Starcraftmazter Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) 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 treat 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. Then I suggest the admin gives us the ability to easily obtain several thousand nukes to counter the SDI? and let's face it, Russia is broke Don't know why you're dragging RL politics into this, but what you are saying there, is contrary to the truth. 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" The problem is, as I've stated elsewhere, is that RL != CN, and for obvious reasons, CN should not try and imitate RL as much as possible, because CN is a game, and fun should be the #1 priority. Nukes are designed for high-range nations to throw at each other. And this improvement will make this concept redundant. It doesn't make the game more realistic, it removes the purpose of nukes. In real life there are many ways to deploy nuclear weapons. If you want this game to resemble RL, why not implement some REAL RL stuff? Why not make spies be able to construct nukes and detonate them in the enemy's nation? Why not have an option to sneak a nuclear weapon in? Why not have an option of researching advanced ICBM technology which would make any missile defence pointless? Edited November 20, 2007 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 The wonders are pretty expensive, price reductions may be in order for some of them. And as far as the aid commission, you have to keep it as it is. The whole point is to not allow a starting nations to receive more aid so they can rocket up the ranks. It is simply so that bigger nations actually are able to be helped by their banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toichus Maximus Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I think that, while it is a game, its important to keep it as realistic as possible. I love the SDI wonder, but agree that it needs a balancer. That's indubitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Then I suggest the admin gives us the ability to easily obtain several thousand nukes to counter the SDI?Don't know why you're dragging RL politics into this, but what you are saying there, is contrary to the truth. The problem is, as I've stated elsewhere, is that RL != CN, and for obvious reasons, CN should not try and imitate RL as much as possible, because CN is a game, and fun should be the #1 priority. Nukes are designed for high-range nations to throw at each other. And this improvement will make this concept redundant. It doesn't make the game more realistic, it removes the purpose of nukes. In real life there are many ways to deploy nuclear weapons. If you want this game to resemble RL, why not implement some REAL RL stuff? Why not make spies be able to construct nukes and detonate them in the enemy's nation? Why not have an option to sneak a nuclear weapon in? Why not have an option of researching advanced ICBM technology which would make any missile defence pointless? I'm not sure you understand just how devastating nukes are to larger nations. At your size..who cares, 150 infra can be replaced quite easily with an aid package. But for a nation of even my moderate size at 8k infra, 150 infra is worth 27 million dollars, not easily replaceable. I think the cost and effects are perfect. Not many people will be able ot afford it except for the biggest nations, which IMO is a good thing. And trust me, it will be worth it to those big nations to spend the huge amount of money to get it. Edited November 20, 2007 by Guido Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 SDI Making this wonder more expensive or more hard to get not gonna solve the problem. Nuke, when it is used, take a large damage on your enemy with very small effort. The fact that it won't be always success add some excitement to the game. Forcing us to always have plan B other than just sending a NUKE. If the only thing some one can do is sending a NUKE, god bless him. I suggest to add somemore mechanics to the game, like the effects of SDI will void if the defender refuse to rebuy the soldiers. Or have 0 defending soldiers for more than 1 day. This will add force people to create a scenario that can make SDI ineffective. Thus more thoughts. Federal Aid Commission This one will be useful for post war rebuilding. Assume that we both standing at 6000 infra, and have too much money in hand. We both bought FAC. Nah one month later, I am there with 1000 infra, and you are aiding me. Hidden Nuclear Silo This one guarantee that you can have a chance to fire at least 5 nukes. Without have to fire them fast. You can fire one every 5 days to ensure nuclear anarchy on your enemy. But not really like it. Foreign Air Force Base and Anti-Air I like this two wonders. Pentagon Useless, if you want higher odds, deploy more. There will be always a situation where you cannot outdeploy them, youjust have to live with it. CIA Getting all 550 spies now is a challenge themselves. For now, I do not think having them will be good. SInce you do not have to be in war to spy on one, you can always pick the guy that you can successfully spy on. Manhattan Project For now, most people that can save to purchase this one will likely able to reach 5% range soon anyway. In that sense it is useless. But if you already have the Manhattan project I wonder if it will allow you to buy nuke without