Get rid of Nukes

[LordRahl2]

There is an effort to balance nukes and there have been no solid suggestions about how to do so.  Frankly, the only way to make the nuke crowd happy is to make them OP.  This, imho, would have a desultory impact on the game and make it basically unplayable.

 

Leaving them as is seems to annoy people who invested in the NRP.

 

I am also unsure if they enhance the games functionality from a player or a meta level aspect.  You will still have missiles and ID which seem to be pretty well balanced and afford the same if not a better option to players who are in or considering the nuke option.

 

My suggestion is just to get rid of them.  Reimburse players with the NRP, VDS, and on hand nukes.  Similar to the way spies were reimbursed.

[Dimitri Valko]

I disagree. If they were taken out of the Military Action Point system, it could work nicely.

[LordRahl2]

I disagree. If they were taken out of the Military Action Point system, it could work nicely.

 

But they are not and that idea has been rejected.

[Odin]

Make them unusable when enemy has land/air control. 

Make standing armies twice or even thrice as expensive.

 

...maybe?

 

That would remove this shitty effect to make every war to a loss, even if you win.

Having extreme upkeep costs on armies would maybe reduce ability of nations to have long wars (with those ridiculous enormous armies compared to population), and might use nukes more likely in offensive wars? >.>

They should not beige though.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Odin

[T-Pain]

I will agree that nukes are fundamentally flawed. Ships are as well which is why Mensa has had so much success without them.

[LordRahl2]

Make them unusable when enemy has land/air control. 

Make standing armies twice or even thrice as expensive.

 

...maybe?

 

That would remove this shitty effect to make every war to a loss, even if you win.

Having extreme upkeep costs on armies would maybe reduce ability of nations to have long wars (with those ridiculous enormous armies compared to population), and might use nukes more likely in offensive wars? >.>

They should not beige though.

 

See we are still trying to fix the darn things.  Your other point is interesting enough but generally unrelated imho.

 

Why does the game "need" nukes?

[Odin]

See we are still trying to fix the darn things.  Your other point is interesting enough but generally unrelated imho.

 

Why does the game "need" nukes?

Because (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) has them >.>

 

Edit:

No, for real. Nukes are an important military unit/weapon for games like this, Just because. Only how they work and can be used should be reworked by a lot.

Above my Signature is a link to how (maybe).

 

 

Back to your question: Currently, they are just annoying. Only 1 alone reduces all benefits for waging war (@ Infradmg). There should at least be some limitations in how to use them.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Odin

[James II]

Wait, do nuclear weapons exist in real life? I want to play a nation simulation game not a game with imaginary weapons! Lets get rid of nukes because they make the game unrealistic and more dynamic. We can't have a dynamic game! That's just plain boring.

[Diocletian]

Oh course a few Mensa members in particular are the ones that seem to have the biggest problem with balancing nukes. It sure would suck to balance them a bit more out of favor of conventional warfare. Nevermind the fact they're already on the pricey side to both manufacture and maintain. They should, truly, be more "end-game" insofar as either damage a percentage of the nuked nation's military as well as [more than two] improvements. The pollution is easily side-stepped and unless you're nuking a city with 1500 or more infra, it's simply not cost-effective. With a proper warchest, even lost infra is easy to overcome. Nukes are quite obviously nerfed far more in favor of not being all that useful, it's only right to bump their effect up ever so slightly to compensate. 

[LordRahl2]

Wait, do nuclear weapons exist in real life? I want to play a nation simulation game not a game with imaginary weapons! Lets get rid of nukes because they make the game unrealistic and more dynamic. We can't have a dynamic game! That's just plain boring.

 

Your funnies confuse me.  But whatever, nukes are not dynamic and do not serve any game play function that I can think of.  Sharks, and any number of other examples, exist in the real world and are not simed in the game.  There is no game play reason to have them though.  Just like Nukes.

 

Oh course a few Mensa members in particular are the ones that seem to have the biggest problem with balancing nukes. It sure would suck to balance them a bit more out of favor of conventional warfare. Nevermind the fact they're already on the pricey side to both manufacture and maintain. They should, truly, be more "end-game" insofar as either damage a percentage of the nuked nation's military as well as [more than two] improvements. The pollution is easily side-stepped and unless you're nuking a city with 1500 or more infra, it's simply not cost-effective. With a proper warchest, even lost infra is easy to overcome. Nukes are quite obviously nerfed far more in favor of not being all that useful, it's only right to bump their effect up ever so slightly to compensate. 

 

Huh?  I have no nukes, have never been nuked, would not have particular "feels" if I was.  So no, I do not have a "problem" balancing them.  I would have a problem making them OP, which basically all the suggestions do.  So no it is not "only right" to make them OP.

 

Again, explain what the game play value is of having them.  The reason not to make them OP is to keep the game playable.  Which is a very legit reason for Sheepy to not make them OP and getting rid of them would remove the constant drive people feel to force him to make them so.

[Dan77]

Oh please no.  Leave tactically inferior, expensive, point scoring weapons in the game.

 

That way, people can waste all of their money on them while the rest of us concentrate on what's important.  People need to be able to make bad decisions.  It provides for a much more interesting game.

