Avakael Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 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. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Is this ironic? Not even Apeman would suggest something like this 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Kell Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 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. Quote 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 More sharing options...
Ashland1 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 These suggestions are patently ridiculous. It would lead to players having nothing other than nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avakael Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avakael Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 Someonen say apeman? Nukes are useless. Only did 3 billion in damages this war. Remove the offensive war cap and do this for the win. How much do I have to donate? Isn't that the way it works? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 Missiles and Nukes are useless? Huh? 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodosius Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 As someone who ate 5 nukes in the last week, out of which 4 hit my power plant, nukes can be pretty good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 I'd have to disagree with the notion outlined in the OP, but I'm not gonna make a huge deal about it. Mostly because I just don't want to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.