Jump to content

Suggestion regarding nuke damage


kosmokenny
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Micchan said:

What?

We knew that, Alex informed all of us in the same way, if they don't read the updates is not our fault

The update was posted when, 3 weeks ago? 4? I lost track. But the point is, a ton of effort and resources where already sunk into nukes at that point. You can just negate an entire strategy that people have invested so heavily in and still call it a fairly designed game.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Senry said:

Your chance of fighting off the nations was when you had large militaries built up and could potentially coordinate to pin your enemies down in actual warfare.

 

But you sat around on your ass thinking nukes would save you.

 

So I believe the phrase is "get fricked"

git gud or git fricked

  • Upvote 1

Z98SzIG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, durmij said:

The update was posted when, 3 weeks ago? 4? I lost track. But the point is, a ton of effort and resources where already sunk into nukes at that point. You can just negate an entire strategy that people have invested so heavily in and still call it a fairly designed game.

That's a good point yes

Maybe Alex doesn't like if players do that playing style

And since the nuke bloc was pretty much inactive with wars for a long time and now is in a world war just after the update makes the update good right?

They still are destroying the part of infra with the highest value so it doesn't make that huge difference while we are destroying half of what we could with attrition and it is still the over 2000 infra

So with ordinary wars the nuke bloc has in fact a better net damage on infra

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:

>Without informing your playerbase

unknown.png

Fair enough, although do we have an exact date for when Alex made it public that this was going to the system going forward? And it still boggles my mind that a design flaw like the attacker determining how much damage the defender can dish out even got to the coding phase, let alone actually going live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, durmij said:

The update was posted when, 3 weeks ago? 4? I lost track. But the point is, a ton of effort and resources where already sunk into nukes at that point. You can just negate an entire strategy that people have invested so heavily in and still call it a fairly designed game.

When I remember how overnight Alex updated the economy back in the day, 3-4 weeks seems pretty long.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, durmij said:

Fair enough, although do we have an exact date for when Alex made it public that this was going to the system going forward? And it still boggles my mind that a design flaw like the attacker determining how much damage the defender can dish out even got to the coding phase, let alone actually going live.

Yeah, about 3-4 weeks ago. 

From the Changelog

02/27/2018 - Incoming War Changes
Hello everyone,

As most of you know, I've been testing some changes to the war system on the Test Server for some time now. I am relatively confident we've worked the bugs out, and I'm ready to deploy the changes to the live server. Due to the nature of the changes, we're going to have an extended rollout process, wherein I will (temporarily) declare world peace.

How this will work is that in the next few days, no earlier than March 1 (server time) and no later than March 5 (server time) I will freeze new war declarations and all espionage operations. After that has happened, I will wait until all active wars have ended, and shortly after I will push the war system changes live. Once they are rolled out and any deployment issues worked out, I will issue all nations 24 turns on Beige (or an extension for nations already on Beige.) Then I will enable new war declarations and espionage operations. This is to give you time to prepare and to know when you will be vulnerable to new war declarations again.

Now if you haven't been participating in the Test Server or following development, you may not be sure what all of the coming changes are. A thorough description of the changes is available on the Forums:

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/22501-2262018-war-changes-coming-soon/

Posted by Alex 02/27/2018 02:30 am

 

03/05/2018 - New War Changes Live
The previously announced new war changes are live. New war declarations & espionage operations are now enabled again. Everyone has been issued 2 days on Beige to adjust before they're vulnerable to new war declarations.

Please read the full set of changes on the forums:

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/22555-352018-new-war-changes-implemented/

Posted by Alex 03/05/2018 11:46 pm

Edited by rapmanej
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kurdanak said:

How about a constructive suggestion to fix the problem? If a problem really does exist. :v

I thought it was pretty constructive.  And still, stupid !@#$ like Arkiri Arch are too busy being racist !@#$ to figure out that nobody has control over what wars go in their defensive slots.  Nexa gets it though.

