Popular Post Clarke Posted July 4, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2015 This was probably suggested already but the Vital Defense System should be boosted to 33.3% or 40%, 40% being a good number. Either that or reduce the cost of it by 80% because for all intents and purposes it is a piece of crap that costs a crap load. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moreau Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 I agree Quote Signed by Sultan Moreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eru Iluvatar Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) Reduce the cost please then, nukes already cost a bucket-load and should also be worth the cost. I don't want to spend a load of money on a load of nukes and find they all get blocked. Edited July 4, 2015 by Eru Iluvatar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 4, 2015 Author Share Posted July 4, 2015 Reduce the cost please then, nukes already cost a bucket-load and should also be worth the cost. I don't want to spend a load of money on a load of nukes and find they all get blocked. Nukes would still be worth the cost and 40% isn't a lot so most would hit, they destroy a ridiculous amount of infra (many times the cost to purchase the nuke). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviljak Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 I disagree. A nuke costs roughly 4 mil each, and requires a whole day worth of points. Even a 1/5 chance is a major hit. The war system has been nerfed enough...anymore and we might as well take the "war" out of politics and war. 3 Quote Esteemed janitor for Church of Cynic ~ may i clean the hearts of men with my blessed toilet brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 I disagree. A nuke costs roughly 4 mil each, and requires a whole day worth of points. Even a 1/5 chance is a major hit. The war system has been nerfed enough...anymore and we might as well take the "war" out of politics and war. Nobody is going to do anything except fire nukes in the next wars... 1 Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eru Iluvatar Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) Nobody is going to do anything except fire nukes in the next wars... Then fix the rest of the game. Also, you're ignoring the fact that nukes are damn expensive to get and once they run out, people will switch to other weapons. Edited July 4, 2015 by Eru Iluvatar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviljak Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Lower the cost on it maybe. But increasing its effectiveness, there by making nukes less worth the cost and upkeep is idiodic. Quote Esteemed janitor for Church of Cynic ~ may i clean the hearts of men with my blessed toilet brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Then fix the rest of the game. Also, you're ignoring the fact that nukes are damn expensive to get and once they run out, people will switch to other weapons. I would also like to add that you can (in the future) spy on nukes, which is the other way of getting rid of a nuke without eating it. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Spite Posted July 6, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted July 6, 2015 Basically in the game there are two war systems- Conventional (Troops, tanks, ships, planes) and non-conventional (missiles and nukes) It's possible to completely ignore conventional warfare and just build missiles and nukes. The worst you'll get is beiged when the person you're fighting gets fed up of eating a missile/nuke every day. Even if you have a buttload of planes, it's marginal when you consider the cost/effectiveness of owning and running them when you can just have a load of missiles instead. The only thing that makes missiles risky is the iron dome. Nukes don't have that risk now since nobody would build the VDS. Ergo, the most cost effective way for future nations to wage war will be by simply getting rid of conventional armies and building nukes. It serves as a deterrent and a weapon of war, since the focus of war is simply to damage your opponent more than you are damaged. I do think this is a bad way for the military to go, since it destroys any strategic element and makes a large amount of the game meaningless- building nukes is so cost effective since it basically frees you from all other military upkeep, plus frees a load of slots for you to manufacture stuff. Imo the conventional/non-conventional warfare gap needs to be bridged somehow. Whether that's by making it so conventional troops are able to damage/hinder missiles and nukes, or some other way I don't care. A project to stop another project doesn't bridge that gap though. Basically the war module needs unifying. 