infra, and with very low tech, if yes, this is the first thing to get for a nuke rogue. Save some big cash, buy this wonder, get a uranium trade set up, declare, sell all your infra, pay low bills, after running out of nuke, by one, and fire them, everyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 IMO the problem being corrected by the SDI is that wars were automatically going nuclear for no apparent reason now. With how big nations are now, there is no reason NOT to nuke your opponent if you are close to being on the losing end, so why not start from the beginning? The SDI resets the game to the status quo so that conventional warfare now has its place again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madspartus Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) for foreign aid why not make it stack. if the sender has one then its +50% if both have one then its +100% or maybe multiply and +125%...suffice to say some larger number is appropriate if both nations have it, then it could stay at its higher price. This should also be applied to TROOP aid. sending such small numbers of soldiers is useless to large nations but if it could be increased by say 5x for 1 wonder and 10x for 2 wonders then sending 20k troops would actually be enought to bail someone out of a bad spot. perhaps smaller values if those are too big. 2.5x and 5.0x with regard to having +250 spies. How about just a spy effectiveness bonus instead. 25% or so, either to total spy strength or just the spies themselves. This means that we dont have to buy so many of the lil-buggers, it ammounts to nearly the same thing in the end. another alternative to this would be something like a pernant +x to spy strength of the nation, it would have to be weaker than 250 i think though since these spies cant be killed. Edited November 20, 2007 by madspartus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal 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. This is a good point, and is somewhat of a concern. Nuclear weapons are becoming less and less effective. Granted, I don't have the answer , but it's still a concern Good to see new things in the game though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyCallMeJeezy Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 SDI has been changed to 60% now, if that hasn't already been said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I'm not sure you understand just how devastating nukes are to larger nations. At your size..who cares, 150 infra can be replaced quite easily with an aid package. It would take 6mill, not "an" - one aid package. But for a nation of even my moderate size at 8k infra, 150 infra is worth 27 million dollars, not easily replaceable. I think the cost and effects are perfect. Not many people will be able ot afford it except for the biggest nations, which IMO is a good thing. And trust me, it will be worth it to those big nations to spend the huge amount of money to get it. 27mill shouldn't be a lot to an 8k infra nation, I would think. And that's the entire point of nukes - to deal massive damage to the enemy. As for only the biggest nations being able to afford it, that may be so, but alliances with good banking systems are going to systematically buy this improvement for all of their nations, and nuclear warfare against them will be useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compstomper13 Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) It would take 6mill, not "an" - one aid package.27mill shouldn't be a lot to an 8k infra nation, I would think. And that's the entire point of nukes - to deal massive damage to the enemy. As for only the biggest nations being able to afford it, that may be so, but alliances with good banking systems are going to systematically buy this improvement for all of their nations, and nuclear warfare against them will be useless. Just because we have a higher infra level does not mean we make much more than the 5k infra nations. Our total income can become many times more but our bills pretty much keep pace. Our net after bills only increases marginally even with being thousands of infra points larger. Larger nations take much larger amounts of damage than nations smaller than us do from nukes.That is EXTREMELY unlikely because for most medium sized or smaller nations if would be cheaper to just rebuild them in a nuclear war. It would also take about 2 months to aid a nation enough money to buy one of these. That is if they did not waste one day in all that aiding and if they used all 5 of their aid slots for receiving cash only. Edited November 20, 2007 by Compstomper13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) It would take 6mill, not "an" - one aid package.27mill shouldn't be a lot to an 8k infra nation, I would think. And that's the entire point of nukes - to deal massive damage to the enemy. As for only the biggest nations being able to afford it, that may be so, but alliances with good banking systems are going to systematically buy this improvement for all of their nations, and nuclear warfare against them will be useless. LOL, what alliance bank do you know that are going to "systematically" buy a 75 million dollar improvement for all their nations. I'd love to see that. The follow calculations are assuming that this amazing bank has already bought their members the foreign aid wonder. So 