Jump to content

Cheaper Nukes


Ogaden
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dumb said:

Making missiles more expensive is better idea. 

Missiles are about right, in a perfect world they would also be back down to 6 action points rather than 8, and nukes down to 8 rather than 12

  • Upvote 2
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except nukes still destroy the top most infra so you still get the vast majority out if them, plus there is still the chance to knock out power plants, thus disabling an entire city.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nuke i got hit by, which struck with half damage due to war type, did 755 damage to a 1700 infrastructure city. To repair this will cost me $7.5 million.

What exactly about that, or about nuclear weapons themselves, actually makes you think they should be cheaper? Doing some simple math on google, the cost in monetary value of all the resources, plus the $1.75 million to build the nuke comes out to $6.2 million.

Now considering some of the messages about strikes ive seen on the OWF, 755 as halved damage actually looks like a bit of a low roll. So on a low roll, with their damage halved, this person spent $6.2 million to do $7.5 million in damages. Looks pretty fair to me. 

Especially consider unless you're incompetent, you will have 5 attrition wars at a minimum, meaning that actually you'll hit for 1500+. And assuming your target is not me, since i think 7 city nations getting nuked is a bit on the rare side, they will likely have more than 1700 infra to demolish, meaning your cost effectiveness for that nuke skyrockets.

According to the math, nukes are just fine, they don't need to be cheaper.

EDIT: I used current market prices as of this very moment for the numbers. 2789 for alum, 3376 for gas, and 2738 for uranium. 

Edited by Lairah
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lairah said:

The nuke i got hit by, which struck with half damage due to war type, did 755 damage to a 1700 infrastructure city. To repair this will cost me $7.5 million.

What exactly about that, or about nuclear weapons themselves, actually makes you think they should be cheaper? Doing some simple math on google, the cost in monetary value of all the resources, plus the $1.75 million to build the nuke comes out to $6.2 million.

Now considering some of the messages about strikes ive seen on the OWF, 755 as halved damage actually looks like a bit of a low roll. So on a low roll, with their damage halved, this person spent $6.2 million to do $7.5 million in damages. Looks pretty fair to me. 

Especially consider unless you're incompetent, you will have 5 attrition wars at a minimum, meaning that actually you'll hit for 1500+. And assuming your target is not me, since i think 7 city nations getting nuked is a bit on the rare side, they will likely have more than 1700 infra to demolish, meaning your cost effectiveness for that nuke skyrockets.

According to the math, nukes are just fine, they don't need to be cheaper.

EDIT: I used current market prices as of this very moment for the numbers. 2789 for alum, 3376 for gas, and 2738 for uranium. 

So what you're saying is nukes should cost as much or more as the infra they destroy?  I'm pretty sure that's not the intent.  You're essentially arguing that it's more cost effective to be hit with a nuke than to fire them, which is completely insane and validates everything I've written here.

Edited by Ogaden
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

So what you're saying is nukes should cost as much or more as the infra they destroy?  I'm pretty sure that's not the intent.  You're essentially arguing that it's more cost effective to be hit with a nuke than to fire them, which is completely insane and validates everything I've written here.

That's not what i said...
Please, point out where i said they should cost more. I fear that will be difficult however, as it was never said.

The only thing i did say is that they did not need to be cheaper. I also wouldn't call a difference of $1.3 million a 1 : 1 ratio. Partially because that is completely false according to simple math, but also because that's with a nuke whose damaged is halved. Even with halved damage, my attacker got his money worth plus an entire day of coal production sold on the market from my nation, plus what little monetary tax revenue i get at the moment, due to alliance taxes. 

All while doing more damage in a single action to me than what i did in the entire war. I only come out ahead when you factor what i looted from them.

Again, remembering this was a half damage nuke. 5 offensive slots and 3 defensive means the majority of nukes should be doing full damage, meaning the actual cost effectiveness is substantially greater than what it was even against me. 

The only place i see any sense of plausible validation to your argument is something i haven't mentioned, but will now. It is my understanding, that a 30 city nation like you'd find in Grumpy, with 450 ships, can do more on a naval IT than a nuke can in damage. The cost in munitions and gas to do this, let alone the cost of the ships themselves, is $5.7 million. Actually if you factor in the cost to build a fleet that by all logical measure should be able to blast more than a nuke, the cost goes to over $78 million. 

