SDI - Contribution to Game Stagnation?

[enderland]

It is interesting to me how this game ends up working out, and one of those interesting tidbits is the Strategic Defense Initiative wonder. While initially I thought it was an amazing wonder after playing the game a while I think that it only strengthens the game stagnation.

Currently, it is well accepted that in a gangbang, you're basically screwed. You don't have a choice in the matter - you lose. As it should be, as cool as the Alamo was, we don't want every single alliance ever attacked to be impossible to kill by default as that is simply silly. Defenders *should* lose.

But what has been occurring to me is that the SDI more or less only benefits the attackers in that case - it really hurts defenders abilities to cause damage in a war that goes nuclear. Attackers have more or less an *infinite* supply of nukes in a situation with overwhelming superiority, whereas the defender obviously does not. By attackers having SDIs it means that the defending nuke count basically goes down by 60% (more when you consider spy attacks too) which puts them into a situation where not only are they 100% screwed, their damage potential basically drops by well over 50%. Since attackers have near infinite nukes the reduction in firepower the SDI brings really does little to help the defender out, since, for every nuke that gets blocked, there are likely 20 or 40 more still in nations not even engaged.

I am curious what all the community thinks about this.

[SynthFG]

It is interesting to me how this game ends up working out, and one of those interesting tidbits is the Strategic Defense Initiative wonder. While initially I thought it was an amazing wonder after playing the game a while I think that it only strengthens the game stagnation.

Currently, it is well accepted that in a gangbang, you're basically screwed. You don't have a choice in the matter - you lose. As it should be, as cool as the Alamo was, we don't want every single alliance ever attacked to be impossible to kill by default as that is simply silly. Defenders *should* lose.

But what has been occurring to me is that the SDI more or less only benefits the attackers in that case - it really hurts defenders abilities to cause damage in a war that goes nuclear. Attackers have more or less an *infinite* supply of nukes in a situation with overwhelming superiority, whereas the defender obviously does not. By attackers having SDIs it means that the defending nuke count basically goes down by 60% (more when you consider spy attacks too) which puts them into a situation where not only are they 100% screwed, their damage potential basically drops by well over 50%. Since attackers have near infinite nukes the reduction in firepower the SDI brings really does little to help the defender out, since, for every nuke that gets blocked, there are likely 20 or 40 more still in nations not even engaged.

I am curious what all the community thinks about this.

Think the game is static at the moment due to there being one big central block with several attached satellites that incorporates most of the strong alliances in the game,

There is no rival block to produce the type of Drama that existed before UJW, and almost all of the recent wars have been curb stomps, tho I was impressed by NpO and allies sticking together and putting up a fight rather than fleeing as soon as trouble beckoned as had happened to several of the earlier stompees,

SDI only benefits the attacker if the defenders are unprepared, SDI alone wont help against defenders with SDI MP,CIA (800 Spies) and a large war chest

[enderland]

SDI only benefits the attacker if the defenders are unprepared, SDI alone wont help against defenders with SDI MP,CIA (800 Spies) and a large war chest

Sure it does, because it means the effective value of all your nukes is slightly less than 40% what the "nuke count" is. Every nuke you buy really has an effective base damage of 60 instead of 150.

[thedestro]

But what has been occurring to me is that the SDI more or less only benefits the attackers in that case - it really hurts defenders abilities to cause damage in a war that goes nuclear. Attackers have more or less an *infinite* supply of nukes in a situation with overwhelming superiority, whereas the defender obviously does not. By attackers having SDIs it means that the defending nuke count basically goes down by 60% (more when you consider spy attacks too) which puts them into a situation where not only are they 100% screwed, their damage potential basically drops by well over 50%. Since attackers have near infinite nukes the reduction in firepower the SDI brings really does little to help the defender out, since, for every nuke that gets blocked, there are likely 20 or 40 more still in nations not even engaged.

You can't say that representatively.

[Delta1212]

Sure it does, because it means the effective value of all your nukes is slightly less than 40% what the "nuke count" is. Every nuke you buy really has an effective base damage of 60 instead of 150.

If you have an MP and a huge war chest, you're eventually going to drop down to lower ranges where you can pick targets that don't have SDIs, or nukes for that matter. SDI's mean you might do less initial damage as you get pounded, but if you're really prepared, you can continue nuking indefinitely, and 40% of infinity is still infinity.

