Baumgilad Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 For example, his capacity to build missiles and nukes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areton Chashul Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 no Quote Lord of Holdengrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacity Peace Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 no But the question remains: Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrezj Kolarov Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 But the question remains: Why? Because it would be ridiculously overpowered, NP's are very expensive and they and cities can only be built once every 10 days (real time). It would be like if you could destroy cities. Quote People's Republic of Velika: National Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AiOS Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) They should at least be rendered useless when a player (for example) has cities at only 10 infra with no power. How can it be logical that they can continue to build weapons (like nukes) and fight in a condition like that? (I've seen a ridiculous example of it recently.) Edited May 27, 2016 by Tyro Leif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baumgilad Posted May 27, 2016 Author Share Posted May 27, 2016 I don't really see the logic in a player having a missile platform or nuclear weapons lab that can't be bombed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Since NPs are just really big improvements and most improvements need power in order to function, I'd think that in a situation where if half or more of a nation's cities are without power, then the NPs would also loose power and therefore be temporarily nonfunctioning. Once power is restored to the majority (51%+) of the cities, then the NPs would be restored back to fully operational. They don't have to be destroyed, just rendered temporarily unavailable ue to loss of power. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 You can argue for an ability to do some form of an attack, spy op, or having some form of combination of controls ( air, ground, blockade ) that would prevent or weaken the ability to get hit by nukes from that nation. Such ideas have been tossed around in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) I don't think it matters, it quickly becomes unaffordable in war to keep firing Nukes, missiles to a lesser extend but they can have difficultly as well. Edited May 27, 2016 by Lightning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.