Which, frankly, takes that one little point you may have had, and takes a big old dump on it. The only way to do more damage than a nuke is with ships, and while 450 may be more than required to do (far more), at $78 million to get there, it goes without saying that even a fleet big enough to best a nuke in a damages contest will cost several times more than the nuke itself just to build let alone the actual time it actually takes to build that many. Then factor in that using such a fleet in a full out assault will cost you, maybe, at best half as much as all the costs associated with building a nuke, and it really is not hard to see which is the most cost effective method here.

Yes, ships can and will destroy more than a nuke. However, a nuke does an ton of damage anyway, and it's far cheaper to build that one nuke, than it is to build hundreds of ships.

 

Leaving us off, finally, at the point that despite your suggestion and 'argument' if we dare call it that, with nukes actually be pretty damn cost effective at wiping out infra. Infact, if you want the easiest, cheapest way to wipe out huge swathes of infra, use a nuke. Because with ships, it's gonna take a few hits before the cost of building and using that fleet is matched by the damage it does. Assuming of course, nobody is rude enough to destroy any of them, which just makes it worse. 

Edit: For people who will surely want to argue counting the cost to build the fleet is not fair, remember. Nukes cost nothing to fire. They only require you to have at least broken even on your revenue page the prior turn to fire. They only have a build cost, and are free to fire. Ships cost money and resources to build, and resources to use. 

Edited by Lairah
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it's really easy to have a ready supply of players with CIA ready to take ~70% success rate missions to break a 60 spy stack and then spend the next few days assassinating all of their spies so you can kill 3 nukes a day. And then you still get nuked because you can't spy away the daily rebuild.

  • Upvote 3

Praise Dio. Every !@#$ing day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Soxirella said:

Fairly sure that most of you haven't taken into consideration that it is easy to destroy nukes and missiles only work 50% of the time.

Fairly sure you're still ignoring that even with that, nukes are still more cost effective.
Especially since, funnily enough, ships can be sunk! Who knew huh?

2 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:

Yeah it's really easy to have a ready supply of players with CIA ready to take ~70% success rate missions to break a 60 spy stack and then spend the next few days assassinating all of their spies so you can kill 3 nukes a day. And then you still get nuked because you can't spy away the daily rebuild.

That Face When you realize it'd take nearly a year to spy away all the nukes Fark had at the start of this war, while fleets can be demolished in their entirety within 24-36 hours.

Hopefully, Sox has that face right now.

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

Reducing the cost of nukes down to this would make them way too powerful as they would be too easy to acquire. Most of my cities have been nuked on ordinary wars and therefore 875 damage has been done to them. The rebuild for that (on Urbanization + CCE) will be ~11.4m for each of those. That is only a bit less than double the cost of a nuke at current market prices. Then I had two of my cities nuked on attrition wars reducing their infra from 2000 to 250. Rebuilding those would cost ~13.6m which is more than double the cost of a nuke currently. And it only gets more the more infra someone has. 2500 infra? ~21m rebuild at ordinary nuke; ~27.3m on attrition.

So nukes are still worth what they do in damage. If your possibilities in a war have been reduced to just being able to use nukes or if that has been your strategy right from the start, then it's either tough luck or your own fault. My advice would be: Don't nuke low infra cities. x)

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lairah said:

Fairly sure you're still ignoring that even with that, nukes are still more cost effective.
Especially since, funnily enough, ships can be sunk! Who knew huh?

That Face When you realize it'd take nearly a year to spy away all the nukes Fark had at the start of this war, while fleets can be demolished in their entirety within 24-36 hours.

Hopefully, Sox has that face right now.

Do you think I am FOR reduction in nuke prices or AGAINST?!!

Also, considering you can only build one nuke a day and have three destroyed everyday, starting from the fifth day (four days to kill 60 spies at 15 / day, at worst), pretty sure it still cost more for the person building a nuclear arsenal and maintaining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Soxirella said:

Do you think I am FOR reduction in nuke prices or AGAINST?!!

Also, considering you can only build one nuke a day and have three destroyed everyday, starting from the fifth day (four days to kill 60 spies at 15 / day, at worst), pretty sure it still cost more for the person building a nuclear arsenal and maintaining it.

