Sir Scarfalot

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About Sir Scarfalot

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    At my computer
  • Interests
  • Alliance Pip
    Brotherhood of the Clouds
  • Leader Name
    Sir Scarfalot
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    Department of Opposition

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Sir Scarfalot #7619

Recent Profile Visitors

761 profile views
  1. 1. see your own point 2. Furthermore, the fact that nukes get spied off is one of my main arguments as to why you shouldn't have a stockpile of nukes in the first place. 2. one nuke a day is exactly how many you can launch at any given nation anyway, so stockpiles only really help if you want to launch a ton of nukes all at once, and even then it has to be against a ton of separate war fronts. 3. you can avoid paying nuke upkeep if you launch one nuke a day, on time, and don't stockpile. How exactly do conventional forces keep nukes effective anyway? You can launch a nuke with or without conventional forces, those really just help you maintain infrastructure or money stockpiles. I'm not even saying that nukes should or even can be the be-all and end-all military solution; they can't. But they're far from weak or useless. (Missiles, on the other hand, absolutely can be a nations' sole military and work very well in that capacity.) Yeah, but upkeep can be dodged if you so choose to play it that way. Of course, all of this logic is just my observations; I still have no idea how the heck Fraggle does what Fraggle does. But Fraggle does what Fraggle does, and that's just a fact.
  2. It's literally the only defense against nuclear weapons. However, at 20% effectiveness... it really is a bad project that does no good and the slot would be better used on almost anything else. However, this is because even if 20% less effective, nukes are still powerful and dangerous, not because nukes are not powerful and don't need to be defended against.
  3. It's at least here; the alliance La Costra Nosa has the acronym of C and N, which as we all know results in being auto-filtered to a long sentence.
  4. I did already say that conventional forces can do more damage more efficiently. I also mentioned that they had weaknesses that nukes and missiles lack, or can at least be avoided in nukes and missiles. Besides, there's a ton of variables that I can't assume, such as city counts and percentage of total military or the existence and strength of defending forces.
  5. it wasn't a mistake it was a glitch ;-;
  6. Oh, you want numbers? Here we go then: Cost of nuke: 250 uranium @ 3299 ea. = $824,750 500 gasoline @ 3680 ea. = $1,840,000 750 aluminum @ 3183 ea. = $2,387,250 resource subtotal = $5,052,000 construction cost = $1,750,000 final total = $6,802,000 Damage of nuke (in attrition war): 1510 infrastructure (approx, versus 2000 infra city) 2 improvements Against your nation setup, and the most common apparent target infrastructure of 2000, the calculator responds with... The value of infrastructure purchased, starting from the amount 490 and ending at the amount 2000 is: $14,188,155.10 (and that's assuming urbanization) Ergo, a nuke leaves you at a damage deficit of $7,386,155 money. And ten cents. So it's a victory, even in your best case scenario. Now, sure, conventional forces CAN do more damage more efficiently, but they have a running cost to maintain which can be avoided with nukes, if you build right before launch. Furthermore, being countered by 3 nations equal to or greater than your own will inevitably result in your military being obliterated, while nukes and missiles can't be destroyed in that fashion. They can be spied off, but that's inconsistent, and very unlikely if you build right before launch.
  7. >paying upkeep just build nukes/missiles right as soon as you have the actions to use 'em. That's the best. And sure they may cost money, and people have plenty of it to recover losses, but opportunity cost is still a thing; every dollar you spend on infra is a dollar not spent on doing damage to an enemy.
  8. it was stupidly cold even in California yesterday; we usually have ridiculously mild winters. I am disappoint right now; I mean the fact that half of it either has been or is on fire should at least prevent it being cold right?
  9. why tho
  10. when's the deadline? It's nighttime out here but I might be able to find a mantis tomorrow
  11. it's a pretty small dick relative to the balls if so
  12. they look pretty irrelevant to me
  13. Huh? But NAPs are the only treaties enforced by the game mechanics; they can't be removed from the web graphic without removing relevant information. I agree that there's a dumb amount of paper and it makes the web ugly though. Maybe there should be a filter option or something so you can see it without NAPs, that'd be best imo
  14. Nukes can affect military, but missiles can be directed to. They're actually really good at that.