13 minutes ago, Lairah said:

Personally i wouldn't exactly call a strategy that involves sitting around for extended periods of time doing nothing, building massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons which you gloat about, while antagonizing the entire world into eventually deciding to steamroll you into the dirt, only to then complain that you're fighting as 1300 greeks vs 300,000+ persians on an open field with no chance in hell, a strategy.

This is just the opinion of a noob, sure, little experience, and only book knowledge. Though even without the experience, i daresay, that my view would change little with it either. In large nations, ships can do more damage in one attack than a nuke can. Even if you aren't that big with that many ships, you get 3 naval attacks for every nuke. That math does not add up favorably.

Combine this with being the numerically smallest, still relevant at all bloc in the game, and i can't honestly say i see where the strategy is, other than to talk big about "Lul i nook u" while getting carpet bombed for 3x as much.

Ok, you dont get it.  Good for you.

12 minutes ago, rapmanej said:

Yeah, about 3-4 weeks ago. 

From the Changelog

02/27/2018 - Incoming War Changes
Hello everyone,

As most of you know, I've been testing some changes to the war system on the Test Server for some time now. I am relatively confident we've worked the bugs out, and I'm ready to deploy the changes to the live server. Due to the nature of the changes, we're going to have an extended rollout process, wherein I will (temporarily) declare world peace.

How this will work is that in the next few days, no earlier than March 1 (server time) and no later than March 5 (server time) I will freeze new war declarations and all espionage operations. After that has happened, I will wait until all active wars have ended, and shortly after I will push the war system changes live. Once they are rolled out and any deployment issues worked out, I will issue all nations 24 turns on Beige (or an extension for nations already on Beige.) Then I will enable new war declarations and espionage operations. This is to give you time to prepare and to know when you will be vulnerable to new war declarations again.

Now if you haven't been participating in the Test Server or following development, you may not be sure what all of the coming changes are. A thorough description of the changes is available on the Forums:

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/22501-2262018-war-changes-coming-soon/

Posted by Alex 02/27/2018 02:30 am

 

03/05/2018 - New War Changes Live
The previously announced new war changes are live. New war declarations & espionage operations are now enabled again. Everyone has been issued 2 days on Beige to adjust before they're vulnerable to new war declarations.

Please read the full set of changes on the forums:

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/22555-352018-new-war-changes-implemented/

Posted by Alex 03/05/2018 11:46 pm

Yes, I already know you knew where the change logs were, you cowardly shitbags waited until he nerfed nukes to do this.

20 minutes ago, durmij said:

And it still boggles my mind that a design flaw like the attacker determining how much damage the defender can dish out even got to the coding phase, let alone actually going live.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER.

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NB people posted in the War Changes thread, so they were aware of the war types being a thing. The confusion stems from them (and others) assuming that, since nukes and missiles are basically dedicated infra-killing tools, they would be exempt from the same variables that affects how much infra damage is caused on a conventional strike, because picking raid or ordinary as your war type when going on the offensive reduces M/N's effectiveness by a good margin (thus rendering them either obsolete, or having their usefulness reduced considerably).

It's something that could've been cleared up by asking Alex about it (I don't recall that question popping up in the thread, people were mainly complaining about the last-minute trial changes). Still, it isn't so much that the strategy itself was rendered moot by the update, but that it simply weakened a fallback plan/strategy which value was questionable to begin with. That TKR and co. went in on NB now, of all times, has more to do with the fact that there's no one else that can blindside them while they are fighting NB (IQ and Coalition are busy killing each other), more than with the war changes reducing the effectiveness of nukes. The reduced infra damage from missiles/nukes is, at most, an additional factor.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 6
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

NB people posted in the War Changes thread, so they were aware of the war types being a thing. The confusion stems from them (and others) assuming that, since nukes and missiles are basically dedicated infra-killing tools, they would be exempt from the same variables that affects how much infra damage is caused on a conventional strike, because picking raid or ordinary as your war type when going on the offensive reduces M/N's effectiveness by a good margin (thus rendering them obsolete)

It's something that could've been cleared up by asking Alex about it (I don't recall that question popping up in the thread, people were mainly complaining about the last-minute trial changes). Still, it isn't so much that the strategy itself was rendered moot by the update, but that it simply weakened a fallback plan/strategy which value was questionable to begin with. That TKR and co. went in on NB now, of all times, has more to do with the fact that there's no one else that can blindside them while they are fighting NB (IQ and Coalition are busy killing each other), more than with the war changes reducing the effectiveness of nukes. The reduced infra damage from missiles/nukes is, at most, an additional factor.

