Limit the missile firing rate

[Georgi Stomana]

Yes, but it's just 25% with an all-or-nothing outcome. It's like if Ground Battles were decided by having one side win and take 0 casualties, while the enemy loses 10,000 soldiers and 500 tanks, it does nothing but infuriate the player because it's too random.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Vincent]

25% is still better than 0%, No?

[Georgi Stomana]

25% is still better than 0%, No?

More like: Currently Missiles do 100% damage OR 0% damage (if you have Iron Dome). In my example they'd do 1-100% damage.

[Hansarius]

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.

 

 

I understood, I just don't think it's a good idea.

If you have control on one front, odds are that you're going to have control on the others as well, especially in larger conflicts where the side who takes the iniative usually will strike with either superior-forces or better co-ordination if not both.

The advantages of striking first and taking the initative are already powerful enough without enabling them to disable a nation's defenses entirely by nullifying the ability to at least defend oneself with missiles.

[Vincent]

But the side that struck first is called the Aggressor and it might not look good on them

[stetonic]

If i am being attacked by 3 nations all of the same size as me and i have maxed out all military improvements and so have they.I am already outnumbered 3-1 on all fronts.As there is a limit to how many troops/tanks etc i can buy perday how am i ever going to retake control on any front after the first day of the war.The only option i have left is my missiles.If i cant use them there is no point having them in the game.If an attacking nation does not want to get hit by missiles then beige me dont sit there hitting me over and over then complain coz i hit you with a missile.Either take away the limits on buying military during a war or leave the missiles attacking system the way it is.

[Vincent]

If i am being attacked by 3 nations all of the same size as me and i have maxed out all military improvements and so have they.I am already outnumbered 3-1 on all fronts.As there is a limit to how many troops/tanks etc i can buy perday how am i ever going to retake control on any front after the first day of the war.The only option i have left is my missiles.If i cant use them there is no point having them in the game.If an attacking nation does not want to get hit by missiles then beige me dont sit there hitting me over and over then complain coz i hit you with a missile.Either take away the limits on buying military during a war or leave the missiles attacking system the way it is.

 

You should really read the entire thread and find out for yourself who is the person that is complaining about being hit by the missiles . I believe he is someone from your alliance.

[stetonic]

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.

 

Last time i checked Phiney was in Test and i was responding to the suggestion of stopping someones ability to launch missiles.By getting total control so you can just smash them without a response.If you dont want to take any damage in response to attacking someone with the missile project.then chose a different player.

Edited December 15, 2014 by stetonic

[Phiney]

Last time i checked Phiney was in Test

You're right. Me, the guy who has launched 16 and taken 1 missile is bitterly complaining about it. Actually if you read it you'd see I was referencing a change sheepy already talked about making, as a potential solution to the problem outlined in the OP, that people are only using one type of attack.

[stetonic]

At no point did i say you was complaining.I stated i was responding to your post which contained the the idea of stopping someones ability to launch missiles

[Phiney]

I understood, I just don't think it's a good idea.

If you have control on one front, odds are that you're going to have control on the others as well, especially in larger conflicts where the side who takes the iniative usually will strike with either superior-forces or better co-ordination if not both.

The advantages of striking first and taking the initative are already powerful enough without enabling them to disable a nation's defenses entirely by nullifying the ability to at least defend oneself with missiles.

Agreed that you are indeed stopping the player be able to attack you back at all which is bad, but this is also achievable currently with the blockade if your opponent doesn't have enough resources on hand. The benefit is that it forces you to use other attacks and therefore you can't use as many missiles yourself, so its a trade off basically. If there was a way to have the best of both worlds I'd be behind that, however I am generally against hard limits in favour of other Incentives.

At no point did i say you was complaining.I stated i was responding to your post which contained the the idea of stopping someones ability to launch missiles

Fair, sorry it was Vincent's post that made yours sound worse, not your actual post, apologies.

[stetonic]

ok. No problem.thanks

[Ayayay]

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 .