75 million / 4.5 million per slot = 16.66 aid slots. So pretty much, 17 aid slots are going to have to be used to send 75 million dollars to a nation. That equates to a period of over 20 days to complete. That is one amazing banking system if you can pull that off PER nation. Also, 27 million is alot to any nation. I make about 6 million after taxes, so everyday that I'm nuked I have to spend 4.5 days just to earn back that infra. Multiply that over 6 days of nukes and thats 27 days it will take me to earn that back. 6 nukes do a months worth of damage...and at what cost to the attacker? Many times none because the nation is quitting anyway. Also, the other problem is that nowadays wars have turned into, "If you have nukes, use them". The entire war system is useless because most nations that have nukes are going to use them in the war, so who cares about conventional wars. That takes alot of the skill and strategy out of the game...the little that was there to begin with anyway. We need to go back to when nukes were a HUGE deal. Nations that used them were not only crushed by the enemy, but disowned by their own alliance. Unlike today when nukes are just a larger cruise missile. Edited November 20, 2007 by Guido Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compstomper Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Everything you said is very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin3807 Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 LOL, what alliance bank do you know that are going to "systematically" buy a 75 million dollar improvement for all their nations. I'd love to see that. The follow calculations are assuming that this amazing bank has already bought their members the foreign aid wonder. So 75 million / 4.5 million per slot = 16.66 aid slots. So pretty much, 17 aid slots are going to have to be used to send 75 million dollars to a nation. That equates to a period of over 20 days to complete. That is one amazing banking system if you can pull that off PER nation.Also, 27 million is alot to any nation. I make about 6 million after taxes, so everyday that I'm nuked I have to spend 4.5 days just to earn back that infra. Multiply that over 6 days of nukes and thats 27 days it will take me to earn that back. 6 nukes do a months worth of damage...and at what cost to the attacker? Many times none because the nation is quitting anyway. Also, the other problem is that nowadays wars have turned into, "If you have nukes, use them". The entire war system is useless because most nations that have nukes are going to use them in the war, so who cares about conventional wars. That takes alot of the skill and strategy out of the game...the little that was there to begin with anyway. We need to go back to when nukes were a HUGE deal. Nations that used them were not only crushed by the enemy, but disowned by their own alliance. Unlike today when nukes are just a larger cruise missile. Would you suggest something as simple as reducing the percentage lower than the 5% that it currently sits at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reich Zealand Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I don't like the SDI Wonder, the chance of success is far to high. All it does is reduce nuclear war to a game of 'who has the biggest stockpile'. It should be 20% chance of interception, and that attack fills your nuke slot for the 24 hour period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fistandantilus Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) I don't like the SDI Wonder, the chance of success is far to high. All it does is reduce nuclear war to a game of 'who has the biggest stockpile'. It should be 20% chance of interception, and that attack fills your nuke slot for the 24 hour period. Not a bad idea. Also, do you think that they will lower the price of the manhatten project? Having it at 100 mil kinda defeats the perpose(you can easaly use that 100 mil to get into the top 5). Edited November 20, 2007 by Fistandantilus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin3807 Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Not a bad idea.Also, do you think that they will lower the price of the manhatten project? Having it at 100 mil kinda defeats the perpose(you can easaly use that 100 mil to get into the top 5). That's what I was getting at with this post: "I agree that it should be really hard to get. With that said, perhaps since there is now an alternative, the original path to being Nuclear capable should be made more difficult. Maybe Top 3-4%, rather than top 5%. Yes, it's harder percentage wise, however you've got another avenue if you'd prefer it. I think it'd certainly make the Manhattan project more "worth it". Obviously those already with Nukes could be "grandfathered in"." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profquail Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Also, why not make it so that all (or at least all military) improvements and wonders are hidden from view by default, but have it so that a spy mission can discover which improvements/wonders they have (like the hidden missile silo, it should be...hidden?