Jump to content
Soxirella

Make nukes kill military as well

Recommended Posts

It's a miracle how the military units within city improvements don't die, while all the poor innocent civilians die. I don't care how you compensate this additional damage, perhaps nerfing the infra damage a bit or something, but I feel it is realistic and strategic to make all the units within a city die.

So there can be 100,000 soldiers in total for our enemy, and then city nuked may have five barracks. Then 15,000 soldiers should also die, but you can buy back 5,000 everyday or how much ever is allowed by your regular 1/3rd.

This can be useful in combo attacks where one person can nuke and weaken troops and the other can try to do GA in combo.

 

For nations with 10-20 or more cities, this may not be a considerable loss of soldiers, so, we can also consider implementing a modifier. In other words, during the turn a player was nuked, his troop efficiency is 50% or something.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Units already die if the nuke hits military improvements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know. I was talking about also killing an equivalent number of units that the military improvements in a city hold, whether or not a military improvement is destroyed.

See second paragraph for example.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soxirella said:

Yes, I know. I was talking about also killing an equivalent number of units that the military improvements in a city hold, whether or not a military improvement is destroyed.

See second paragraph for example.

So you want to destroy infra, cause radiaton, destroy improvements, maybey destroy power plants, maybe destroy project, AND kill a lot of units? Next request kill the player irl?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read my OP properly?! I clearly said we should nerf some aspect of the current nuking system, perhaps infra damage, in lieu of this suggestion. And no one is talking about destroying projects. And it certainly won't kill a lot of units.

It doesn't make sense Nuking below 1,200-1,500 infra per city, let's say the average person worth nuking has 15 cities. They'd then have 5 * 3000 * 15 = 225,000 soldiers.

If nuked, they'd loose 5 * 3000 = 15,000 soldiers or 6.67%, which is also just 20% of their daily rebuy limit.

 

Now tell me how does a Nuke kill civilians, but magically spares soldiers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of such low skill/low coordination weapons/tactics being able to win/turn conventional wars personally. Being able to do high infra damage is already bad enough IMO heh

Edited by The God Emperor of Mankind
Grammar
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy what an interesting change, then wars can have exactly 0 interaction with enemies beyond them clicking "launch nuke".  They already have very little input beyond that as it stands right now anyway, what with everyone with nukes in the current conflict firing them behind almost no infra, 0 native loot, and hidden alliance banks resulting in also 0 loot.  Kudos goes to the one guy I have fought sofar who didn't do one of the last 2 steps, even tho he only fired a single nuke before beige.

 

Alex has bigger problems to fix than "I want my numbers to go up even higher than someone elses by logging in once a day and clicking a single button."

 

No thank you,  Next.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The God Emperor of Mankind said:

I don't like the idea of such low skill/low coordination weapons/tactics being able to win/turn conventional wars personally. Being able to do high infra damage is already bad enough IMO heh

 

FFS, read the OP about nerfing nukes. Also, in terms of "skill", how difficult can it be to follow the steps below:

1) Buy troops before war

2) Find opponents with zero or outnumbered troops

3) Check if opponent has nukes

4) If Yes, choose Ordinary, else choose Attrition

5) Login once or twice a day and do GA / Air Attack / Naval

Sure, the Political part of the game where you are able to amass enough players to considerably increase your odds of winning takes skill and diplomacy, but that is usually done by a few people at the top, and not the entire membership. This suggestion does not take anything away from that.

 

BTW, compare that to:

1) Buy a nuke everyday, and some spies as needed

2) Buy or plan resources to keep up that purchase

3) Still go ahead and buy troops before war

4) Try to fight conventional if not grossly outnumbered

5) Find opponents with really high infra

6) Wait for 12th turn

7) Nuke

8) If on negative revenue, login on the 11th turn and nuke on the 12th

9) If out of nukes, do conventional steps above without choose Ordinary

 

 

8 hours ago, Aegis said:

Oh boy what an interesting change, then wars can have exactly 0 interaction with enemies beyond them clicking "launch nuke".  They already have very little input beyond that as it stands right now anyway, what with everyone with nukes in the current conflict firing them behind almost no infra, 0 native loot, and hidden alliance banks resulting in also 0 loot.  Kudos goes to the one guy I have fought sofar who didn't do one of the last 2 steps, even tho he only fired a single nuke before beige.

