Get rid of Nukes

[LordRahl2]

So just 2 people destroy half a full air force. To say nothing of 3 on one.

 

Again, all your ideas tend toward OP. Far better to "fix" nukes by eliminating them.

[Beowulf the Second]

like many things in this game, nukes aren't optimized by any stretch of the imagination. i agree with many of your points on nukes, but don't agree that that extends itself to removing them entirely from the game.

 

also the random suggestions to add nuke buffs etc. are often complicated and would cause many more problems than i think the posters really realize, e.g. the above. simpler suggestions are as a rule better, if only because it's easier to determine the result

[LordRahl2]

like many things in this game, nukes aren't optimized by any stretch of the imagination. i agree with many of your points on nukes, but don't agree that that extends itself to removing them entirely from the game.

 

also the random suggestions to add nuke buffs etc. are often complicated and would cause many more problems than i think the posters really realize, e.g. the above. simpler suggestions are as a rule better, if only because it's easier to determine the result

 

That is fair enough.  I do however "get" basically all the other components.  Nukes seemed flawed at their core.  IE. if they "worked" then the whole game would revolve around having and using nukes to the exclusion of all other aspects of the game.  This seems devastatingly dull.  Why then does this component of the game exist at all?  Nobody has answered me as to why they should be a thing in game.

 

I can gin up a satisfactory answer for all the other military units for example.

[Ayayay]

That is fair enough.  I do however "get" basically all the other components.  Nukes seemed flawed at their core.  IE. if they "worked" then the whole game would revolve around having and using nukes to the exclusion of all other aspects of the game.  This seems devastatingly dull.  Why then does this component of the game exist at all?  Nobody has answered me as to why they should be a thing in game.

 

I can gin up a satisfactory answer for all the other military units for example.

Supposed to be an end tier weapon

[LordRahl2]

"End Tier" meaning?

 

Like the game has culminated and will no longer be fun so lets just nuke each other?  I would agree that OP nukes would advance that end-state.

[Ayayay]

"End Tier" meaning?

 

Like the game has culminated and will no longer be fun so lets just nuke each other?  I would agree that OP nukes would advance that end-state.

As in, people with more infra than usable improvement slots, preferably anything above 2k though

[LordRahl2]

As in, people with more infra than usable improvement slots, preferably anything above 2k though

 

Well then they are fine as is then.  So we can collectively stop pestering Sheepy to change them?

[Dimitri Valko]

A Day in the Life of Jack Harms:

 

"ugh, i'm gunna shitpost and try to get ppl to respond!"

 

Once again, I demand the ability to carpet bomb orphanages and use sarin gas on hospitals.

 

-nobody responds to shitpost-

 

"goddammit! nobody agan!"

 

The end tier weapons should be sarin gas.

Plz let me gas hospitals. 

Also, give us the ability to carpet bomb orphanages.

 

"SOMBODEE NOTISE MEE!"

[Arthur James]

Get a hydrogen bomb to have a compatative powers from Fusion, instead of Fission bomb..

although it takes 3mths for me to get 95% recovery.

Apparently, I am fine to have both of them exist.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Arthur James

[Azaghul]

I'm not sure how to balance this, but I don't think it makes sense that you can buy the same number of nukes per day as missiles per day.  Nukes shouldn't be as easy to buy/stockpile on a time basis.

[Prefontaine]

Oh look. Nuclear weapons suggestion thread.

 

 

Good luck you poor fools.

[Magnanimus]

If at all we need to up the damage from nukes, then we need to spread the damage to surrounding cities rather than keep the damage limited to a particular city.

 

I would suggest to keep the damage from nukes the same only redistribute it to surrounding cities as - 

 

Let us say City that is nuked is City #5, then the damage done by nukes is spread as - 

City #5 - 60% Infra damage & pollution effect

City #4 and City #6 - 15% Infra damage & pollution effect

City #3 and City #7 - 5% Infra damage & pollution effect

 

The nuke damage remains the same but is spread to cities thereby increasing its worth.

[LordRahl2]

Naw, that does not really make sense if it is an "End Tier" weapon.  You want to knock the one city down from 22+k, or whatever, while your buddies knock his other ones down.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Once again, I demand the ability to carpet bomb orphanages and use sarin gas on hospitals.

