Prefontaine Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 With missiles returning to gameplay as evidence from Phiney launching them, we should bring up being able to defend against them. The main problem scenario that comes to mind is the following: I'm fighting nation X, nation X is kicking my ass militarily, but I have missiles. I've virtual no troops, no planes, no navy, and he's just pounding away. But here I am every 8 action points dropping a major source of damage on nation X. That is what I think needs to be addressed. You can lose a war, but do much more damage from missiles. So how do we address this issue? Lunar Wars had a system called "Economic Depression". The way it worked was every successful ground attacks against a nation with no troops (or taking them to 0 troops) would add 2 days of Economic Depression, which meant you'd lose some income/resource production, but the higher it got, it would limit some military actions you could take. The second being the key feature. Now, we know it takes 6 uninterrupted ground attacks to win a war. Perhaps it takes something similar to launch a missile/nuke? If a nation has 6 successful attacks against you, you cannot launch a missile, this isn't just ground attacks, but navy/air/AND ground. So if you get 6 total overwhelming victories you have neutralized their ability to turtle and launch missiles at you until they interrupt that streak. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memph Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 There's various possibility as to how, but I agree there should definitely be some way of countering missiles. The game's missiles seem to be based on surface to surface missiles so gaining naval and ground control is another possibility (and gaining naval control is typically difficult without air control). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iljohn Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 well a nice blockade would certainly stop the missiles in less nation X prepared a whole lot Quote (^。^)y-.。o○ (-。-)y-゜゜゜ this is how i make my cloud http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag291/petgangster/efb30519-f381-4330-a62b-11db0d2a058b_zpscilyk2rj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarBuliwyf Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I agree, missiles need addressed somewhat. I think a counter project that has a chance to "thwart" an incoming missile/nuke would be a help. Although I hate referencing another world, on (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) there's a wonder called an "SDI" That has a small chance(I forgot the math) to thwart an incoming nuke it's not a huge chance but it's effective. Your opponent then re-launch a nuke if it got shot down until it either hits or he runs out of nukes. Something like that here would be awesome. You can let your opponent keep firing missiles at you, if one breaks through it does damage and the action points are used up. However if he/she misses they can re-launch until they either run out or one hits. Just my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athanasios Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 The "Iron Dome" https://politicsandwar.com/nation/projects/ 2 Quote "We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community." - Emperor Haile Selassie I The Republic The Republic Map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarBuliwyf Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 The "Iron Dome" https://politicsandwar.com/nation/projects/ Ah, well there you go. I should probably check stuff before I post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Prefontaine still makes a solid point. There needs to be some method of preventing the tactic of having no military besides missiles. Maybe a chance for ground attacks to destroy missiles if there are no ground troops remaining in the defending nation? 4 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiliam Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Prefontaine still makes a solid point. There needs to be some method of preventing the tactic of having no military besides missiles. Maybe a chance for ground attacks to destroy missiles if there are no ground troops remaining in the defending nation? Good Idea! Or have an option for aircraft and ships to target missiles directly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adama Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Pre's point is extremely important. When missiles come into effect in mass, it's going to make doing anything other than blockading and spying completely meaningless and counter productive. Quote If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a roll. There is one you will follow. One who is the shining star, and he will lead you to beautiful places in the search of his own vanity. And when there is no more vanity to be found, he will leave you in darkness, as a fading memory of his own creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 honestly, missiles are just imbalanced and should be removed in victory, what happens is gaining ground superiority and then spamming missiles for damage in loss, what happens is spamming missiles to do damage that can't be stopped missiles are just powerful as !@#$, and the answer to that is to not make it so only one of the two nations can shoot them that would make things worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greene Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Prefontaine still makes a solid point. There needs to be some method of preventing the tactic of having no military besides missiles. Maybe a chance for ground attacks to destroy missiles if there are no ground troops remaining in the defending nation? Good Idea! Or have an option for aircraft and ships to target missiles directly. I would argue for Tanks & Aircraft over Ships and Aircraft. Let's incentivize having tanks. Right now it's more cost effective and efficient to have Aircraft over Tanks. And I liked the Economic Depression concept, but I think it should be called something else in this situation, maybe War Fatigue? Quote Formerly known as Grealind of Resvernas (28 October 2014-29 August 2017) and Greene of Japan (29 August 2017-28 Septmber 2017) 7th Caretaker of Duat, the Deity Thoth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
