Limit the missile firing rate

[Dwynn]

Not many people bother to test things out back then , they are more interested in raiding the inactives at the time.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive. We in TLG raided our hearts out, but we also tested things and made suggestions to fix what was broken. Most of the time we got told we were wrong (this subject being one of the things we tried talking about)

[Prefontaine]

Not many people bother to test things out back then , they are more interested in raiding the inactives at the time.

 

There are reasons why I often preface things in this forum with "This has been suggested before" ...

[Placentica]

Looking at recent missile stats it does look like Sheepy may have reduced missile damage slightly in the last day or so. But obviously he'll have to confirm that. 

 

I like the idea though. I do think Sheepy should put in what he said a bit ago about not being able to launch a missile if your opponent has ground superiority, air superiority AND a blockade.

I really like the idea of needing something like air superiority to launch a missile.  If you wanted to make it just one missile a day, this would be a better way to basically force the issue.

[Alex]

Looking at recent missile stats it does look like Sheepy may have reduced missile damage slightly in the last day or so. But obviously he'll have to confirm that. 

 

I like the idea though. I do think Sheepy should put in what he said a bit ago about not being able to launch a missile if your opponent has ground superiority, air superiority AND a blockade.

 

This is the best solution imo. If someone tries to turtle with missiles but loses all other fronts, prevent them from shooting missiles and bombard them with airstrikes or beige them or w/e you want.

[saeton]

Yeah, but look at how missiles work IRL. They're hidden beneath underground bunkers. Every country in the world can surround the United States with naval ships, drive tanks through our streets, and have jets and choppers cover every mile of sky... and missiles can still be launched. It only takes one person to push the button and send missiles to every corner of the globe and nobody can stop them. 

[Georgi Stomana]

After looking at some of the battle reports from the recent war.... well maybe I'm missing something but Missiles seem ridiculously overpowered, I saw them taking out 300-to-400 infrastructure, that is ridiculous, no [non-nuclear] missile in existence could take out 40,000 people in one shot unless it was fired precisely at the most densely populated area in the world, well unless they were packed with nerve gas or something.

 

Sheepy are you sure you didn't mix Missiles up with nukes?

[Hansarius]

This is the best solution imo. If someone tries to turtle with missiles but loses all other fronts, prevent them from shooting missiles and bombard them with airstrikes or beige them or w/e you want.

That's actually a pretty bad idea.

Then missiles can only be launched by the people who's winning their wars anyway, limiting a nation from at least being able to use his missiles to defend himself seems drastic to me. Seeing how the effects of ground control/air superiority and blockades already makes it very hard indeed to turn the table using conventional forces.

[Phiney]

That's actually a pretty bad idea.

Then missiles can only be launched by the people who's winning their wars anyway, limiting a nation from at least being able to use his missiles to defend himself seems drastic to me. Seeing how the effects of ground control/air superiority and blockades already makes it very hard indeed to turn the table using conventional forces.

I get that, but it does at least satisfy the OP as it forces the winning nation to use all types of attacks, even if just once as the opponent may have already been taken out, but still better than the current single attack strat.

[Tenages]

That's actually a pretty bad idea.

Then missiles can only be launched by the people who's winning their wars anyway, limiting a nation from at least being able to use his missiles to defend himself seems drastic to me. Seeing how the effects of ground control/air superiority and blockades already makes it very hard indeed to turn the table using conventional forces.

 

 

I get that, but it does at least satisfy the OP as it forces the winning nation to use all types of attacks, even if just once as the opponent may have already been taken out, but still better than the current single attack strat.

 

Eh. I think the benefit from causing an attacker to use all attack types is outweighed by the negative of taking away literally the only option left for a badly overmatched defender. I'm with Hans on this one. 

 

 

The simplest solution if we're really worried about this issue would be to just make the Iron Dome project more effective at blocking missiles. Make it 50% instead of 20% or whatever it is now. 

Edited December 14, 2014 by Tenages

[Vincent]

After looking at some of the battle reports from the recent war.... well maybe I'm missing something but Missiles seem ridiculously overpowered, I saw them taking out 300-to-400 infrastructure, that is ridiculous, no [non-nuclear] missile in existence could take out 40,000 people in one shot unless it was fired precisely at the most densely populated area in the world, well unless they were packed with nerve gas or something.

