Fallout shelters

[DavidMustaine]

So lately I've been reading the cn information index and I've been wondering about fallout shelters.  

 

$40,000,000 - Allows 50% of your defending soldiers to survive a nuclear strike (Does not prevent nuclear Anarchy but does prevent troops from being totally depleted), Reduces tank, cruise missile, and aircraft, losses from a nuclear strike by -25%, Reduces nuclear vulnerable navy losses by 12%, Reduces nuclear anarchy effects by 1 day. Requires 6,000 infrastructure, 2,000 technology.

 

So basically from my understanding is that they can save you a lot of $?  I know they cost 5k everyday but that really isn't much compared to the cost of planes, tanks, navy and nuclear anarchy etc...

 

At 5k a day the cost of the fallout shelter is equivalent to almost 22 years of bills....

 

Seems like a good investment imo.  

 

Oh heavens I just noticed a grammar error there...

 

Reduces tank, cruise missile, and aircraft, losses

 

Lordy I just noticed even more grammar errors. 

 

Tsk tsk admin..well, no ones perfect.  

Edited September 25, 2022 by DavidMustaine

[HeroofTime55]

These things are an eternal debate for a variety of reasons and tend to be situational.  I personally like it but there's plenty of people who will fight me to the death over that opinion.  There are upsides and downsides.  I am not going to elaborate further, though.

[kerschbs]

9 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

These things are an eternal debate for a variety of reasons and tend to be situational.  I personally like it but there's plenty of people who will fight me to the death over that opinion.  There are upsides and downsides.  I am not going to elaborate further, though.

catch me outside

[Rebel Virginia]

I have a fallout shelter. I also collect taxes with labor camps.

[Thrash]

Worth it to not get DA'd.

[jerdge]

On 9/26/2022 at 12:28 AM, DavidMustaine said:

So lately I've been reading the cn information index and I've been wondering about fallout shelters.  

 

$40,000,000 - Allows 50% of your defending soldiers to survive a nuclear strike (Does not prevent nuclear Anarchy but does prevent troops from being totally depleted), Reduces tank, cruise missile, and aircraft, losses from a nuclear strike by -25%, Reduces nuclear vulnerable navy losses by 12%, Reduces nuclear anarchy effects by 1 day. Requires 6,000 infrastructure, 2,000 technology.

 

So basically from my understanding is that they can save you a lot of $?  I know they cost 5k everyday but that really isn't much compared to the cost of planes, tanks, navy and nuclear anarchy etc...

 

At 5k a day the cost of the fallout shelter is equivalent to almost 22 years of bills....

 

Seems like a good investment imo.  

 

Oh heavens I just noticed a grammar error there...

 

Reduces tank, cruise missile, and aircraft, losses

 

Lordy I just noticed even more grammar errors. 

 

Tsk tsk admin..well, no ones perfect.  

The main downside of the FS is that an enemy can weaken but not completely erase your ground army with a nuke and then loot your nation, whereas without the FS any successfully landing nuke would leave you with zero soldiers, hence it would be impossible to get any loot from your nation.

 

I have the FS, as I don't expect to keep any soldier, no matter the situation, for a very long time, thus the partial protection of my air and navy forces comes with no disadvantage to me. Others might find it convenient or inconvenient, depending on the kind of adversaries they expect to face.

[A1ph4 0m3ga]

8 hours ago, Rebel Virginia said:

I have a fallout shelter. I also collect taxes with labor camps.

But do you do that and collect with guerrilla camps? If not, get on my level!

[Rebel Virginia]

3 hours ago, A1ph4 0m3ga said:

But do you do that and collect with guerrilla camps? If not, get on my level!

I'm famous for collecting with guerilla camps.

[Andrewb610]

6 hours ago, jerdge said:

The main downside of the FS is that an enemy can weaken but not completely erase your ground army with a nuke and then loot your nation, whereas without the FS any successfully landing nuke would leave you with zero soldiers, hence it would be impossible to get any loot from your nation.

