Get rid of Nukes

[seabasstion]

but they have the advantage of more or less being guaranteed damage. they provide an expensive parachute that can deliver a decent punch but is not the ideal weapon of choice in every situation. this is why they have their place in this game as is and doesn't require any significant change. if you want the luxury to always be able to destroy something, even when losing, you will need to buy on of the most expensive wonders and have a stockpile that can withstand daily spying. if you are to rely on planes and tanks as your sole source of damage and you find yourself on the losing end of a beatdown and they are all destroyed what happens then? 

 

If max damage triumphant victories delivered by planes is X and utter failure attacks are 0, then nukes are around 0.7X right? would you want to lead off with nukes in an aggressive war that you think you can win? no there are better options available. do you want to do utter failure attacks when you have nukes (beigeing mechanic aside), nukes are probably the better option.

 

and as i said earlier the luxury to have this nuke safety is quite cost prohibitive for the majority of the game. i really dont get what all the hubbub about nukes are. i feel they are balanced rather well. sure it is unrealistic that only 2 improvements get destroyed in a nuclear blastwave but it is also unrealistic to have magically transporting armies to the frontline of a battlefield and then immediately have them back for defense a few minutes later so i'm ok with suspending belief a little bit as long as the desired effect is achieved and makes sense

[Dimitri Valko]

do you do grammer on alliance annoucements???

 

Do you use correct spelling or grammar on regular posts?

[LordRahl2]

Nukes not only do less infra damage than airstrikes but the infra cost damage they deal is worth even less.

Airstrikes can do so if and only if you have already defeated your opponent. As SB points out, nukes do damage even if you have lost the war. So, what is the issue?

[Glorton]

The fact that a nation completely defeated in war came close(ish) to matching you in infra damage makes me think that nukes are almost too OP as they are right now. So maybe we need a topic about how to nerf them. Or back to my OP, we could just get rid of them.

its just infra tho. very easy to replace. also this should be a good thing right? a nation in a losing war can still pack a punch. Nukes are only used for defense most of the time anyways. That is the perks of having nukes.

 

Now my whole problem is you and maybe a handful of people think nukes are too op and should be gone. Im sure allot more people think nukes should stay and another handful thinks nukes should be buffed. so getting rid of nukes would just piss more people off.

 

After all these nukes debates tho, id rather them just stay the same as they are now. (taking them out of the military action point system would be nice tho)

 

 

also LordRahl, i dont want to pick on ya ingame but get into a nuclear war yourself then tell me they are op. As of now , there are nowhere close to being op. But doesn't mean we should get rid of them as they are doing no harm to the game. They make good last option destruction.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Glorton

[Buorhann]

 

also LordRahl, i dont want to pick on ya ingame but get into a nuclear war yourself then tell me they are op. As of now , there are nowhere close to being op. But doesn't mean we should get rid of them as they are doing no harm to the game. They make good last option destruction.

 

You haven't been following the conversation.  May want to go back to Page 1 and read through the comments.

[Glorton]

You haven't been following the conversation.  May want to go back to Page 1 and read through the comments.

how? i just told him why we shouldnt get rid of nukes.... are you following?

[LordRahl2]

how? i just told him why we shouldnt get rid of nukes.... are you following?

 

It does appear you have not been following the conversation (based on what you typed in your first post).  And I have tracked nukes in various situations in a few wars but thanks for your suggestion.

[LordRahl2]

Fair enough LR, if you want to keep politics separate, I will as well. 

 

But you WANT to take damage in a war, you really do.  If you can deal out significant damage and not take any in return, you will find yourself quickly out of people to fight.   Fighting a war, with no one to declare war on is the worst. 

 

You and I also know that all infra damage is not created equal.  when two equal nations fight, and the winner does 3k infra damage thru conventional attacks, and the loser does 3k damage thru 2 nukes.  The infra the loser lost is significantly more expensive than the infra the winner lost.  The winners 3k damage is spread out across all of the losers cities, and the loser's damage is only on the 2 cities that he hit, and 500 of that 1500 infra per nuke will cost maybe around 1-2 million to replace.