[Ryu[Old Account]]

The whole war mechanics is unbalanced, as well as the spy system... Therefore, nukes are fine just as they are.

[TellUrGrlThx]

The whole war mechanics is unbalanced, as well as the spy system... Therefore, nukes are fine just as they are.

 

I agree. The only real way to fix the war mechanics is just to start over with a different idea in mind. Maybe a system that is actually planned ahead for further additions.

[Kamea Arano]

Nukes can be spied away if executed correctly.. I don't see any reason that nukes should be removed.. I quite like them.

[LordRahl2]

Nukes can be spied away if executed correctly.. I don't see any reason that nukes should be removed.. I quite like them.

I would be fine with this if you could remove the constant pressure to "fix" them also known as making them OP.

[Fraggle]

As the founding member of the nuclear club, The Nation of Fraggle Rock would like to see a new project on top of the current nuclear project. For 100 million dollars, nations should be able to build a MIRV that holds up to eight nuclear warheads that can be launched outside of war declarations. The MIRV could select up to eight separate targets. This would make the Vital Defense System very valuable, only if the odds to shoot down a MIRV were increased to 50%. Of course, spies should be revamped to include a side project that allows them to degrade projects by means of convert sabotage. Also, nations should not be allowed to know who has a MIRV, unless a certain amount of spies over time have built up enough intelligence within the target nation.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Fraggle

[----]

Wait, do nuclear weapons exist in real life? I want to play a nation simulation game not a game with imaginary weapons! Lets get rid of nukes because they make the game unrealistic and more dynamic. We can't have a dynamic game! That's just plain boring.

 

If I understood you correctly, you believe that the excess nuclear weapons in the game are unrealistic? If so, I completely agree that they should be removed, since they have not been used in any real-life conflicts since the Great Patriotic War (Second World War). I would argue in favour of chemical, biological, or other 'forbidden' weapons replacing nuclear weapons in game. These other weapons of mass destruction do wreak significant havoc and they have been used in the last 75 years. 

 

I misunderstood your post, please disregard my comment.

[Fox Fire]

Why not just give nukes their own kind of "timer" or limitation separate from the MAP system?

[LordRahl2]

Why not just give nukes their own kind of "timer" or limitation separate from the MAP system?

That has been suggested over and over again by the great pre has it not. If it has not yet happened I assume that it will not.

 

///////

 

As to a new war system we should call it "V2". Nothing could go wrong.

[Fraggle]

As the founding member of the nuclear club, The Nation of Fraggle Rock would like to see a new project on top of the current nuclear project. For 100 million dollars, nations should be able to build a MIRV that holds up to eight nuclear warheads that can be launched outside of war declarations. The MIRV could select up to eight separate targets. This would make the Vital Defense System very valuable, only if the odds to shoot down a MIRV were increased to 50%. Of course, spies should be revamped to include a side project that allows them to degrade projects by means of convert sabotage. Also, nations should not be allowed to know who has a MIRV, unless a certain amount of spies over time have built up enough intelligence within the target nation.

 

Since we are going down this road with such a great proposal, The Nation of Fraggle Rock would also like to see another project; Chemical and Biology Weapons Division (CBWD). Such project would be cheap, roughly 5-8 million start range. The upkeep of such programs would be high. The nation who built such weapons would also risk having the weapons leak or explode on their own land. These weapons can also be sold to other nations that do not have this project and if used, it would only be traceable, if the proper amount of spy intelligence is on hand to the nation who built the weapon.   

[Hereno]

i don't agree entirely with fraggle rock, but we should definitely have some sarin and mustard gas

 

launch at troops: inflict 12.5% casualties on soldiers for 3 war points

launch at cities: all production/civil buildings in 1-3 cities chosen at random are frozen for 24 hours

[WISD0MTREE]

I've been reading a book I am going to give my cousin next time I see him. It talks about how nuclear weapons could potentially be used alongside conventional weapons in the battlefield. (Like the Davy Crockett) 

What if NRP acted as a combat booster and VDS acted as a counter to this? 

 

i don't agree entirely with fraggle rock, but we should definitely have some sarin and mustard gas

launch at troops: inflict 12.5% casualties on soldiers for 3 war points
launch at cities: all production/civil buildings in 1-3 cities chosen at random are frozen for 24 hours

B-but Geneva!!!11!!1!

[Kamea Arano]

B-but Geneva!!!11!!1!

 

This is Orbis we're talking about here. Where the world leaders always say "!@#$ the Geneva Convention".

[----]

This is Orbis we're talking about here. Where the world leaders always say "!@#$ the Geneva Convention".

Or in other cases they say,

'Don't you remember, Geneva went up last time! It's just a hole in the ground!'

[Ayayay]

Cost of nukes is beyond expensive compared to missiles. Give them the ability to destroy 25% of a selected force and get around to adding nuclear winters. The 25% isn't beyond OP as you still sacrifice an entire day's worth of attacks, nukes are still expensive so coordinated and properly timed ground attacks can leave you without the ability to even buy one, and destroying 25% of a single group of units (air, ground, sea) still won't give you any real sort of edge except in a close war. 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Metro