Sarin is weak, VX is for men.

[Fox Fire]

That is fair enough.  I do however "get" basically all the other components.  Nukes seemed flawed at their core.  IE. if they "worked" then the whole game would revolve around having and using nukes to the exclusion of all other aspects of the game.  This seems devastatingly dull.  Why then does this component of the game exist at all?  Nobody has answered me as to why they should be a thing in game.

 

I can gin up a satisfactory answer for all the other military units for example.

Yes, exactly. However, we can remove nukes and then missiles become the top weapons. Just like planes are the top weapons on the battlefield. I don't think this "flaw" is reason to completely remove nukes. 

Why do tanks exist in the game? I mean nobody has ever given me an answer as to why they must exist in the game, so I should now assume that they shouldn't? That's just silly.

[LordRahl2]

Yes, exactly. However, we can remove nukes and then missiles become the top weapons. Just like planes are the top weapons on the battlefield. I don't think this "flaw" is reason to completely remove nukes.

Why do tanks exist in the game? I mean nobody has ever given me an answer as to why they must exist in the game, so I should now assume that they shouldn't? That's just silly.

Tanks and soldiers are both there for ground victories which relate to beige. Together they are the basic element of combat, GC. They can impact air attacks as well. Why do we need two? Donno a bout that. But, they are balanced well enough.

 

I understand your troll attempt. However, ships, ground, and air have distinct purposes. Missiles as well fwiw.

 

Now, I can accept the upthread argument that nukes are an "end tier" weapon. I take that to mean that they are designed to target cities with infra north of 2k. They do that quite well right now with no changes at all. The ROI on raising a city from 2.2k to 2.3k is not something I have calculated. However, I am confident that it is measured in months.

 

With 3 nuke armed attacker you could see one of these end tier nations lose 15 cities worth of this end tier infra. That is quite strong enough imho.

 

However, it seems the entry cost for nukes, aka the cost of the NRF, may have been set too low. This allowed players below this "end tier" to purchase nukes who then realize that they were not efficient at their "tier". So now they desire a "fix" to the nukes and want all sorts of things that will, again imho, be unbalanced. An unbalanced nuke system will drive players in the mid and lower tier, or below?, to own and use nukes almost exclusively.

 

I do not see this cacophony ending anytime soon and Sheepy has shown deference to such loud voices from time to time. As you all say, it's his game. So I would rather see the health of the game maintained and simply get rid of the things unless you are down for educating everyone who comes on proposing yet another OP "solution" to "fix" nukes.

[Fox Fire]

Tanks and soldiers are both there for ground victories which relate to beige. Together they are the basic element of combat, GC. They can impact air attacks as well. Why do we need two? Donno a bout that. But, they are balanced well enough.

 

I understand your troll attempt. However, ships, ground, and air have distinct purposes. Missiles as well fwiw.

 

Now, I can accept the upthread argument that nukes are an "end tier" weapon. I take that to mean that they are designed to target cities with infra north of 2k. They do that quite well right now with no changes at all. The ROI on raising a city from 2.2k to 2.3k is not something I have calculated. However, I am confident that it is measured in months.

 

With 3 nuke armed attacker you could see one of these end tier nations lose 15 cities worth of this end tier infra. That is quite strong enough imho.

 

However, it seems the entry cost for nukes, aka the cost of the NRF, may have been set too low. This allowed players below this "end tier" to purchase nukes who then realize that they were not efficient at their "tier". So now they desire a "fix" to the nukes and want all sorts of things that will, again imho, be unbalanced. An unbalanced nuke system will drive players in the mid and lower tier, or below?, to own and use nukes almost exclusively.

 

I do not see this cacophony ending anytime soon and Sheepy has shown deference to such loud voices from time to time. As you all say, it's his game. So I would rather see the health of the game maintained and simply get rid of the things unless you are down for educating everyone who comes on proposing yet another OP "solution" to "fix" nukes.

I think we should get rid of missiles too then. Why? Because some people find them inefficient. 

