The problem- Only being allowed to carry 25 nukes.

With most nations having SDIs, it can take multiple nuke launches to sometimes get a hit. We've all seen the screens of launching 10+ nukes just to score a hit! In most wars, people fight more than 1 nation, so a nation may have to launch multiple nukes on multiple nations to get a hit.

I suggest either raising the cap on nukes to 35-40, OR only allowing a nation to LAUNCH only 1 nuke per day per nation. A nation may still only eat 1 nuke per day.

approved for discussion

I'd like to see one nuke fired per nation per day. The SDI is great and all that, but if you can fire 10 nukes that bounce why can't you fire 10 nukes that hit? It doesn't make sense. If this was incorporated though, the SDI's odds would need changing to 50/50 imo.

I would you to be able to fire one nuke per day, no-matter how many people you were engaging. You would have to choose who gets hit, and if the SDI blocked it, oh well.

Hurts the defender too much. 6 on 1 wars would be even more lopsided, as nukes are one of the only ways to deal damage in that situation.



One nuke per day, total? Ridiculous. You guys obviously have never been in a curbstomp where nukes is your only out to standing a chance.

I agree. I've thought about what LeVentNoir said before but I think one per nation per day is a good compromise.

I'm going to agree that a 1 nuke per day rule would be a bad idea as it does hurt the defender disproportionately, however NeoGandalf does have a point here:

Make each nation have a "Two nuke thwarts per day" cap.

So each nation can block a total of 2 nukes per day.

Well, SDI works on a percentage scale, so why limit it to 2 nukes blocked? You can block 3 or you may get hit by 3. It's all based on percentages, how lucky are you?

Besides, you all are only saying this during a great war, why didn't you propose this before? Because your SDI saved your life many times during small battles. It's all a matter of the situation and right now, you aren't lucky, so you get mad. If you were getting hit with nukes all the time, you would want the SDI improved.

That is a great way to frustrate people - making things so based on luck that there is a chance you simply get all you nukes blocked? That's not exactly "fun" or "enjoyable" is it?



Haha.

I'm a big hater on the SDI and always have been. I've said I support a wonder that would reduce your opponents defending SDI odds in multiple places in the past, and in fact even created a thread about the SDI here where I discuss that I do not like it.

edit: found old suggestion


Source in Wonder Suggestion Thread

How about once you first the first and SDI shoots it down, you're done for the day. However, I suggest at least a double in price if that occurs.

Especially now that I already have one.

I think one launch per target per day, and set the SDI odds down to 50/50.

I think something needs to be done. I'm experiencing a war without nukes for the first time ever and it sucks when you are not able to hit one opponent and odds are you won't be able to the next day.

One launch per day I think

This.

A nation should only be able to launch one nuke per front per day. Just because an SDI shoots down one, two, or five nukes does not mean that the attacking nation should be able to keep going.

Along with this change, I would also decrease the effectiveness of the SDI to perhaps 40% or 50%. I think that's reasonable to maintain the balance, but also make the nuke system make sense.

People don't need more nukes. And I don't really agree with 1 launch. I just think you should be able to receive more than 1 if you want to be fair. Mutual Assured Destruction.

I would say allowing to launch one nuke per war, per day.

It is silly that if someone wants to hit you even if you have the SDI they still can, it's just a matter of how many nukes it takes until they finally get through. Yes it will burn up the launchers nukes, but that's just overly frustrating. The attacker wonders how many nukes they're gonna waste before they finally get a successful one, and the defender is just wondering how long they hold out before they get hit. Either way, both the attacker and defender know that there will most likely be a successful nuking unless the attacker manages to actually run out of nukes.

I say one nuke per day per nation at war with.


In 1 offensive and 3 defensive = 4 nukes available that day. Where the nuking nation chooses to put them is their concern.

I am also a fan of having more nukes.

how does more precision make it bypass defenses that shoot it down (im assuming thats how SDI works)?

I would support firing one nuke per day regardless of its struck down by an SDI. And still only receiving one nuke per day.

WONDER SUGGESTION

Name -- Precision Targeting System
Cost ---- 50,000,000
Effect --- Reduces defending Strategic Defense Initiative effectiveness from 60% to 35%

Combined with some of the suggestions in the "nuke damage illogical" thread, would make nukes much more 'tame' and this wonder would serve to "un-nerf" them. The cost, somewhat high, but not too high, makes it a wonder that is useful but not too useful unless you plan on using nukes quite often in the near future.

Requirements - five satellites.

That's my position on it.

If the number of nukes fired per day were to be limited to one, then the SDI rate in general probably should be lowered.

If the number of nukes a nation is allowed to carry were to be raised, possibly create a wonder that can only increase maximum number of nuclear warheads when the nation reaches a very high infra level - such that nations with Manhattan Projects cannon purchase them.

This thing is a wonder, it should have wonderful effects for those who posses it, but yes I have seen some crazy SDI reports.

A hard cap (for whatever justification) like 5 blocks per day per war, would keep the wonder in a position where its still well worth the cash, but limit its craziness.

I agree with this, one launch per war.

Since almost no alliances support No First Strike anymore I'd have to go with limited launched per day, but I would say 2-3 be allowed.

this would work well I think,
If you are in 4 wars ,you can launch 4 nukes ,if they all get blocked so be it, your done for the day.they can all be launched at the same nation or any combination of the 4 wars.
as long as any nation can only get hit with 1 nuke per day.

I disagree that the nuclear warfare system needs revision. Declare War? Deal with the consequences.

I wouldn't mind greatly increasing the amount of nukes you can buy... Perhaps uncap it altogether? So the only thing limiting nuke purchases would be the rising economic damage and costs. This would provide a nice sliding scale so you could carry enough nukes to bust through any SDI easily, but would need to balance that with economic growth.

