Popular Post Phiney Posted April 14, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted April 14, 2015 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. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguar Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I support the 3-5+ times cost of the nukes since they gives instant beiging and flat out 1 city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNG Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 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. Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Nukes are life and love 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeon Helikos Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 jelly 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Juan Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Since it has happened to missiles, it should happen to nukes for consistency. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) 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 Quote You're no longer protecting the II? We have still teamed with II and TAC (and others) to rival The Covenants. This is getting complex. #FA_Problems Big problems for TSG. Really, not kidding. If Casey and Cyradis are King and Queen does that mean they're married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Sorta horny because of these stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 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 $210,000 daily just for one nuke in times of war, not even counting the resource costs to make one warhead. Truly a rich bastard's plaything That's supposed to be the point of them. They're more than 5x the price to buy the project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 They beige them, but the war continues (Im pretty sure). So you can still use more than 1 nuke per opponent. And If I remember correctly they do more like 1000-1200 damage depending on total infra (probabaly a max of 50%?) Well if they don't end the war, then yeah I agree. Quote You're no longer protecting the II? We have still teamed with II and TAC (and others) to rival The Covenants. This is getting complex. #FA_Problems Big problems for TSG. Really, not kidding. If Casey and Cyradis are King and Queen does that mean they're married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 what needs to be increased is the nuke shield, considering the cost of the project and the fact that it only has a 1 in 5 chance of blocking a nuke. it should be bumped to around 40% atleast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 I support this Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 50 per nuke is twice the score a city gives which seems mental. Score is !@#$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. 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...
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.