nukes

[Phiney]

I know they're yet to be used but at least people have them, so figured might as well start the discussion.

 

I think, like missiles were, their score needs to be halved and upkeep increased. Its only about 3x a missile and I guess it should be more like 5x. And similar to how missiles were they're seriously inflating the score of people who have them, 50 per nuke is twice the score a city gives which seems mental.

[jaguar]

I know they're yet to be used but at least people have them, so figured might as well start the discussion.

I think, like missiles were, their score needs to be halved and upkeep increased. Its only about 3x a missile and I guess it should be more like 5x. And similar to how missiles were they're seriously inflating the score of people who have them, 50 per nuke is twice the score a city gives which seems mental.

I support this

[Geronimo]

I know they're yet to be used but at least people have them, so figured might as well start the discussion.

 

I think, like missiles were, their score needs to be halved and upkeep increased. Its only about 3x a missile and I guess it should be more like 5x. And similar to how missiles were they're seriously inflating the score of people who have them, 50 per nuke is twice the score a city gives which seems mental.

I completely agree with Phiney's suggestion.

[Arthur James]

I support the 3-5+ times cost of the nukes since they gives instant beiging and flat out 1 city.

[TheNG]

Nuke's score should probably be decreased to something like 15 score. It strikes a balance between accurately representing a nukes cost and damage potential (about 3x a missile) without being completely ludicrous like it is now. Heck, even 10 score for nukes wouldn't be that bad, nukes would still equal a national project in score.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Nukes are life and love

[Hooves]

I know they're yet to be used but at least people have them, so figured might as well start the discussion.

 

I think, like missiles were, their score needs to be halved and upkeep increased. Its only about 3x a missile and I guess it should be more like 5x. And similar to how missiles were they're seriously inflating the score of people who have them, 50 per nuke is twice the score a city gives which seems mental.

This has my support.

[Aeon Helikos]

jelly

[Don Juan]

Since it has happened to missiles, it should happen to nukes for consistency.

[George W. Bush]

I don't really see a purpose in doing this. If I'm not mistaken, nukes beige an opponent, and do upwards of around 800 infra damage. For the cost of a nuclear research facility, it simply isn't worth it. I don't have a problem with nerfing them more, but I don't see a point.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Vlad the Implier

[Phiney]

I don't really see a purpose in doing this. If I'm not mistaken, nukes beige an opponent, and do upwards of around 800 infra damage. For the cost of a nuclear research facility, it simply isn't worth it. I don't have a problem with nerfing them more, but I don't see a point.

 

They beige them, but the war continues (Im pretty sure). So you can still use more than 1 nuke per opponent. And If I remember correctly they do more like 1000-1200 damage depending on total infra (probabaly a max of 50%?)

Edited April 15, 2015 by Phiney

[Atzuya]

Nukes deal up to 2000 infra damage, or whichever is larger 80% infra of target city or pop_density times 13.5. Expect them to deal 1000-1200 damage to any city with 1500 infra. Because apparently these numbers are as hard to remember as the blueprint of antikythera mechanism.

 

5 times upkeep... that's $210,000 daily just for one nuke in times of war, not even counting the resource costs to make one warhead. Truly a rich bastard's plaything

[Malakai]

I know they're yet to be used but at least people have them, so figured might as well start the discussion.

 

I think, like missiles were, their score needs to be halved and upkeep increased. Its only about 3x a missile and I guess it should be more like 5x. And similar to how missiles were they're seriously inflating the score of people who have them, 50 per nuke is twice the score a city gives which seems mental.

 

I never thought I would post his....I wholly agree.

[Apeman]

Sorta horny because of these stats.

[Phiney]

Nukes deal up to 2000 infra damage, or whichever is larger 80% infra of target city or pop_density times 13.5. Expect them to deal 1000-1200 damage to any city with 1500 infra. Because apparently these numbers are as hard to remember as the blueprint of antikythera mechanism.

 

5 times upkeep... that's $210,000 daily just for one nuke in times of war, not even counting the resource costs to make one warhead. Truly a rich bastard's plaything

 

That's supposed to be the point of them. They're more than 5x the price to buy the project. 

[George W. Bush]

They beige them, but the war continues (Im pretty sure). So you can still use more than 1 nuke per opponent. And If I remember correctly they do more like 1000-1200 damage depending on total infra (probabaly a max of 50%?)

Well if they don't end the war, then yeah I agree.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

what needs to be increased is the nuke shield, considering the cost of the project and the fact that it only has a 1 in 5 chance of blocking a nuke.  it should be bumped to around 40% atleast.

[Jefferson Davis III]

I support this

[Ayayay]

50 per nuke is twice the score a city gives which seems mental.

Score is !@#$ed up beyond reason as is, the war range of -25%/75% is far to large to have nations clustered in score like they are. Scores need to be multiplied by 10 across the board or war range (the upper limit) brought back down to 66% or lower.