SDI - Contribution to Game Stagnation?

[Supri]

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.

Seems like a good idea. "Render SDI Inoperable": it would lower the success percentage of the SDI to 0% for one nuke. Of course, the price for the spy mission would have to be considerable, and hard to successfully accomplish.

[King Srqt]

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.

I just want to point out that that is not really true, sure you will eventually be down to a nuke a day if you stay in constant war but even then if you are fighting three opponents you can nuke each opponent once every three days. As someone who has quite a bit of 1 v 3 nuke war experience I can tell you that keeping up that nuke is not that hard.

[youwish959]

Seems like a good idea. "Render SDI Inoperable": it would lower the success percentage of the SDI to 0% for one nuke. Of course, the price for the spy mission would have to be considerable, and hard to successfully accomplish.

So you want me to be able to pay 75 million for something that uses 6 improvement slots up, that can be disabled with the ease of a spy attack?

[Latenighthobo]

Yep, pretty much if you put it that way. It would go both ways though, and unless you're the one getting destroyed, they still wouldn't have the ability to muster complete effective resistance for very long.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Latenighthobo

[jaaku]

So you want me to be able to pay 75 million for something that uses 6 improvement slots up, that can be disabled with the ease of a spy attack?

seeing as pretty much all nations within the top 5% have maxed out improvements/improvement slots already. I really don't see the big deal.

[youwish959]

Yep, pretty much if you put it that way. It would go both ways though, and unless you're the one getting destroyed, they still wouldn't have the ability to muster complete effective resistance for very long.

Why make it worse for the defender? Seriously.

seeing as pretty much all nations within the top 5% have maxed out improvements/improvement slots already. I really don't see the big deal.

So 75 million dollars for the SDI, and 120 million dollars in spies to defend it? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this? If you INSIST on nerfing the SDI, nerf the percentage, not the capability.

[enderland]

Why make it worse for the defender? Seriously.

Well the defender is almost guaranteed to be nuked every day of the war as it is, so this wouldn't change too much for one round of war at least :S

[jerdge]

I don't quite understand this argument at Alliance scale.

If all the Nations on the weaker side are triple-teamed and facing (practically) "infinite" nukes, this means that their side is much weaker. What's wrong in them being able to inflict less damage? That's what should happen.

On the other hand, the SDI can be IMHO improved, making its effectiveness depend by the Tech difference/ratio between the contenders. A 2k Nation Tech should have an horribly hard time in delivering a single nuke on a 5k Tech Nation, while the reverse nuking should be much more likely to happen than 40% per nuke. This is maybe another discussion, however.

[SilverHawk]

Why are you guys whining? Be glad it isn't the old 75% Block chance, which it still should be.

[HHAYD]

I don't quite understand this argument at Alliance scale.

If all the Nations on the weaker side are triple-teamed and facing (practically) "infinite" nukes, this means that their side is much weaker. What's wrong in them being able to inflict less damage? That's what should happen.

On the other hand, the SDI can be IMHO improved, making its effectiveness depend by the Tech difference/ratio between the contenders. A 2k Nation Tech should have an horribly hard time in delivering a single nuke on a 5k Tech Nation, while the reverse nuking should be much more likely to happen than 40% per nuke. This is maybe another discussion, however.

Agree.

[youwish959]

Well the defender is almost guaranteed to be nuked every day of the war as it is, so this wouldn't change too much for one round of war at least :S

One round is not an entire war.

[zzzptm]

The SDI would have loads more meaning if nations could LAUNCH one nuke per opponent, per day. As it is, they can launch until they get a hit, which makes the SDI more of a sponge than a shield.

In the last war, I got to use up all my nukes by the end of hostilities. My opponents that had no SDI ate one every 5 days. The ones that had an SDI were like large, independent-minded cats. It was a bit harder to get them to eat their nuke, and some nukes spilled on the ground... Since I was getting triple-teamed, I could not afford to nuke once per day.

My opponents, however, had 20 nukes each and could rain fire on my head once per day, whether I needed it or not. My SDI meant that they'd lose a few nukes here and there, but I was going to get nuked, guaranteed.

In a 1v1 war, an SDI can be a lifesaver 60% of the time. In a 3v1 war, SDI makes the stronger side stronger and the weaker side gets a chance to delay the inevitable.

Fallout shelters, IMO, are vital for nuclear defense, as they reduce overall losses - in a 3v1 war, being able to rebuild soldier counts after getting whacked can mean up to $6 million per day in collections from enemy equipment, and that can mean the difference between survival and bill lock if one has depleted one's war chest.

[Lyria]

If you INSIST on nerfing the SDI, nerf the percentage, not the capability.

i agree with this. it costs too much and ties up a lot for a spy attack to render it completely inoperable for X amount of time. maybe a potential of 10% less effective, up to 30% or something.

also, zzzptm has a good analogy in that the SDI is like a sponge. but it does make the enemy throw a few million down the drain if their nuke misses due to the SDI each time. i dont see how it doesn't level the playing field a bit.

[Tryptamine]

Another thought would be to alter nuke/SDI effectiveness to be based on technology differential between attacking and defending nations. It doesn't make sense that a high-infra, low-tech nation would have the same effectiveness shooting down a nuke from a lower-infra, higher-tech nation as vice-versa.

[youwish959]

The SDI would have loads more meaning if nations could LAUNCH one nuke per opponent, per day. As it is, they can launch until they get a hit, which makes the SDI more of a sponge than a shield.