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fistandantilus Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Also, why not make it so that all (or at least all military) improvements and wonders are hidden from view by default, but have it so that a spy mission can discover which improvements/wonders they have (like the hidden missile silo, it should be...hidden?) Well, if you think about it, its pretty hard to hide the pentigon.... But I completly agree with hiding the secreate missle silo as well as the nukes in it(your 1st 5 nukes, so if you really have 7, it only shows 2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madspartus Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Not a bad idea.Also, do you think that they will lower the price of the manhatten project? Having it at 100 mil kinda defeats the perpose(you can easaly use that 100 mil to get into the top 5). The point of the wonder is not to avoid being in the top 5, the point is you can potentially be knocked out of the top 5 during a war and lose your ability to replace nukes. By buying this you don't need to worry about losing the ability to buy nukes due to ranking. it also lets an alliance have designated nuke capable nations for dealing with rogues who need to be ZI'd etc. those nations can have cheap infra and lots of tech to get their ns up, and buy nukes using the wonder. their damages are easily paid for by the banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 It would also take about 2 months to aid a nation enough money to buy one of these. That is if they did not waste one day in all that aiding and if they used all 5 of their aid slots for receiving cash only. 50 days. And what of that? That is one amazing banking system if you can pull that off PER nation. Sure is. Also, 27 million is alot to any nation. I make about 6 million after taxes, so everyday that I'm nuked I have to spend 4.5 days just to earn back that infra. Multiply that over 6 days of nukes and thats 27 days it will take me to earn that back. 6 nukes do a months worth of damage...and at what cost to the attacker? Many times none because the nation is quitting anyway. I think it's all a matter of perspective. I don't think that 27 days is a lot at all, to recover from 6 days of nukes. If it was several months, maybe. Also, the other problem is that nowadays wars have turned into, "If you have nukes, use them". The entire war system is useless because most nations that have nukes are going to use them in the war, so who cares about conventional wars. That takes alot of the skill and strategy out of the game...the little that was there to begin with anyway. I think that using nukes to their full potential, combined with conventional warfare can be a complex strategy as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 50 days. And what of that?Sure is. I think it's all a matter of perspective. I don't think that 27 days is a lot at all, to recover from 6 days of nukes. If it was several months, maybe. I think that using nukes to their full potential, combined with conventional warfare can be a complex strategy as well. What is complex about pressing a button to destroy your opponent? I can't think of anything easier, hell you don't even need anyone else to do that. Atleast in conventional warfare it is to your advantage to have a squad to coordinate attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Would you suggest something as simple as reducing the percentage lower than the 5% that it currently sits at? I have always supported this, but also making nukes much much more expensive, like in another game like this one. So before launching a nuke you have to think, is it really profitable to do this? If anything the nuke should cost more than what you are destroying as a young nation...not in all cases of course, but for a 3k infra nation, it should imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Manhatten Project. I think it should be one or the other, top 5% or Manhatten Project. With this addition, it becomes less worthwhile. I doubt nations outside of the top 5% would even spend 100 mil for nuclear capability. In the top 5%, they'd probably just buy other wonders first. Perhaps raising the top 5% to top 3 or 1% would be in order, or eliminate it altogether. (This I say upon finally reaching top5 a few days ago...) SDI: I like it. I don't understand those that say nukes are weak. 150 infrastructure is a ton. Why not make it cost an average of four nukes to bring that down? After all, you'll be spreading the attack indefinitely with three nations keeping the defender in war mode by attacking before the first war ends and on and on. 25% success is a good number for this expensive wonder. FCC: Or the trade one... I think that if the receiver of aid has the wonder, that should be enough for the 150% capacity. That way, since very few will pay for this wonder, we don't run into the problem where no one else has it. And this still prevents inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 What is complex about pressing a button to destroy your opponent? I can't think of anything easier, hell you don't even need anyone else to do that. Atleast in conventional warfare it is to your advantage to have a squad to coordinate attacks. I think you're oversimplifying it, and your argument can go for both sides of the war - why can't each alliance just press buttons? They'd be equally dis/advantaged. Strategy comes in to nuking the most enemy nations, and getting the least of your nations nuked. 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.