 

Sheepy are you sure you didn't mix Missiles up with nukes?

Do you know how much a missile cost , not to mention the cost of a missile launch pad. If it doesnt inflict huge damage . Then why waste money and resources having them?

[Vincent]

That's actually a pretty bad idea.

Then missiles can only be launched by the people who's winning their wars anyway, limiting a nation from at least being able to use his missiles to defend himself seems drastic to me. Seeing how the effects of ground control/air superiority and blockades already makes it very hard indeed to turn the table using conventional forces.

In a 6 months to year time, almost every nation will be having missiles , so this so not be an issue at all. Stop suggesting that conventional force can be used to limit the effieciency of something that requires one to first invest millions in national projects.

[Georgi Stomana]

Do you know how much a missile cost , not to mention the cost of a missile launch pad. If it doesnt inflict huge damage . Then why waste money and resources having them?

Then reduce both the cost and damage of Missiles, so their more like missiles and less like a freaking meteor strike.

[Vincent]

Then reduce both the cost and damage of Missiles, so their more like missiles and less like a freaking meteor strike.

Still no. then what about those nations that already have them earlier on. Is not fair. Unless they are refunded for the over paid amount.

[Dark Specter]

missiles are fine right now, if your not prepared to beige an opponent with missiles then thats on you. And nukes cause 800 infra damage and instantly beiges the nation thus ending the war between the nation that launched the nuke and the nation that got nuked.

[Ayayay]

This is the best solution imo. If someone tries to turtle with missiles but loses all other fronts, prevent them from shooting missiles and bombard them with airstrikes or beige them or w/e you want.

So the best solution is to make it so someone who's completely crushed has no way to fight back? Great idea.

[Vincent]

Underlordgc , didn't Sheepy already give an solution? If your opponent is losing on all fronts and continue firing missiles at you, then the best solution is to beige them.

 

And he is right, don't tell me , you expect the game to be bias and provide undue advantage to certain players, that will only make the game uninteresting .

Edited December 15, 2014 by Vincent

[Georgi Stomana]

Loosing 300-400 infrastructure in a single attack without being able to do anything to defend against it (except the Iron Dome but that's passive and only a small chance) is lame and not fun. If Missiles are going to stay this overpowered, then their should be more options to intercept them.

 

What about an "anti-missile missile" which costs around the same price as a Missile, but it can intercept and destroy a Missile before it hits your nation. I'm sure many nations would prefer to not get hit, rather than just getting involved for tit-for-tat missile attacks.

 

My problem is that with ground battles, air battles and naval battles playing defensive is a viable strategy, with missiles their is not defense except just getting missiles yourself and making revenge attacks.

 

If a player values their infrastructure/improvements more than the ability to do the same damage to an enemy, they should be allowed to play defensive against missiles.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Vincent]

Ok anti missiles rocket sounds fine ,provided the cost and the resources for it should not be lower than those to manufacture a missile.

 

[Placentica]

Eh. I think the benefit from causing an attacker to use all attack types is outweighed by the negative of taking away literally the only option left for a badly overmatched defender. I'm with Hans on this one. 

 

 

The simplest solution if we're really worried about this issue would be to just make the Iron Dome project more effective at blocking missiles. Make it 50% instead of 20% or whatever it is now. 

This is an excellent idea and based on how no one buys an Iron Dome it prob. needs some tweaking.  I know I wouldn't waste the cash/resources for just 20-25% but at 50% I would.

 

[Georgi Stomana]

This is an excellent idea and based on how no one buys an Iron Dome it prob. needs some tweaking.  I know I wouldn't waste the cash/resources for just 20-25% but at 50% I would.

What I think would be cool would be if the Iron Dome and Vital Defense were combined into something like the "Anti-missile Defense System", which gave something like 45-50% chance to intercept both missiles and nukes, but to balance it the price would be A LOT more expensive, and when you intercepted a nuke the nuke still detonates in the sky, so you still take minor infra damage and radiation fallout even if you block it.

[Alataq]

I would suggest an Iron Dome, like everyone else has been suggesting.

[Vincent]

we already have iron dome

[Alex]

That's actually a pretty bad idea.

