Georgi Stomana Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Pretty much self-explanatory, you can make a Missile that is designed to be fired to intercept other Missiles. The cost would be the same as the cost of a regular Missile. The Anti-Missile would automatically be consumed if an enemy fires a regular Missile at your nation during war, meaning you don't get hit. In addition, using an Anti-Missile means you can't fire a regular Missile for that day of war, or if you've already fired a Missile then you can't intercept one for that day. You can intercept one Missile per day for every war you are engaged in, so you can intercept multiple Missiles but intercepting just one means you can't fire an offensive one that day. Also another idea: It can also take out Nuclear weapons, but the Nuke still detonates in the air doing some infra/radiation damage to your nation. That's how it would be balanced between being able to take out nukes. Thoughts? Edited December 23, 2014 by Georgi Stomana Quote Democratic Republic of Koprivshtitsa (DRK; Bulgarian: Demokraticheska republika Koprivshtitsa) Communist Party of Koprivshtitsa (CPK; Komunisticheska partiya na Koprivshtitsa (KPK)) Member-state of the Green Protection Agency ~Peace and Fraternity Between All Nations~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I don't see why this is necessary when we have the Iron Dome and Vital Defence System. 4 Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgi Stomana Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 20% or 25% is not odds that many like. The suggestion is so people can pay the price ahead of time for a 100% guaranteed chance of not getting hit by one Missile during war. With regard to Iron Dome/Vital well they could remain and the Anti-Missile could only take action if it "got through" your defenses, like a last-resort. Quote Democratic Republic of Koprivshtitsa (DRK; Bulgarian: Demokraticheska republika Koprivshtitsa) Communist Party of Koprivshtitsa (CPK; Komunisticheska partiya na Koprivshtitsa (KPK)) Member-state of the Green Protection Agency ~Peace and Fraternity Between All Nations~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 There is no such thing called 100% chance. If we have 100% of not getting hit by missiles then why would people bothered getting the missiles launch pad when their enemy has 100% chance of not getting hit by the missiles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgi Stomana Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) There is no such thing called 100% chance. Realism argument again? If we have 100% of not getting hit by missiles then why would people bothered getting the missiles launch pad when their enemy has 100% chance of not getting hit by the missiles. People would buy them because you would still be doing damage to them, because the Anti-Missiles would also have a cost. My view is more just that being defensive is not a viable strategy for missiles in PW, your only option is to retaliate with your own missiles, and personally I prefer games when they give you as many different ways to play as possible. Edited December 23, 2014 by Georgi Stomana Quote Democratic Republic of Koprivshtitsa (DRK; Bulgarian: Demokraticheska republika Koprivshtitsa) Communist Party of Koprivshtitsa (CPK; Komunisticheska partiya na Koprivshtitsa (KPK)) Member-state of the Green Protection Agency ~Peace and Fraternity Between All Nations~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Nvm Edited December 23, 2014 by Vincent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) 20% or 25% is not odds that many like. The suggestion is so people can pay the price ahead of time for a 100% guaranteed chance of not getting hit by one Missile during war. With regard to Iron Dome/Vital well they could remain and the Anti-Missile could only take action if it "got through" your defenses, like a last-resort. If is 100% chance of not getting hit by a missile then how would you be damaged by the missile? That is the point i am trying to clarify . Edited December 23, 2014 by Vincent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgi Stomana Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 Because they will still have paid for the Anti-Missile, with all those resources and money, they've just paid the price ahead of time. Also it could be 90%. Quote Democratic Republic of Koprivshtitsa (DRK; Bulgarian: Demokraticheska republika Koprivshtitsa) Communist Party of Koprivshtitsa (CPK; Komunisticheska partiya na Koprivshtitsa (KPK)) Member-state of the Green Protection Agency ~Peace and Fraternity Between All Nations~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Because they will still have paid for the Anti-Missile, with all those resources and money, they've just paid the price ahead of time. Also it could be 90%. So how much will the anti missile cost or what is your proposed cost ? I mean it cannot be too low. Bearing in mind the cost of missile launch pad and the missile doesnt come cheap , so we cannot have something that have 90% chance of stopping the missile strike at too low a cost. Otherwise is not fair for the MLP owners. Not to mention we need to have 5000 infras before we can even construct the MLP . So you can go figure out how much 5000 infra costs. In anyway i think the Iron dome sounds more fair an option to deter missile strike. I mean if the nations are not willing to invest in missile defence system such as iron dome, then they should not be complaining about getting hit by missile attack during war. Edited December 23, 2014 by Vincent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 There is no such thing called 100% chance. If we have 100% of not getting hit by missiles then why would people bothered getting the missiles launch pad when their enemy has 100% chance of not getting hit by the missiles. This. Iron Dome needs to be jumped to 50% though. Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 This. Iron Dome needs to be jumped to 50% though. That's way too high, and makes missiles almost redundant and not worth it. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgi Stomana Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) OK, so here's my basic point: In PW wars you can build up forces and spend money to reduce the damage your nation will take in battles. You want to not get your infra destroyed? Build more troops/tanks/planes/ships. You can't do this with Missiles, there's the small chance of intercepting with Iron Dome/Vital Defense but otherwise you cannot defend yourself, you can only retaliate. Even if say the Anti-Missile would have a chance of partially intercepting the Missile, ie it hits thethe missile mid-flight and the debris lands in your cities still doing damage, that would be OK too. Edited December 23, 2014 by Georgi Stomana Quote Democratic Republic of Koprivshtitsa (DRK; Bulgarian: Demokraticheska republika Koprivshtitsa) Communist Party of Koprivshtitsa (CPK; Komunisticheska partiya na Koprivshtitsa (KPK)) Member-state of the Green Protection Agency ~Peace and Fraternity Between All Nations~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 If you want an anti missile with that high a chance of destroying the incoming missile.Its cost would have to be at least 3 times the cost of the attacking missile in a cash and resource amount Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 The amount of resources it takes to build a missile launch are way to high for missiles to be easily destroyed as proposed. Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Just.... no... Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I don't see the urgency of this idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 That's way too high, and makes missiles almost redundant and not worth it. I don't see the validity of this argument. The Iron Dome takes a project slot. It should have a significant effect on missiles. It doesn't even come close to making missiles redundant, because again, it takes a project slot. A project slot that could be used developing something else: like nuclear weapons. 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...
Ashland Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) I don't see the validity of this argument. The Iron Dome takes a project slot. It should have a significant effect on missiles. It doesn't even come close to making missiles redundant, because again, it takes a project slot. A project slot that could be used developing something else: like nuclear weapons. Or MISSILES! I agree. The Iron Dome as it stands just... is impractical to build! You should just build Missiles! Say you've got a hypothetical PnW war with two sides. Each side has one project slot. One person builds missiles; the other person builds an iron dome. Who has allocated their resources most optimally? The guy who built the missiles. There's no question. Right now, the Iron Dome is a losing game. Theoretically, since they both take up project slots they should really just cancel each other out. But it doesn't even come close to that. An Iron Dome that gave you 100% protection against missiles would still leave plenty of other people who could get nailed by missiles. So building missiles would STILL be optimal unless a lot of people had Iron Domes. But even then, the Iron Dome also becomes less optimal because fewer people have missiles too. Edited December 23, 2014 by Ashland Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 What kind of suggestion is this? Too unbalanced No... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 What if Iron Dome had a drastically increased effectiveness (75+%), but consumed missiles to use (not MAPs)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Iron dome at.75% is.slightly too high. 50%.sounds.reasonable. I mean 50%.fair game . You.have equal chances of.either getting hit or you dont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Iron Dome should be no more than 33%. 1 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Realism argument again?Like I said elsewhere, it's not a realism argument, necessarily - it's an argument based around logic. Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't mean they're trying to play the "realism card". The only option I would push for here is an increase in the chances of the Iron Dome project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Iron Dome should be no more than 33%. This sounds right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Like I said elsewhere, it's not a realism argument, necessarily - it's an argument based around logic. Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't mean they're trying to play the "realism card". The only option I would push for here is an increase in the chances of the Iron Dome project. Unless you make it 100% it's going to be pointless. And even if you do, it won't be as good as just buying missiles. Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc 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.