 

Alex has bigger problems to fix than "I want my numbers to go up even higher than someone elses by logging in once a day and clicking a single button."

 

No thank you,  Next.

 

Oh boy, did you really register on the forums (welcome) just to down play my suggestion, followed by two up-votes on your first post, which has just one purpose?!!!

Considering so many quick replies and all the downvotes / upvotes, is TKR really that desperate to downplay anything remotely connected to nuking? It's really sad! I must hit a nerve, haha!!

 

In reality, from history, we see that the use of nuclear weapons brought a conventional war to end, and not just turn the tide. Nevertheless, this suggestion barely turns the tide, considering only 6-7% of unit loss.

It is also a problem I feel how these games implement nuclear bombing. Technically a nation can loose any entire city worth of population one day and get it the next, just by rebuying all the infra in one day.

Alex implemented the 1/3rd rebuy feature to make military be realistic, but is it really realistic to expect a nuclear bomb to differentiate between a civilian and a military unit while killing, or is it really realistic to expect civilians to move back into cities overnight, among the radiation? If I were the developer, I'd have made nuclear bombs be barely accessible and difficult to develop, and practically be used once or twice per month, but make it allow the user to shift the tide of the war a bit, by affecting the ability of the person nuked to re-populate his city for a few days and hence not use it for building troops.

 

All these are valid points raised by me, but instead of replying to those, you continue to try to downplay this suggestion with points already addressed in the OP. Good job TKR!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Soxirella said:

 

FFS, read the OP about nerfing nukes. Also, in terms of "skill", how difficult can it be to follow the steps below:

1) Buy troops before war

2) Find opponents with zero or outnumbered troops

3) Check if opponent has nukes

4) If Yes, choose Ordinary, else choose Attrition

5) Login once or twice a day and do GA / Air Attack / Naval

Sure, the Political part of the game where you are able to amass enough players to considerably increase your odds of winning takes skill and diplomacy, but that is usually done by a few people at the top, and not the entire membership. This suggestion does not take anything away from that.

 

BTW, compare that to:

1) Buy a nuke everyday, and some spies as needed

2) Buy or plan resources to keep up that purchase

3) Still go ahead and buy troops before war

4) Try to fight conventional if not grossly outnumbered

5) Find opponents with really high infra

6) Wait for 12th turn

7) Nuke

8) If on negative revenue, login on the 11th turn and nuke on the 12th

9) If out of nukes, do conventional steps above without choose Ordinary

 

 

 

Oh boy, did you really register on the forums (welcome) just to down play my suggestion, followed by two up-votes on your first post, which has just one purpose?!!!

Considering so many quick replies and all the downvotes / upvotes, is TKR really that desperate to downplay anything remotely connected to nuking? It's really sad! I must hit a nerve, haha!!

 

In reality, from history, we see that the use of nuclear weapons brought a conventional war to end, and not just turn the tide. Nevertheless, this suggestion barely turns the tide, considering only 6-7% of unit loss.

It is also a problem I feel how these games implement nuclear bombing. Technically a nation can loose any entire city worth of population one day and get it the next, just by rebuying all the infra in one day.

Alex implemented the 1/3rd rebuy feature to make military be realistic, but is it really realistic to expect a nuclear bomb to differentiate between a civilian and a military unit while killing, or is it really realistic to expect civilians to move back into cities overnight, among the radiation? If I were the developer, I'd have made nuclear bombs be barely accessible and difficult to develop, and practically be used once or twice per month, but make it allow the user to shift the tide of the war a bit, by affecting the ability of the person nuked to re-populate his city for a few days and hence not use it for building troops.

