Jump to content

Update Nukes to Destroy (temporarily) Cities


Talus
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Talus said:

Even now, nuke turrets is still something that happens occasionally. Some people like to just sit at depleted NS levels and lob super missiles to harass their opponents.

The current game meta is, "Nukes are for losers and defeating a nation is bad." That's just silly. This would be a step toward fixing that.

As for making them a better strategy than conventional war, that would be true if you had unlimited funds. Remember though, that even if a nation gets nuked, they're down but not out. Their remaining cities are still very much capable of waging war. The nuked nation will just be dropped down to fight a lower city tier of enemies.

I never said it wasn't a thing. I said that changes like these would make that the go-to strategy. And why that would be a bad idea.

The latter is counter intuitive yes, but there's no better alternative if we're to be frank. Changing it would either require removing beige so to incentivize defeating foes, which leads to a far worse situation (nigh impossibility to rebound), which would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease; the alternative is some convoluted system (such as the one where winning led to having a higher army cap but lower recruitment rate, and vice versa), which I don't trust Alex to be able to implement without inadvertently adding a ton of bugs, and which I don't trust him to know how to tweak properly (especially if the last update is anything to go by). Your proposal about nukes is less so a step in the right direction (which it isn't, due to reasons I elaborated in two different posts, and you largely ignored), and more so going from 0 to 100. 

No. They'd make for a better strategy than conventional because they'd be able to inflict far more damage (and more importantly, damage which can't be inflicted by them [that being disabling cities]) than conventional military would be able to, and would therefore make the latter obsolete. It'd require an absurd increase in the cost of the nukes for it to keep them from being mass utilized.

As for the argument that knocking out cities would drop them to hit smaller people; for one thing, NRF would be a highly desirable project under such a context, and it'd lead to it being acquired a lot more throughout the tiers. Secondly, city count is irrelevant for the purposes of nuke turreting. Thirdly, if both sides are turreting, they'd be dragging each other down.

As Hime elaborated, nukes have a valid role under the current meta. It's mainly a matter of people not realizing those other uses. Other than perhaps killing some extra improvements, they're in a fine position balance-wise, and don't really need any adjusting. Especially not to the extent you're suggesting. 

  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KInda on the fence with this suggestion, as I can see both sides. The best compromise I can imagine is to increase the cost of a nuke substantially and revamp the defensive means to prevent a nuke. Never had a nuke, so I won't pretend to know what a good price range for a nuke would be if it did have the damage capacity the OP is requesting. For my second point, upping the percentage on the Vital Defense System to 50% or even higher would make it more of a crapshoot. I'd even be for adding an innate 5% launch failure rate. It'd be like launching a missile with higher stakes.

That being said, I'm more of the opinion that they're fine as is. 

 

Edit: a word

Edited by Dabigbluewhale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for you guys that want to make nukes more powerful, ask yourself, how would you fight a war, if nukes did what you are proposing they do?  Do you see yourself still fighting with conventional military?  Do you see yourself only using nukes?  If its the former of the two, don't you think that is probably a bad thing?

Also for the guy that said nukes should delete cities, you realize that if that was the case, this game will never have a nation over probably 18-20 cities again, because people will declare on anyone that gets too big and nuke them a bunch to bring them back down to size.  You would also probably lose about 30-40% of your active player base.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm I think that would be a bit much. Maybe tie the amount of improvements lost to the amount of infra destroyed by the nuke? If the nuke destroys 800 infra that would be 16 improvements destroyed. I think that would be enough. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gideon said:

Hmmm I think that would be a bit much. Maybe tie the amount of improvements lost to the amount of infra destroyed by the nuke? If the nuke destroys 800 infra that would be 16 improvements destroyed. I think that would be enough. 

So if you made nukes destroy the same amount of improvements as infra destroyed.  If you were in a war, knowing nukes did that, how would you fight?  The answer would be launching 4 nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to do this would be to drastically buff nuclear radiation.  It'd also be relatively simple to implement.

1) Bump nuclear radiation from 200 pollution per nuke to 1000 pollution.  200 nuclear radiation translates to 10% disease / 10% of population.  1000 would be 50% of population.

2) You'd probably also want to up the clean up rate.  3 radiation per turn = 36 per day = 27.8 days to clean up from a nuke if it generates 1000 radiation.  There could be a project to up that rate to 5 radiation per turn.

3) Significantly reduce infra damage from nukes to balance it out.  200/400/800 infra based on war type.

4) One mechanic for temporarily knocking out most improvements: A city loses power if it has more than 1000 in nuclear radiation.  This would also present interesting choices in terms of nuking cities multiple times.

Right now nukes are basically just super-powered missiles.  Like most other attacks they focus on killing infra, they just don't require conventional dominance to use.  I believe that doing something like this would make nukes more interesting and something significantly different from other kinds of attacks.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

One way to do this would be to drastically buff nuclear radiation.  It'd also be relatively simple to implement.

