Jump to content

Improve Nuclear Weapons and Missiles.


Avakael
 Share

Recommended Posts

Right now, both Nukes and Missiles are, strategically, pointless. They serve as either a two fingered salute on the way down after you've already lost the fight, or as a bling item. As a 22 city nation, I've been struck by 18 nuclear weapons and quite a few missiles this war, and I've really only just started to be modestly hamstrung by it because I've fallen below 25% of my starting infra. It is absolutely daft that I remain one of the greatest damage dealing members of my coalition, and not a radioactive wasteland. Here's my thoughts on what they could be instead.

New Nuclear Weapons, Suggestion A

Cost: 3 MAP, down from 12

Resistance Damage: 8-12, down from 25

Effects: Exactly as current, simply giving them a resistance damage and MAP cut so you can use more of them. Resistance damage to be set based on whether or not nuclear weapon use should be as effective as ground/air/navy for outright winning wars as fast as possible.

New Nuclear Weapons, Suggestion B

Cost: 12 MAP, as current

Resistance Damage: 25 MAP, as current

Effects: The city that is hit by a nuclear weapon should be totally out of commission. Somewhere between 70% and 100% of military units hosted in the city should be destroyed (roll a D31 and add 69). It should either 1; be completely unusable until the radioactive fallout has cleared, therefore providing no military capacity or resource production, or 2; see a much, much larger percentage of city improvements destroyed (we're talking half-ish).

New Missiles

Cost: 2 MAP, down from 8

Resistance Damage: 5, down from 18

Upkeep costs: Less

Daily purchase limit: Definitely more than just one.

Effects: Destroys targeted improvements by category the way it currently does, but with either no infra or only 50 infra (i.e. the amount of infra required for each improvement on your nation). Useful for chipping away at the military capacity of a nation, but won't win you the war in a straight race over ground/air/naval assaults. To be considered as an option vs nuclear weapons, they should also be very cheap to stockpile and stockpile at a rate of greater than 1 per day; perhaps they should require no Missile Launch Pad to purchase, but the Pad increases the daily purchase limit.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 11/7/2018 at 10:51 PM, Avakael said:

 

New Nuclear Weapons, Suggestion B

Cost: 12 MAP, as current

Resistance Damage: 25 MAP, as current

Effects: The city that is hit by a nuclear weapon should be totally out of commission. Somewhere between 70% and 100% of military units hosted in the city should be destroyed (roll a D31 and add 69). It should either 1; be completely unusable until the radioactive fallout has cleared, therefore providing no military capacity or resource production, or 2; see a much, much larger percentage of city improvements destroyed (we're talking half-ish).

kpile and stockpile at a rate of greater than 1 per day; perhaps they should require no Missile Launch Pad to purchase, but the Pad increases the daily purchase limit.

1

Fraggle would be able to charge like double if this were the case.  That is just scary.

Listen to J Kell's new single: 

 

About The Author

 An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Balish said:

 

Fraggle would be able to charge like double if this were the case.  That is just scary.

If you crop and fiddle with my post so that it looks like I suggested we let people buy as many nukes as they want daily, then yes, it looks stupid.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ashland1 said:

These suggestions are patently ridiculous. It would lead to players having nothing other than nukes.

Nonsense. If you entered a war intending to win it all through nuclear weapons, even through scenario B, you'd lose. It does not replace the importance of Air/Ground control; if you lose that, you're just as cooked as you are now. What scenario B would change is that it would firstly give a different tool to have a crack at whales, and secondly make it much costlier to "sit" on a nation with nuclear weapons for the intent of keeping them at ZM.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be in favor of moving nukes away from infra damage and more towards destroying units, say up to half of any particular type of unit.  But keep the MAP requirement.  That would reward coordination without being so overpowered that it matters more than conventional fighting.

Right now the improvements destroyed is so small as to be relatively meaningless.  They should destroy more improvements and less infra.

GnWq7CW.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.