thedestro Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 With the SDI I think the power of nukes should be increased significantly. Perhaps to something like a 500 infra limit. That would break the balance, the SDI costs ALOT of money, thus it's only fair a nation should have a proportionate advantage against nukes. And, even if the nukes miss from the SDI, the attacker can still keep trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzak Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 Magicman657: right now big nations can't aid each other during since 3M aid is as good as no aid. 4.5M is still nothing and even 6M isn't enough to pay infra upkeep. +50% aid sounds like a lot... for nation that can't afford FAC. Once you can afford it you're still not going to buy it since it doesn't do anything except cost 5k per day (which is nothing, but you get the point). 9M aid would help a nation survive one more day during a war. I'd be ready to pay 50M for the ability to recieve aid, since right now I can only use aid slots to send pocket chance to small nations and recieve tech every once in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 The SDI is going to change the way warfare is conducted. With respect to the FAC: the sender should be the only one to have this and several other posters: NO. Aid inflation is bad. Go and read the Suggestion threads where this stuff is discussed. This wonder will come into its own in a major war when large nations are in danger of bill lock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 The SDI is going to change the way warfare is conducted.With respect to the FAC: and several other posters: NO. Aid inflation is bad. Go and read the Suggestion threads where this stuff is discussed. This wonder will come into its own in a major war when large nations are in danger of bill lock. However, someone proposed "Only the receiver needs to have this" I think THAT could potentially work. It doesn't add to inflation at all, but big nations can have it and be confident anyone with money who wants to aid them will be able to give them a significant amount, rather than the sender ALSO needing it. Doesn't add to inflation because only big nations are receiving more, makes it a bit easier to use. Though I agree with the sliding scale (+1mil/1000 infra sounded like a good benchmark) to make it worth while. That is all of course assuming we keep aid slots rather than getting rid of them entirely. </pimping again> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fistandantilus Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 These look really good, I only think the Manhatan project should be cheeper and I also think that the FAC sould triple the aid limit. Other then that, looks great, thanks admin ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted November 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) The far better solution would be to make this wonder add +1M per 1000infra you have to your aid capacity per slot (=self adjusting system), but thats another story. Since admin has said that this wonder is only going to be for the larger nations, then this is definitely the way to go. Receiving $4.5 million for me at only 6.1K infra only gives me enough money to pay for 1.5 days of bills. Across the 8K mark, it wouldn't even give one day's worth. With this system, I'd be able to receive $9 million (if you go $3 million + infra * 1000), which is three days' worth of bills. At the very least, you can have it be infra * 1000 with the minimum being $3 million. Edited November 19, 2007 by Aeternos Astramora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlayerX46 Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think I'll probably continue to get the economic wonders... none of these really strike my fancy enough to change my drive for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob the Malignant Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) The first post looks awfully familiar Edited November 19, 2007 by Kaiser Jacob II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 That would break the balance, the SDI costs ALOT of money, thus it's only fair a nation should have a proportionate advantage against nukes.And, even if the nukes miss from the SDI, the attacker can still keep trying. They would have a proportionate advantage. A nation going down would only get in about 5 nukes, not 20. Raising the damage would preserve the destruction level compared to now for those with SDI and increase it for those without. Best would be nukes can destroy 500 infra but you have a bomb shelter improvement that decreases it to 300 (5 each reduce damage 8%). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 So wait, we're in a world where for most nations a nuke is more of a nuisance than hurtful, and you want to REDUCE their effectiveness? If you're going to do that, make it 50%, and make a wonder that ups your nuke chances by 50% as well (See: Satellites and MD's for Cruise Missiles). Either that, or a wonder that allows you to develop multiple nukes per day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Best would be nukes can destroy 500 infra but you have a bomb shelter improvement that decreases it to 300 (5 each reduce damage 8%). Have you ever fought in a nuclear war? Because allowing 500 infra destroyed would mean mass ZIings on both sides. In a single war, you could lose 3,000 infra to nukes alone. Not good. Rogues also become waaay too powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innerspeaker Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I think that instead of increasing the amount of foreign aid sent for the foreign aid wonder, an alternative way to increase the spread of aids would be more useful. I'm suggesting that the aid expiration date be halved, so that much more foreign aid can be sent in the same amount of time. 50% is no where near enough of an increase. Not by today's standards, where 3mil barely gets 4 levels of infrastructure for the majority of people that could afford a wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderwiggin Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I think that instead of increasing the amount of foreign aid sent for the foreign aid wonder, an alternative way to increase the spread of aids would be more useful. I'm suggesting that the aid expiration date be halved, so that much more foreign aid can be sent in the same amount of time. 50% is no where near enough of an increase. Not by today's standards, where 3mil barely gets 4 levels of infrastructure for the majority of people that could afford a wonder. I think the only real reason for this wonder would be when nations are at war and are bill-locked. The extra aid available to be sent would help them pay they're bills and replenish they're nations forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slashes-With-Claws Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Nice, Admin used two of my ideas. Slightly modified from my original, but I like them. Foreign Air Force Base - $35,000,000 - Raises the aircraft limit +20 for your nation and