| Presidium | Friday, April 4, 2014 - 08:47 pm 
Have been seriously down played in this game. In January of 3533, i and Tony, of Coastal Rock on KB took part in a PLANNED pvp exercise. During this exercise i used a nuclear missile on a city of over 1,000,000. but it only killed 30,000 and wounded close to 50,000. Ive lauched conventional weapon attacks have done more damage than nukes. Now i dont think thats a big enough punch for nukes. No newspaper article was made for it, and no fallout disaster happened. So have i invested in all the nuclear clean up stuff for nothing? Are nuclear weapons just like any other weapon now? I'd like to see this change esp since ive invested RL money to get my nukes, and ive invested RL money in the game. I'll also be posting this in the suggestions section. |
| craigwilliamson79 | Friday, April 4, 2014 - 09:54 pm
In a war a while back, two of us landed nukes on a common enemy but no fallout occured. But, I did receive fall-out. So, I'm not really sure what is up with that. |
| President John Henry Eden | Friday, April 4, 2014 - 11:02 pm
I think fallout is like a punishment to your country for using them..... |
| Presidium | Friday, April 4, 2014 - 11:49 pm
but that doesn't address that nukes dont do enough damage. 30,000 dead in a city of 1 million? come on, Hiroshima dead more damage and that was in the early days of nuclear technology. and no fallout at all? not to my country, or any country that i could tell, when i used them. I hope this changes. |
| President John Henry Eden | Friday, April 4, 2014 - 11:59 pm
I agree, but I think they changed it so no player can kill everyone in a country...If nukes actually had their full strength, it would be possible. |
| drys0013 | Saturday, April 5, 2014 - 03:09 am
i've noticed no fallout on sub nuke missiles as well. but if you hit them with a strategic bomber, it does usually cause fallout every time. I think if you have anti-nuke near, it will stop the fallout and minimize the damages. otherwise it would make no sense for a anti nuke mobile unit to exist. Strats require 2 antinukes and the other 1 If i remember, so if your capital had 1, it might cause damage, but no fallout. Nukes being too powerful in my opinion would only drive more players away.
I have seen about 100 strikes as I used to watch the newspapers more and read what others wars look like and every time a nuke sub missile is used it has never cause fallout, though I think the docs say they are the 2nd most powerful.
Opinion: a no antinuke coutry or out of range antinuke batt from said target should had great damages, while negate the fallout as a good job for at least having some anti nukes, but not at targets. most prepared ones should get no damages. that said a hit only half way, or a full hit should kill said percentages and increase deaths over a period of time. the game does the death increase by the disaster screen and it kills more people.
Maybe a fix would be to allow for a area coverage system vs a target only system. unfortunately it would make the war engine more complex.
Yea it would be nice to see a reg nuke kill 100,000 in a full hit and 50,000 in a partial hit.
But nukes that kill too much make war too easy and yea its a great defense, but it would take away the fun for the less active war players if one or two nuke and 2 steps of a unit painting kill a country. This is chess and too powerful nukes just defeats the point, i would not want to play if it was like that.
I understand the other talk, yes more than 30K, but more like 100K, like said would be a bit closer to reality in smaller countries 20 mil-25 mil, yes 1M killed would make sense in a large 200mil type country, but even in the WW2 nukes attacks it kill more later than it ever did right away. The wounded should be 3-5x the dead honestly.
SO i think more than 30k immediately dead depending on defense setups, but lets be somewhat modest and realistic that more do die in the 2 year period it take to fix the nuke damage and i only seen that with strat bombers to be honest. |
| johndoe677 | Saturday, April 5, 2014 - 05:06 pm
a partial nuke hit? I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure thats not a real thing
my understanding of nukes in this game is it either hits or it doesn't and damage done is based on size of target/city
fallout occurs with the strat bombers only i think |
| President John Henry Eden | Saturday, April 5, 2014 - 05:37 pm
It is kinda funny if fallout occurs with strat bombers only. Considering in real life, its the opposite when it comes to bigger bombs,since most of the fallout would be blown into space. A good example would be TZAR bomb that Russia detonated many decades back. |
| Tacky.G.H | Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 01:14 pm
Hi, I was mentioned in the 1st post of this page ( coastal rock ) so nukes today have just been like made as a display model only. They have so much potential to bring newer tougher features to SC. Look at it this, if nukes were taken back to being deadly, it would have more people actually using the security council powers to forbid sales of nuclear arms to a country and stat buildings.
Currently here is what we have:
Security councils that are highly inactive, nukes that are practicaly obsolete now, not to mention players paying real cash to get these useless weapons.
It should be along these lines:
Nukes should be very dangerous, prompting security councils to intervene if one is launched. Having Nukes would mean a serious show of strengh and power. Players would have these nukes which would be deadly and catastrophic if used, in turn making our security councils active and bubbling. Frankly nukes on SC are so under rated, you dont need to worry if your enemy is has nukes or not, its now just another weapon :/
Can you imagine if nukes in todays world were like that of Sim countries, modern countries would most likely disarm most of them as they cost to much.
Nukes are just somthing to scare noobs with now, most players are aware of the little damage they do. It seems more like an insult of being hit by one has a bigger impact than the damagage :/.
Andy please review this? |
| Tacky.G.H | Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 01:16 pm
Oh dear... excuse my typo errors - pretty useless on this tablet lol |
| johndoe677 | Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 04:20 pm
well i lost a war because of nukes once but only cause i was noobish...... i think i agree with you tacky |
| President John Henry Eden | Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 11:19 pm
Nukes are for decoration....
* still has Christmas lights hanging from his nuke missiles. |
| dboyd3702 | Monday, April 7, 2014 - 01:25 am
With all of the limitations, yes.
If you had 50 nukes and could actually use them it would not be cost effect to battle you.
So you fire your one Strategic weapon for that battle, and the rest get captured. |
| Frankie | Tuesday, April 8, 2014 - 01:25 am
lol im sticking to my cruise and conventional missiles ;) |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Tuesday, April 8, 2014 - 04:41 pm
Nukes have no real effect other then to reduce population.
I have always lobbied that
-Everyone who dies should be counted to the war index- If you kill 5M people those people should count in the War index population deaths.
-Chemicals should be able to attack land based units(they would never destroy weapons but kill troops, making conventional battles more interesting
-regardless of Q they do the same damage, The Q only effects the chances of landing a nuke, i think it should also effect damage. a 300Q nuke should be 30%(just an example) more deadly then a 120Q, it has better components overall meaning it has more damage and would yeild a bigger blast meaning more kills. |
| Presidium | Friday, April 11, 2014 - 05:02 am
I want to see the GM address this soo
BUMP |
| Khome y Peng | Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 12:42 am
Nukes should mean allot more than another tactical weapon. Its like the ultimate endgame we all wanted to avoid in history so it should have that effect in this game. Makes it interesting. |
| nix001 | Monday, April 28, 2014 - 06:54 pm
BUMP |
| The_Wicked_Lady | Monday, April 28, 2014 - 07:13 pm
Bumps you back :P |
| nix001 | Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - 08:36 pm
Double Bump with no bumps back  |
| maclean | Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - 08:38 pm
I see your bump and raise you 2 bumps... |
| Presidium | Thursday, May 1, 2014 - 01:09 am
i raise you 10 bumps, count them, 10 bumps! |
| len Peat | Friday, May 9, 2014 - 08:53 pm
Mr President.
stand by for delivery from evil. |