 

All these are valid points raised by me, but instead of replying to those, you continue to try to downplay this suggestion with points already addressed in the OP. Good job TKR!!

This might be a surprise to you, but did you ever consider that, maybe, just maybe, that you are the only one who think there is any brilliance in anything you've said here? That your opinion is the lone minority while the rest of the world collectively face palms, especially at the parts where you attempt to mock your detractors?

 

Frankly i couldn't care less that you addressed obvious counter points in the OP. I couldn't care less because the idea and the argument for it were never particularly good to begin with. Religious folk may start their threads by acknowledging arguments against them, but that does not magically make their arguments or ideas good, especially when the opponent is the systematic method of determining fact through rationality. 

A system i think you could benefit from exploring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm... how about not quoting the post right before you, especially considering its length

3 hours ago, Lairah said:

Frankly i couldn't care less that you addressed obvious counter points in the OP. I couldn't care less because the idea and the argument for it were never particularly good to begin with.

Thanks for agreeing with my last point that you'd rather irrationally downvote/upvote posts in this nuclear related thread based on your feelings, as opposed to rationally finding merit or demerit in the suggestion and debating it on content without any in-game political influence. Cause diplomacy and other game related role-plays have other places in the forum.

Edited by Soxirella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Soxirella said:

Oh boy, did you really register on the forums (welcome) just to down play my suggestion, followed by two up-votes on your first post, which has just one purpose?!!!

Yes, I did. I treat these forums like the CN ones, and avoid them like the plague. (Congrats on making me actually wade into this cesspit.)  Bad idea is Bad, feel free to stroke your e-peen however you want. I voiced my opinion (in a public forum) about a suggestion I believe to be terrible for the game as a whole. When there are still *glaring* issues that need to be addressed and have not as of yet. I don't care for anything past that.  People are free to agree or disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is totally normal that nukes don't effect military units or even disrupt the power grid. Why would they? People will work and continue to live without food. Nothing surprises me at this point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly support this.  For a couple of reasons:

- Rewards coordination.  By itself, a nation launching a nuke can't follow up because they use all of their MAPs on the nuke.  But they could coordinate with other nations to nuke a certain type of military unit and other people follow up.

- Creates space for people to fight back conventionally who have been beaten down.

- Makes nukes more dynamic.  Doing this while reducing the automatic infra damage would make nukes more interactive with the war system.  A supplement rather than just a substitute for fighting conventionally.

- Creates interesting dynamics and tradeoffs where people might not keep max of an expensive unit for fear of being nukes.

Nukes should be able to target certain units, in a manner similar to air strikes.

On 4/10/2018 at 1:46 PM, Micchan said:

So you want to destroy infra, cause radiaton, destroy improvements, maybey destroy power plants, maybe destroy project, AND kill a lot of units? Next request kill the player irl?

There are easy ways to balance this by reducing some of the damage in other areas.

On 4/10/2018 at 3:44 PM, The God Emperor of Mankind said:

I don't like the idea of such low skill/low coordination weapons/tactics being able to win/turn conventional wars personally. Being able to do high infra damage is already bad enough IMO heh

There would be a lot more skill/coordination to this than most other attacks.  This could only "turn" a war if followed up by coordination from other people on that target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Azaghul said:

I strongly support this.  For a couple of reasons:

- Rewards coordination.  By itself, a nation launching a nuke can't follow up because they use all of their MAPs on the nuke.  But they could coordinate with other nations to nuke a certain type of military unit and other people follow up.

- Creates space for people to fight back conventionally who have been beaten down.

- Makes nukes more dynamic.  Doing this while reducing the automatic infra damage would make nukes more interactive with the war system.  A supplement rather than just a substitute for fighting conventionally.

- Creates interesting dynamics and tradeoffs where people might not keep max of an expensive unit for fear of being nukes.

Nukes should be able to target certain units, in a manner similar to air strikes.