I'm not trolling. I'm just saying that people making suggestions shouldn't be a reason to remove something. If you don't want nukes, don't get them.  I've never used them so I couldn't tell you how to solve this apparent problem, but removing them is for quitters. 

[LordRahl2]

Is that all you took away from my reply?

 

Missiles are efficient and appropriately priced though. Nor do you see cries to over-buff them.

 

Where did I talk about me getting or not getting nukes. I am making an argument about the health and longevity of the game. And that is the reason I have for making my suggestion.

 

I am not sure where you are going with your quilters argument.

[Fox Fire]

Well honestly, if people don't want nukes they can just not buy them. Problem solved. Everyone wins.

[LordRahl2]

Well honestly, if people don't want nukes they can just not buy them. Problem solved. Everyone wins.

 

Sure, as long as they do not keep trying to fix them that would be great.  Your solution is very nice - if it works even nicer.  Do you see that going on?  Read the replies itt and the other threads on this board.

[Apeman]

That is fair enough. I do however "get" basically all the other components. Nukes seemed flawed at their core. IE. if they "worked" then the whole game would revolve around having and using nukes to the exclusion of all other aspects of the game. This seems devastatingly dull. Why then does this component of the game exist at all? Nobody has answered me as to why they should be a thing in game.

 

I can gin up a satisfactory answer for all the other military units for example.

I think this could be said about all the military units. Make nukes cost 8 points to launch and eliminate missiles, unless you want to make them chemical weapons. Nukes should do more damage. It is a nuke after all. Make them more expensive, and make them more deadly.

[Vosunda]

What about just removing the beige effect nukes give?..

Nuke damage itself is largely okay, though I certainly wouldn't complain if they took away more improvements.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Vosunda

[Glorton]

I think this could be said about all the military units. Make nukes cost 8 points to launch and eliminate missiles, unless you want to make them chemical weapons. Nukes should do more damage. It is a nuke after all. Make them more expensive, and make them more deadly.

 

Thats his argument tho. He rather there be no nukes then op nukes. But getting rid of nukes would just be a waste of time. Even tho they are worthless in actually combat, nukes are allot of peoples last option.

 

Now after having some experience with nukes in war i do change my opinion about them. Nukes should just be taken out of the military action points system, since nukes have no use of strategy in the current war system.

 

why? So nuclear nations dont have to choose whether they want to nuke someone and turtle rather then fighting a conventional war. takes 24 hours to get 12 military action points (or 12 hours if you start saving from the beginning of the war) but still you can easily get rolled in the meantime.

 

I dont mind the nukes not doing any military damage anymore. I now can see how that will be dull.

[LordRahl2]

I think this could be said about all the military units. Make nukes cost 8 points to launch and eliminate missiles, unless you want to make them chemical weapons. Nukes should do more damage. It is a nuke after all. Make them more expensive, and make them more deadly.

Maybe you could back up your series of opinions with some analysis.

 

It is and to argue with a series of opinions. For example, no you cannot say that about the other modeled weapons. Please defend that argument. Etc.

Edited February 16, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Apeman]

Maybe you could back up your series of opinions with some analysis.

 

It is and to argue with a series of opinions. For example, no you cannot say that about the other modeled weapons. Please defend that argument. Etc.

Every unit in game is less effective than planes. Why have ships? It's not the best let's get rid of it. Soldiers are weak and put your enemy into beige. Let's ditch those to. What good is tanks without soldiers. Bang we only have planes. Missiles are pointless because they don't give enough bang for the points it costs. Nukes at least keep up with damage done in wars. 3 people nuking 1 guy can smash in less than 5 days. 3 peeps attacking even with planes will take longer. Plus as the war goes on my infra is cheaper where my nuke is smashing full cities, at least until you run out.

 

If you don't like them, don't use them. As an aspect of the game(much like any other unit) and I can explore/exploit it as I see fit.

 

"Blah blah it's not the best way to grow or fight. How are you going to win the game or be best at it?" Actually right now I am doing the best, best at nukes launched. If for nothing else it allows me to play the way I want to.

 

I can bounce numbers around to help make the nuke cause financially responsible also. It's all in the total strategy not just the nuke unit.

 

Hope that cleared it up