Bobert Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 have you consider just reworking how war works from the ground up so it isn't just "press three buttons lol" 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 I do want to see the Meta change from nuke turteting. However this is just ignoring the problem entirely. The reason being nuke turreting happens because fighting wars with military units becomes worthless once your alliance loses the first round of combat. There is no comeback chance. So while this change would nerf nuke turreting, the reallity is it would just result in people not being able to fight back at all after they lose the first war... That will not be good for player retention. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingNinja Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 Add a new propaganda bureau instead to increase daily buys to encourage fighting back conventionally instead.. and/or just rework daily rebuys altogether & protect beige nations from getting their units spied until they leave beige. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) On 6/10/2024 at 9:05 AM, Alex said: Basically, the title. Double the cost (money and resources) for missiles and nukes, as well as require at least 1,000 infrastructure in your whole nation to build any new ones. This is a nerf to the nuke/missile turret (or griefing) strategy, while still making it possible (just more expensive - you have to buy at least 1K infra and spend more per missile/nuke) and would have minimal to no impact on regular players. Wouldn't change a thing, except make it slower for them to build their stockpiles. They don't rely on buying nukes during the war, they just use massive stockpiles. Instead, consider all or some of the following: Remove nukes and missles from the Nation Strength calculations. Require at least 1000 infra per city to build missiles and 1500 infra per city, in order to build nukes. If you have no military (soldiers, tanks, navy), you cannot declare wars. If you have no military, you take extra infra damage, increased chance of destroying improvements, plus a chance to destroy missiles and nukes. If you have no military (or less than x%) for 12 turns (1 day), you are instantly beiged. Edited June 13 by Shakyr Somewhat inflammatory remark. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartarus Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 26 minutes ago, Shakyr said: Get better at double buys and working together with other nations. This tidbit is a little dense. Other than that I agree with your comment, Shak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zim Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 10 hours ago, Shakyr said: Remove nukes and missles from the Nation Strength calculations. Require at least 1000 infra per city to build missiles and 1500 infra per city, in order to build nukes. If you have no military (soldiers, tanks, navy), you cannot declare wars. If you have no military, you take extra infra damage, increased chance of destroying improvements, plus a chance to destroy missiles and nukes. If you have no military (or less than x%) for 12 turns (1 day), you are instantly beiged. 1. wouldn't really do much with latest warscore changes, and hasen't really been that relevant since the Fraggle nerf. 2. So good for farming whales, atleast so long they on the winning side in a war. Bad for everybody else. 3. Either an extreme nerf to raiding, or hilarious pointless, depending on how much millitary is no millitary. 4. Making it worse for the losing side in war, isen't what the game need, would also nerf raiding and invailate quite a few builds. 5. Also an raiding nerf, and basely invalidate nuke runs. This just benefit farming whales uninvolved in war, or on the winning side in one. I don't really see how any of this would help the game as a whole. Remember it's side losing the war that lag an abilities to fight back, not the winning side lacking ability to punish the loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 10 hours ago, Zim said: 1. wouldn't really do much with latest warscore changes, and hasen't really been that relevant since the Fraggle nerf. 2. So good for farming whales, atleast so long they on the winning side in a war. Bad for everybody else. 3. Either an extreme nerf to raiding, or hilarious pointless, depending on how much millitary is no millitary. 4. Making it worse for the losing side in war, isen't what the game need, would also nerf raiding and invailate quite a few builds. 5. Also an raiding nerf, and basely invalidate nuke runs. This just benefit farming whales uninvolved in war, or on the winning side in one. I don't really see how any of this would help the game as a whole. Remember it's side losing the war that lag an abilities to fight back, not the winning side lacking ability to punish the loser. 2. Numbers as always, can change. The whole point was to make it a restriction per city. 1000/1500 infra is cheap, I wouldn't call it whale territory. 3-5. The whole point of this topic is to render nuke turrets unfeasible, or am I missing something? Also, no military means no miltary. If you're lucky enough to still have 1 soldier at turn change (or when you are attacked), you're totally fine. Actually I want to add to my previous list. 5. Amend this to being "instantly beiged on the next Immense Triumph after 12 turns". This would give them the chance to at least double buy and maybe stop the attacker getting IT. 6. If you sell off all your military, this counts as admitting defeat and you will be instantly beiged on the next Immense Triumph, with no counter from (5). Bonus damage will be applied as per (4). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zim Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 5 hours ago, Shakyr said: 2. Numbers as always, can change. The whole point was to make it a restriction per city. 1000/1500 infra is cheap, I wouldn't call it whale territory. 3-5. The whole point of this topic is to render nuke turrets unfeasible, or am I missing something? Also, no military means no miltary. If you're lucky enough to still have 1 soldier at turn change (or when you are attacked), you're totally fine. Actually I want to add to my previous list. 5. Amend this to being "instantly beiged on the next Immense Triumph after 12 turns". This would give them the chance to at least double buy and maybe stop the attacker getting IT. 6. If you sell off all your military, this counts as admitting defeat and you will be instantly beiged on the next Immense Triumph, with no counter from (5). Bonus damage will be applied as per (4). 2. 1000/1500 infra run up in cost, if you stuck fighting on the losing side in a war that goes on for upwards of a year, that cost is going be stacking up very quickly. And it's punishing towards raiders, that on avarage run at around 750-1000 infra at best. 3-5. Yeah you missing half the discussion and how it effect the rest of the game as a whole. Might instead ask why is nuke turrents currently the only feasible strategy for a losing side in a war? Maybe you should look at how to make other options to be more feasible rather then to try and remove an existing stragegy from an already oversimplified game. The discussion to preventing nukes turret, mainly come from TGH who prefer to run crying to alex, then actually do the counter play that excist to it. While when they got rolled in the next war, they going be begging Alex to implement a new nerf to counter this proposed nerf. As for recuitment, people are just not going to buy 10 soliders, and build them throughout the day 1 by 1. people already do this with ships. so pointless, but annoying to do. 5. Didn't know Eclipse was that confident on always being on the winning side in wars. Or are you looking to get Sphinx the number 1 spot on total infra lost? 6. How exactly does that work against multiple opponets? is this just a tactic to be better at rolling over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayor Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 (edited) I think having a 1000 infra requirement would nerf the turret strategy too much, maybe a 700 infra requirement (to keep their score up for counters) would be a better compromise. More ways to destroy improvements would help a lot probably as well. As others have stated having more ways to fight back with conventional military would be the most fun for the game imho and people who want to nuke turret can keep doing what they want to. Maybe a spy attack that can destroy improvements? Then there would be a way to fight back against these low tier / high improvement raiders. And no reason for an infra requirement then. Edited June 14 by Mayor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Prime Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 1 hour ago, Mayor said: I think having a 1000 infra requirement would nerf the turret strategy too much, maybe a 700 infra requirement (to keep their score up for counters) would be a better compromise. More ways to destroy improvements would help a lot probably as well. As others have stated having more ways to fight back with conventional military would be the most fun for the game imho and people who want to nuke turret can keep doing what they want to. Maybe a spy attack that can destroy improvements? Then there would be a way to fight back against these low tier / high improvement raiders. And no reason for an infra requirement then. It would be interesting to see instead of the spy destroying infrastructure it has a chance to destroy a random improvement(or targeted) to make that option viable in warfare. destroy spies —> destroy improvements —> can drag whales. 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.