Edit: It should be noted that less than 10% of nations actually have SDIs. While the vast majority of the very top ranks have them, they thin considerably below the 5% line.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Delta1212

[Gruthenia]

If you have an MP and a huge war chest, you're eventually going to drop down to lower ranges where you can pick targets that don't have SDIs, or nukes for that matter. SDI's mean you might do less initial damage as you get pounded, but if you're really prepared, you can continue nuking indefinitely, and 40% of infinity is still infinity.

Edit: It should be noted that less than 10% of nations actually have SDIs. While the vast majority of the very top ranks have them, they thin considerably below the 5% line.

The damage you do in the first wave(s), where you can target the high infra nations, is the most meaningful, perhaps only meaningful, damage you can hope to inflict though. I could nuke 4999 infra nations 'til the cows come home but as long as the 8k, 9k, 10k nations remain untouched those smaller nations will be easily rebuilt through reparations and rebuilding aid, and the main striking power of the enemy alliance is left intact. Especially in these days of warchests, rebuilding smaller nations is much easier - after the last war, the leftovers from my warchest plus the uncollected taxes let me rebuild about 1,000 of my just over 2,000 lost infra right there (I started at 4999). And I was on the losing side! The winning side could of course much more easily absorb and rebuild these sorts of losses.

Granted, the occupying alliance wouldn't have a total walkover, but even with MPs and large warchests SDIs are still a really big advantage to a side that far outnumbers the other.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Matthew George

[Delta1212]

The SDI definitely limits the amount of damage that an outnumbered alliance can do in an initial retaliation, however, this is slightly offset by the advantages the MP provides nations fighting a guerrilla war. A dedicated force armed with nuclear weapons in the lower ranks can seriously hamper growth in ways past guerrillas could not. Nukes provide a balance to the aid that can be poured down from above, so while the 3k infra nation you just nuked to ZI might be rebuilt in a week or two, you'll have another set of a dozen nukes to throw back at them. And in a guerrilla war, a lack of progress in either direction is a win for the guerrilla.

[Gruthenia]

You won't have another set of nukes to throw back at them - you'll be shooting nukes about as fast as you buy them since your enemy will likely be able to keep you in three wars and staggered for a long time. Even if you're only using your nukes to keep your opponents in nuclear anarchy, the chances of you actually rebuilding your stockpile without hitting peace mode seem low. Additionally the alliance in a guerilla war would probably be at war with enough enemy alliances that the damage can be spread out enough that it doesn't seriously hamper any one of them.

[Delta1212]

I was about to outline exactly how you could go about causing real damage to an enemy with an MP-equipped guerrilla war, then remembered that military strategies are probably not best shared publicly for obvious reasons... >_>

[Gruthenia]

Dammit! Almost had you!

[enderland]

I was about to outline exactly how you could go about causing real damage to an enemy with an MP-equipped guerrilla war, then remembered that military strategies are probably not best shared publicly for obvious reasons... >_>

You answered your own question

Edited December 9, 2008 by alden peterson

[Drai]

I would agree that the aggressors tend to have more nukes as they are usually outnumbering the opponents. Thus when the defenders nukes don't hit every time, they are bound to lose nukes much faster than the aggressors, who can alternate who is nuking. Not to mention the defender can only spy away nukes at a rate proportional to the amount of aggressors. By taking out the SDI, wars would be more balanced.

We are talking a war where there is at least 2 aggressors against 1 defender I presume.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Drai

[nc1701]

I think this has been balanced by the WRC and tech damage increases making nukes far more damaging. Really the net change is that NS is far less important compared to preparation in war, before the side with more NS was all but assured victory, now how well prepared they are is a huge factor in a 3v1 the smaller side can win if they have a large edge in warchests and military wonders. Having simple NS be a smaller factor than pre-war preparation is a very good change in my opinion, it allows those surprises like the recent MK-NPO war. Ridding us of nuke spying and SDIs might make curbstomps a little harder, but at the same time they simplify the game further into a simple counting of infra and nukes before the war.

