Nuclear weapon dmg/cost increase

[Blackbird]

Hello Everyone, 

Not sure how good i’m to explain all the reasons behind this suggestion, but I will try to do my best.

 

I want to make a suggestion for Nuclear Weapons to increase their cost as well as damage. 

Considering this cost increase, the nukes would create more damage than they currently do. 

That said, one detonated nuclear weapon would still destroy up to 2k infra, but also would destroy the improvements that are included in that infrastructure. 

The reason behind this idea is that currently, nuclear weapons relatively are quite useless as you can gain more infrastructure damage per cost with planes or ships instead. Adding to that, nations whose military is significantly weakened and resources are lost/looted use them on pointless targets due to the fact that they can't do anything else to the opposition front. And because they have still got that arsenal, the common player still believes in himself in winning said war.

 

So, here's the idea:

The cost of a nuke should be increased to $100 or $200 million. Upon detonating a nuke, the damage would still destroy up to 2k infra. However, it would also destroy the improvements that require that infra to sustain and work.

Although the actual damage wouldn't increase much, the damaged nation would have to be rebuilt if the player decides to regain their economical and/or military autonomy.

This therefore, would avoid endless wars from happening in future conflicts again and would prioritise smarter thinking and coordination overall.

 

Let me know what your opinions are, and help spread awareness.

[Clarke]

$100 or $200 million? The idea is interesting but unfortunately with no disrespect you lack the longtime experience of knowing the value of items. I'd expect to knock out 3 - 5 cities for $100 million tbh. 

Endless wars will still happen, you can fight endlessly buying up to 1000 infra or within that range. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Clarke

[Avatar Patrick]

I'm in no way being coerced into approving of this post. On a serious note, as a low tier I only eat nukes. I don't dish them out so I have no personal incentive to support making nukes stronger. I'd be better off with having no nukes at all simply because for the foreseeable future, only the enemies will use them.

[HARPER.txt]

Pretty sure you were not intoxicated while writing this ❤️

I'm in full support of Nukes actually being worthwhile rather than a spam/statpad (like missiles are atm/people go hunting to be hit purposely for e.g/from my own veiw i don't even flinch at being "nuked" repeatedly given all i need is some "buffer buildings" and that is an issue to me) (given increased manu/stack production/OP Commerce:nation age, viability of VDS and other things taken into account since the last few updates) feel free to DM me and we can discuss more on this topic, you know where to find me  

-offnote/context/grammar/typing while tired-

Edited December 12, 2019 by Dondarrion

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Azaghul]

100s of millions is too much because people can buy rebuy a decent number of improvements with relatively cheap infra.  But overall I like the idea.

[Sir Scarfalot]

100m is far too much, if anything the idea has a lot of merit on its own though even without the cost increases. Maybe something like:

Any time the number of improvements is above the number of supported slots, any improvement loss is doubled? Like, if someone's submarining with heavy improvements but they get naval'd or ground attacked, each improvement they'd normally lose is followed up by another improvement loss. Similar story with missiles and nukes, on the followup hits they destroy 1 extra improvement (entirely at random, as if through naval battle) in the case of missiles, and 4 improvements in the case of nukes? (I've yet to see a nuke do less than 100 infra damage )

Programming wise, it'd be basically a modification to the improvement destruction subroutine; "after destroying improvement, if improvements > improvementslots, do destroyimprovementbynavy but end without repeating"

Edited December 12, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot
bugfixing pseudocode, what is my life

[Blackbird]

13 hours ago, Clarke said:

$100 or $200 million? The idea is interesting but unfortunately with no disrespect you lack the longtime experience of knowing the value of items. I'd expect to knock out 3 - 5 cities for $100 million tbh. 

With this cost increase, I am trying to endorse nations to stop wasting nukes.

 

Considering if nations can destroy more improvements as well as the infrastructure, the new damage would sustain the endorsement mentioned above.

 

The 100m or 200m cost is there to force nations on not wasting the nukes, while the damages are still profitable enough to break even (or creating more damage, if fashioned in an agile way).

 

As I said previously, currently, they are quite useless. Nuclear weapons should be the most immoral defence/offence weapon used only in the last effort. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Blackbird

[Clarke]

14 hours ago, Blackbird said:

 

With this cost increase, I am trying to endorse nations to stop wasting nukes.

 

Considering if nations can destroy more improvements as well as the infrastructure, the new damage would sustain the endorsement mentioned above.

 

The 100m or 200m cost is there to force nations on not wasting the nukes, while the damages are still profitable enough to break even (or creating more damage, if fashioned in an agile way).

 

As I said previously, currently, they are quite useless. Nuclear weapons should be the most immoral defence/offence weapon used only in the last effort. 

In order to stop nations from wasting nukes you want to get nations to waste lots of money on nukes to do minimal damage. I'll admit I have no use for Nuclear weapons in the global war however with this suggestion there is even less use. 

This change may be beneficial if a nation has 3000 infra and lots of improvements but once the war gets down to it and nations are rebuilding to 1000 infra to keep fighting then this makes the idea is somewhat pointless as nukes have no purpose in that war if they cost 100 million. 

Can you calculate the damages for us to show how they break even?

Edited December 12, 2019 by Clarke

[Blackbird]

10 hours ago, Clarke said:

In order to stop nations from wasting nukes you want to get nations to waste lots of money on nukes to do minimal damage. I'll admit I have no use for Nuclear weapons in the global war however with this suggestion there is even less use. 

This change may be beneficial if a nation has 3000 infra and lots of improvements but once the war gets down to it and nations are rebuilding to 1000 infra to keep fighting then this makes the idea is somewhat pointless as nukes have no purpose in that war if they cost 100 million. 

Can you calculate the damages for us to show how they break even?

The difference in my suggestion and current nuke damage is that after nuking someone with whatever (20+) improvements, they will still be able to produce whatever they want as they won't need to rebuild their infra. 

Please bear in mind that 90% of the whales that have been nuked at the start of the war and have 500-800 infra now still have got 30+ improvements.

That is what helps those nations from surrendering as they are still able to fight. 

And because of this, the whole war gets unnecessarily dragged out...

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Clarke]

7 hours ago, Blackbird said:

The difference in my suggestion and current nuke damage is that after nuking someone with whatever (20+) improvements, they will still be able to produce whatever they want as they won't need to rebuild their infra. 

Please bear in mind that 90% of the whales that have been nuked at the start of the war and have 500-800 infra now still have got 30+ improvements.

That is what helps those nations from surrendering as they are still able to fight. 

And because of this, the whole war gets unnecessarily dragged out...

I'm one of those whales with 40 improvements over the limit in some cities?. 

In all honestly I could still fight this war with just 20 improvements in each city rebuilding to 1000 infra when necessary. The war is dragged out because alliance leaders in your coalition want the other side to quit the game. 

 

[Raphael]

no ty

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi