Jump to content

Feedback from war: Missiles/Nukes


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've had the same concern during all wars regarding how much resistance the nukes/missiles take off.  It doesn't seem you should be able to win a war solely on nukes.  Because the game mechanics don't encourage people to win wars, rather, sit on an opponent for five days - the cost to do that may be eating 4 nukes, even though you have an opponent completely zeroed - and then you could lose a war that you're trying to have expire.  That seems wrong - so if we're going to have to eat nukes to sit on somebody, at least don't let them win the war. 

Separately though, I think if you have an opponent on GC, AS and Blockade your opponent should be considered occupied and not be able to build/launch nukes or missiles against you (and maybe the trade off would be a smaller percentage of success if they do build them and launch them).  Understandably the risk of not allowing nukes/missiles to be built if occupied is that there wouldn't be much cost for people winning wars to just sit indefinitely on an opponent, so that would need to be factored in somehow.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, and this is just my opinion.
Not as much missles and nukes need a buff, we need more (fun) alternatives for people who are completly screwed because of the war.
Guerilla is something that people need to look into, seeing wars last far longer than they used to, and guerilla is kind of nesecairy because of that. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Separately though, I think if you have an opponent on GC, AS and Blockade your opponent should be considered occupied and not be able to build/launch nukes or missiles against you (and maybe the trade off would be a smaller percentage of success if they do build them and launch them).  Understandably the risk of not allowing nukes/missiles to be built if occupied is that there wouldn't be much cost for people winning wars to just sit indefinitely on an opponent, so that would need to be factored in somehow.

I think the more superiority (ground/air/sea) you have over a nation, perhaps it reduces the effectiveness of nukes/missiles. Maybe 15% for each, and then a bonus 5% for all 3 making it 50%?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 24

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miller said:

If anything we should be able to build more nukes and Alex should scrap iron dome and vds. Since “eVeRy wAr iS a DogPiLe” why not give the ones being sat on better means to fight back when they’re zeroed?

What about instead of "blocking", it turns it into a flat damage reduction? No longer an all or nothing attack. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 8

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe nukes should be able to choose to target military improvements specifically to give them some kind of depth instead of being the once every day one click attack they are, and buff improvement damage. That said, maybe air superiority could intercept nukes and missiles.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding missiles, there is a current bug that if you missile your opponent's hangar, and even if he has max planes, it does not kill the planes. That bug should be fixed. 

Edited by Orcinus Orca
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

Regarding missiles, there is a current bug that if you missile your opponent's hangar, and even if he has max planes, it does not kill the planes. That bug should be fixed. 

It's actually the same with nukes.

His max is 1875 but he has 1860 at the moment. So he should've lost at least 15 planes, but lost none.

  • Upvote 4
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

What about instead of "blocking", it turns it into a flat damage reduction? No longer an all or nothing attack. 

No, there doesn't really need to be any reduction in damages... I can actually do more infra damage with my navy than a missle. And more infra damage over time with my navy than a nuke. Also to note, there needs to be some offset to being perma blockaded and missles and nukes are such. Since there is really no way to fight back when zeroed

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think they need to be changed. Attackers can protect infrastructure by declaring raid. If nukes didn't wipe 2 improvements I would never used them on raid type wars. 

ID is op but its a good op imo. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cpt Crunch said:

All i see is a bunch of swamp babies crying about there infra, there needs to be repercussions for being perma blockaded. 

It's also a bunch of pirate babies asking for the capabilities to deal more damage, much simpler & faster ways(Just look at where the downvote majority of this thread is coming from). Yes, ID is OP.  But cutting off around 20% of the deflection rate is a lot more than nessescary. Then being able to choose one thing that gets destroyed every nuke/missile will make matters worse. These are just take raiders trying to pull there magic to deal more damage & loot more easily. Instead I think we should make ID cost around a couple hundred more Rss's & round couple million dollars but make the deflection rate around 40%. VDS compared to most common technology of today is honestly underpowered & should be raised around 30%, no price change. Then gurriella warfare would be a nice addition since it would give ones nations population to fight back if your approval rate is 50%+. That would honestly then would a good discussion for bringing in nation perks for each type of improvements, military, etc (Gullerila warfare as a perk).

 

                            memed-iFirwof650x150.jpeg.9a92ea222b9010f9fae97a1864a6759e.jpeg     

 I personally voice my own thought processes based on own desires of informational curiosity as well love for discussion based on questions & statements I made rather just trusting info like a collective hivemind

Onlookers whom hop aboard the brainless bandwagon refusing inter-articulation based on assumed feelings, go give yo balls a tug ya tit fugger         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Malleator said:

In the real world, nukes are so powerful, a major world military superpower was brought to its knees and forced to surrender with the detonation of just two nuclear weapons. 

japan didn't surrender just because of 2 nukes
they surrendered over the fear of that every city in japan would be nuked
by the time they surrendered both the soviets and the americans were really close to invading mainland japan

And i think nukes either stay the same or get a buff on damage
missiles are good

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlackBeard said:

As a person who’s threw his fair share of both weapons. They are  absolutely fine. 
 

if anything iron dome is op. Nothing needs to be changed. 

Wonder if there is a way to give players an option - more potential infra damage with a higher likelihood of being blocked vs. lower damage but more reliable. 
 

im thinking instead of nerfing ID completely, make it only 25% or 33% effective against a missile with max 200 infra damage?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Benfro said:

Wonder if there is a way to give players an option - more potential infra damage with a higher likelihood of being blocked vs. lower damage but more reliable. 
 

im thinking instead of nerfing ID completely, make it only 25% or 33% effective against a missile with max 200 infra damage?

It's really not the infra damage I care about with missiles. I have ID for two reasons, the first is to laugh at people flailing uselessly against it, and the second is to cut down on the severe annoyance of having factories and hangars yeeted left right and center. 

If they killed a random improvement like nukes do I might well delete the thing especially if I need the slot. The infra damage is not what any sane person is concerned about with missiles, it's the tedious annoyance. 😛

  • Upvote 1
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.