Jump to content

Nukes


Aksel
 Share

Nuke Poll  

131 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Nukes Relevant?

  2. 2. For alliance leaders/nation builders: Do you require NRF & Nuke Purchases?

  3. 3. Was the nuke bloc ever scary?

  4. 4. Rate Fraggle's Gameplay Persona/Playmode 1-5 with 1 being trash and 5 being the best



Recommended Posts

I'm working on a story.

My angle is a bit broad, but also focused on certain aspects - but also pertaining to the recent conflict between SOUP & WTF/FARK.

Answer those random questions in the poll so I can gauge where y'all are at & also share your opinions on what you think of the SOUP War. (hah soup war)

giphy.gif

Is it a good move to fight so soon after creating an alliance & bloc? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've previously suggested that both nukes and missiles need to be reworked, but never gotten anywhere. They're not even the most efficient way to destroy infra.

  • Upvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Avakael said:

I've previously suggested that both nukes and missiles need to be reworked, but never gotten anywhere. They're not even the most efficient way to destroy infra.

I don't think the point of nukes is to be efficient. The point of nukes is so you can fight back when all is lost and to the gist of that. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheRebelMan said:

I don't think the point of nukes is to be efficient. The point of nukes is so you can fight back when all is lost and to the gist of that. 

Cut nukes to 8-10 resistance damage and 4 MAP, and give them the same current damage that they have today.

Also, cut missiles to 2 MAP, 3-5 resistance damage and no infra loss, but make them always destroy an improvement if they hit.

Add a national project that allows you to select which specific city you want to nuke or missile.

  • Upvote 2

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Avakael said:

Cut nukes to 8-10 resistance damage and 4 MAP, and give them the same current damage that they have today.

Also, cut missiles to 2 MAP, 3-5 resistance damage and no infra loss, but make them always destroy an improvement if they hit.

Add a national project that allows you to select which specific city you want to nuke or missile.

That would make nukes OP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheRebelMan said:

That would make nukes OP. 

You can still only buy them once a day. To make a strategic difference, you're going to have to stockpile them pretty hard beforehand, and that costs an awful lot of cash.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun for doing a little damage as your own nation goes down in flames.

Useful (occasionally) for making multiple opponents at least pay a little for keeping you off of beige during an extended rolling.

Annoying when three of your nukes are blocked in a row and you realize 20% of the time is sometimes 100% of the time.

 Registered slot thief

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

@Ripper voting Nuke Bloc as scary.  Pfpfpfpfttt

I cannot sleep at night.

The way I read this question, I understand that it asks whether (in my opinion) the nuke bloc was considered scary by anyone (not by me necessarily).

From the stories I've heard at least, when the first nukes were produced, infra-people were losing their minds. So, I do think that somewhen nukes were a deterrent and players/alliances did fear them.

That being said, I wasn't around then, so I may be wrong. :v

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

5 hours ago, Avakael said:

Cut nukes to 8-10 resistance damage and 4 MAP, and give them the same current damage that they have today.

Also, cut missiles to 2 MAP, 3-5 resistance damage and no infra loss, but make them always destroy an improvement if they hit.

Add a national project that allows you to select which specific city you want to nuke or missile.

Oh come on, even I'm against a buff to missiles that cheesy. Two action points per missile, 3 resistance damage each and always destroy an improvement? That'd make stockpiling missiles a viable if not OP alternative to a conventional military wholesale. The improvement destruction and resistance damages are far and away the most critical aspects of missile warfare and you're basically multiplying the improvement destruction by 6. Meanwhile resistance damage per action point is the same, but more flexible? And nukes are even more buffed out as a stockpile weapon that way, what with triple the damage and either more resistance damage per action point or slightly less, but again more flexible?

Also you can already choose which specific city you want to nuke/missile, no need for a separate project there

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nukes/missiles are really only the most efficient improv destroyers, but that isn't generally a focus of an attack.

ships are your most efficient infra destroyers and get to blockade.

air is broken af against all other conventional.

ground can counter air sometimes, and is part of the fastest path to beige.

Looking at this, if we were to rebalance the game, we should have something like

nukes-improv destruction efficient, nuclear effects

missiles-infra destruction efficient, fastest path to beige

ships-blockade, counter ground

air-infra destruction efficient, counter ships

ground- improv destruction efficient, counter air.

or so. Just me spitballing atm, so if someone wants to look at making the balancing better, go ahead.

Edited by japan77
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nukes are currently only really good if you're getting hard dogpiled and have no other way to fight back. Although, missiles are a pretty strong contender to nukes, simply because of the massive cost difference.

So yes, imo, they're pretty useful, but only in niche scenarios.

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

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Oh come on, even I'm against a buff to missiles that cheesy. Two action points per missile, 3 resistance damage each and always destroy an improvement? That'd make stockpiling missiles a viable if not OP alternative to a conventional military wholesale. The improvement destruction and resistance damages are far and away the most critical aspects of missile warfare and you're basically multiplying the improvement destruction by 6. Meanwhile resistance damage per action point is the same, but more flexible? And nukes are even more buffed out as a stockpile weapon that way, what with triple the damage and either more resistance damage per action point or slightly less, but again more flexible?

