Get Rid of Nukes in TE

[maxwell little]

Simply put, nukes are far too powerful in TE. One hit basically destroys your ability to win a war, as 60 day rounds to not permit enough time to save the required warchest to withstand a nuclear war, as saving half your collections would stunt your growth to the point where you would have no chance of winning the round. Without nukes, the most skilled players would have the largest nations, not just the ones lucky enough to avoid war. Top 10 nations shouldn't be destroyed by one rogue with nukes, it essentially negates their superior nation building skills and defeats the purpose of TE.

[Emperor Stranger]

Simply put, nukes are far too powerful in TE. One hit basically destroys your ability to win a war, as 60 day rounds to not permit enough time to save the required warchest to withstand a nuclear war, as saving half your collections would stunt your growth to the point where you would have no chance of winning the round. Without nukes, the most skilled players would have the largest nations, not just the ones lucky enough to avoid war. Top 10 nations shouldn't be destroyed by one rogue with nukes, it essentially negates their superior nation building skills and defeats the purpose of TE.

I have no opinion on this, really. I never grow large enough to get nukes in either SE or TE. Actually, I don't even grow large enough to be hit by nuclear nations, either. Simple solution: Do what I do and just buy a lot of cruise missiles. Infrastructure is a lot more important than technology and such.

[lonewolfe2015]

I want ways of limiting the impact nukes can have to specific nations actually... but removing them removes a key part of warfare.

Nuclear Sanctions are something that should definitely be tested in TE. The ability to flat out kill a nation's access to nuclear enrichment is a real world thing used by countries, not just sanctioning their uranium. I feel if we could put a Nuclear Sanction on rogues that hit our #1 or #2 nations then we'd have an advantage to holding a sphere (Nuclear Sanction any color person who hits someone on your color sphere) and give nations a fighting chance at the upper levels late into rounds.

[maxwell little]

Problem is then they would just switch colors and attack. My problem is a nation half my size can destroy my chances of winning just by buying nukes and declaring war, if he has more than 7 or 8 nukes it is almost guaranteed that at least one will hit. I don't believe in weapons in TE that are indefensible, as any number 1 nation can get knocked to oblivion by any nuke nation, regardless of skill. That is a power which no nation should possess, the number 1 should stay there by skill, not get knocked off by an attack by a nation half its size with much less skill but a willingness to use its nukes. I know TE is a war game, but war is ruined when it involves forfeiting your chance to win. Right now, the winning nations will be the ones who avoid war.

[Squeeze]

I'm not sure that nukes should be taken out, but certainly SOME changes should be made. On the one hand, spying nukes away is a whole lot of fun!!! On the other hand, using nukes or getting hit by a nuke isn't. I have been on both sides of the nuke equation and felt that, overall, it reduced my enjoyment of the game. Getting a nuke is too easy and does too much damage for too long of a time.

[De Caelo Missus]

Top 10 nations shouldn't be destroyed by one rogue with nukes, it essentially negates their superior nation building skills and defeats the purpose of TE.

Ugh, it's hippies like you that are ruining TE. TE is about war not nation building!

When I won I took 5 nukes. The winner of last round took about the same as I'm sure the winner of the previous rounds did. TE is a war game, if you can survive multiple nukes and still win, then you sure as hell deserve it.

[lonewolfe2015]

Ugh, it's hippies like you that are ruining TE. TE is about war not nation building!

When I won I took 5 nukes. The winner of last round took about the same as I'm sure the winner of the previous rounds did. TE is a war game, if you can survive multiple nukes and still win, then you sure as hell deserve it.

To be fair, we've had rounds where the winners didn't as well.

[Burning Glory]

I want ways of limiting the impact nukes can have to specific nations actually... but removing them removes a key part of warfare.

Nuclear Sanctions are something that should definitely be tested in TE. The ability to flat out kill a nation's access to nuclear enrichment is a real world thing used by countries, not just sanctioning their uranium. I feel if we could put a Nuclear Sanction on rogues that hit our #1 or #2 nations then we'd have an advantage to holding a sphere (Nuclear Sanction any color person who hits someone on your color sphere) and give nations a fighting chance at the upper levels late into rounds.

I agree, however that rouge would just buy 10+ nukes so even sanctions wouldn't matter as he would still do the

damage regardless of the sanctions. I do think that just as the amount of damage nukes inflict, the length of nuclear anarchy should be reduced. 4 days seems plenty long enough to feel an effect of a nuke.

As there are arguments for both sides, this IS really the only fair and probably undisputed way to help rectify the problem.

BG.

[Vhalen]

I agree, however that rouge would just buy 10+ nukes so even sanctions wouldn't matter as he would still do the

damage regardless of the sanctions. I do think that just as the amount of damage nukes inflict, the length of nuclear anarchy should be reduced. 4 days seems plenty long enough to feel an effect of a nuke.

As there are arguments for both sides, this IS really the only fair and probably undisputed way to help rectify the problem.

BG.