Aso adding tech to the SDI calculations would provide a nice way to beat them, or increase your protection.

I'm really wondering why we need a wonder to decrease the effects of another wonder. Why not just say it? "Decrease SDI effects!!!!" And even if you did implement this wonder, 50m is very, very under priced. If the SDI itself is 75m, why make the wonder that pretty much makes it a waste of 75m less? 35% is ridiculous on so many levels. 60% isn't even that great. I mean, 40% chance to anarchy a nation for several days is a really good chance. You still have soldiers, planes, tanks, cruise missiles, and navy to finish a war. Don't depend on your nukes that much.

My personal preference is to just buy more, and factor in the environment more.

EDIT- if launching only 1 per day is the way to go, then decrease the SDI odds to maybe 40%

Two points. As a defender you can have 3 wars. This means, that the opposition has a total of 3 tries to hit you with nukes. With your SDI, this drops to an estimated 1 hit. Its not like they can spam out nukes until they hit you. You stand a not bad chance of escaping all three nukes.

I do see that Nation A being declared on by Nations B, C and D would only get to launch 3 per day and would have to select who to try and hit, and Nations B, C and D would obviously only have 1 option. The odds of Nation A getting nuked are significantly higher than B,C, or D.

I'd suggest, to make it more fair to the outnumbered, that a nation be allowed to buy as many nukes per day as they have active wars or 1 whichever is greater.

Is that dependent on the WRC? What about modifying the WRC to that then? If that is the case, I'm a fan of it. That may be hard to code though..I'm not sure, as I'm not a computer guy.

I guess nations with a WRC would be allowed to buy twice as many nukes as they have active wars or two, whichever is greater.

Edit: I'm also a fan of raising the limit to 35-40.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Seeing that an SDI blocks 5+ nukes in a row is stupid, let alone the double digit numbers that are relatively frequent.

You want to war me? If I was equal in your NS with an SDI, and you didn't have one, both of us having MPs, and you lost 15 nukes in a row against my SDI, do you think that would be a good thing for the game?

When you've fought in multiple non-SDI nuclear and multiple SDI-nuclear and a SDI/wrc nuclear war, we can talk. But I tell you right now the days where you fire 5+ nukes off all to miss are days you just want to quit CN.

Game mechanics should not do that. Game mechanics should allow for superior strategy and coordination to beat people (for example I woke up this morning finding 6 ground attacks, a defeat alert, a nuke, and six air strikes, along with the complement of CMs all within a very limited timeframe. That is the result of superior coordination). But game mechanics should be to foster an equal playing field to the best of their ability.

As I typed this my alliance mates fired TWELVE nukes at someone before getting a hit. If you at all think that is good for CN as a whole you are delusional. It means that if you start with a MP and hit bad luck, you *might* hit someone twice. Whereas their 20 nukes might hit you daily the entire war.

Minimizing this absolutely ridiculous random factor should be the primary objective of game designers. Games should be as much skill based as possible, acknowledging that a minimum amount of luck is required.

But luck should not be the primary factor when two equally skilled and sized nations with SDIs/nukes fight each other.

You shouldn't run through a stockpile of nukes after 2-3 days against a few opponents, that is absurd.

I think theres a couple of ways you can go with this.

More Destruction:
Allow natins to purchase 1 nuke per day (2 if you have a WRC), this value increases by 1 for every active war, or by 2 if you have a WRC.

So:
- No wars = 1 nuke per day (2 with WRC)
- 1 war = 2 nukes per day (4 with WRC)
- 4 wars = 5 nukes per day (10 with WRC) etc

Less Destruction:
You get to launch 1 nuke at each nation per day, if it is blocked, unlucky, come back tomorrow.

- Over a large sample of 5 day wars, each nation should land 2 nukes and have 3 blocked.
- Would be possible though for unlucky ppl to have 7 nukes blocked in a row etc

Middle Ground:
SDI reduces in effectiveness the more nukes it blocks on each day, say by 5% per block.

- SDI begins at 60% effectiveness, blocks a nuke.
- SDI is now at 55% effective, blocks another.
- SDI is now at 50%, blocks another.
- SDI is now at 45%, nuke gets through, no more nukes can be sent to this nation today, and tomorrow SDI will reset to 60%.

This 3rd option would still eat through stockpiles but not at anything close to the current rate, and you could co-ordinate to let the guy with the biggest stockpile launch when the SDI odds are highest, and if he gets blocked, someone with a smaller stockpile can come in when the SDI effectiveness has been reduced etc.

I particularly like this one. It reduces the effectiveness of the SDI though.

I wonder if there's another random 1,0 generator that doesn't give as high frequencies of 0 several times in a row. Has anyone else brought up the similarities to getting nothing for events for a long time, then several at once? The *extremes* of randomness are what we are trying to cut down on, and if this can be done with minimal change, then that's the best option imo.

I support Jack's suggestion of decreasing the effective odds of incoming nukes based upon every previous nuke that has been intercepted that day. Also, I suggest a spy op which allows you to weaken an SDI.

I'm sure its prefectly random (or close to), we are just dealing with an extremely high sample in the current war, so with such a high sample you are going to get some guys blocked 20times in a row, and some guys will even hit 20times in a row...

Of course ppl are going to crow about copping an extreme case... but there are 13000 odd wars out there and alot who aren't crowing...

I am pretty sure if admin tracked the hits and misses across the entire war itd work out to around 60% blocked.

From my experience with random number generators you give it a seed which is the starting point for it to generate from. Commonly the time and date (to milliseconds) is used for the seed, a common example is how many milliseconds since 1980, so from one click to the next the value is very different.

You might base it off say the last digit ending in 1-6 = block, or 7-0 = hit... but yeah, its just luck based on when you click the mouse.

I agree.