There are easy ways to balance this by reducing some of the damage in other areas.

There would be a lot more skill/coordination to this than most other attacks.  This could only "turn" a war if followed up by coordination from other people on that target.

Problems with this idea are many.

First of all, this just isn't how nukes work even in reality. The kind of nuclear weapon you'd fire in the scenarios being mentioned would be tactical warheads - likely on cruise missiles. It'd also only be of any real use against land targets. That is, soldiers and tanks. If you fire at grounded aircraft, the missile launch will be detected and the aircraft can easily be scrambled, and may even be able to shoot the missile down, since they'd be able to do so from a safe distance.

If you shot it at ships, they'd... do the same thing, really. Even if you landed a hit, it'd do one of two things, depending on detonation. Impact detonation would destroy the ship it hits, and spook everybody else. Yes, that's really it, even if you fired a full size warhead measuring in the hundreds of kilotons, you'd destroy one ship. A nuclear weapons primary destructive power, like most bombs, is all about the pressure and shock waves. Shrapnel too, but, when your shrapnel gets vaporize instantly, forget it. Ships, of course, happen to be very resilient to handling shock-waves, and given again that they would have early warning and could get all hands inside the ship, you wouldn't even get 1 kill + incapacitations.

You would get the 1 kill, and since anything not an aircraft carrier can operate at nearly full functionality without the crew ever going on the deck, you wouldn't necessarily even given thousands of sailors cancer either. Really, it's quite a hilarious waste.

Shooting it at airborne planes is obviously nonsensical, shouldn't have to be explained. This leaves you with firing nukes at a land army. Now assuming that the air force is dead or not being mean and intercepting your tactical warhead, or that you for some reason fired a full scale ICBM, well with real life tactics it'd be pointless, but in game not so much. In reality, you'd open a giant hole in enemy lines that no one can use safely because radiation. In game, you'd kill thousands of enemies, and frankly probably your own men as the only way you'd likely get them standing any still for you to ensure a hit is when they're engaged. 


So ultimately, no, nukes are surprisingly realistic right now. Not completely, but surprisingly. Both are realistically great at deleting huge swathes of massive cities, both are frankly pretty useless if used in the context of an actual battlefield, both are quite expensive to build and both were only ever meant for vengeance weapon purposes. 
Sure, starvation should do more negatives in this game, alot more, but all things considered, nukes are as close as this game has probably gotten to realism. 

Not to mention, of course, that these changes would make nukes, frankly more OP than planes. As, if things worked as you'd wanted, considering the damage of a nuke, and pretending that despite having 35 air bases only 5 are actually used, you could just eliminate half, or even only 1/3 of someone's air force while taking... possibly no damage, depending on the situation? And the only thing that can destroy nukes are spies, which is limited to 3 per day? Oh, and while you can essentially spawn kill planes, you can't do that to nukes. 

You claim this method would require more skill. What a patently false statement. If such an update occurred, alliances which are considered competent at warfare today would still be considered so. All that is required for this is coordination, which is how competent alliances right now happen to succeed. Thus my solution to you, and to whom this change would benefit most, get better coordination. For Nuke Bloc specifically, stop hiding in the corner. Come out and say hello, and not antagonize everybody immediately after! Try recruiting more members, maybe not being outnumbered 5 : 1 would help, who knows? Try and make some new friends too, i know that one isn't very easy, but if you try there's a 0.000001% chance of success. That is infinitely superior to not trying, which has a 0% chance of success.

Edit: as i forgot to mention, the second detonation method for a nuke is airburst. This capitalizes on the nukes destructive power being to blow everything away like the big bad wolf, by detonating it a few thousand feet or more in the sky. This is useless against ships, and seems useful against planes, if only planes weren't capable of erratic maneuvers at several times the speed of sound, meaning the missile would hit where the planes were 20 minutes ago, which is quite unhelpful when they were travelling at 1,400 miles per hour, as they will be quite some distance away.