1) Bump nuclear radiation from 200 pollution per nuke to 1000 pollution.  200 nuclear radiation translates to 10% disease / 10% of population.  1000 would be 50% of population.

2) You'd probably also want to up the clean up rate.  3 radiation per turn = 36 per day = 27.8 days to clean up from a nuke if it generates 1000 radiation.  There could be a project to up that rate to 5 radiation per turn.

3) Significantly reduce infra damage from nukes to balance it out.  200/400/800 infra based on war type.

4) One mechanic for temporarily knocking out most improvements: A city loses power if it has more than 1000 in nuclear radiation.  This would also present interesting choices in terms of nuking cities multiple times.

Right now nukes are basically just super-powered missiles.  Like most other attacks they focus on killing infra, they just don't require conventional dominance to use.  I believe that doing something like this would make nukes more interesting and something significantly different from other kinds of attacks.

This honestly doesn't sound too bad... after all its a nuke. Its not supposed to be good, but it definitely beats the "disable a city" for 10+ days. The only thing I'd add here is just adjust the MAPs caps/costs, so one just doesn't get launched any day.

Edited by Arric II Vysera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I know some people don't particularly care about micros, but I just wanted to ask about what if micros get nuked? The smaller nations generally wouldn't be able to handle something as massive as having an entire city be destroyed by a nuke, even temporarily. Which means they are completely vulnerable to getting decimated even more by random people looking to pillage them. Even if people tried to "balance it out", it would still be able to do damage to the weaker nations that can't handle something like that. Depending on the costs and materials needed for the "cleanup", the "cleanup" could potentially devastate them even MORE! I just find it as a bit of a bad idea because overpowering nukes would mean that conventional warfare would die and that anyone with a nuke could suddenly be able to destroy an entire nation's progress. I may be a micro, but I still think its a bad idea.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Harold_Duighan said:

Now, I know some people don't particularly care about micros, but I just wanted to ask about what if micros get nuked? The smaller nations generally wouldn't be able to handle something as massive as having an entire city be destroyed by a nuke, even temporarily. Which means they are completely vulnerable to getting decimated even more by random people looking to pillage them. Even if people tried to "balance it out", it would still be able to do damage to the weaker nations that can't handle something like that. Depending on the costs and materials needed for the "cleanup", the "cleanup" could potentially devastate them even MORE! I just find it as a bit of a bad idea because overpowering nukes would mean that conventional warfare would die and that anyone with a nuke could suddenly be able to destroy an entire nation's progress. I may be a micro, but I still think its a bad idea.

I really don't think anyone here is really advocating for nukes destroying cities as that would just be broken op. Likewise I agree there shouldn't be any cost to cleanup a city after a nuke. If a nuke city shutdown is ever added then it should simple be a timed thing only.

Edited by lightside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lightside said:

I really don't think anyone here is really advocating for nukes destroying cities as that would just be broken op. Likewise I agree there shouldn't be any cost to cleanup a city after a nuke. If a nuke city shutdown is ever added then it should simple be a timed thing only.

I'm not saying anyone HERE is advocating to destroy cities with nukes, but some people in the game will most likely use it for their own gain. Say, for example, some petty drama or whatever, (as things like that probably happen) and somebody brings out a nuke. It may be unlikely, but there are probably people who are crazy enough to do it. Another example is some big nation who wants to bully micros, (which is common, as everybody makes fun of micros) and they want an easy win, bring out a nuke. People HERE may not advocate for it, but someone else out there probably does.

 

Also, I agree with the timed city shutdown with no costs, that to me is WAY less over-powered, which would make bouncing back from the devastation much easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2020 at 8:31 PM, Harold_Duighan said:

Now, I know some people don't particularly care about micros, but I just wanted to ask about what if micros get nuked? The smaller nations generally wouldn't be able to handle something as massive as having an entire city be destroyed by a nuke, even temporarily. Which means they are completely vulnerable to getting decimated even more by random people looking to pillage them. Even if people tried to "balance it out", it would still be able to do damage to the weaker nations that can't handle something like that. Depending on the costs and materials needed for the "cleanup", the "cleanup" could potentially devastate them even MORE! I just find it as a bit of a bad idea because overpowering nukes would mean that conventional warfare would die and that anyone with a nuke could suddenly be able to destroy an entire nation's progress. I may be a micro, but I still think its a bad idea.

The cost of radiation cleanup increases as the number of cities increases. So (ballpark) the cost of a smaller nation to restore their city might be equivalent to $1M while the cleanup cost of a large nation might be equivalent to $10M. Meanwhile, the cost of building the nuke might be equivalent to $10M. Would need to tweak the numbers, but the idea would be that nuking a small nation would be a net loss for the attacker. That would match the current design which makes nuking low infra cities a waste of resources.

On 6/10/2020 at 2:24 AM, Gideon said:

Hmmm I think that would be a bit much. Maybe tie the amount of improvements lost to the amount of infra destroyed by the nuke? If the nuke destroys 800 infra that would be 16 improvements destroyed. I think that would be enough. 