increases the number of aircraft that can be sent in each attack mission +10. Hidden Nuclear Missile Silo - $30,000,000 - Allows your nation to develop +5 nuclear missiles that cannot be destroyed in spy attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy the Mighty Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Good to see the admin putting some new stuff in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I personally think there are too many military wonders. But specifically this: Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) - $75,000,000 - Reduces odds of a successful nuclear attack against your nation by 75%. The SDI wonder also requires 3 satellites and 3 missile defenses and those satellites and missile defenses cannot be deleted once the wonder is developed. I think it's a pretty bad choice, nuclear warfare is both effective and necessary, and this would make it pretty redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Bwalla III Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I personally think there are too many military wonders. But specifically this:I think it's a pretty bad choice, nuclear warfare is both effective and necessary, and this would make it pretty redundant. It may be effective but it is NOT necessary. If nations don't really want to be involved in nuclear war, they should be able to choose so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 The reduction by 75% is ludicrous. It should be a reduction to 75%. Even at that price. Might as well have removed them from the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudeldorf Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I personally think there are too many military wonders. But specifically this:I think it's a pretty bad choice, nuclear warfare is both effective and necessary, and this would make it pretty redundant. Attacking nations can fire nukes until one makes it through. It does nothing to nuclear warfare's effectiveness; just makes it faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) You'll burn through nukes (which are hard enough to purchase as it is) much faster. Both sides will be out of nukes much faster while doing less damage, so what's the point of having them? Edited November 20, 2007 by Arcturus Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 It may be effective but it is NOT necessary. If nations don't really want to be involved in nuclear war, they should be able to choose so. That's some flawed logic there. Can nations in RL choose whether they want to be involved in nuclear warfare or not? I think it's pretty outrageous to give that choice, as it's not up to any nation. It's just how the game works, and nukes are a feature of the game, but this wonder will ruin the feature. Attacking nations can fire nukes until one makes it through. It does nothing to nuclear warfare's effectiveness; just makes it faster. It does have something to do with it, because nations are going to be wasting a lot of nukes. If you spend 100 mill on the Manhattan project, and trade for uranium and have nukes, I don't think it will be nice, having those nukes "fail". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 In the initial new wonder topic I saw several people ask, "Will both nations have to have the federal aid comission" and others responded "it would only make sense." If it is meant to be something like the Marshall Plan, then you would need to have the infrastructure (runways, highways, etc.) in order to handle all the aid traffic coming in and the ability to distribute it properly. So in a way I guess, both needing to have FAC makes sense. Still, as written it is welfare for rich people, save to the very, very rare occasions when you have a powerful nation that gets severely beaten down in war and now is looking to recover more rapidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondock Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) I personally think SDI is over effective. It gives you a good chance of invulnerability to nukes. It is either way overpowered or not near expensive enough. Federal Aid Commission is fairly useless for it's price. 50 million for an extra 1.5mil per aid slot is not effective in war, considering you would be much better off if you just had the 50mil in your warchest to begin with. Foreign Air Force Base is one of the most useful ones up there. Air attacks are the second most destructive type of warfare, this greatly enhances it. Hidden Nuclear Silo seems useful especially considering the SDI, and its relatively low price makes it one of the best war wonders to get. Pentagon is fairly useless except for raiders, as ground attacks are not a big part of large nation warfare. No wars are conventional nowadays. CIA seems useful, though the cost is extreme to say the least. 250 spies is expensive, effective, but expensive. Along with the cost of the wonder itself. Anti-Air seems useful, though not entirely worth the price until you get way up in infra. *Edit* Almost forgot the most talked over one. Manhattan project is overpriced considering what it is meant for. It will take well over a month for a nation not in the top 5% to get a Manhattan Project, and they do not seem effective at all unless you are looking to get beaten down from a very VERY high infra. Otherwise the 100mil would be better placed in a warchest. Edited November 20, 2007 by Boondock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) I personally think there are too many military wonders. But specifically this:I think it's a pretty bad choice, nuclear warfare is both effective and necessary, and this would make it pretty redundant. Not so fast... Part of the reason in RL that the Russians are so bitter over the prospect of the Americans achieving even a limited missile defense shield is because it makes the threat of nuclear weapons much less credible. Yes, they could still overwhelm American defenses with sheer numbers of missiles and warheads, but a limited strike (like one the North Koreans or Iranians will soon be able to muster) would be basically impossible. A more complete missile defense shield would ensure that even larger strikes would not be able to get through, or would only get through by the application of ever larger numbers of missiles and warheads. Since there is a significant expense associated with maintaining a large nuclear arsenal (and let's face it, Russia is broke), you can understand why Mr. Putin is annoyed...of course being an American, I say let him scratch his mad spot. In CN terms, all this means that the game becomes more realistic. A missile defense shield will not be available to very many nations (I don't have $75 m in my back pocket for one) but the wealthiest nations will certainly want to invest in it for "anti-nuke rogue protection" (and I believe that is a major selling point of the US system currently being deployed....). Edited November 20, 2007 by ChairmanHal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) You are probably wondering about the double post. So am I. Edited November 20, 2007 by ChairmanHal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.