Time to discuss missiles again.

[Hereno]

Emphasis added. That word is doing work in that sentence, and cannot simply be omitted without changing the meaning.

the meaning isn't changed and i didn't omit it from my quote

 

it is obviously worthwhile in the same way that buying infrastructure is obviously worthwhile, save when it isn't.

[Grillick]

Which is to say it isn't obviously worthwhile. It requires a cost-benefit analysis.

 

 

>it is not worthwhile to get missiles

yeah you're either a shill or an idiot

 

This is the selective edit I'm talking about.

 

And if you can't tell how the phrase "it is not worthwhile" is different from the phrase "it is not obviously worthwhile," I suggest you take a refresher course on reading comprehension.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Grillick

[Placentica]

I do think something should be changed.  I like the idea of not allowing a missile strike unless you can get two successful ground attacks or maybe two successful air attacks, blockade, etc.  But there needs to be balance so someone can't have 0 troops/planes and still launch missiles.  And the missile defense wonder really isn't a good solution since it's defense rate is so low and it's high cost.

 

You could make it where ground control decreases effectiveness 33%, air control decreases it another 33% and blockade another 33% and if you control all 3 a missile does 0% dmg.  Or some combo of those numbers, 25+25+25, for 75% off max dmg.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Placentica

[Wiliam]

Allowing a possibility of destroying missiles in a ground attack might work. Every ground attack has a percentage of destroying or even acquiring missiles. Therefor, if one has an army consisting of missiles only, there is a much larger probability of those missiles destroyed/stolen in a ground attack. This would ensure that an army would consist of ground forces as well as missiles in order to defend missiles etc. 

[Hereno]

Which is to say it isn't obviously worthwhile. It requires a cost-benefit analysis.

 

 

 

This is the selective edit I'm talking about.

 

And if you can't tell how the phrase "it is not worthwhile" is different from the phrase "it is not obviously worthwhile," I suggest you take a refresher course on reading comprehension.

can you stop trying so hard to argue about some shit that doesn't matter?

[Grillick]

can you stop trying so hard to argue about some !@#$ that doesn't matter?

Yes.

 

But I don't think that's the question you meant to ask.

[Kurdanak]

yeah you're either a shill or an idiot

Petty name calling doesn't seem like productive behaviour for the Suggestion Box, where serious discussion on game mechanics is meant to take place. 

[Prefontaine]

Please get the pissing contest out of this thread.

[Memph]

Allowing a possibility of destroying missiles in a ground attack might work. Every ground attack has a percentage of destroying or even acquiring missiles. Therefor, if one has an army consisting of missiles only, there is a much larger probability of those missiles destroyed/stolen in a ground attack. This would ensure that an army would consist of ground forces as well as missiles in order to defend missiles etc. 

It should be tied to how successful the attack is though, sending 2 soldiers at an opponent with 80,000 shouldn't have the same effect as an immense triumph.

[Alex]

So, I just read up on this thread, and I think that perhaps I have an idea for a solution. If someone really is turtling (losing on all fronts and just launching missiles) let's just make it so they can't launch missiles at you.

 

My proposal is that if you have ground control, air superiority, and a naval blockade on someone (all 3) that would then prevent them from being able to launch missiles (at you).

 

How does that sound?

[Wiliam]

So, I just read up on this thread, and I think that perhaps I have an idea for a solution. If someone really is turtling (losing on all fronts and just launching missiles) let's just make it so they can't launch missiles at you.

 

My proposal is that if you have ground control, air superiority, and a naval blockade on someone (all 3) that would then prevent them from being able to launch missiles (at you).

 

How does that sound?

 

Sounds great!

[Ayayay]

So, I just read up on this thread, and I think that perhaps I have an idea for a solution. If someone really is turtling (losing on all fronts and just launching missiles) let's just make it so they can't launch missiles at you.

 

My proposal is that if you have ground control, air superiority, and a naval blockade on someone (all 3) that would then prevent them from being able to launch missiles (at you).

 

How does that sound?

No.

 

Eventually, everyone will have missiles and all that will do is allow a more prepared alliance (like TEst) to destroy a less prepared alliance (like SI) with even more ease.

 

This was a bad idea before, and it is a bad idea now. In the future, this game will literally be a nation sim version of DEFCON where missiles and nukes are lobbed back and forth for wars. And that's good because it will bring the people like us, who have played since launch, down to a level where younger nations can rise up. Missile damage has already been nerfed and the the mil points needed have been raised, it is fine as is.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Imagining a real life scenario for a nation losing its air and ground attacks but launching missiles.....brings to mind 1990 Iraq launching its SCUDS all over the place as the US systematically destroyed the Iraqi army for the first(but not the last) time.

[Alex]

No.

 

Eventually, everyone will have missiles and all that will do is allow a more prepared alliance (like TEst) to destroy a less prepared alliance (like SI) with even more ease.

 

This was a bad idea before, and it is a bad idea now. In the future, this game will literally be a nation sim version of DEFCON where missiles and nukes are lobbed back and forth for wars. And that's good because it will bring the people like us, who have played since launch, down to a level where younger nations can rise up. Missile damage has already been nerfed and the the mil points needed have been raised, it is fine as is.

 

I'm not entirely sure how your SI vs. TEst example applies. I agree that lobbing missiles and nukes back and forth is great, and we're not trying to prevent that. I think that having the ability to turtle and just shoot Missiles actually promotes a more stagnant game as the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction discourages big nations from attacking each other. If there's some small chance you might be able to disable their missiles through the 3 fronts in war, nations might be more apt to risk it.

[Ayayay]

As nations grow, missiles will become more commonplace. It was just an example as to how a prepared alliance can obliterate a less prepared one and that was the best (recent) example. MAD is not something people need to be worried about in this game as people can always bounce back with relative ease.

[Emmad]

Iron dome  helps 25% but I do think that ground control should also have some effect on it.

[elsuper]

I've been trying to calculate the cost/benefit of missiles using the example of Phiney's war vs. Hereno:

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=22446

 

For the launch pad, it costs $8m, and at current market prices, ~1.3m worth of steel, and about half a million in gasoline.

 

Each missile costs 150k, about 150k worth of aluminum, about 100k worth of gasoline, and about 50k worth of munitions. The total cost of one missile adds up to about 450k, though this changes depending on market conditions.

 

Adding up the logs from the war timeline, Phiney launched 6 missiles, at a total value of $2.7 million, as best I can estimate based on the above, and destroyed 1,646 infrastructure and 6 improvements, and probably some troops as I understand it?

 

Based on a rough estimate from the figures in this post:

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3300-i-provided-the-logs-that-set-off-the-powderkeg-who-are-you-in-all-of-this/?p=42332

 

Phiney's missiles did about 14% of the infra damage of the entire conflict. Crudely calculating 14% of the value of the infra damage done in the whole war gives an estimate of around $6m worth of Hereno's infra (edit: I have no idea how valid that method is) destroyed by $2.7m worth of missiles. If you factor in the ~10m value of the launch pad, I'd say Phiney's missiles still haven't dealt damage equal to the total investment, although none can calculate the value of skulls for the skull throne, and in a couple more wars they'll pay for themselves in blood.

Edited November 18, 2014 by elsuper

[Ashland]

What if, in addition to land and infrastructure, we had a third investment category: Preparedness (which could amount to bomb shelters, supplies, or whatever) that could reduce your infrastructure and population damage from missiles, attacks, air strikes, and nukes?  But not reduce the supplies stolen.

 

And the Preparedness could require maintenance?