Jump to content

200th missile launched


Sir Scarfalot
 Share

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Blitz said:

Congrats to you man!

and rip those who came your way...

Thanks man!

41 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

I didn't know people used missiles. 

Missiles are strong; very strong actually. A lot of people don't get that. Sure, they don't do as much upfront damage as a nuke or 1000 aircraft, but consider this: The aluminum costs the same as 33.3 aircraft, the money costs the same as 37.5 aircraft, and the munitions and gas cost the same as using those aircraft about 9 times each, if there aren't any losses.

So, what can you do with 34 aircraft over 9 separate attacks? Not very much. (Duh). Even if the opponent doesn't have an airforce to counter that anemic level of air power, you're looking at, best case scenario, about 200 infra damage and no destroyed improvements. Maybe a couple broken ships or tanks, and a couple thousand dead soldiers. And if they've got an airforce, rip.

Meanwhile, for the same resource expenditure, and a quarter of the military action points, you can deal a solid 350 infrastructure damage to a city of your direct choosing, and on top of that the missile is guaranteed to destroy an improvement of a type that you choose! And if the target has full tanks and you hit a factory, or full ships and you hit a drydock, then you've destroyed a good chunk of steel. 250 steel if you're lucky enough to hit a filled factory, 125 steel if you hit a filled drydock.

Even Iron Dome doesn't really counter missiles as much as people think, because even if you consider missiles to be statistically 50% effective, you're still doing an average of 175 infra damage per city and one improvement per two missiles invested. Were missiles some kind of considerable expense, sure, it wouldn't be worth it, but even a nation as unapologetically and objectively crap as mine is still producing almost all of the resource cost of a missile every day off my own domestic production. (I'm low on the gas side. Didn't have time to fill out Piratia, oh well.)

Most importantly, nothing stops the missiles. Not spies, not blockades, not air superiority or ground control, not paper, not hegemony, nothing. When you're ZM'd and waiting for your beige, it's a thing you can just do. And it works, even off of a miniscule warchest and even if fighting opponents a hundred times your size, it works. Just don't try and stockpile them; build them when you can use them and they won't be spied off... probably. Though even if they are, spy operations are almost more expensive than the missile itself anyway ?

39 minutes ago, TheShadow said:

Yet to launch my first missile

No time like the present! The salt when someone gets missiled and they weren't expecting it is the greatest. Some of the best salt I've gotten out of people was when they raid me and try to extort resources out of me; when this happens I always tell them "I will give you 100 aluminum, 75 gas, 75 munitions, and $150,000 for peace". Good times, good times ?

 

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

Just now, mrlm1105x said:

Damn congratulations man!! Still a long way off from a missile launch pad ?

It's definitely a considerable investment, but if you learn when and how to use it properly, it is truly a versatile weapon. I bought mine at city 8 as my first project, but in retrospect I would honestly have to say that it would have been better to grab the Center for Civil Engineering project at first. Had I done that I would have saved... uh, apparently like a hundred million dollars in rebuilds by now :wacko: (I go to war a lot.)

Don't let the wealth and power of the big players intimidate you; I'm only a year into this game myself, yet here I am. This is one of those rare games where you truly can compete no matter where you are at nor how long you've been playing. Just don't be afraid to ask questions, learn from your team, and never be afraid to spend what can be spent and lose what can be lost. Infrastructure is temporary, projects and cities are forever. And in the end, why play if not to war?

 

Side note: My nation is 396 days old, and I've launched 200 missiles. That's more than one missile every other day. I'm gonna be insufferable about that fact for at least a week now :3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missile strat is surprisingly coming back since players are neglecting Iron Dome projects.  I was looking at the cost efficiency of it and with it able to target Military Improvements, makes it a bigger pain for nations missing that priceless project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Meh, I just did 1000 infra damage with one naval attack

Missiles are for losers

And for the same relative price, I can (and have) done 1750 infra damage with five missiles, without needing any steel nor paying a cent of upkeep. And from a nation with one third your score. More damage for less cost, what's not to love?

