Missile Suggestion

[Apeman]

So, I know that this was implemented for a day and then gotten rid of, but my question is why?

 

Having Ground Control, Air Superiority, and a Blockade will prevent your opponent from launching missiles at you.

 

I honestly like this idea. Now, if you're in a war and you're losing very badly, you can just lob missiles to even out the infra damage. War should be about the enemy fighting back. Right now, people who have had their military wiped can just lob missiles and have them sometimes hit (Iron Dome) and when they do, they can even out the infra damage from all of your attacks. And if this is to "encourage missiles" then that isn't really the point of a war. Missiles can help do a lot of damage and people can switch between missiles and different attacks. If war is just all about missiles, then what is the point of using any other attacks?

 

Just a suggestion.

If it's not worth using other attacks then why use them? Won't future wars be fought with the push of the button. Look at the game date, I'd say we right on time to see the transition.

[Alataq]

If it's not worth using other attacks then why use them? Won't future wars be fought with the push of the button. Look at the game date, I'd say we right on time to see the transition.

Then what is the point of militarizing?

[SoS]

Why should those that weren't prepared for the war/being destroyed by a bunch of alliances be able to just fire missiles at the people who were prepared and had to be hit them via water, air and land

you wouldn't be losing more infra and complaining if you were better prepared.

[Alataq]

you wouldn't be losing more infra and complaining if you were better prepared.

You have nothing and you're losing infra at triple the speed that I am, so you're not one to talk bud

Edited May 24, 2015 by Alataq

[Big Boss]

Then what is the point of militarizing?

Because naval strikes do 2x the damage of missiles, Airstrikes do 1.6x damage to missiles, and you can steal with ground troops, and destroy missiles with spies. You're talking about taking away the last line of defense on the part of people who lost their entire military. You'd basically be beating up someone who has no defense. wars should not go on when there is literally no troops or resources to destroy left. It makes the game less about fun, more about bullying. 

[Neo-Nexus]

Perhaps, by gaining superiority in all fronts you can look at it like you've occupied all their missile facilities and silos? XD

[Neo-Nexus]

Because naval strikes do 2x the damage of missiles, Airstrikes do 1.6x damage to missiles, and you can steal with ground troops, and destroy missiles with spies. You're talking about taking away the last line of defense on the part of people who lost their entire military. You'd basically be beating up someone who has no defense. wars should not go on when there is literally no troops or resources to destroy left. It makes the game less about fun, more about bullying. 

 

Mmmm a member of Guardian lecturing us on bullying but in all seriousness missiles shouldn't be a last line of defense thing, it's not really even a defense more like a mutually assured destruction. It's basically saying no matter how superior one is from all fronts, planning or strategy I could still lob missiles at you and possibly do more damage. 

[Braunsberg]

So, I know that this was implemented for a day and then gotten rid of, but my question is why?

 

Having Ground Control, Air Superiority, and a Blockade will prevent your opponent from launching missiles at you.

 

I honestly like this idea. Now, if you're in a war and you're losing very badly, you can just lob missiles to even out the infra damage. War should be about the enemy fighting back. Right now, people who have had their military wiped can just lob missiles and have them sometimes hit (Iron Dome) and when they do, they can even out the infra damage from all of your attacks. And if this is to "encourage missiles" then that isn't really the point of a war. Missiles can help do a lot of damage and people can switch between missiles and different attacks. If war is just all about missiles, then what is the point of using any other attacks?

 

Just a suggestion.

I like this idea. If you have ground control, air superiority, and a naval blockade, you should be winning, not being ravaged by missiles. Missiles should be a supplement to more direct fighting, rather than an entire mode of war in itself.

 

..and besides, if your opponent is winning so much that he has all three types of superiority over you, then it's only realistic that they are able to block your ability to launch missiles. It works by the same logic that you aren't able to trade when your nation is blockaded.

[SoS]

You have nothing and you're losing infra at triple the speed that I am, so you're not one to talk bud

You have one war with a nation that has several wars. And I have five wars. So yeah...pathetic statement of your preparation.

 

If you were prepared then you wouldn't be crying about missiles. I got five opponents. Do you hear me crying about their missiles?