Edited by Lairah
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Apeman said:

I think it is totally normal that nukes don't effect military units or even disrupt the power grid. Why would they? People will work and continue to live without food. Nothing surprises me at this point

Salty ape is salty.

He's also got a good point, but he's salty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2018 at 3:58 PM, Soxirella said:

Did you even read my OP properly?! I clearly said we should nerf some aspect of the current nuking system, perhaps infra damage, in lieu of this suggestion. And no one is talking about destroying projects. And it certainly won't kill a lot of units.

It doesn't make sense Nuking below 1,200-1,500 infra per city, let's say the average person worth nuking has 15 cities. They'd then have 5 * 3000 * 15 = 225,000 soldiers.

If nuked, they'd loose 5 * 3000 = 15,000 soldiers or 6.67%, which is also just 20% of their daily rebuy limit.

 

Now tell me how does a Nuke kill civilians, but magically spares soldiers.

No nerf would be enough to compensate for military killed, ESPECIALLY if you seek to kill everything that city is holding. And particularly if (as someone else wants to) you could target which unit to kill.

On 11/4/2018 at 3:04 AM, Soxirella said:

 

FFS, read the OP about nerfing nukes. Also, in terms of "skill", how difficult can it be to follow the steps below:

1) Buy troops before war

2) Find opponents with zero or outnumbered troops

3) Check if opponent has nukes

4) If Yes, choose Ordinary, else choose Attrition

5) Login once or twice a day and do GA / Air Attack / Naval

Sure, the Political part of the game where you are able to amass enough players to considerably increase your odds of winning takes skill and diplomacy, but that is usually done by a few people at the top, and not the entire membership. This suggestion does not take anything away from that.

You're disregarding the entire aspect of the initial coordinated blitz, which often decides the course of the war, at least for the first couple of weeks. And the micro aspect of the wars, beyond the initial instructions, are often handled by the members themselves or some lower milcom. So no, if you aren't dogpiling the enemy (and even then, this takes more coordination than nukes lmfao) this aspect is certainly more complex than just hitting a single button to launch a nuke.

And damn dude. An alliance is the membership AND the leadership (in that order). Saying that basically only the leadership's efforts matter, and disregarding the ambience that the membership fosters, alongside the quality of the members themselves, is kind of an insult to AA members in regards to what makes an AA good/appealing.

Quote

BTW, compare that to:

1) Buy a nuke everyday, and some spies as needed

2) Buy or plan resources to keep up that purchase

3) Still go ahead and buy troops before war

4) Try to fight conventional if not grossly outnumbered

5) Find opponents with really high infra

6) Wait for 12th turn

7) Nuke

8) If on negative revenue, login on the 11th turn and nuke on the 12th

9) If out of nukes, do conventional steps above without choose Ordinary

You're just inflating the counts here, to be honest.

You also gotta plan resources to keep your armies running, for conventional. You also gotta buy spies as a conventional fighting nation (and coordinated spy offensives are EVEN more complex than conventional warfare, so more credit to the people who pull that off). As for finding high infra hostiles, that isn't too hard to do when you're basically fighting whales.

Btw, bill-locking also happens to nations that fight conventionally. And honestly I don't see how having to log in like, 3 minutes prior to turn change is as big of a thing to merit it's own count, but okay.

Just as a side note, the people that are getting dragged into the >2k NS range in the current global are having a harder time getting things done, because they can't even nuke the other nations since they're flat as frick, resulting in a bad trade. Yet you don't see them !@#$ and !@#$ and complain to no end. Maybe you should take a page from their book, and learn what adaptability is.

Quote

In reality, from history, we see that the use of nuclear weapons brought a conventional war to end, and not just turn the tide. Nevertheless, this suggestion barely turns the tide, considering only 6-7% of unit loss.

It is also a problem I feel how these games implement nuclear bombing. Technically a nation can loose any entire city worth of population one day and get it the next, just by rebuying all the infra in one day.