30 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Missile strat is surprisingly coming back since players are neglecting Iron Dome projects.  I was looking at the cost efficiency of it and with it able to target Military Improvements, makes it a bigger pain for nations missing that priceless project.

Far and away the most damage a missile can do is if it strikes a filled factory with 250 tanks in it, as that counts for 250 steel in military units alone. A filled drydock counts for 125 steel on top of the improvement cost, while airbases and barracks are pretty much just a wasted missile.

If anything, the most consistently efficient use of missiles is targetting Civil improvements; each of those are actually quite costly to replace on account of their high monetary and resource costs, not to mention the loss of population that losing them represents. ...Well, it'd be more considerable if it weren't for the population already being cut considerably by the infrastructure damage, but the point remains.


And, Buorhann? While I'm talking about my own history here...

On 9/6/2017 at 5:07 PM, Buorhann said:

Was this worth a thread?

Yes. Yes it was.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
:P
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive for asking, I'd to hear from a missile veteran, why are missiles useful compared to conventional military?

For 8 action points, you can eliminate, assuming all immense victories, 20 in ground, 24 in air and 28 in naval.

While missiles are an automatic hit, they do suffer from high upkeep cost, as well as maintaining your own military, a whole national project which is invaluable to new players and being useless against any with iron dome.

I'm well aware it does more damage, alliance wars are alliance funded anyways and in terms of winning a war, it doesn't seem that powerful. I'm fairly new so I'd like to hear my reasoning crushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

And for the same relative price, I can (and have) done 1750 infra damage with five missiles, without needing any steel nor paying a cent of upkeep. And from a nation with one third your score. More damage for less cost, what's not to love?

Far and away the most damage a missile can do is if it strikes a filled factory with 250 tanks in it, as that counts for 250 steel in military units alone. A filled drydock counts for 125 steel on top of the improvement cost, while airbases and barracks are pretty much just a wasted missile.

If anything, the most consistently efficient use of missiles is targetting Civil improvements; each of those are actually quite costly to replace on account of their high monetary and resource costs, not to mention the loss of population that losing them represents. ...Well, it'd be more considerable if it weren't for the population already being cut considerably by the infrastructure damage, but the point remains.


And, Buorhann? While I'm talking about my own history here...

Yes. Yes it was.

They also did that 1000 damage with 1/10th the action points.

I also assume they aren't as poor as you claim to be and can likely afford it. What's a little money lost for the joy of torching entire cities full of women and children, anyway?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pepe XXVI the Grand said:

Forgive for asking, I'd to hear from a missile veteran, why are missiles useful compared to conventional military?

For 8 action points, you can eliminate, assuming all immense victories, 20 in ground, 24 in air and 28 in naval.

While missiles are an automatic hit, they do suffer from high upkeep cost, as well as maintaining your own military, a whole national project which is invaluable to new players and being useless against any with iron dome.

I'm well aware it does more damage, alliance wars are alliance funded anyways and in terms of winning a war, it doesn't seem that powerful. I'm fairly new so I'd like to hear my reasoning crushed.

 

Can only counter by Iron Dome and Spies.  They're relatively cheap to produce.  They target any Improvement areas you want to hit (So if you want to cripple an opponent's military buy, you could hit their Military Improvements.  If you want to cripple their Econ, Civil Imps.  etc).

Overall, Conventional military will still win out damage wise, but it all depends on what your goals are.

 

The major problem with missiles is the fact that it's a very limited tactic since most experienced players have Iron Domes, and that alone can make missiles worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

 

They target any Improvement areas you want to hit (So if you want to cripple an opponent's military buy, you could hit their Military Improvements.  If you want to cripple their Econ, Civil Imps.  etc).

Did not know about that part, thanks for verifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Thanks man!

Missiles are strong; very strong actually. A lot of people don't get that. Sure, they don't do as much upfront damage as a nuke or 1000 aircraft, but consider this: The aluminum costs the same as 33.3 aircraft, the money costs the same as 37.5 aircraft, and the munitions and gas cost the same as using those aircraft about 9 times each, if there aren't any losses.

