Samwise Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 With the nuke limit downsized, I didn't have to come to terms with eating 4 nukes per war. SDI's, HNMS and WRC's became even more popular than they ever were, with less nukes being landed. However, with the 50-200% war range, it also meant a lot of nuclear nations were able to downdeclare non-nuclear nations, leaving the non-nuclear nations without much they could do about defending themselves. Yes, this has always been a problem, but it hasn't been as exaggerated as it has been these past 2 rounds with the increased nuke purchase costs and high infra purchase requirements. My suggestion is either to revert back to the previous nuke limits, or amend the war range for TE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongland Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Nukes are fine; the down declare range has to be narrowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 We had limited targets to choose from as it was. From early on, in our declare on War Doves, to late on when declaring on TPC/OP. I dont agree with changing the war range, as we were always looking to hit "from the top down". Do you have examples of big, nuclear nations, down declaring on helpless nations? Or were they just overun down sub 2k infra? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbite Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 no nukes.see what that dose to game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Coalition Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I disagree with changing the nuke limits or lowering cost of Manhattan Project, but I absolutely support cutting the costs of each individual nuke. Towards the end of last round I was spending 3mil/day on maxing out my nukes, it's a bit ridiculous for TE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) no nukes.see what that dose to game. Would be interesting certainly. Im not sure how it would play out. Would the big nations become almost impossible to pull down? Would large AAs become unfeasible to fight etc? And what would happen to our casualties? Oh no Edited October 12, 2014 by StevieG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 We had limited targets to choose from as it was. From early on, in our declare on War Doves, to late on when declaring on TPC/OP. I dont agree with changing the war range, as we were always looking to hit "from the top down". Do you have examples of big, nuclear nations, down declaring on helpless nations? Or were they just overun down sub 2k infra? I don't think the war range should be changed at all. It's always been that nukes will even out an unbalanced war declaration, and personally I prefer it that way. That's why the title of this is to revert back to the prior nuclear requirements. The limited nuclear damage was great to try out, and I enjoyed the change of pace, but I think it ultimately widens the gap between elite players and noobs. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but with player base dwindling, reverting back to the old game mechanics may be more inviting to new people by somewhat leveling the playing field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Do you prefer masses of nukes to be bought by day 10 15? I personally think the nuke limitations are good. Encouraging conventional warfare. We still had masses of nukes towards the end. Going back to 5% criteria would further help those of us who donate for a boost, and invariably end up in the top 5%. I would even like to try dogbites suggestion of NO NUKES at all. Perhaps make it a 30 to 40 day round though. I think that would be very fun indeed. Would hamper trying to hit casualty records and such. Some of us as you may know value our casualties ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 There aren't masses of nukes being purchased by day 10 or 15 because the TE numbers continue to dwindle. We ended last round with 374 nations, and that includes trade mules. That means there are only 19 top 5% spots. Yes, the new nuke limits encouraged more strategic gameplay, and I appreciated that. But it also made it harder for people who were downdeclared to fight back and knock their opponent's out of nuke buying range with the purchase limits being so high. The majority of the members we lose round after round are not elite players. If we continue to make it harder for new people to join and get the hang of things, then our member retention will continue to plummet and we won't have a game anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Id argue that having 5% criteria makes it easier for the "elites" or those currently hogging the top 19 spots (not hard for an elite AA) not needing to purchase MP. And being able to nuke to win wars by solely being in the 5%. I can also say for sure that "noobs" who build early shooting up the ranks by spending all their money daily also have an easier time. With 5% available nukes these nations would be bill locked almost instantly. I have seen first hand these nations manage to hold somewhat on idiotic build soley because their opponents cannot buy nukes by being in the 5%. Im pretty sure removing the 5% is actually a move to help the new nations. Returning to it cannot seriously be argued as a way for newer players to be able to fight back against bigger nations. Unless you are arguing something like the cost of MP/Nukes, or back to 20 nukes instead of 10. Edited October 13, 2014 by StevieG 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.