Alex implemented the 1/3rd rebuy feature to make military be realistic, but is it really realistic to expect a nuclear bomb to differentiate between a civilian and a military unit while killing, or is it really realistic to expect civilians to move back into cities overnight, among the radiation? If I were the developer, I'd have made nuclear bombs be barely accessible and difficult to develop, and practically be used once or twice per month, but make it allow the user to shift the tide of the war a bit, by affecting the ability of the person nuked to re-populate his city for a few days and hence not use it for building troops.

All these are valid points raised by me, but instead of replying to those, you continue to try to downplay this suggestion with points already addressed in the OP. Good job TKR!!

Yes. Let's disregard on it's entirety, the fact that prior to the nuking of Nagasaki, the Soviets curbstomped the Kwantung garrison in Manchuria (the last force of significant size remaining overseas), and invaded South Sakhalin + the Kuril islands, while making preparations to invade the Home Islands proper (starting with Hokkaido. Hell, the reason why the bombing of Kure happened to begin with, was partially to make it easier for the soviets to carry out their invasions). You have a shallow understanding of WW2, if you believe that Showa forcing the Surrender of Japan comes solely from the nukes.

And with that suggestion, you'd basically be making nukes statistically irrelevant, due to their scarcity. Balancing is a combination of compromises. You can't have everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

No nerf would be enough to compensate for military killed, ESPECIALLY if you seek to kill everything that city is holding. And particularly if (as someone else wants to) you could target which unit to kill.

Why do you say that? What aspect of losing only 6% of your total military, or fewer, or none, which may also be almost the same number that you can already lose from an existing espionage operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Soxirella said:

Why do you say that? What aspect of losing only 6% of your total military, or fewer, or none, which may also be almost the same number that you can already lose from an existing espionage operation.

Slot someone with 3 nuke raiders.

Nuke his hangars, zero'ing his plane counts for those (90 planes per city).

Chain that with spy ops.

More than 300 planes killed per day (you will kill at least 10 planes even with 1% rolls in the first days). And you just keep repeating it and you'll eventually zero his aircraft since he can't keep up with the losses unless he has a very large amount of cities.

And yes, I know you weren't talking about planes per se, but going by the other person's suggestion of letting it selectively pick targets, you can see how this would be abused to shit. 

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lairah said:

Problems with this idea are many.

First of all, this just isn't how nukes work even in reality. The kind of nuclear weapon you'd fire in the scenarios being mentioned would be tactical warheads - likely on cruise missiles. It'd also only be of any real use against land targets. That is, soldiers and tanks. If you fire at grounded aircraft, the missile launch will be detected and the aircraft can easily be scrambled, and may even be able to shoot the missile down, since they'd be able to do so from a safe distance.

If you shot it at ships, they'd... do the same thing, really. Even if you landed a hit, it'd do one of two things, depending on detonation. Impact detonation would destroy the ship it hits, and spook everybody else. Yes, that's really it, even if you fired a full size warhead measuring in the hundreds of kilotons, you'd destroy one ship. A nuclear weapons primary destructive power, like most bombs, is all about the pressure and shock waves. Shrapnel too, but, when your shrapnel gets vaporize instantly, forget it. Ships, of course, happen to be very resilient to handling shock-waves, and given again that they would have early warning and could get all hands inside the ship, you wouldn't even get 1 kill + incapacitations.

You would get the 1 kill, and since anything not an aircraft carrier can operate at nearly full functionality without the crew ever going on the deck, you wouldn't necessarily even given thousands of sailors cancer either. Really, it's quite a hilarious waste.

Shooting it at airborne planes is obviously nonsensical, shouldn't have to be explained. This leaves you with firing nukes at a land army. Now assuming that the air force is dead or not being mean and intercepting your tactical warhead, or that you for some reason fired a full scale ICBM, well with real life tactics it'd be pointless, but in game not so much. In reality, you'd open a giant hole in enemy lines that no one can use safely because radiation. In game, you'd kill thousands of enemies, and frankly probably your own men as the only way you'd likely get them standing any still for you to ensure a hit is when they're engaged. 