So, what can you do with 34 aircraft over 9 separate attacks? Not very much. (Duh). Even if the opponent doesn't have an airforce to counter that anemic level of air power, you're looking at, best case scenario, about 200 infra damage and no destroyed improvements. Maybe a couple broken ships or tanks, and a couple thousand dead soldiers. And if they've got an airforce, rip.

Meanwhile, for the same resource expenditure, and a quarter of the military action points, you can deal a solid 350 infrastructure damage to a city of your direct choosing, and on top of that the missile is guaranteed to destroy an improvement of a type that you choose! And if the target has full tanks and you hit a factory, or full ships and you hit a drydock, then you've destroyed a good chunk of steel. 250 steel if you're lucky enough to hit a filled factory, 125 steel if you hit a filled drydock.

Even Iron Dome doesn't really counter missiles as much as people think, because even if you consider missiles to be statistically 50% effective, you're still doing an average of 175 infra damage per city and one improvement per two missiles invested. Were missiles some kind of considerable expense, sure, it wouldn't be worth it, but even a nation as unapologetically and objectively crap as mine is still producing almost all of the resource cost of a missile every day off my own domestic production. (I'm low on the gas side. Didn't have time to fill out Piratia, oh well.)

Most importantly, nothing stops the missiles. Not spies, not blockades, not air superiority or ground control, not paper, not hegemony, nothing. When you're ZM'd and waiting for your beige, it's a thing you can just do. And it works, even off of a miniscule warchest and even if fighting opponents a hundred times your size, it works. Just don't try and stockpile them; build them when you can use them and they won't be spied off... probably. Though even if they are, spy operations are almost more expensive than the missile itself anyway ?

No time like the present! The salt when someone gets missiled and they weren't expecting it is the greatest. Some of the best salt I've gotten out of people was when they raid me and try to extort resources out of me; when this happens I always tell them "I will give you 100 aluminum, 75 gas, 75 munitions, and $150,000 for peace". Good times, good times ?

 

I stopped at strong, but I admire the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missile is not the weapon that can win you a war is true. Missile and nuke are just retaliation weapon when all off your conventional military units is destroyed by the enemies. So why waste MAP doing nothing since fortify is a big joke. Dev always change war mechanic due to player complain or to add more dynamic in war mechanic and some of the changes has indirectly Nerf missile and nuke efficiency. Maybe ...just maybe dev will look back and do something about the missile so it can be less worthless in higher tier or in war mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pepe XXVI the Grand said:

Forgive for asking, I'd to hear from a missile veteran, why are missiles useful compared to conventional military?

For 8 action points, you can eliminate, assuming all immense victories, 20 in ground, 24 in air and 28 in naval.

While missiles are an automatic hit, they do suffer from high upkeep cost, as well as maintaining your own military, a whole national project which is invaluable to new players and being useless against any with iron dome.

I'm well aware it does more damage, alliance wars are alliance funded anyways and in terms of winning a war, it doesn't seem that powerful. I'm fairly new so I'd like to hear my reasoning crushed.

If you're talking about resistance, yes, conventional weapons can and do eliminate more resistance in less time than missiles or nukes can. However, they can only do this whilst your military completely outclasses your opponents', and if your military is outclassed, then your conventional military is as good as useless. In fact it is worse than useless as it is an expensive liability that serves only to die and pad your opponents' stats at that point.

Missiles, on the other hand, are valuable as a direct attack when you don't have, don't want, or can't afford as much military as your opponents are able to muster. Since you can be attacked by up to 3 people at once, you absolutely cannot count on always being the one with more conventional forces. The power of missiles (and nukes) means that, if you know how to use them, you don't have to be the one with more conventional forces. And thus, you can at least wound your opponent in every war, no matter who they are (except Fraggle, Fraggle is missile-proof).