Thing is, everything has been halved in Ordinary.  So really, nukes are just the same compared to other attacks as they were before, it just takes longer to do the same amount of damage compared to Attrition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In simpler words in case you didnt get what everyone is trying to explain to you.

 

Attrition = Max damage

Ordinary = Half damage for everything (also dont complain about it making nukes weaker because in contrast it doesnt, the cost of a nuke is low in comparison to a naval attack with 420 ships, we still spend the same amount of gas and munition to only deal half the damage, so stop crying your heart out already)

  • Upvote 1

eastwood.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, kosmokenny said:

I thought it was pretty constructive.  And still, stupid !@#$ like Arkiri Arch are too busy being racist !@#$ to figure out that nobody has control over what wars go in their defensive slots.  Nexa gets it though.

Ok, you dont get it.  Good for you.

Yes, I already know you knew where the change logs were, you cowardly shitbags waited until he nerfed nukes to do this.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER.

SaltCover.png

  • Upvote 3

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, synthesis said:

Thing is, everything has been halved in Ordinary.  So really, nukes are just the same compared to other attacks as they were before, it just takes longer to do the same amount of damage compared to Attrition.

It's not asymmetrically affected all of the different units like that though. Conventional warfare has it's uses on top of infra destruction. Ground loots cash and secures GC to impair enemy's air. Air kills everything and impairs ground with Air Control. Naval blockades (plus high infra damage), plus racing beiges (if you raid).

Missiles and nukes however, are there mostly for the infra damage dealt (plus guaranteed improvements killed). As such, missiles and nukes were effectively hampered more by the changes than ground, air and sea, even though all of them saw a reduction in infra damage dealt. Of them all, the one that is the closest to being as impaired as nukes/missiles is navals, but navals still have the blockades and fast beige utility going for them.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 2
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

That's a good point yes

Maybe Alex doesn't like if players do that playing style

And since the nuke bloc was pretty much inactive with wars for a long time and now is in a world war just after the update makes the update good right?

They still are destroying the part of infra with the highest value so it doesn't make that huge difference while we are destroying half of what we could with attrition and it is still the over 2000 infra

So with ordinary wars the nuke bloc has in fact a better net damage on infra

We sat *one* war because both sides had rolled us in the past.  The long period of inactivity was because EMC/TKR just sat and did nothing and gummed up the works with secret treaties.  Your last part just doesn't make any sense, more dmg > less dmg bro.

Attrition vs. Ordinary is fine and Kosmo's got like quite a few rounds in him, and on the flip side, it makes attackers have to think twice about how much they want to pixel hug.  I find that funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, durmij said:

Fair enough, although do we have an exact date for when Alex made it public that this was going to the system going forward? And it still boggles my mind that a design flaw like the attacker determining how much damage the defender can dish out even got to the coding phase, let alone actually going live.

End of the year when was tested in the test server and was liked by the users who tested it

18 minutes ago, kosmokenny said:

I thought it was pretty constructive.  And still, stupid !@#$ like Arkiri Arch are too busy being racist !@#$ to figure out that nobody has control over what wars go in their defensive slots.  Nexa gets it though.

Ok, you dont get it.  Good for you.

Yes, I already know you knew where the change logs were, you cowardly shitbags waited until he nerfed nukes to do this.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER.

Were was the nuke bloc when this update was discussed?