So ultimately, no, nukes are surprisingly realistic right now. Not completely, but surprisingly. Both are realistically great at deleting huge swathes of massive cities, both are frankly pretty useless if used in the context of an actual battlefield, both are quite expensive to build and both were only ever meant for vengeance weapon purposes. 
Sure, starvation should do more negatives in this game, alot more, but all things considered, nukes are as close as this game has probably gotten to realism. 

Not to mention, of course, that these changes would make nukes, frankly more OP than planes. As, if things worked as you'd wanted, considering the damage of a nuke, and pretending that despite having 35 air bases only 5 are actually used, you could just eliminate half, or even only 1/3 of someone's air force while taking... possibly no damage, depending on the situation? And the only thing that can destroy nukes are spies, which is limited to 3 per day? Oh, and while you can essentially spawn kill planes, you can't do that to nukes. 

You claim this method would require more skill. What a patently false statement. If such an update occurred, alliances which are considered competent at warfare today would still be considered so. All that is required for this is coordination, which is how competent alliances right now happen to succeed. Thus my solution to you, and to whom this change would benefit most, get better coordination. For Nuke Bloc specifically, stop hiding in the corner. Come out and say hello, and not antagonize everybody immediately after! Try recruiting more members, maybe not being outnumbered 5 : 1 would help, who knows? Try and make some new friends too, i know that one isn't very easy, but if you try there's a 0.000001% chance of success. That is infinitely superior to not trying, which has a 0% chance of success.

Edit: as i forgot to mention, the second detonation method for a nuke is airburst. This capitalizes on the nukes destructive power being to blow everything away like the big bad wolf, by detonating it a few thousand feet or more in the sky. This is useless against ships, and seems useful against planes, if only planes weren't capable of erratic maneuvers at several times the speed of sound, meaning the missile would hit where the planes were 20 minutes ago, which is quite unhelpful when they were travelling at 1,400 miles per hour, as they will be quite some distance away.

1) I don't really care that much about how "realistic" it is if it it makes more for a better, more dynamic game.  There are plenty of ways this game is unrealistic.  Starting with the fact that a city or nation can suddenly triple in population overnight by rebuilding lots of infra destroyed in war.  I disagree with some of your conclusions about nukes IRL, but it isn't very relevant to this thread.

2) The balance with planes is that nukes are both harder to build (with the 1 per day limit, spy kills, and project requirement) and require 12 MAPs.  The 12 MAPS makes it, unlike with planes, effectively impossible for that specific nation to immediately follow up with attacks that take advantage of the unit kills.

3) The "get good" argument doesn't work with me because I've never been on the loosing side of a war, either individually or on an alliance level.  And I just fought against nuke bloc.  Good coordination is a big part of why we are ahead, but we've also had the fortune of the worst place we've ever been is to be slightly outnumbered where good coordination could make up the difference.  There comes a point where no amount of good coordination can make up a numbers disadvantage.  I've been a part of plenty of wars that no amount of better coordination would m

4) As above, good coordination can make a difference when numbers are reasonably close.  This creates an opportunity for good coordination to allow you to do more conventionally even when the numbers aren't reasonably close.

5) It does #5 in a balanced, dynamic way where it isn't just evening the odds for every war, but allows you to even the odds on certain nations by focusing on them with multiple people.  It helps make each war more dynamic and less cookie cutter, which is good for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 2:04 AM, Soxirella said:

1) Buy troops before war

2) Find opponents with zero or outnumbered troops

3) Check if opponent has nukes

4) If Yes, choose Ordinary, else choose Attrition

5) Login once or twice a day and do GA / Air Attack / Naval

Nice job inflating the steps. Really the top should be 

1. Buy or plan resources to keep a WC

2. Hire Russian stripers at https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/declare/id=863

3. Go to the store to buy Jiffy-Pop 

4. Pop the popcorn

5. Play the game

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.