Also you can already choose which specific city you want to nuke/missile, no need for a separate project there

Well, number one. If you go into a war exclusively intending to fire missiles or nukes, you've already lost.

Number two, it makes them viable for both sides of the engagement. If I've reduced my opponent's military to nothing, why not chisel away at their improvements too?

Number three, I'd consider introducing variables to nuke and missile success, both offensively and defensively, based on how many wars one has lost over the previous month. Stack it with the SDI projects (and potentially nerf the missile one a bit to account for it). You could also introduce variables based on the possession of air and ground control. That means they're not independent of the wider campaign, and you will do significantly less damage than your opponent can deal to you if you lose there.

  • Upvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, japan77 said:

nukes/missiles are really only the most efficient improv destroyers, but that isn't generally a focus of an attack.

ships are your most efficient infra destroyers and get to blockade.

air is broken af against all other conventional.

ground can counter air sometimes, and is part of the fastest path to beige.

Looking at this, if we were to rebalance the game, we should have something like

nukes-improv destruction efficient, nuclear effects

missiles-infra destruction efficient, fastest path to beige

ships-blockade, counter ground

air-infra destruction efficient, counter ships

ground- improv destruction efficient, counter air.

or so. Just me spitballing atm, so if someone wants to look at making the balancing better, go ahead.

Missiles are actually the slowest path to beige unless they're stockpiled beforehand, in which case they are marginally faster than nukes. Which is as it should be, really.

Ah, sorry, I misread; still the game really doesn't need to be rebalanced right now

1 hour ago, Avakael said:

Well, number one. If you go into a war exclusively intending to fire missiles or nukes, you've already lost.

Number two, it makes them viable for both sides of the engagement. If I've reduced my opponent's military to nothing, why not chisel away at their improvements too?

Number three, I'd consider introducing variables to nuke and missile success, both offensively and defensively, based on how many wars one has lost over the previous month. Stack it with the SDI projects (and potentially nerf the missile one a bit to account for it). You could also introduce variables based on the possession of air and ground control. That means they're not independent of the wider campaign, and you will do significantly less damage than your opponent can deal to you if you lose there.


I'm just going to give you a "nope" on all counts and we'll agree to disagree, k?

 

 

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

I'm just going to give you a "nope" on all counts and we'll agree to disagree, k?

We seem to do that a lot. -_-

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a n00b in a training alliance, and, yeah, nukes scare me a bit, but so do 5-5-5-3 military machines. I'm in no hurry to get nuke capable, either. Too many other projects, in my n00bile opinion, are of more immediate use. Maybe I'll go Lil' Kimmie's route after hitting 35-45K infra or so.

SOUP War: My 2 cents - From what I noticed this evening, after a quick peek at some of the SOUP nations' wars, they seem to be winning, but the retaliatory nuke strikes....well....they're paying for a possible win. A POSSIBLE win by a NEW alliance! ChAoTiCaLlY wild in itself, I think. The undead hand of General Pyrrhus' victory over the Romans moves them....but the Soup's still pretty damn hot! If I wasn't already loyal to my alliance and SK, I'd definitely think about droppin' by the Soup Kitchen for a piping-hot bowl of French Onion! Win or lose, face facts: They rolled up their sleeves, put on their aprons and big boy pants, and served up a whole heapin' helpin' of Campbell's Whoop-Ass Soup! Maybe not the smartest move for a new alliance, but I just can't help being a Soup fanboy. Take on two solid alliances at once for their combat debut....Hey! Gordon Ramsey, taste THAT Soup, b**ch!

And SOUP hasn't asked for any assistance at all that I'm aware of. Not so much as a wooden spoon.

P.S. - I go to ORB for my news about happenings on Orbis:

https://orb-gaming.com/

Great site, Max!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gudea
Remove PNG image
  • Like 2

P&W SK Flag Small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Avakael said:

Cut nukes to 8-10 resistance damage and 4 MAP, and give them the same current damage that they have today.

Also, cut missiles to 2 MAP, 3-5 resistance damage and no infra loss, but make them always destroy an improvement if they hit.

Add a national project that allows you to select which specific city you want to nuke or missile.

Pretty good suggestion imo.  And that is coming from someone who hopes that nukes are removed from the game.

 

Also, tried to vote just in #4 (5th option for Fraggle obviously), but was unable to because I ignored the first 3 stupid questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jonas Supporter said:

Is it a good move to fight so soon after creating an alliance & bloc?

Its awful

NOTE: NOT EMPEROR JONAS, just somebody who agrees

Rj7BsSp.png

  • Upvote 1

We have seized the means of production. Though union, and self-governance, we have organized between all peoples of the land.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jonas Supporter said:

Is it a good move to fight so soon after creating an alliance & bloc?

Its awful

NOTE: NOT EMPEROR JONAS, just somebody who agrees

You’re not in a position to chose. 

The members of Soup weren’t against the idea of a war so here we are. Any other issues we will “face” after the war will be figured out when we are there

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.