This sounds like about the best solution to me. The amount of damage is strong, but not overwhelming (pretty much as it should be, I'd say), but with the shortness of a round, nuclear anarchy + war length (because, let's be honest, it starts a day after the war starts, and ends five days after it ends), means it's not all that hard to deprive people of collections for about a quarter of the round. Since war length isn't changing, maybe the other should be considered. Of course, that would mean altering the discount for radiation cleanup (2 days sounds like it would give a very good reason to go for that trade set).

[maxwell little]

I still believe that nukes should be removed entirely, I was ranked number 1 and got attacked by 2 nations barely half my size, and there was nothing I could do to defend myself as they both had enough nukes to basically guarantee a hit, even with my SDI. My warchest ran out quite fast as bills are very high at that size, and now I am in nuke anarchy for the rest of the round. The problem with nukes is it lets less skilled players with smaller nations take down flag contenders at will, as nuclear weapons basically give an unfair advantage to the smaller nation with nukes, as their bills will be low enough for them to keep firing them off longer.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Maxwell

[Emperor Stranger]

I still believe that nukes should be removed entirely, I was ranked number 1 and got attacked by 2 nations barely half my size, and there was nothing I could do to defend myself as they both had enough nukes to basically guarantee a hit, even with my SDI. My warchest ran out quite fast as bills are very high at that size, and now I am in nuke anarchy for the rest of the round. The problem with nukes is it lets less skilled players with smaller nations take down flag contenders at will, as nuclear weapons basically give an unfair advantage to the smaller nation with nukes, as their bills will be low enough for them to keep firing them off longer.

And three defensive wars wouldn't keep your out of first alone? Let's speak cruise missiles, ground attacks and air raids. None of those would do enough damage to beat you out of first? Maybe we should just get rid of the war option, because that prevents people from getting first!

[maxwell little]

6 cruise missiles a day would only do about 30 infra and 6 tech a day with missile defenses. You could block out air attacks by having 5 carriers and level 9 planes, as no nation half your size would be able to keep up with you and keep attacking. Since you would have a crapload more infra you can buy 5 barracks and 5 gc's and you would be literally untouchable. Besides this you can get friends to help you, maybe you are anarchy for 2 days but by then all 3 of your wars would be essentially won. With nukes ONE defeated nation can still destroy a much stronger opponent just by nuking them once every 5 days, keeping them in nuke anarchy no matter how many friends join in to help. Removing nukes would at least let the #1 nation use skill and size to defend itself on even terms, as opposed to automatically losing its chance to win after a single nuke hit. Basically, I think its unfair that a 15k ns nation ranked 100 can ALWAYS stop the 30k ns nation ranked #1 from winning, just by buying 20 nukes, saving 6 days bills, and depriving the larger nation of 1000 infra, 1000 land, 400 tech and 10 days collections, which is a loss which it is impossible to recover from, even with a warchest the #10 nation at 22k ns will end up higher than you.

[maxwell little]

Also, to respond to de carlo missus, I bet when you took 5 nukes you had a substantial lead over the #2 nation. Also, I bet the rest of the top 10 were nuked down as well. Now its different, there used to be 5 nation within 2k ns of each other at the top. What they did to me was the other 2 nations out of the top 3, which I was a part of, got a smaller nation from their alliance to attack me, then they declared on each other and got 2 other members of their alliance to declare on them after switching AA's, to fill their defensive slots. They attacked the smaller nations to make it technically legal, and also got the weaker nations to send some GA's and CM's their way, BUT NOT NUKES. This essentially gave the stronger of the RD nations an unbeatable edge as he now is immune to attack, except by nations he has conspired with to fill his slots. I highly doubt that was the case in your round. Besides this, you were 25k ns after 5 nukes, any one of us would have easily been at 30k by end round, 35 not out of the question, so we are in a much more competitive TE.

[De Caelo Missus]

Also, to respond to de carlo missus, I bet when you took 5 nukes you had a substantial lead over the #2 nation. Also, I bet the rest of the top 10 were nuked down as well. Now its different, there used to be 5 nation within 2k ns of each other at the top. What they did to me was the other 2 nations out of the top 3, which I was a part of, got a smaller nation from their alliance to attack me, then they declared on each other and got 2 other members of their alliance to declare on them after switching AA's, to fill their defensive slots. They attacked the smaller nations to make it technically legal, and also got the weaker nations to send some GA's and CM's their way, BUT NOT NUKES. This essentially gave the stronger of the RD nations an unbeatable edge as he now is immune to attack, except by nations he has conspired with to fill his slots. I highly doubt that was the case in your round. Besides this, you were 25k ns after 5 nukes, any one of us would have easily been at 30k by end round, 35 not out of the question, so we are in a much more competitive TE.

Coming into the final 10 days I was about 7th and yes everyone was nuked multiple times that round. Are you trying to say that only a few of the larger nations this round have been nuked, thus making it impossible for those that have been to win?

Also By a much more competitive TE, I'm also guessing you mean solely nation building?

Keep CN Standard politics out of CN:TE and vice versa. CN:TE is a place to wage war and destroy stuff.