As for the upkeep cost, yes, missiles have exorbitant upkeep requirements. However, you don't need to stockpile actual missiles, and I never have, because I can simply build a missile as soon as I've got the action points to use it. Sometimes, if I'm sure I'll have a use for the missile tomorrow, I'll build a missile before the day changes so I don't waste the build opportunity, but otherwise I always craft them on demand. This tactic also eliminates the supposed danger of spies; I've lost a missile to spies no more than once or twice, and honestly I don't even remember it happening at all.

As for Iron Dome, those cut the statistical effectiveness of missiles in half. However, missiles are still so affordable that even at half effectiveness, missiles are still statistically worth using, in terms of cost-effectiveness, as long as the target city has at least 1500 infrastructure, or 1000 infrastructure and a really good improvement target option, such as a lone subway or a full set of filled factories. Missiles cost about $850k total in terms of the market value of the resources expended in making them, so they need only be able to do that much in damage to be 'worth it'.

To give you some numbers: Going from 650 infrastructure to 1000 infrastructure, which is a common enough rebuild required after a missile, costs over a million even with both the CCE project and the urbanization policy. If the missile lands on a civil improvement, then it's done another $125k to $250k damage, and if it lands on a filled factory then it's gone and done another full $1m in damage, and if it lands on a city with more infrastructure then the damage numbers are even higher. Now, all of this assumes that they're being used in an 'attrition' war, and therefore are doing 100% of the damage that they should be doing. If one launches a missile during an 'ordinary' war, or while defending from a 'raid' war, then the effectiveness of missiles is somewhat less than halved. They still do plenty of damage, if you have good targets to aim at. The same principle applies when the defender has Iron Dome; half the missiles do all of their damage, so we have to consider that they're doing an average of half the damage they should be doing.

What really cripples missiles is if the target has Iron Dome and the war is either 'Ordinary' or 'Raid'; in that case missiles are operating at 1/4 effectiveness and aren't worth it at all. And if you're daft enough to declare a raid war against someone with an Iron Dome and then use a missile, your missile is operating at something like 1/8th effectiveness... in which case you're doing it wrong and you need to turn in your raiding license.

43 minutes ago, Lairah said:

They also did that 1000 damage with 1/10th the action points.

I also assume they aren't as poor as you claim to be and can likely afford it. What's a little money lost for the joy of torching entire cities full of women and children, anyway?

Sure, having a large-scale conventional military can do a lot of damage. I'm not denying that. And sure, it's worth the extra cost to do the damage faster, especially once you're at 21 cities, 2300 infrastructure, have the first move advantage, outnumber your opponents 2 to 1, and haven't been fighting in multiple major wars with a disadvantage in conventional forces.

But none of that changes the fact that missiles are still a viable, affordable, and cost-effective alternative to conventional forces.

3 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

I stopped at strong, but I admire the response.

"Strong" might be the wrong word; "cost-effective" may be a better way to put it. Also "viable", "practical", and "destructive". One missile is one missile, two hundred though represents damage comparable to the performance of some entire alliances in the last global war.

4 minutes ago, Phino said:

Missile is not the weapon that can win you a war is true. Missile and nuke are just retaliation weapon when all off your conventional military units is destroyed by the enemies. So why waste MAP doing nothing since fortify is a big joke. Dev always change war mechanic due to player complain or to add more dynamic in war mechanic and some of the changes has indirectly Nerf missile and nuke efficiency. Maybe ...just maybe dev will look back and do something about the missile so it can be less worthless in higher tier or in war mechanic.

No, I've won wars off missiles before actually. Quite a few times in fact. Usually this only works against inactives that happen to have a lot of military, but I've beiged active nations with full militaries off missiles alone on two separate occasions. My guess is that they saw I didn't have a conventional military, and therefore assumed that missiles weren't mathematically capable of winning wars. That or they were just really, really, REALLY, REALLY stupid.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Thanks man!