[maxwell little]

The impression I get is that the MP and SDI are essentially supposed to balance each other. The ideal way for an alliance to hit another is a reverse curbstomp, where a lot of 5-6k infra nations with MPs hit nations who have 33% more NS. Essentially, nukes allow you to fight up, where without them you need to fight down to have any hope of winning a 3 vs. 1. The MP allows the mid sized block to do far more damage then their ns would suggest. The SDI I believe was put in to counter this, since only 40% of those nukes would hit the larger nation, it would be able to launch off enough nukes to knock those mid sized nations down 1000-2000 infra, and then after 7 days essentially knock them out of the war because they do not have enough NS to attack the nation again. The SDI means that a nation who has it and is attacked by 3 smaller nuclear nations (75%ns) would have a fighting chance at staying strong enough, with the larger warchest, to escape a redeclare and at the same time be able to keep firing off nukes at more and more mid sized nations. The SDI increases suvivability, it makes a smaller warchest go farther, and allows large nations to stay in the fight longer. The MP allows a smaller nation to do disproportionate damage, allowing the Mid-sized nation block to attack up into the high range, in 3 vs 1 curbstomp attacks. (There are 3 times as many top 10% nations as top 3%, and they may still be within the ns range for mutual declaration. They likely were back in the 50-200% days.) This was much more important with the war range at 50-200%, when a 4999.99 nation with the MP (definately economically possible) could hit 3 7999.99 nations with nukes, and do far more motenary damage, as th einfra cost from 7k to 8k is likely more than from 0 to 5k, or fairly close. with war range narrowed, this curbstomping is reduced, but still important.

[der_ko]

It is interesting to me how this game ends up working out, and one of those interesting tidbits is the Strategic Defense Initiative wonder. While initially I thought it was an amazing wonder after playing the game a while I think that it only strengthens the game stagnation.

Currently, it is well accepted that in a gangbang, you're basically screwed. You don't have a choice in the matter - you lose. As it should be, as cool as the Alamo was, we don't want every single alliance ever attacked to be impossible to kill by default as that is simply silly. Defenders *should* lose.

But what has been occurring to me is that the SDI more or less only benefits the attackers in that case - it really hurts defenders abilities to cause damage in a war that goes nuclear. Attackers have more or less an *infinite* supply of nukes in a situation with overwhelming superiority, whereas the defender obviously does not. By attackers having SDIs it means that the defending nuke count basically goes down by 60% (more when you consider spy attacks too) which puts them into a situation where not only are they 100% screwed, their damage potential basically drops by well over 50%. Since attackers have near infinite nukes the reduction in firepower the SDI brings really does little to help the defender out, since, for every nuke that gets blocked, there are likely 20 or 40 more still in nations not even engaged.

I am curious what all the community thinks about this.

You're late: I already reached this conclusion in the thread admin announced the new military wonders, but unfortunely I was talking to deaf ears.

[Delta1212]

Just make a Wonder that reduces an opposing SDI's effectiveness by half.

[thedestro]

Just make a Wonder that reduces an opposing SDI's effectiveness by half.

I thought about something like that a while ago for different reaons, but it seems..........mundane.

[der_ko]

Just make a Wonder that reduces an opposing SDI's effectiveness by half.

Better yet is a spy mission which disables the SDI for 24h. That way spies are useful for both the attacker and the defender in a curb stomp.

Edited December 18, 2008 by der_ko

[threefingeredguy]

The SDI is invaluable for defenders and for attackers.

[Delta1212]

Better yet is a spy mission which disables the SDI for 24h. That way spies are useful for both the attacker and the defender in a curb stomp.

24 hours is over powered. Just mke it until the next nuke.

[Oktavia]

You don't have an infinite supply of nuclear weapons if you can only buy one per day.

[o ya baby]

24 hours is over powered. Just mke it until the next nuke.

Lmao what's the difference? You can only get hit by one nuke a day. It ends the same way. With your way, spy SDI before update and nuke, after update do the same thing. With his way, spy the SDI before update and nuke before and after update.

Edited December 19, 2008 by o ya baby

[Fredginator]

This is why we have alliances;

3-1 suddenly turns into 3x3-1 (with 1 being the original attackers), if it's an all out alliance war, the winner turns out to be the one with more SDI's and/or nukes (assuming it goes nuclear), and the one more lucky.

[Delta1212]

Lmao what's the difference? You can only get hit by one nuke a day. It ends the same way. With your way, spy SDI before update and nuke, after update do the same thing. With his way, spy the SDI before update and nuke before and after update.

24 hours covers two nukes.

[HHAYD]

This is why we have alliances;

3-1 suddenly turns into 3x3-1 (with 1 being the original attackers), if it's an all out alliance war, the winner turns out to be the one with more SDI's and/or nukes (assuming it goes nuclear), and the one more lucky.

If you are getting hit by an alliance that is 3x or stronger than your alliance, then it will still be 1 vs 3.