Prefontaine Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 Looking for feedback on what needs to be adjusted with missiles and nukes from experiences in this current war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Bear ArcticExplorer Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 I think @Smokey1 and @Sverige will be of use on this one lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Tyrion Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 1 1 3 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgiumFury Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Potato Posted November 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2020 Maybe make nukes cost 250 aluminum and uranium more (up to 1000 aluminum/ 500 uranium) but make nukes destroy 5 improvements instead of 2. Personally when I get nuked I really don't care, I won't have to rebuild the city 90% of the time. Nukes currently are near exclusively for infra damage, but what if there was that risk of the nuke really destroying enough that you have to rebuild the city? 15 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 Useless and boring weapons are useless and boring. Please buff. Personally I think it would be cool if for instance they killed off some land. 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Miller Posted November 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2020 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). Yes let’s take away all means of fighting when you’re outnumbered. 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? 3 15 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted November 20, 2020 Author Share Posted November 20, 2020 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%? 1 24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted November 20, 2020 Author Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 2 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateus Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 16 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: What about instead of "blocking", it turns it into a flat damage reduction? No longer an all or nothing attack. That would work. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted November 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) Eh, that runs counter to the entire situation in which nukes/missiles are used in the first place. So it's effectively nerfing them. Considering that they have to go through a 50/20% check in the first place, curtailing their damage even more is extra punishing for no real reason. (To clarify, addressing the GC/AS/Blockade debuffs). Edited November 20, 2020 by Shiho Nishizumi 1 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRM Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) 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 November 20, 2020 by Orcinus Orca 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Isjaki Posted November 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2020 1) The effectiveness of an iron dome should be reduced to 30%. Iron domes are cheap to construct and block 50% of missiles, which makes them look a little overpowered to me. 2) People should be given the option to target one improvement to destroy while using a nuke (not including power plants). The other improvement should be chosen randomly. Naturally, the odds of a particular type of improvement being targeted in the second choice will have to be adjusted so they reflect the odds as per the current system. 9 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBeard Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted November 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2020 3 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said: It doesn't seem you should be able to win a war solely on nukes. I don't see the reason why you shouldn't. It doesn't happen often (because you can beige someone before they're able to launch their third nuke, let alone fourth), and if it does, it's either because the guy AFK'd, or deliberately let himself get beiged. The former is the other party's fault, while the latter is a conscious trade. 3 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said: 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. Since you can only produce a nuke a day, at most one person is at risk of this. You can simply cycle to nullify that risk. If there's a specific situation where you happen to be the last dude holding someone down and that's the predicament you're in, then again, it's a matter of a trade. I've had to have people eat beiges for the purpose of denying rebuild time to their foes in several wars. It happens. You just mitigate the damage best you can and deal with it. Wanting anything else is just wanting to have the cake and eat it to. 1 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Crunch Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 All i see is a bunch of swamp babies crying about there infra, there needs to be repercussions for being perma blockaded. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Crunch Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 1 Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firwof Kromwell Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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). Quote 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 More sharing options...
Artifex Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 1 1 1 Quote Love you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viriato Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benfro Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 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. 😛 1 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.