 

Very fair point on infra damage (the top level in each city is obviously more valuable than the rest).  Many of the "Fix nukes by making them OP" suggestions revolve around spreading out their infra damage which is a terrible idea as I have laid out earlier.

This also supports that missiles are a reasonable defense now as well since you get more shots each of which targets the top level of infra in a new city.

I would say that dropping score to stay in the fight is a valid way of playing.  It is only one way of playing though - even if I feel it is a pretty good one.  In certain scenarios I can see wanting to keep folks at a higher score level.

 

Anyway, we are still talking about what a nation that has lost can to in retaliation to a nation that has won. 

[Fox Fire]

Airstrikes can do so if and only if you have already defeated your opponent. As SB points out, nukes do damage even if you have lost the war. So, what is the issue?

Well that's kinda how nukes should work. Unless we are hand delivering radioactive gifts rather than using say..... An intercontinental ballistic missile.....

The more I read in this thread, the more I think nukes should actually just be OP. Why? Because that's what nukes are, really. I mean either way, we're going to end up with either OP nukes or just larger missiles we call nukes. 

Might as well make it hard and realistic. Besides, if we remove them in favor of chemical weapons, we'll just be back at this same exact table having the same exact argument the day they are added/removed.

[Diomedes]

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.

Umm...No! Bad idea, completely.

[LordRahl2]

Umm...No! Bad idea, completely.

 

A solid counter argument to my OP five pages ago...

 

Well that's kinda how nukes should work. Unless we are hand delivering radioactive gifts rather than using say..... An intercontinental ballistic missile.....

The more I read in this thread, the more I think nukes should actually just be OP. Why? Because that's what nukes are, really. I mean either way, we're going to end up with either OP nukes or just larger missiles we call nukes. 

Might as well make it hard and realistic. Besides, if we remove them in favor of chemical weapons, we'll just be back at this same exact table having the same exact argument the day they are added/removed.

 

We could just leave the system alone - would probably be the ideal solution. In contrast to you, the more I debate the closer I come back to my initial position that it would be better for the game to get rid of the things.

Nukes being "OP in the real" world is irrelevant to the debate.

[Fox Fire]

A solid counter argument to my OP five pages ago...

 

 

We could just leave the system alone - would probably be the ideal solution. In contrast to you, the more I debate the closer I come back to my initial position that it would be better for the game to get rid of the things.

Nukes being "OP in the real" world is irrelevant to the debate.

But it's actually not. I agree that realism cannot ever be attained in a game like this, but that doesn't mean realism doesn't or shouldn't play a role it its mechanics. I mean, we don't have flying battleships or laser death rays and nukes are powerful units for a reason. Not just because the name sounds catchy. 

[LordRahl2]

But it's actually not. I agree that realism cannot ever be attained in a game like this, but that doesn't mean realism doesn't or shouldn't play a role it its mechanics. I mean, we don't have flying battleships or laser death rays and nukes are powerful units for a reason. Not just because the name sounds catchy. 

Actually it is.  Its all math.  There is nothing "real" about the game.  You could rename Soldiers to dirt clods and tanks to watermelons.  As long as the math, in game formulas, are the same it would work exactly the same.

 

If you desire to think of your boats as flying battleships then it will be irrelevant to game-play.  Actually they are flying battleships if you think about it.  People role play, and seem to have fun doing so, in a wide variety of ways that are unrelated to 21st century technology so whatever..

 

Nukes are powerful "for a reason" but other than cosmetics it is unrelated to the real world. As identified earlier nukes allow players to hit over 2k infra cities hard. However, that benefit may very well be overshadowed by the downside.

[Fox Fire]

Actually it is.  Its all math.  There is nothing "real" about the game.  You could rename Soldiers to dirt clods and tanks to watermelons.  As long as the math, in game formulas, are the same it would work exactly the same.

 

If you desire to think of your boats as flying battleships then it will be irrelevant to game-play.  Actually they are flying battleships if you think about it.  People role play, and seem to have fun doing so, in a wide variety of ways that are unrelated to 21st century technology so whatever..