Then missiles can only be launched by the people who's winning their wars anyway, limiting a nation from at least being able to use his missiles to defend himself seems drastic to me. Seeing how the effects of ground control/air superiority and blockades already makes it very hard indeed to turn the table using conventional forces.

 

I think you misunderstood my proposed solution. If you were on the losing side of war, you wouldn't have to be winning on any fronts, you'd just have to make sure you weren't losing on all 3. All it would take is a Pyrrhic victory on the ground, in the air, or on the sea to regain the ability to launch missiles. That's hardly asking much.

 

After looking at some of the battle reports from the recent war.... well maybe I'm missing something but Missiles seem ridiculously overpowered, I saw them taking out 300-to-400 infrastructure, that is ridiculous, no [non-nuclear] missile in existence could take out 40,000 people in one shot unless it was fired precisely at the most densely populated area in the world, well unless they were packed with nerve gas or something.

 

Sheepy are you sure you didn't mix Missiles up with nukes?

 

The war mechanics are not based on realism necessary, as much as they are on gameplay. If we scaled back missile damage, we'd have to scale back all military damage, and war simply wouldn't be damaging enough. For example, if ground attacks only did 1-2 infra destruction per attack, we'd have to let you do like 30 ground attacks per day. Now that would create way to much spam messaging, be a pain, etc. Think of missiles the same way, each missile perhaps represents a series of missiles IRL, or something.

 

Yeah, but look at how missiles work IRL. They're hidden beneath underground bunkers. Every country in the world can surround the United States with naval ships, drive tanks through our streets, and have jets and choppers cover every mile of sky... and missiles can still be launched. It only takes one person to push the button and send missiles to every corner of the globe and nobody can stop them. 

 

Yes, I am aware, this would be a break from reality for the sake of gameplay.

 

So the best solution is to make it so someone who's completely crushed has no way to fight back? Great idea.

 

Someone who's completely crushed shouldn't have a way of fighting back... otherwise they wouldn't be completely crushed, would they?

 

I would suggest an Iron Dome, like everyone else has been suggesting.

 

The Iron Dome is already a national project that can be purchased.

[Georgi Stomana]

The war mechanics are not based on realism necessary, as much as they are on gameplay. If we scaled back missile damage, we'd have to scale back all military damage, and war simply wouldn't be damaging enough. For example, if ground attacks only did 1-2 infra destruction per attack, we'd have to let you do like 30 ground attacks per day. Now that would create way to much spam messaging, be a pain, etc. Think of missiles the same way, each missile perhaps represents a series of missiles IRL, or something.

I wouldn't have a problem with Missiles damage if they was more viable ways to defend against them than an expensive Project that only gives you a passive 25% chance to avoid. Basically think about it like this - Ground, Naval and Air Attacks can all be defended against, you can build up lots of soldiers and tanks, aircraft or ships which basically mean if your forces are strong enough the enemy can do very little damage to you, your forces can be degraded incrementally in battles but the more forces you array the less damage will be done to you.

 

This is TOTALLY not the case for Missiles, they don't conform to the way war otherwise works, and this is bad from a gameplay perspective even ignoring realism.

 

You either get hit, or you don't (if you have Iron Dome).

 

Here's an idea: Rename Missiles to Missile Group and have the game say in the description that you're not buying 1 Missile, you're buying 100 in a group that are all fired at once at an enemy city, so rename Missile Strike to Missile Barrage. The Iron Dome could intercept from 1-100 missiles per barrage attack (with 1 missile = 1% dmg), so you could get lucky and take down 87 missiles and have 13% damage, or you get unlucky and only intercept 13 and 87% damage. But most of the time it would probably average out to half-damage. The cool thing about that would be that you could add improvements which reduce the minimum percentage, like SAM Sites which use Munitions.

 

Then the mechanic makes sense and you have a better way to defend which isn't all-or-nothing.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Vincent]

You can of course defend against missiles attack if you have an iron dome. Missile pad is an expensive project , so is missiles itself, then how would it be fair if anyone can defend against missiles using those conventional method ? Is it fair, please think on behalf of those nation that have invested tonnes into getting the missiles launch pad instead of merely looking from a narrow perspective of a nation that has yet to get those missile launch pad. We pour a lot of resources and money into getting the project and in the event we need to use it, please ensure the damage correspond with the money and resources we have put in .