The discussion we should've had a long time ago.

[Kastor]

While its great that the ID is 50%, its kinda making missile worthless. So please do one of the two:

 

1. Make the ID a 25-30% chance. Or

2. Make it so when the ID blocks it it only does 50% in damage.

3. Or make Missiles 6 MAP's.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Kastor

[martiy]

i don't agree with that.

 

After seeing this nuke happy war, where over 100 nukes have been spent so far, i think the last thing we need is more stronger weapons where you can just sit back and click fire without using an army

 

we should be encouraging more tactful battles with conventional armies, not make the battle system a matter of *waiting for action points* *click shoot* *wait for more action points* *shoot again* repeat...

Edited August 28, 2015 by martiy

[Jroc]

I am with Kastor on this.

 

And,so what Nukes do a lot more damage than missiles.

 

ID's just make it hard for non-nuclear nations to do massive damage.

[Atzuya]

 

ID's just make it hard for non-nuclear nations to do massive damage.

Isn't that like the whole idea behind Iron Dome? :z

 

Even without missiles, non-nuclear nations can still do damage with planes and ships

[Kastor]

Isn't that like the whole idea behind Iron Dome? :z

 

Even without missiles, non-nuclear nations can still do damage with planes and ships

Yeah, but what if you're trying to throw up some missiles so you aren't the laughing stock of the war(see: John Harms) missiles take a long time to be able to fire, they should be easier to hit.

[stetonic]

If you add up the cost of a missile compared to the damage it does.Plus the cost of the iron dome why should the missile hit almost everytime

[Kastor]

If you add up the cost of a missile compared to the damage it does.Plus the cost of the iron dome why should the missile hit almost everytime

Not everytime, but it should hit more often the what it does.

 

I also added a #3- make missiles 6 MAP.

[stetonic]

But if missiles where 6mp you could declare a war and fire one straight  away at least with 8 you have to wait abit

[Kastor]

But if missiles where 6mp you could declare a war and fire one straight  away at least with 8 you have to wait abit

Thats the point.

[Pfeiffer]

I am with Kastor on this.

 

And,so what Nukes do a lot more damage than missiles.

 

ID's just make it hard for non-nuclear nations to do massive damage.

 

My air force regularly out damages missiles, actually.

[stetonic]

Thats the point.

 

What declare war fire a missile do 300+ infra damage and take out an improvement in the first few seconds of a war.What happened to the tactical sportsmanship of blowing up someones airforce or ground units before you start killing his population.

 

Kastor you are pure evil

[Kastor]

What declare war fire a missile do 300+ infra damage and take out an improvement in the first few seconds of a war.What happened to the tactical sportsmanship of blowing up someones airforce or ground units before you start killing his population.

 

Kastor you are pure evil

[MoonPie]

My air force regularly out damages missiles, actually.

Amazing what a few planes can do

[Vanek26]

I'm fine with missiles. They are a cheap, easy way to do 300 damage and kill a selected type of improvement. Its your choice to fire it at an Iron Dome target, and its your targets choice to use one of his slots on an Iron Dome.

 

If your target has an iron dome, use ships or planes. 

[Kadin]

There is absolutely no need to change this.

[Vanek26]

There is absolutely no need to change this.

I just liked a Kadin post.

 

/me clutches heart and falls to the ground gasping for air.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Vanek26

[Spite]

Strongly disagree.

 

Missiles are an extremely powerful weapon that I'd advise everyone in Mensa to have. The iron dome is a deterrent for missile use, in that the only reason you'd fire missiles against someone with an ID is if your conventional army was gone, or your damage for shooting missiles was double your plane/ship damage.

 

The current system means NOT buying an ID is living dangerously. Saying that I'm fighting 4 guys atm and only one of them has an ID, and that guy has 4 projects. 2 of my enemies have ID, one only has missiles and one has nothing. These projects are a big investment that are far from widespread. The majority of players on the forums might have one- that says a lot about our demographic here.

 

Iron dome is a strategic project. So are missiles. They add, combined, to the strategy of the game. I like the unpredictable nature, the difficulty and the problems that arise from this. Why would we make things more predictable? Why would we make ID useless? When I fight a guy with ID I would basically never fire missiles against them unless I didn't have another option, but I don't think reducing that would improve things, quite the opposite.

[Avruch]

I don't see the point of adjusting it. It is what it is, and as long as the playing field is level and everyone has the same potential advantages or restrictions, it's fine. i don't see that it would make the game any more fun or interesting to make missiles more powerful or Iron Domes less effective. 

[Bezzers]

I think the Iron dome is fine as it is. If a nation with missiles goes against a nation without, it means that both can fight on much more even ground than if the iron dome barely blocked anything at all. It ensures a fairer game play, which is kinda the whole point.