7 Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Imo the conventional/non-conventional warfare gap needs to be bridged somehow. Whether that's by making it so conventional troops are able to damage/hinder missiles and nukes, or some other way I don't care. A project to stop another project doesn't bridge that gap though. Basically the war module needs unifying. This. To quote my idea from another thread: Allow conventional forces to prevent or mess with the launching of missiles. For instance air-superiority or ground-superiority making missiles inoperable or more prone to failure. Say x% each. Then if you crushed your opponent on the air and the ground, depending on whether you want the bonuses to be added multiplicatively or additively, the missile hit chance would be: Additive = 100% - (x% * has_ground_superiority) - (x% * has_air_superiority) - (50% * has_iron_dome) Multiplicative = 100% * (1- (x% * has_ground_superiority)) * (1 - (x%*has_air_superiority)) * (1-(50% * has_iron_dome)) where has_ground_superiority, has_air_superiority, and has_iron_dome are boolean variables that take value 1 if true and 0 otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giamatti Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 maybe this raises the question on how many nukes 1 nation has.... new politics opertunities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Heck, nukes are so good, it becomes better to use them instead of troops in offense situations as well. Vital Defense Systems should get a buff in effectiveness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Heck, nukes are so good, it becomes better to use them instead of troops in offense situations as well. Vital Defense Systems should get a buff in effectiveness. Nukes beige. Launching a nuke causes the recipient to go to beige for 5 days. Launching another nuke 12 hours later will reset that beige timer. Over the course of the 5 day war, you can only launch 4.5 nukes, rounded down to 4 nuclear weapons. 4 nuclear weapons average out to be 1700 infra damage per, 6800 infra damage total. After the last nuke has been launched, the recipient has 5 free days on their hands. In terms of trade off, nukes will win. 150 ships (which is on the high side of naval forces) does roughly 330 infra damage per strike. Over the course of the entire war, that is 5940 infra damage, almost 900 infra less than nuclear weapons. However, ships don't beige. This allows for allies to continue the fight even after your own war expired. I neither agree nor disagree with nuclear weapons being op or that the VDS needs buffing. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Wrong, it's 5.5 nukes you can launch per war not 4.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) I'd be down for 33.3% Edited August 13, 2015 by Alataq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I completely agree with this. Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valakias Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Basically in the game there are two war systems- Conventional (Troops, tanks, ships, planes) and non-conventional (missiles and nukes) It's possible to completely ignore conventional warfare and just build missiles and nukes. The worst you'll get is beiged when the person you're fighting gets fed up of eating a missile/nuke every day. Even if you have a buttload of planes, it's marginal when you consider the cost/effectiveness of owning and running them when you can just have a load of missiles instead. The only thing that makes missiles risky is the iron dome. Nukes don't have that risk now since nobody would build the VDS. Ergo, the most cost effective way for future nations to wage war will be by simply getting rid of conventional armies and building nukes. It serves as a deterrent and a weapon of war, since the focus of war is simply to damage your opponent more than you are damaged. I do think this is a bad way for the military to go, since it destroys any strategic element and makes a large amount of the game meaningless- building nukes is so cost effective since it basically frees you from all other military upkeep, plus frees a load of slots for you to manufacture stuff. Imo the conventional/non-conventional warfare gap needs to be bridged somehow. Whether that's by making it so conventional troops are able to damage/hinder missiles and nukes, or some other way I don't care. A project to stop another project doesn't bridge that gap though. Basically the war module needs unifying. Well, give me 200 ships and a guy with just nukes, at the end of war im sure i do way more damage, i got him blockaded, and whatnot. Conventional is underestimated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Well, give me 200 ships and a guy with just nukes, at the end of war im sure i do way more damage, i got him blockaded, and whatnot. Conventional is underestimated. No not really. Do the math brah. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valakias Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 No not really. Do the math brah.200 ships do from 450 to 550 damage, there s a good chance of doing beyond 500 every attack, and you can do 3 per day. If i have a vds and 200 ships, i have a good chance of giving my opponent a good fight. I think that hoarding nukes is silly, it makes you extremely vulnerable to everything else. Also since they are so expensive to build and a blockade dooms eventually dooms you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) 200 ships do from 450 to 550 damage, there s a good chance of doing beyond 500 every attack, and you can do 3 per day. If i have a vds and 200 ships, i have a good chance of giving my opponent a good fight. I think that hoarding nukes is silly, it makes you extremely vulnerable to everything else. Also since they are so expensive to build and a blockade dooms eventually dooms you.200 ships without the vds beats nukes everytime. You're taking the top 500 inf off each city so you're doing a lot more monetary damage to your opponent. No not really. Do the math brah. Clearly you havnt Edited August 14, 2015 by Phiney 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.