I know. We wouldn't want certain groups having a slightly more even playing field, would we now? 

How about this, nukes should not be able to do the same or more damage as conventional warfare. You should not be able to lose a war & then lob nukes at the winner doing as much or more damage. It completely negates the point of fighting a war.