last187 Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 okay typically a feet does have the capability of intercepting missiles soo maybe that combined with the project should be a good fix Quote Going for top nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Uh guys... A whole lot of spies can totally kill a missile. When someone can only make 1 missile a day, destroying the missile via spy op hurts a lot Rather than destroying the missiles with ground attacks or something (since missile owners can just build one and launch it right away), why not put a delay timer on the launch? So you'll have to wait maybe one or two turns after making the missile before launching it, giving other nations a slight chance to spy it dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iljohn Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 im not sure if I totally agree with that Quote (^。^)y-.。o○ (-。-)y-゜゜゜ this is how i make my cloud http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag291/petgangster/efb30519-f381-4330-a62b-11db0d2a058b_zpscilyk2rj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenodolf Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) aircrafts should be able to target missiles i'd agree with that but in no offense this isn't those other games, missiles do just what they are intended to do, plus you can buy the ' iron dome ' project and as someone referred to in an earlier post spies can kill a lot of missiles. Edited November 10, 2014 by Xenodolf Quote - Anarkhist leader of the Svøbødnäyä Tęrritøriyä Groznyj Grad - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted November 10, 2014 Author Share Posted November 10, 2014 I don't think we need more ways to blow them up, just a way to make them unlaunchable for some period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I dunno... I think this all goes back to the original discussion we had when Iron Dome was implemented. Right now missiles are heavy damage since we're still early game. On top of that the low defensibility rate of missiles makes them "overpowered" currently. A few things that make missiles less effective: A spy op to destroy them? Check. A project to defense them? Sorta. I still believe the rate needs to be boosted. An idea: A spy op that doesn't target missiles to destroy, but a less costly option to target effectiveness. Say your spies target missile guidance systems and the missile misses it's target causing less infra damage. Don't add additional wait timers, or additional restrictions on missiles themselves. People who target getting missiles already sacrifice a bit to get there at this early stage in the game. Forcing them to be harder to get isn't going to do much but slow down attainability. They will still be sought after because they're still a highly damaging, nearly undefendable form of attack. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColoringNick Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I am surprised that there are not military strikes against missiles and nukes. Also, strikes against military installations such as airforce bases, and shipyards. Also, make it so that you can't build a missile/nuke and use it right after making it. Like have a few hours, or a day before you can use that missile/nuke. Would encourage people to have missiles on stock, and encourage more tactics while at war. Plus I thought these missiles only did 150 infra damage lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The 8 AP to launch is an good counterbalance. An attacker can jump on just prior to midnight with 2 ground wins, and within 24 hours can end the war and beige you, taking a percentage of your loot and your alliance bank's loot. Might he take a lot of infra dmg in the process? Yes, if target have missiles, target might launch 3 against attacker (if active, the attacker is always active, obviously) in the time it takes attacker to beige him and get the loot. That doesn't seem entirely unbalanced to me. Defending with just missiles is a risky move. A gangbang will be devastating as you'll run out of missiles rather quickly. Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 missiles are overpowered right now sense the game is still very young and im sure we will find a way to counter them, but wont we have this same problem again when people get nukes? Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memph Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 honestly, missiles are just imbalanced and should be removed in victory, what happens is gaining ground superiority and then spamming missiles for damage in loss, what happens is spamming missiles to do damage that can't be stopped missiles are just powerful as !@#$, and the answer to that is to not make it so only one of the two nations can shoot them that would make things worse. They are very expensive though. Phiney spent over $12 million so far to do about $ 5 million in infra damage to your nation. Admittedly a lot of that cost is for the project and not the missiles themselves, and he still has the project and can continue to fire additional missiles in his war with you or in future wars, but still, it's not obviously worthwhile to get them even if you can afford to. The main thing I'm hoping for is that ground and air forces will still retain some purpose for wars at higher levels, since it makes wars more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 They are very expensive though. Phiney spent over $12 million so far to do about $ 5 million in infra damage to your nation. Admittedly a lot of that cost is for the project and not the missiles themselves, and he still has the project and can continue to fire additional missiles in his war with you or in future wars, but still, it's not obviously worthwhile to get them even if you can afford to. The main thing I'm hoping for is that ground and air forces will still retain some purpose for wars at higher levels, since it makes wars more interesting. >it is not worthwhile to get missiles yeah you're either a shill or an idiot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 >it is not worthwhile to get missiles yeah you're either a shill or an idiot And you're selectively editing a quote to change its meaning. Come on, Hereno. I thought you were better than that. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 And you're selectively editing a quote to change its meaning. Come on, Hereno. I thought you were better than that. feel free to show where i edited his quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) it's not obviously worthwhile to get them Emphasis added. That word is doing work in that sentence, and cannot simply be omitted without changing the meaning. Edited November 11, 2014 by Grillick 1 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q 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.