 

I have the FS, as I don't expect to keep any soldier, no matter the situation, for a very long time, thus the partial protection of my air and navy forces comes with no disadvantage to me. Others might find it convenient or inconvenient, depending on the kind of adversaries they expect to face.

Not if you have deployed troops - those return home, then an opponent can attack. I just did this today,  I nuked a guy with no FS 3 minutes before update, their deployed troops returned home and I won 2 GAs with 88% and 92% chance of victory.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Andrewb610

[DavidMustaine]

9 hours ago, jerdge said:

The main downside of the FS is that an enemy can weaken but not completely erase your ground army with a nuke and then loot your nation, whereas without the FS any successfully landing nuke would leave you with zero soldiers, hence it would be impossible to get any loot from your nation.

 

I have the FS, as I don't expect to keep any soldier, no matter the situation, for a very long time, thus the partial protection of my air and navy forces comes with no disadvantage to me. Others might find it convenient or inconvenient, depending on the kind of adversaries they expect to face.

True, but you can always loot them also and negate those losses.  Doesn't always work out that way, depending on the skill of your opponent and yours, the amount of people you are fighting(if you are in a 6vs1 or 3vs1 for example) and the timing of your attacks and theirs and the games built in x factor of luck.

 

Most of the time the main benefit is having to re-buy less military.  As I said before the wonder only costs 5k a day to maintain so even for a neutral alliance like yours I see no downside.  

 

Also if possible please send my best to my old friend Kurdanak. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by DavidMustaine

[jerdge]

17 hours ago, Andrewb610 said:

Not if you have deployed troops - those return home, then an opponent can attack. I just did this today,  I nuked a guy with no FS 3 minutes before update, their deployed troops returned home and I won 2 GAs with 88% and 92% chance of victory.

Correct. You can mitigate it by limiting your deployments, but that doesn't refute your point.

 

14 hours ago, DavidMustaine said:

True, but you can always loot them also and negate those losses.  Doesn't always work out that way, depending on the skill of your opponent and yours, the amount of people you are fighting(if you are in a 6vs1 or 3vs1 for example) and the timing of your attacks and theirs and the games built in x factor of luck.

 

Most of the time the main benefit is having to re-buy less military.  As I said before the wonder only costs 5k a day to maintain so even for a neutral alliance like yours I see no downside.  

 

Also if possible please send my best to my old friend Kurdanak. 

In my political and ranking position I'd expect to never have the upper hand. My entire military doctrine is based on the idea that I don't care about my losses, as long as I can make sure that any and all attackers can only lose something by attacking my nation... which is why I am never found with soldiers.

This means that the FS is only good for me.

In case of need I could easily dump it and rebuy it at a later time, as at my nation's size the entire wonder costs about just two days of profit.

 

I agree that it's basically the same for any neutral, at least if they adopt the same zero soldiers strategy.

 

I'll relay your greetings to Kurdanak.

[DavidMustaine]

6 minutes ago, jerdge said:

Correct. You can mitigate it by limiting your deployments, but that doesn't refute your point.

 

In my political and ranking position I'd expect to never have the upper hand. My entire military doctrine is based on the idea that I don't care about my losses, as long as I can make sure that any and all attackers can only lose something by attacking my nation... which is why I am never found with soldiers.

This means that the FS is only good for me.

In case of need I could easily dump it and rebuy it at a later time, as at my nation's size the entire wonder costs about just two days of profit.

 

I agree that it's basically the same for any neutral, at least if they adopt the same zero soldiers strategy.

 

I'll relay your greetings to Kurdanak.

Right, but for everyone else there is still the losses- planes and navy add up.  A vast majority of players know better than to keep cm's on hand so that part is useless for most.  

 

Also the nuclear anarchy reduction  is a nice help, also depends on how much back collecting your at- unless you have the advantage of declaring and collect before going into battle.  

 

As the index says:

 

 

Therefore national wonders are not intended for everyone and are instead intended to provide a slight strategy for the most advanced players and an additional goal for everyone to strive to. The following are the official costs and bonuses of national wonders.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by DavidMustaine