Look who pointed out at this problem, me (TKR), Dr.Rush (Guardian), Ripper (Arrgh/Jest/HS), Rimski (KT), Ryleh (AdMech)

So the same people who complained about this are the one who don't have a playing style based on nukes and half of them are now at war with you

Once the update was done we just adapted our playing style and used it at our advantage while someone else didn't

I can understand a player not aware of the new changes, but an entire bloc who wakes up in the middle of the war and don't understand what's going on is bad, very bad

15 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

That TKR and co. went in on NB now, of all times, has more to do with the fact that there's no one else that can blindside them while they are fighting NB (IQ and Coalition are busy killing each other), more than with the war changes reducing the effectiveness of nukes. The reduced infra damage from missiles/nukes is, at most, an additional factor.

True, because we will end this war with our infra destroyed anyway

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Placentica said:

We didn't attack them, we were attacked.

When you are dogpiled by double to triple (and more in reserve) your number of cities, there isn't much of a choice bro.  I've said over and over again, we go conventional and nukes are an insurance policy if we are outgunned so heavily there was never a chance for a conventional victory.

Or is your strategy send 500 planes to try to knock out 2400 and *hope* you can win?  That sounds pretty solid man.  Please tell me how what your winning strategy is when you have 3 defensive wars from people with far more cities than you?  Sheesh, some people thought TKR was going to hit you.  If that ever happens I'm going to keep your quote.

I understand what you are saying, and it really wasn’t directed at the “insurance” type gameplay you just explained. It’s more referencing the flexing done by apeman and kosmo in recent times, threatening moves with nukes - not conventional warfare. The war system does not favor sitting around and building so many nukes. It allows people with more cities to hit you at your inflated score, you can’t really downdeclare, and you don’t even do full damage with the new war types. There is almost no benefit to hoarding stocks of nukes other than to use it as a scare tactic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I literally have nothing else to say in this topic other than lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol

  • Upvote 1

"YOU ALL BOUGHT IT! YOU ALL BOUGHT IT, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER! YOU ALL BOUGHT IT! EVEN MY FAMILY - EVEN MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY BOUGHT IT!"

image.png.fe2319f8af6b9ffb33486c0f39b5f7b9.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont need a playing style based on nukes because theres a billion of you and 25 of us.  Sheep fricker made the independent survival of our group infeasible because whether its EMC, Coalition, or IQ, all of them outnumber us by massive amounts and conventional fighting cant stop that large of a disparity.  We tiered ourselves out of reach of IQ, but short of sitting out of the larger metagame for multiple years to get all 80 of us GOB sized, couldnt do the same for either of the other groups.

4 minutes ago, Partisan said:

I understand what you are saying, and it really wasn’t directed at the “insurance” type gameplay you just explained. It’s more referencing the flexing done by apeman and kosmo in recent times, threatening moves with nukes - not conventional warfare. The war system does not favor sitting around and building so many nukes. It allows people with more cities to hit you at your inflated score, you can’t really downdeclare, and you don’t even do full damage with the new war types. There is almost no benefit to hoarding stocks of nukes other than to use it as a scare tactic. 

Im not sure if you noticed, but our bloc was built this way prior to sheep fricker making it irrelevant.  Additionally, my "flexing" was done because stupid !@#$ decided naziism was ok within their ranks, and it was dealt with several times by fark in a conventional manner.  The nuke stockpile was always meant as a deterrent for this kind of war where an EMC could hit us, because they would have to pay dearly for smashing us.  Now they pay half as much. 

Edited by kosmokenny
none of your goddamn business
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kosmokenny said:

You dont need a playing style based on nukes because theres a billion of you and 25 of us.  Sheep fricker made the independent survival of our group infeasible because whether its EMC, Coalition, or IQ, all of them outnumber us by massive amounts and conventional fighting cant stop that large of a disparity.  We tiered ourselves out of reach of IQ, but short of sitting out of the larger metagame for multiple years to get all 80 of us GOB sized, couldnt do the same for either of the other groups.

It's Grumpy.

  • Upvote 1

eastwood.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.