That doesn't make any !@#$ sense. How are you supposed to beige an opponent if you are unable to fight back? And it doesn't give an undue advantage as those players are already losing. 

 

 

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.

Are you kidding? The first ground battle launched against me destroyed half of my tanks; Over 500 gone in an instant. That also halves my air superiority which means if I was equal to them in planes before the attack, I no longer am afterwards. Coupled with the fact that they now have the air superiority to bomb my ships when they feel like it, it isn't hard to see how quickly a slightly more powerful nation can take the initiative almost immediately and keep it. This is especially true in an alliance war when you have other nations to fight who are each as strong as you. I've been against this before and I'm still against this now, there is already to much of an incentive to be the group to launch the first strike, we don't need to to make it even more imbalanced.

 

Besides, missiles need resources anyways, if a nation is losing they will run out eventually.

Edited December 16, 2014 by underlordgc

[Dwynn]

Yes, I'm not a fan of the "if ground/air/sea are taken over, no missile launch" That puts too much in the hands of the attackers.

[rapmanej]

yeah not a fan.  Missiles are already limited by turns, and it should be up to the individual nation how to use those turns.  

 

Creating an arbitrary limit will simply result in a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-like situation where all wars result in 2 cruise missile attacks.  

[Saru]

Can you stop tweaking with the mechanics of the game? It's incredibly frustrating. I kept ranting on about how the previous rounds were finished too early, but everyone was adamant we are ready to go live. When you go live, you can't go around tweaking !@#$ like this. 

 

I want a sense of familiarity, not to go into war every single time not knowing what to expect.

 

Literally all we need is some sort of added mechanism to make war more rewarding. That's it.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Saru

[Filthy Fifths]

Can you add suicide bombers so we have an option to fling a abbas at nations?

[John Henry Holliday]

I was going to say that we can't throw enough missiles at people a day. Can you change it so we can buy more than one MLP?

Also, Malone, how about if they have one superiority, they can negate one missile attack. It'd be like taking over ground missile batteries, air missiles, or ship missiles. In that case, we'd have to have 3 attacks a day to balance it out.

[SoS]

Can you stop tweaking with the mechanics of the game? It's incredibly frustrating. I kept ranting on about how the previous rounds were finished too early, but everyone was adamant we are ready to go live. When you go live, you can't go around tweaking !@#$ like this.

 

I want a sense of familiarity, not to go into war every single time not knowing what to expect.

 

Literally all we need is some sort of added mechanism to make war more rewarding. That's it.

Agreed on all points.

[Sailor Jerry]

Why not allow ground troops the ability of hitting/taking out specific targets, but only after they gain ground control, or after a certain number of "Immense Triumphs".  Once the parameter is met, allow the attacker to target say missiles or nukes or an Improvement category (manufacturing, commerce, resources, civil or military) with the actual Improvement inside that category chosen randomly (just like with missiles).   Once a nation has ground control or a set number of "Immense Triumphs" over the target nation, then the attacking nation should be able to "pick apart" the defending nation.....I mean really, what/who is around to stop them?

[Dwynn]

Can you stop tweaking with the mechanics of the game? It's incredibly frustrating. I kept ranting on about how the previous rounds were finished too early, but everyone was adamant we are ready to go live. When you go live, you can't go around tweaking !@#$ like this. 

 

I want a sense of familiarity, not to go into war every single time not knowing what to expect.

 

Literally all we need is some sort of added mechanism to make war more rewarding. That's it.

 

I agree with you that the alpha and speed rounds were ended too soon. More testing definitely needed to be done. The speedround shouldn't have been a speed round, should have simply been a round so we could test the normal flow of things. The problem with speedround is someone could go to sleep and awaken defeated. So there was no real method to test the war system properly.

 

Just because it's frustrating to encounter change however, doesn't mean that the current system isn't broken. It is broken, as has been discussed multiple times, and exemplified in the most recent war.