 

Nukes are powerful "for a reason" but other than cosmetics it is unrelated to the real world. As identified earlier nukes allow players to hit over 2k infra cities hard. However, that benefit may very well be overshadowed by the downside.

My point is that the math is the way it is now based on RL concepts and aspects of said units. RL may not be the goal, but it does in fact influence this game and its mechanics. There should indeed be some relation to realism. Otherwise it just becomes a complete bullshit game. We could make a single soldier inflict the same damage as a nuke, but we don't, because there is a relation to realism to some extent. 

 

Nukes in RL are basically end game. So they should be immensely powerful for the sake of consistency if nothing else. If any military unit seems stupid in this game, it's missiles. I mean what are missiles? Planes carry missiles FFS. Missiles just seem to be like a mini nuke at a ridiculous cost. 

 

If we remove nukes, we should just remove missiles as well, not add anything else and make war purely conventional. Because conventional warfare is the only way to balance fairness and realism. Non-conventional warfare is non-conventional for a reason. And it's not because it's fair.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

My point is that the math is the way it is now based on RL concepts and aspects of said units. RL may not be the goal, but it does in fact influence this game and its mechanics. There should indeed be some relation to realism. Otherwise it just becomes a complete bullshit game. We could make a single soldier inflict the same damage as a nuke, but we don't, because there is a relation to realism to some extent. 

 

Nukes in RL are basically end game. So they should be immensely powerful for the sake of consistency if nothing else. If any military unit seems stupid in this game, it's missiles. I mean what are missiles? Planes carry missiles FFS. Missiles just seem to be like a mini nuke at a ridiculous cost. 

 

I disagree.  I find it convenient that units have names that easily equate to things in rl since it eases communication.  However they have no relation to realism.  You point out a fine example and we can keep using it.  Ships do not fly and cannot "realistically" blockade a player in Kansas.  But they do. And there is no problem with that in the slightest.

 

Missiles I assume equate to MLRs, SRBM, and MRBMs.  Does that make you content?

 

Back to your more on topic point: nukes as they stand right now are designed to be end game.  People are buying them and trying to apply them before their intended game point.  The results are not ideal and they want to "fix" this non-problem by making nukes OP.  I oppose this as it will push the game in a negative direction.

 

If we remove nukes, we should just remove missiles as well, not add anything else and make war purely conventional.

 

Alright.  Make a decent argument and I may support this.

 

Because conventional warfare is the only way to balance fairness and realism. Non-conventional warfare is non-conventional for a reason. And it's not because it's fair.

 

I do not think Sheepy's goal is or should be to "balance fairness and realism".  His goal should be to keep the game healthy and enhance its longevity.  The "make nukes OP" line of reasoning is a direct threat to that.

 

So I will bite.  Why is non-conventional warfare non-conventional?

Edited February 18, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Nukes have no effective counters. Aircraft can be countered with Aircraft, Ships with Ships/Aircraft, etc. But Nukes? All you've got is some lousy 20% chance from a ridiculously expensive Project. I'm new to this game, but I'm not new to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and unless Sheepy introduces more effective counters to Nukes then top-tier warfare will end up just like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), ie each side sits behind their big military and tosses a nuke at each other when the cooldown lapses.

[Fox Fire]

Nukes have no effective counters. Aircraft can be countered with Aircraft, Ships with Ships/Aircraft, etc. But Nukes? All you've got is some lousy 20% chance from a ridiculously expensive Project. I'm new to this game, but I'm not new to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and unless Sheepy introduces more effective counters to Nukes then top-tier warfare will end up just like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), ie each side sits behind their big military and tosses a nuke at each other when the cooldown lapses.

Is there no counter to nukes in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? Oh yes, it's called the SDI. Would you feel more comfortable if we increased the VDS to 60% chance? (I would agree with that but only with an increse in nuke damage).

