Popular Post TheSnipe Posted July 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2019 Hello, I'd like to present something about current exploits I see taking place using loopholes in nuclear missiles and income. While all military buildings affect how much soldiers/tanks/planes/ships you can buy per turn, it is based on the size of your nation and amount of buildings per city, yet nukes and missiles have a limit of one per day. The problem is that while soldiers, planes, tanks and ships are tied to cities and infrastructure, the nukes and missiles are not. The only requirement to build a nuke is to have the resources and project to do so. The exploit some players are doing is to build a nation with negative cash flow, producing the raw resources. Selling the raw resources for cash, and acquiring just enough to build a nuke or missile. This means you can accumulate a limitless amount of nukes and missiles without worrying about your infrastructure or buildings, using this loophole presents an unfair military advantage over the rest of the players. A few years ago, we had a similar issue with spies. Some nations started accumulating spies even past their economic capabilities and that proved to give them an unfair advantage over the rest. The solution was to put an arbitrary cap on the amount of spies per nation. After talking with other concerned players, we came up with a few options to limit how many nukes a nation can have. 1) Have there be a limit on how many nukes and missiles people can have. Perhaps, it could be 5 per city. This would be similar to other military units. 2) Have the ability to only build 1 nuke or missile per 500 infra in your nation. Thus, a nation with 50k infra would be able to have 100 nukes and 100 missiles. 3) Have an arbitrary cap on how many nukes any nation can have. This would be similar to what happened with spies years ago. As a suggestion, perhaps 100 nukes as the limit. 4)Add a project that could increase that cap for nations that want to retain more nuclear weapons. (Like 120 nukes cap) 5)A) Have no limit on the maximum number of nukes; but, there would be an upkeep cost with a penalty, some nukes would be destroyed each turn that your nation's income is in the negative. 5)B) Have a higher limit on the upkeep cost per nuke/missile, if your nation cannot pay for it, they are destroyed 5)C) Have military units be destroyed if that nation suffers from negative income at a set rate. (For example: If a nation only has nukes and missiles and it cannot support the upkeep, then a nation would lose one nuke or missile per turn.) 9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomedes I Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 Just leave the nukes it as it is now...if you have the money for it, then you can buy nukes and use them.  2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sri Lanka 001 Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 I mean Fraggle try to prove this point for ages now, but I still don't see any problem with it just more loots for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Diomedes I said: Just leave the nukes it as it is now...if you have the money for it, then you can buy nukes and use them.  The people he's talking about don't use them. 1 hour ago, Sri Lanka 001 said: I mean Fraggle try to prove this point for ages now, but I still don't see any problem with it just more loots for me You can't loot nukes, genius. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Turgidson Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 This is in no way a new thing. What is the problem? Quote Are you originally from Earth, too? Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now. I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd. Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utter Nutter Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said: This is in no way a new thing. What is the problem? Â Edited July 20, 2019 by Seb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 This is a stupid suggestion & pointless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utter Nutter Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 15 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said: This is a stupid suggestion & pointless. how is that constructive criticism? the hollowness of your opinion makes me question your intelligence in degrees your small mind can't process. Next time you try to make a comment, do please attempt to sound older than 5. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) If anything, the main bottleneck for being a nuke turret is cash, as far as I've found. At extreme low infra levels, you can indeed build nukes/missiles, but you have to scrounge up the cash and refined materials somehow anyway. If I'm not mistaken, you need to be out of bill lock to launch the nukes/missiles? Ground battles can usually get around the cash issue, but even then you need to be out of bill lock and have a ground force. As for the refined material, a dedicated blockade can eventually sap the refined materials needed to produce the missiles/nukes, and since you can't produce refined materials under bill lock that's also a bottleneck. But then, looking at your suggested fixes, I feel like I might be misinterpreting your concerns... you're worried about nuke/missile stockpiling? To even fire those, you need to pay the upkeep for them for one turn AFAIK. They add score, sure, but other than Fraggle who spent literal years diligently producing her stockpiles to the point of being unable to actually declare on anyone, that's not going to actually affect anything in an unbalanced fashion. I always caution people against over-stockpiling nukes/missiles due to the score inflation that causes. Besides, they're vulnerable to spies. Tl;dr: I don't think the proposed changes are necessary or warranted. Edited July 20, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, Seb said: how is that constructive criticism? the hollowness of your opinion makes me question your intelligence in degrees your small mind can't process. Next time you try to make a comment, do please attempt to sound older than 5. Since I could still support it without negative incomes much higher than your numbers and it isn’t an exploit people can buy unlimited nukes & mines/farms don’t require power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 let them stockpile their nukes, it just artificially inflates their score. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utter Nutter Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 22 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said: Since I could still support it without negative incomes much higher than your numbers and it isn’t an exploit people can buy unlimited nukes & mines/farms don’t require power. it's an exploit when you buy more nukes than your nation can pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Seb said: it's an exploit when you buy more nukes than your nation can pay for. It's called deficit spending :3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Seb said: it's an exploit when you buy more nukes than your nation can pay for. Upkeep for 41 nukes is $1,435,000.00. Upkeep would only be a little over $7m if I had 5 times that many. So upkeep on 205 would be less than half my gross profit income & could support even more than that without getting more then can be paid for normally. Also they do still pay for them even if someone lets their expenses get higher than income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 hours ago, CandyShi said:  No that’s just real life.  1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: It's called deficit spending :3  1 Quote  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said: Upkeep for 41 nukes is $1,435,000.00. Upkeep would only be a little over $7m if I had 5 times that many. So upkeep on 205 would be less than half my gross profit income & could support even more than that without getting more then can be paid for normally. Also they do still pay for them even if someone lets their expenses get higher than income. He's not talking about you, which I thought was obvious, but apparently that's an overestimation of your mental faculties. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Akuryo said: He's not talking about you, which I thought was obvious, but apparently that's an overestimation of your mental faculties. Point is he wants to restrict the number way below what is financially supportable. Would be capped at 101 on the infra suggestion, similar numbers with others. So his suggestion is cap way below what someone can financially support if they want. (What people can afford wouldn’t be the limiter anymore and many of his ideas wouldn’t even address nations stockpiling nukes past what they can afford to have without negative income.) Edited July 22, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 1:36 PM, TheSnipe said: Some nations started accumulating spies even past their economic capabilities and that proved to give them an unfair advantage over the rest. There was nothing wrong with having 244 spies. The kill formula just needed tweaking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Turgidson Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 On 7/27/2019 at 5:31 PM, WISD0MTREE said: There was nothing wrong with having 244 spies. The kill formula just needed tweaking. A fair fight is exactly what you want to avoid if you want to win. 1 Quote Are you originally from Earth, too? Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now. I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd. Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngd123 Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Arrest the fraggle hater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Anyways, wonder which cuts their upkeep in half would be nice; could maybe have other perks. Also another where you can maybe upgrade to stronger nukes; where the radiation penalty for being nukes effects the whole nation maybe. 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.