[Dark Specter]

not sure if you knew that if you have more land then infra in your cities then the damaged caused by missiles is reduced due to having a smaller population density.

[Alataq]

You have one war with a nation that has several wars. And I have five wars. So yeah...pathetic statement of your preparation.

 

If you were prepared then you wouldn't be crying about missiles. I got five opponents. Do you hear me crying about their missiles?

No, I hear you being butthurt on a suggestion thread though.

 

Besides, not even crying about missiles, stating a fact. >.> I would recommend that you say your opinion instead of finding another place to cry about how your alliance is being bootysmacked

Edited May 24, 2015 by Alataq

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

if it were easier to break one of the forces, i could maybe see this, but lets be real, it is extremely difficult to break if you have been wiped out.

 

This game already heavily favors the winner in a war, you need to give the loser some sort of way to fight back, and missiles barely hurt, so i dont know what all the crying is about.  Not only that, but if your opponent is only launching missiles, and you block 1 that is 8 points wasted, were your opponent hasnt been able to do any damage to you.

[SoS]

No, I hear you being butthurt on a suggestion thread though.

 

Besides, not even crying about missiles, stating a fact. >.> I would recommend that you say your opinion instead of finding another place to cry about how your alliance is being bootysmacked

I did state my opinion. I am not hurt by missiles and certain of my opponents are not hurt by missiles, because they were prepared.

[Braunsberg]

if it were easier to break one of the forces, i could maybe see this, but lets be real, it is extremely difficult to break if you have been wiped out.

 

This game already heavily favors the winner in a war, you need to give the loser some sort of way to fight back, and missiles barely hurt, so i dont know what all the crying is about.  Not only that, but if your opponent is only launching missiles, and you block 1 that is 8 points wasted, were your opponent hasnt been able to do any damage to you.

Missiles aren't exactly weak though. If your cities have a lot of infrastructure (say, 1,300+) a missile that takes out two to three hundred infrastructure means several million dollars to re-buy the infrastructure. And for those of us without Iron Domes, that's a guaranteed cost.

 

I think it's fair enough that it's so difficult to break all three types of superiority. If your opponent has beaten you well enough to achieve all three, then let's face it, they've basically won the war and should realistically be able to halt your ability to launch missiles, unless you break their control. A reasonable compromise was suggested on this thread - to simply reduce the damage of missiles once all three types of control have been achieved - but I still think it's better for missiles to just be blocked at that point.

[Alataq]

if it were easier to break one of the forces, i could maybe see this, but lets be real, it is extremely difficult to break if you have been wiped out.

 

This game already heavily favors the winner in a war, you need to give the loser some sort of way to fight back, and missiles barely hurt, so i dont know what all the crying is about.  Not only that, but if your opponent is only launching missiles, and you block 1 that is 8 points wasted, were your opponent hasnt been able to do any damage to you.

I haven't been "crying" about anything this time. This isn't even about my war, I'm saying that people can just hide and keep firing missiles, that's all

[Vincent]

That show how selfish people are, complaining about missiles because you are losing infra due to the fact that you are not prepared , due to the fact that you rush into the war without sufficient preparation and then when you found out that your opponent can still hurt you even when they are down.

 

Granted with out iron dome one is  guaranteed to be losing infra . But is that a problem with the nation undersieze being able to fire missiles even when their army have been taken out ? Well no!  What's the problem with that? Go get an iron dome then. Problem solved ! instead of crying with all those pathetic reasons here.

And actually there is a very much more simple solution to ensure you do not lose infra - DONT attack nations that is armed with missiles .

Edited May 25, 2015 by Vincent

[Braunsberg]

--

Edited May 25, 2015 by Roma

[Labib]

What about making it so that having ground/air/naval superiority will decrease missile damage by 25%. This way, having a superiority in everything will make missiles 75% weaker. People who rely only on missiles will be forced to grow at least one or two of the military branches for their missiles to be effective. Thoughts? 

[Vincent]

Again making missiles weaker and stuff like that. Come on , stop changing the game just because some one is crying about him getting damaged in a war. IF he is not willing to be burnt then don't go to war. Don't be a hypocrite that thinks along the line, is ok for me to beat down someone with my superior tanks , planes and navy but is not okay for the someone to retaliate by throwing missiles in my direction. IF they cant fire missiles when their army is out then what should they do? Roll over and die while you kept burning his nation?