[enderland]

If you are sitting in the top ten in the last week of TE you deserve to get nuked because you either are one of two things

1) planning on winning even though you will be nuked daily

2) not expecting to win

Also this might be useful reading - "fairness"

[maxwell little]

First, there was nothing I could do to stay out of the top 10, I hit it on day 20 and the only way I could have dropped out was to stop growing, which would have basically disqualified me anyway. And yes, nation building wise TE is now more competitive. And to respond to the survivor thread, I would personally rather lose than win by doing that, my own made up honor code is to me worth more than a flag or money, who you are is defined by your morals, and if you lose who you are you have nothing left.

[enderland]

If you would rather lose because of that then why do you bother making this thread?

Clearly it bothers you.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I personally am nowhere near winning, but I can certainly see the reasoning in something like this. Or perhaps the power of nukes could be reduced by a degree in TE.

Or we could return to the 90-day rounds instead of 60-day.

[maxwell little]

First, what bothers me is that ANY PLAYER who has saved 1.5 million for the MP and 2 million for 7 or 8 nukes, and has managed to hit HALF of the top players NS, can keep that player, or any other, from winning the round at a whim, regardless of any action the defending nation takes, you cant stop 100% of nuclear attacks, and 1 is often enough in today's TE.

Second, here is a suggestion in tune with the previous post:

Nuclear weapons do not cause 5 days of economic devastation. Instead, they simply induce standard anarchy for 2 days, the same as a defeat alert. With radiation cleanup this is reduced to 1 day, with FSS and rad cleanup this is negated entirely. With FSS alone anarchy lasts 1 day.

Nuke damage:

100% of defending soldiers/tanks

50% of planes

20% of venerable naval vessels

10% of cruise missiles

___________________________

25% capped at 100 of Infrastructure and Land, plus tech-bonus

20% capped at 40 Technology, plus tech-bonus

This would make nuclear weapons effective tactical devices, used to weaken a nation in war, however a single, or a few tightly spaced, hits would not cripple a nation for the duration as is the case now. In a 60 day round losing 2 days is enough, 5 is excessive.

[Marco Pang]

Problem is then they would just switch colors and attack. My problem is a nation half my size can destroy my chances of winning just by buying nukes and declaring war, if he has more than 7 or 8 nukes it is almost guaranteed that at least one will hit. I don't believe in weapons in TE that are indefensible, as any number 1 nation can get knocked to oblivion by any nuke nation, regardless of skill. That is a power which no nation should possess, the number 1 should stay there by skill, not get knocked off by an attack by a nation half its size with much less skill but a willingness to use its nukes. I know TE is a war game, but war is ruined when it involves forfeiting your chance to win. Right now, the winning nations will be the ones who avoid war.

This is not true. At the end of each round the top nations (used to be NG) get nuked over and over by rogues and such but someone will have to win in the end. So nukes do their job fine.

[maxwell little]

This is not true. At the end of each round the top nations (used to be NG) get nuked over and over by rogues and such but someone will have to win in the end. So nukes do their job fine.

That's not the point, I believe the job nukes do now, to destroy a nation, is something that shouldn't exist in TE. The winner is usually the nation who either doesn't get nuked for whatever reason, or takes one less nuke. Skill doesn't factor in as much as it should.

[Vhalen]

This is not true. At the end of each round the top nations (used to be NG) get nuked over and over by rogues and such but someone will have to win in the end. So nukes do their job fine.

Well, if you want to call them rogues. I generally consider people who duck out of alliance a few days before round end, in order to nuke the people their alliance is working against without creating a full alliance war between the two, to be more along the lines of black ops agents. Disavowed, sure, but we all know who they're working for.

That's not the point, I believe the job nukes do now, to destroy a nation, is something that shouldn't exist in TE. The winner is usually the nation who either doesn't get nuked for whatever reason, or takes one less nuke. Skill doesn't factor in as much as it should.

It doesn't destroy a nation. It does make it hard (perhaps a bit longer than it should, and I have no issue with knocking a day off nuclear anarchy, as was suggested earlier). I agree that it sucks to be in nuclear anarchy for the last 10 or 12 days of the round, watching as people above you collect millions in taxes. But it happens, and as long as TE doesn't see one massive alliance/bloc clogging the whole top 50 or so, pretty much everyone who floats into the top few will get attacked. Admin/moderation have been pretty good about catching slot-fillers and fake wars in past rounds, at least in the top 10, so "cheating the battle system" isn't really an option.

Heck, I was in basically the same situation you were, this round. We actually got nuked by the same guy, but I think I'd already saved a bit more cash than you, and I've been able to cling to a top 15 spot since, with an offhand chance at making top 10 still, depending on what happens tonight.

[Marco Pang]

That's not the point, I believe the job nukes do now, to destroy a nation, is something that shouldn't exist in TE. The winner is usually the nation who either doesn't get nuked for whatever reason, or takes one less nuke. Skill doesn't factor in as much as it should.

Nukes hurt quite a bit but if you have enough NS and a good enough WC it shouldn't do that much damage. I'm sure the winner has taken a few nukes sometimes throughout the round (though they may buy a SDI and block them, which is another point that they don't do that much).

[Fizzydog]

Hell no.