The idea is they waste their nuclear stockpile. If it's a shield and blocks the nuke, the guy with the nuclear stockpile could still win, because he has all the time in the world, rebuying one nuke a day, using one nuke a day.

[Mirreille]

Yes, but does the idea actually work out in practice? I've never gotten an SDI because at the 60% odds, in a week of war an opponent should be able to get 8 missiles through. In others words, the odds are you are going to eat a nuke every day for a week regardless. By the end of the week they will have blown up so much that you will probably be our of their attack range anyway. It doesn't save you at all. Now in large alliance type wars, they can have an overall effect so it makes sense to have one, but as they are handled now they don't stop even a single rogue if they are determined to hit you. Other then a deterrent for a rogue to choose someone else who doesn't have one, the SDI is more of a benefit to a large alliance, not an individual nation.

Another thought about nuke rogues, maybe there have been some who just randomly attack nations, but from what I have seen they usually have some personal issue with the alliance or nation in question. So a typical rogue is likely to push through any SDI and will likely not be able to hit you much more then they would have if you didn't have one, since they would likely lose more of their arsenal from spies if they are only firing 1 per day at you. Now of course I don't have first hand knowledge of this, so if I am wrong please correct me, but that would seem to be the case; SDI is an asset to alliances, not individual nations.

[SilverHawk]

The idea is they waste their nuclear stockpile. If it's a shield and blocks the nuke, the guy with the nuclear stockpile could still win, because he has all the time in the world, rebuying one nuke a day, using one nuke a day.

I'd rather take his Nuclear Stockpile out of the equation, then being his personal nuclear test site.

[youwish959]

Yes, but does the idea actually work out in practice? I've never gotten an SDI because at the 60% odds, in a week of war an opponent should be able to get 8 missiles through. In others words, the odds are you are going to eat a nuke every day for a week regardless. By the end of the week they will have blown up so much that you will probably be our of their attack range anyway. It doesn't save you at all. Now in large alliance type wars, they can have an overall effect so it makes sense to have one, but as they are handled now they don't stop even a single rogue if they are determined to hit you. Other then a deterrent for a rogue to choose someone else who doesn't have one, the SDI is more of a benefit to a large alliance, not an individual nation.

Another thought about nuke rogues, maybe there have been some who just randomly attack nations, but from what I have seen they usually have some personal issue with the alliance or nation in question. So a typical rogue is likely to push through any SDI and will likely not be able to hit you much more then they would have if you didn't have one, since they would likely lose more of their arsenal from spies if they are only firing 1 per day at you. Now of course I don't have first hand knowledge of this, so if I am wrong please correct me, but that would seem to be the case; SDI is an asset to alliances, not individual nations.

Yes. The 8 nukes getting through, and spying nukes everyday would keep your nuke damage to a minimum. Sure you may eat a nuke for a week everyday, but you won't be eating any after that unlike, if you didn't have a SDI. So it does save you. And yes it does make rogues think twice. A rogue's worst nightmare is a (lucky ) nation with with a large warchest and full set of spies. An SDI is a big impedence, because then you can only really get at one person with nukes for a full week, the rest of the guys attacking the rogue aren't really getting much for the way of nukes. And if the rogue is truly after you so much that he wants to use every nuke on you, then he will surely redeclare, but with what nukes?

I'd rather take his Nuclear Stockpile out of the equation, then being his personal nuclear test site.

If you have an SDI it will save others from his nuclear stockpile, and likewise if others have a SDI.

[enderland]

And if the rogue is truly after you so much that he wants to use every nuke on you, then he will surely redeclare, but with what nukes?

Being in anarchy makes it hard to declare

Plus, almost all rogues fire their nukes off and quit right away.

If I ever quit and go rogue I'm going "rouge" for a long time :jihad: :jihad:

[Lehran]

Ever so slightly off topic, but I like the idea of random scales of damage for attacks. I know we already have that, but what about if the SDI was revised slightly to give a damage restriction range between 10% and 100%. That way you always get some return on investment; ie; -10% damage, but there is a random chance for damage anywhere between 0% and 90% so the attacker still has some impact regardless? In this case your SDI wouldn't actually be stopping the nuke in it's tracks, it would be redirecting it. If a nuke lands 50km outside a city the damage would be relative.

Perhaps the % effectiveness could be an attacking nation vs defending nation tech formula. And perhaps spies could be sent to further undermine this SDI.

[zzzptm]

imike24: I think if the SDI could be made to offer arts entertainment and beauty skincare, that would be great for a nation, but I fail to see how skincare reviews would be much help, or if the SDI should be offering that feature.

NeoGandalf: Given how many modern nuclear systems involve multiple warheads to defeat anti-missile systems, perhaps having the SDI let each nuke in, but only at a percentage of its actual strength, perhaps stopping 60-90% of its power? This would extend to the nuclear anarchy effects. This could then be extended to having a 60% chance of knocking out a cruise missile entirely.

A nuke with only 20% effectiveness would give one day of nuclear anarchy and have a much more limited impact on a nation's infra, tech, and military might. It would be a glorified CM. Giving the SDI the ability to shoot down CMs would give a great defensive advantage which, in this age of curbstomps, would help balance gameplay with a defender advantage.

[Tiberius C Nero]

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.

I take it you've never been in an alliance that was Power slammed by 99999 alliances lol.

Here's my thoughts on the issue. I agree with the spy trick, but it should only work for the defender. then the defender would have half a chance of throwing back (or stalling out) the attack.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Emperor Tiberius