Edited May 25, 2015 by Vincent

[Hansarius]

I disagree with this suggestion.

With missiles, or nukes for that matter, being disabled if your opponent has blockade +  air & ground control then losing nations can't do anything but just sit there and watch their nations melt away.

Then I believe you'll see a lot of people giving up and leaving the game.

Besides, Iron Domes and the production limit of 1pr day has made missiles a little underwhelming anyway, especially considering that naval and air attacks can cause considerably more damage than your average missile.

[Braunsberg]

What about making it so that having ground/air/naval superiority will decrease missile damage by 25%. This way, having a superiority in everything will make missiles 75% weaker. People who rely only on missiles will be forced to grow at least one or two of the military branches for their missiles to be effective. Thoughts? 

I believe someone else suggested that, except with different percentages. It's a reasonable compromise.

 

I can see both sides, to be honest. A good naval attack or large air strike can rival a missile's damage, and missiles do cost 8 action points, which is quite high relative to the ordinary military actions. I suppose it merely matters whether you're more interested in the idea of a winner securing control or the idea of a losing nation being capable of maintaining a fight.

[Placentica]

Lets not nerf missiles EVEN MORE than they already are.  Above the 1000 score tier, they are nearly worthless and the 3rd best weapon to use.  No need to make them completely worthless.  Missiles are the one item that a nation can fight back with against overwhelming odds.

 

Every war you see the same people suggesting this depending on which side they support (and is winning).

[Vincent]

@ Roma, I think a fairer compromise would be in terms of MAP , maybe if the enemy have superiority over you, then it would cost more MAP before you could launch the missiles , something like  MAP 12 points before you can launch a missiles or MAP 16 points before a nuke can be launched.

 

To nerf the missile damage isn't that fair, after all given the cost of missiles, if it were only to deal insignificant damage , then is not that acceptable.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Vincent

[Braunsberg]

@ Roma, I think a fairer compromise would be in terms of MAP , maybe if the enemy have superiority over you, then it would cost more MAP before you could launch the missiles , something like  MAP 12 points before you can launch a missiles or MAP 16 points before a nuke can be launched.

 

To nerf the missile damage isn't that fair, after all given the cost of missiles, if it were only to deal insignificant damage , then is not that acceptable.

Eh, that might not work so well either, since action points only stack to 12.

 

But I am beginning to see the logic of your argument. I had perceived missiles to be much more destructive than they apparently are (200-300 infra seems like a lot to me), but that may simply be due to the fact that I've never been hit by one. Perhaps it is more fair to allow overpowered nations to have something to fight with, rather than just wait for a war to end, although I don't think it will really influence the outcome of many wars.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Roma

[seabasstion]

There are two arguments people are trying to solve with one item even though they are competing with each other: should defending nations be allowed to turtle and missile fling, and should a losing nation cause so much damage with it.

 

Lowering missile damages takes none of the incentive away for a defending nation because of the problems with the war mechanics that i outlined in another related thread. It doesnt fix any of those issues by taking away from missile power so that is all these nations will still be doing, albeit less effectively.

 

However when you do take away the damages from missiles you take away one of the few deterrents and only defense a singular nation has. You can have the biggest warchest imaginable but if you get blitzed overnight by three slightly stronger nations (actually you only really need 1) there is nothing that individual nation can do without outside help. You could have a 10 city nation with 20 military improvements each with max rostering and it could be taken out overnight by a couple 12 city nations. This then leaves them with their only option of missiles.

 

If you want to fix the issue of turtling with missiles, lowering missile strength is not the way to do it. Other components would need adressed,

 

If you want to see missiles reduced when you are winning a war that is fine, just know that you are highly incentivizing a system that rewards the biggest (most cities) as opposed to most prepared. In the example above with a 10 city 200 military max improvement with max rostering and 100,000 of each resource, a couple 12 city nations could easily damage 3 to 4 days worth of rebuilding and this 10 city resource stacked nation will never catch up due to buy limits. Im not sure this is good for the game in the long run