 

 

I disagree.  I find it convenient that units have names that easily equate to things in rl since it eases communication.  However they have no relation to realism.  You point out a fine example and we can keep using it.  Ships do not fly and cannot "realistically" blockade a player in Kansas.  But they do. And there is no problem with that in the slightest.

 

Missiles I assume equate to MLRs, SRBM, and MRBMs.  Does that make you content?

 

Back to your more on topic point: nukes as they stand right now are designed to be end game.  People are buying them and trying to apply them before their intended game point.  The results are not ideal and they want to "fix" this non-problem by making nukes OP.  I oppose this as it will push the game in a negative direction.

 

 

Alright.  Make a decent argument and I may support this.

 

 

I do not think Sheepy's goal is or should be to "balance fairness and realism".  His goal should be to keep the game healthy and enhance its longevity.  The "make nukes OP" line of reasoning is a direct threat to that.

 

So I will bite.  Why is non-conventional warfare non-conventional?

So then tell me why units in the game aren't simply labeled as 1, 2 and 3? I mean, according to your logic, there is no meaning in naming anything at all and we should throw meaningless numbers at each other all day. 

However, I completely agree with the idea that people are trying to acquire nukes too early and that trying to offset their own early purchase with more damage is just a bias complaint that should not be fed. But even with that being agreed upon, I still think nukes should not be removed and making them OP is not unreasonable on the realistic approach. 

I've had many ideas for nukes, but I've also come and gone. Pretty sure my ideas have been brought up before, like mass pollution and such. 

 

Overall, I conclude that they should not be removed unless we equally remove missiles and make everything conventional across the board. That would do a whole lot more to balance the scales but also make things a whole lot less interesting. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Is there no counter to nukes in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? Oh yes, it's called the SDI. Would you feel more comfortable if we increased the VDS to 60% chance? (I would agree with that but only with an increse in nuke damage).

Passive benefits are boring because there's no gameplay involved, it's pure RNG. But yes upping the Vital Defense to 50-60% would be OK imo.

 

Even better would be something like Mobile SAM sites (which worked like Tanks and cost about the same) which boosted your chances of intercepting a Missile or Nuke. Each mobile SAM increased your interception chances by 0.1%, so you would need 500 to gain a 50% chance to block Missiles/Nukes. The enemy could still destroy the SAMs with Aircraft or with Ground attacks so they could safely launch Missiles/Nukes.

 

In the above case their would at least be some strategy involved instead of just mindlessly tossing nukes at each other until the war expired.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Itani Corsus

[Wayne]

All I've seen Nukes do is lower my war range allowing me to whoop some poor saps arse with my 3 city advantage, while taking me away from the war range in which I could be 'put out of the war' by conventional means.  Let's keep them, so the stupid people continue to waste money and resources while at the same time, !@#$ing over their alliance mates in the lower ranges.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

 

Anyway, we are still talking about what a nation that has lost can to in retaliation to a nation that has won. 

If that is the case, then you and I just have a difference in opinion about the kind of damage a winning nation can expect to take in a war.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

FYI, the counter to nukes is spies, and the VDS  You can destroy more nukes in a day than a nation can make.

[Caecus]

FYI, the counter to nukes is spies, and the VDS  You can destroy more nukes in a day than a nation can make.

 

In other words.... FIX SPIES! QQ

[Caecus]

All I've seen Nukes do is lower my war range allowing me to whoop some poor saps arse with my 3 city advantage, while taking me away from the war range in which I could be 'put out of the war' by conventional means.  Let's keep them, so the stupid people continue to waste money and resources while at the same time, !@#$ over their alliance mates in the lower ranges.

Meh, more or less correct. Not to mention you get beiged, giving you a free hand. Nukes really aren't that great... 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

what is wrong with spies?  you kill your opponents spies, and then you kill his nukes.  what is broken? besides the failure rate of anything lower than 99 percent.

[LordRahl2]

FYI, the counter to nukes is spies, and the VDS You can destroy more nukes in a day than a nation can make.

I may or may not be familiar with the use of spies.

 

On that general topic, since the counter to nukes (spies) was nerfed shouldn't the target of spies (nukes) be nerfed as well?