It seems that many people dislike the idea of disabling cities. I think that's an interesting mechanic which actually helps larger nations deal with being nuked. The biggest factor to improving nukes is getting rid of improvements, so if you wanted a lighter change, then Gideon's suggestion of destroying improvements equivalent to the amount of infra destroyed would be a good compromise.

On 6/10/2020 at 6:18 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

So if you made nukes destroy the same amount of improvements as infra destroyed.  If you were in a war, knowing nukes did that, how would you fight?  The answer would be launching 4 nukes.

Sure, that would be a valid strategy just like the previous war strategy was to do mass air-strikes to establish air superiority. So how would you counter someone who wants to nuke you 4 times? The attacker is already at a net loss since they spent the resources to buy 4 nukes. You could nuke back to get even or you could stay conventional and rebuild to 800 infra/city.

Anyway, if you all want to leave nukes as super missiles, that's fine. This suggestion was based on commentary in the latest PNW radio show with Alex where people complained about the impotence of nukes, the no-beige meta, and a desire to delete/destroy cities. I think this would be an interesting way to address all three issues, but it's clear that the community would prefer that nukes remain a loser's weapon. Whatever Orbis. Might as well take nukes out of the game.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't this browser game like the real world? Why can't we just have one world war where we blast ourselves back to a tumour filled Stone Age?

Seriously, if you're going to argue for realism, lets go all out. Nukes should vaporize the players IRL. That would be the most realistic.

  • Haha 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Talus said:

Sure, that would be a valid strategy just like the previous war strategy was to do mass air-strikes to establish air superiority. So how would you counter someone who wants to nuke you 4 times? The attacker is already at a net loss since they spent the resources to buy 4 nukes. You could nuke back to get even or you could stay conventional and rebuild to 800 infra/city.

That wouldn't be a valid strategy it would be The Strategy.  The first few rounds of war, would be everyone nuking each other to wipe out any and all extra improvements.  Fighting conventionally would be silly until all your opponents cities have been nuked, and you force them to buy infra so they can max war improvements.  There would be no point to even run conventional attacks till every extra improvement has been destroyed, and then once that occurs then you might see actual fighting start.  But if you want war to be a 3 click affair where you click to pull up the nuke screen, then click the city you want to nuke, launch nuke, log off for 24 hours, buy another nuke, then repeat everyday for a few weeks, that will really be an improvement to the war system. 

the only positive it would have is wars would probably be shorter because people wont be able to afford to fight for extended periods because all the econ improvements will be wiped out, so they wont be able to support themselves.  but then again, you still have the 2-3 weeks of just nuking each other before any conventional war even thinks about kicking off.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2020 at 12:29 AM, Talus said:

BOMB.jpg

Problem:

Nukes should feel more impactful. They destroy a good amount of infra, but in wars infra is not nearly as important as the improvements that they helped support. Destroying 2 improvements is a slap on the wrist and does not reflect the true devastation of a real nuke.

Solution:

Nukes destroy 90% of a city's improvements, 90% of the infrastructure, and completely disables the city (improvements and income). To bring a city back online, the nation must invest in Radiation Cleanup. Radiation Cleanup requires a variety of resources like lead, gas, food, and cash. The cost varies based on the number of cities that the nation has. The radiation is too intense for cleanup efforts for the first 10 days after being nuked. Nothing may be done to the city until Radiation Cleanup is completed (no buying infra, land, improvements, etc.) While the city is irradiated, it contributes nothing to the nation score.

Balance Thoughts:

There have been concerns that nukes do not feel significant enough in this game. Some people were recommending that nukes should destroy (delete) a city and this would be the next best thing.

Some people have been asking to delete cities. Presumably this is so that they can drop down and participate in the war grinder or find better raid targets. Rather than deleting their city, they could just leave a nuked city to its green glow indefinitely.

This also addresses concerns about wars lasting entirely too long. If a nation gets nuked, their fighting capability is seriously diminished since they no longer have access to that city's improvement contributions. Additionally, the cost of Radiation Cleanup could help burn through nation/alliance war chests more quickly to facilitate a swift resolution of the war.

A nation could have a bunch of irradiated cities, declare on someone, and then pay for Radiation Cleanup for all their cities suddenly boosting their score. While this could be done, it would be incredibly expensive and not worth it unless someone just really wanted to fight that person who is normally out of range.

Larger nations may be able to shrug off a nuked city more easily than smaller nations since they contribute a smaller amount to their overall military and resource production. However, the cost of restoring the nuked city will be much higher for the larger nation since Radiation Cleanup varies based on the number of cities. They will also find themselves more easily pulled down into the grinder as their NS decreases due to the 0 NS contribution of their nuked city.

This style of nuke may be viewed as overpowered, but really nukes SHOULD be overpowered. However, the cost of nukes may need to be increased to reflect their new destructive force.

 

Unless you vastly increase the cost of each nuke, having them do that much damage would make them very OP.

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.