If your enemy gives you the opportunity to build a nuclear arsenal during a war, then they're doing something wrong anyway. Outside of a war, however, you should have plenty of time because unprovoked spy attacks are usually considered acts of wars/aggression by all alliances. You could also just simply not have a huge nuclear arsenal because it obviously doesn't win wars so it should not be something you base a strategy on. That aside, there's still that one nuke that can not be spied away in any case.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod

I'm okay with this only if every unit has it's costs halved. The war changes were a deliberate nerf to everything. I fail to see why nukes and only nukes should be exempted from that.

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr Rush said:

I'm okay with this only if every unit has it's costs halved. The war changes were a deliberate nerf to everything. I fail to see why nukes and only nukes should be exempted from that.

To brace for the coming glut of resources and the probable cash crisis, units should have their costs changed to remove cash from the purchase all together. I'd like to see an across the board reduction along with some other incentives to promote wars.

Also worth noting that halving a nukes damage did more than halve their effectiveness. A nuked city now has enough infra to support population that will significantly contribute to the unit/pop cap. Before, a nuked city would have to be rebuild some if you wanted it to support units (after fallout dissipated of course). This makes nukes a much weaker longer term strategy, even if the side getting nuked is often the conventional winner and can often afford the rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, durmij said:

To brace for the coming glut of resources and the probable cash crisis, units should have their costs changed to remove cash from the purchase all together. I'd like to see an across the board reduction along with some other incentives to promote wars.

Also worth noting that halving a nukes damage did more than halve their effectiveness. A nuked city now has enough infra to support population that will significantly contribute to the unit/pop cap. Before, a nuked city would have to be rebuild some if you wanted it to support units (after fallout dissipated of course). This makes nukes a much weaker longer term strategy, even if the side getting nuked is often the conventional winner and can often afford the rebuild.

They were never a good long term strategy to begin with. They're vengeance weapons, used when defeat is certain but you want it to hurt. The fact that they are even less viable of a strategy isn't particularly relevant as they were never a viable one to begin with.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lairah said:

They were never a good long term strategy to begin with. They're vengeance weapons, used when defeat is certain but you want it to hurt. The fact that they are even less viable of a strategy isn't particularly relevant as they were never a viable one to begin with.

It absolute is relevant because they were an edge case weapon with a certain niche functionality and now that functionality is gone. Were they the best strategy? No, but they could be relied upon to fulfill a certain role. Now they can't and the set of options a player has to choose from is smaller. The game got easier because of this change.

Edited by durmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, durmij said:

It absolute is relevant because they were an edge case weapon with a certain niche functionality and now that functionality is gone. Were they the best strategy? No, but they could be relied upon to fulfill a certain role. Now they can't and the set of options a player has to choose from is smaller. The game got easier because of this change.

How is the niche gone? Nukes are a loser's weapon used to deal some damage while you get brought down. They're still quite effective at doing so, even at half damage. We've had this discussion a million times already, so I'll just leave it at that.

38 minutes ago, durmij said:

To brace for the coming glut of resources and the probable cash crisis, units should have their costs changed to remove cash from the purchase all together. I'd like to see an across the board reduction along with some other incentives to promote wars.

Also worth noting that halving a nukes damage did more than halve their effectiveness. A nuked city now has enough infra to support population that will significantly contribute to the unit/pop cap. Before, a nuked city would have to be rebuild some if you wanted it to support units (after fallout dissipated of course). This makes nukes a much weaker longer term strategy, even if the side getting nuked is often the conventional winner and can often afford the rebuild.

>changing war mechanics mid-war

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Them said:

How is the niche gone? Nukes are a loser's weapon used to deal some damage while you get brought down. They're still quite effective at doing so, even at half damage. We've had this discussion a million times already, so I'll just leave it at that.

>changing war mechanics mid-war

The niche is gone because the effectiveness has been reduced. You aren't arguing against my point, you're just making a value judgement based on your assessment of nukes. A good meta game requires a diverse set of strategies to use, and in that meta game some will be strictly speaking weaker. The fact that nukes are no longer viable in their role, which yes, was weaker than a convention victory, makes the meta game less diverse while punishing players that sunk costs into them.

And nowhere in my statement did I say anything that supported changing war mechanics mid war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, durmij said:

The niche is gone because the effectiveness has been reduced. You aren't arguing against my point, you're just making a value judgement based on your assessment of nukes. A good meta game requires a diverse set of strategies to use, and in that meta game some will be strictly speaking weaker. The fact that nukes are no longer viable in their role, which yes, was weaker than a convention victory, makes the meta game less diverse while punishing players that sunk costs into them.

And nowhere in my statement did I say anything that supported changing war mechanics mid war.

Once again, how are nukes not viable? I still see more than a few nukes being launched on both sides of the IQ - KT/Rose conflict.

As for removing money from unit build costs, your wording seemed to suggest it. I don't see how removing money from unit costs will help an upcoming resource/cash glut if the change is implemented post-war. To address the suggestion, though, removing money from unit costs would neuter the effectiveness of blockades.

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Them said:

Once again, how are nukes not viable? I still see more than a few nukes being launched on both sides of the IQ - KT/Rose conflict.

As for removing money from unit build costs, your wording seemed to suggest it. I don't see how removing money from unit costs will help an upcoming resource/cash glut if the change is implemented post-war. To address the suggestion, though, removing money from unit costs would neuter the effectiveness of blockades.

Those nukes were purchased beforehand, and obviously the players aren't going to stop using them if they have no recourse. But nukes aren't a deterrent anymore, they don't make high infra nations as hesitant to declare on you. And, as I mentioned, they don't drop you below the 800 ish infra where you start having problems recruiting conventional military so they aren't impacting the conventional war. If you solely measure nukes as being something to do when you're losing, then yeah, they are "effective", but if you have any consideration for literally any other factor involved in their strategies and counter measures, then it's plain to see that they aren't viable.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't blockades stop resources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, durmij said:

Those nukes were purchased beforehand, and obviously the players aren't going to stop using them if they have no recourse. But nukes aren't a deterrent anymore, they don't make high infra nations as hesitant to declare on you. And, as I mentioned, they don't drop you below the 800 ish infra where you start having problems recruiting conventional military so they aren't impacting the conventional war. If you solely measure nukes as being something to do when you're losing, then yeah, they are "effective", but if you have any consideration for literally any other factor involved in their strategies and counter measures, then it's plain to see that they aren't viable.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't blockades stop resources?

People have been using nukes to impact conventional war? That's neat to know. Building up to 800-ish infra costs less than $1 million. It shouldn't be much trouble for anyone, especially if they don't need to use that money to build units. As for nukes being a deterrent, I'm sure the current war between IQ and KT/Rose factored into TKRsphere's decision to hit moreso than the war changes did. If your issue is with nukes dealing reduced damage on ordinary and raid war types, bothering Sheepy to change that would be a better solution than cutting nuke costs.

And, resources can't be looted/destroyed, except through beige. It's far less feasible to starve someone out by depleting their resource stockpile than by doing a few ground battles/airstrikes to get rid of money.

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Them said:

People have been using nukes to impact conventional war? That's neat to know. Building up to 800-ish infra costs less than $1 million. It shouldn't be much trouble for anyone, especially if they don't need to use that money to build units. As for nukes being a deterrent, I'm sure the current war between IQ and KT/Rose factored into TKRsphere's decision to hit moreso than the war changes did. If your issue is with nukes dealing reduced damage on ordinary and raid war types, bothering Sheepy to change that would be a better solution than cutting nuke costs.

And, resources can't be looted/destroyed, except through beige. It's far less feasible to starve someone out by depleting their resource stockpile than by doing a few ground battles/airstrikes to get rid of money.

A knock on effect is still a factor, even if it is the primary purpose. No one was using nukes specifically to counter act an assault. As for sheepy undoing the damage reduction for nukes, I agree. Cutting their costs in isolation isn't really a solution.

The simple solution to the blockade gap is to make resources attackable/lootable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod
5 hours ago, durmij said:

To brace for the coming glut of resources and the probable cash crisis, units should have their costs changed to remove cash from the purchase all together. I'd like to see an across the board reduction along with some other incentives to promote wars.

Also worth noting that halving a nukes damage did more than halve their effectiveness. A nuked city now has enough infra to support population that will significantly contribute to the unit/pop cap. Before, a nuked city would have to be rebuild some if you wanted it to support units (after fallout dissipated of course). This makes nukes a much weaker longer term strategy, even if the side getting nuked is often the conventional winner and can often afford the rebuild.

Also going to point out nukes weren't the only thing nerfed. My attacks also do a whole hell of a lot less damage like this. And your niche argument is totally ignoring the fact that you still have 5 offensive slots you can declare using attrition. 

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

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.