Missiles are strong; very strong actually. A lot of people don't get that. Sure, they don't do as much upfront damage as a nuke or 1000 aircraft, but consider this: The aluminum costs the same as 33.3 aircraft, the money costs the same as 37.5 aircraft, and the munitions and gas cost the same as using those aircraft about 9 times each, if there aren't any losses.

So, what can you do with 34 aircraft over 9 separate attacks? Not very much. (Duh). Even if the opponent doesn't have an airforce to counter that anemic level of air power, you're looking at, best case scenario, about 200 infra damage and no destroyed improvements. Maybe a couple broken ships or tanks, and a couple thousand dead soldiers. And if they've got an airforce, rip.

Meanwhile, for the same resource expenditure, and a quarter of the military action points, you can deal a solid 350 infrastructure damage to a city of your direct choosing, and on top of that the missile is guaranteed to destroy an improvement of a type that you choose! And if the target has full tanks and you hit a factory, or full ships and you hit a drydock, then you've destroyed a good chunk of steel. 250 steel if you're lucky enough to hit a filled factory, 125 steel if you hit a filled drydock.

Even Iron Dome doesn't really counter missiles as much as people think, because even if you consider missiles to be statistically 50% effective, you're still doing an average of 175 infra damage per city and one improvement per two missiles invested. Were missiles some kind of considerable expense, sure, it wouldn't be worth it, but even a nation as unapologetically and objectively crap as mine is still producing almost all of the resource cost of a missile every day off my own domestic production. (I'm low on the gas side. Didn't have time to fill out Piratia, oh well.)

Most importantly, nothing stops the missiles. Not spies, not blockades, not air superiority or ground control, not paper, not hegemony, nothing. When you're ZM'd and waiting for your beige, it's a thing you can just do. And it works, even off of a miniscule warchest and even if fighting opponents a hundred times your size, it works. Just don't try and stockpile them; build them when you can use them and they won't be spied off... probably. Though even if they are, spy operations are almost more expensive than the missile itself anyway ?

No time like the present! The salt when someone gets missiled and they weren't expecting it is the greatest. Some of the best salt I've gotten out of people was when they raid me and try to extort resources out of me; when this happens I always tell them "I will give you 100 aluminum, 75 gas, 75 munitions, and $150,000 for peace". Good times, good times ?

 

Usually don't use missiles very often due to both my size and my terribly shit luck with missiles getting shot down. For me though, the main turn off is the MAP cost and the fact that usually my mass airstrike can deal a hell of a lot more damage and possibly get me Air control, or my ground attack can run in and smash all the banks and get me cash, or my naval attack that stops aid from flowing in. It has it's uses, but that usefulness kinda starts to fall off later into the game, though last ditch missile strikes are always fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Epi said:

Hah, as if RD lost. Closest anyone ever got was KT and even they mucked it up. Thanks for taking out the traitors tho, i do appreciate it.

I achieved my objectives, you achieved yours; the one truly defeated in that old conflict was the traitor Smith. You bounced back right quick after the disbandment, and I respect that. It's fair to say you didn't lose ?

Now, Smith's stupid USMC... that one I can say is a war they straight up lost and I straight up won. Zodiac's protection didn't help them at all, haha; how did you like those missiles @Taco? :ehm:
 

52 minutes ago, Epi said:

Congrats on the 200 missiles ?

Cheers~ ?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only around briefly when the new war changes rolled out. But I've considered missiles an interesting circumstantial weapon depending on a lot of factors. If conditions favor missile spam it can do very strategic damage that I'm sure a lot of people underestimate. 

Congrats on the 200th milestone.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2018 at 7:43 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

I achieved my objectives, you achieved yours; the one truly defeated in that old conflict was the traitor Smith. You bounced back right quick after the disbandment, and I respect that. It's fair to say you didn't lose ?

Now, Smith's stupid USMC... that one I can say is a war they straight up lost and I straight up won. Zodiac's protection didn't help them at all, haha; how did you like those missiles @Taco? :ehm:
 

Cheers~ ?

 

I was pretty confused here, took me awhile to realize you were talking about someone else :v

  • Like 2

C0r3Fye.png

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.