Charles Bolivar Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 I have a suggestion in regards to adding a perk for nuclear weapons. Basically choosing the proposed nuclear weapon perk would allow nuclear weapons to destroy a power plant every time a nuclear attack is successful, so pretty much simulating the EMP effects of a nuclear strike on one particular city. The benefits are kind of indirect however I believe they could add a substantial depth of strategy to upper tier conflicts. The first one being, nuclear weapons will now be a feasible option for nations involved in offensive warfare and not solely limited for use by mostly defensive nations who have been mostly zeroed throughout the rest of their military. Nukes would have a strategic use other than something being regarded as only for nations with no other military units to defend themselves with. Secondly and this I believe is the most important one. Nations who are on the defensive and are overwhelmingly outnumbered would have a chance at eventually turning the tables by the use of nukes against their opponents who would lose the use of a city and the military improvements in that city every time they are successfully nuked. Pretty much losing the use of a city per nuke per day which could allow nations and alliances who took a stomping in the first round to perhaps conduct a successful counter attack in the 2nd round if they themselves haven't also been nuked into oblivion. The cons are well..I suspect wars could be much shorter and more expensive since everyone will try to nuke each other first perhaps. Plus people could perhaps just start purchasing before a war breaks out extra power plants to run their cities but that I believe adds to the strategic preparation anyway. Discuss, criticise, bash to bits and poke holes in it the proposal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) Maybe instead of destroying a power plant it disables it? Power plants aren't cheap. Interesting idea otherwise. Edited January 9, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented 2 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valakias Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Demolishing power plants would make the nukes overpowered beyond reason. Disabling them, instead, sounds better, but only if said perk also reduced the nuke damage by a lot, because both destroying huge chunks of infrastructure AND disabling any military rebuild, and resource production, seems a bit too extreme for me. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viselli Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It could be a targeted emp where it destroys all powerplants but nothng else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerys Targaryen Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) Well, a nation with CIA and NRF can do wonders in war with this perk, it will take away the importance of conventional ground/air/naval forces. This perk will force the receiving nation to repair it's infrastructure during the war period or risk losing the city till the war gets over, which seems out of balance. However, disabling the powerplants in the respective city for 24 hours seems reasonable for me. Edited January 9, 2016 by Aerys Targaryen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 if nukes are being primarily used defensively then i'd say don't purposefully change that, because it's better that way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) if nukes are being primarily used defensively then i'd say don't purposefully change that, because it's better that way The proposed perk would give the nukes an actual defensive use other than being the only method in which to deal damage when outnumbered. This way, a nation on the defensive could possibly manage to lessen the odds against them due to being outnumbered by crippling their attacker's offensive potential. And yeah, having the city's power knocked out for a set time period instead of being destroyed actually does sound better. Edited January 10, 2016 by Charles the Tyrant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 The proposed perk would give the nukes an actual defensive use other than being the only method in which to deal damage when outnumbered. This way, a nation on the defensive could possibly manage to lessen the odds against them due to being outnumbered by crippling their attacker's offensive potential. And yeah, having the city's power knocked out for a set time period instead of being destroyed actually does sound better. but it doesn't change strategy. it's just a buff to nukes. why wouldn't attackers also use them for the same purpose? why not just make nukes deal more damage? messing with my power supply just sounds annoying. and it doesn't really make sense. why would nukes target power plants specifically? don't we already have a weapon that targets improvements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorton Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 if nukes are being primarily used defensively then i'd say don't purposefully change that, because it's better that way How is it better that way? Nukes hardly do anything. Even defensively nukes arent really good. Me for an example. I use nukes only for a deterrent cuz i keep no military on hand, but probably in actually combat i would be beiged in 2 days. All i would of done is Barley ZI 1 city and at this point of the game rebuilding 1000-2000 infra is pretty much nothing now. I guess i could keep a military but i would still have to choose either turtle and nuke or actually try fighting back. Nukes just need some buffing up. Even if this perk was added, nukes would still be nerfed. Its a good start tho!!!!! EMPs would be a good addition but i would make it last longer then 24 hours. Atleast 48-72 hours. Maybe have it depend on how big the city is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 How is it better that way? Nukes hardly do anything. Even defensively nukes arent really good. Me for an example. I use nukes only for a deterrent cuz i keep no military on hand, but probably in actually combat i would be beiged in 2 days. All i would of done is Barley ZI 1 city and at this point of the game rebuilding 1000-2000 infra is pretty much nothing now. I guess i could keep a military but i would still have to choose either turtle and nuke or actually try fighting back. Nukes just need some buffing up. Even if this perk was added, nukes would still be nerfed. Its a good start tho!!!!! EMPs would be a good addition but i would make it last longer then 24 hours. Atleast 48-72 hours. Maybe have it depend on how big the city is. what if we put a cap on the number of nukes, but allowed upgrades to them? so you could have maybe 1 nuke per city max, but each can be upgraded to deliver a larger payload, and can cause damage to and blackouts in multiple cities (say up to 3, targeted at one specifically) for several days at a time. that would give more strategy to nukes and make them more dangerous, but require a significantly higher investment (if you have no army, you're making more money, and so this provides a money sink) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 you blow up 500k power plant, and that is considered overpowered? if losing a 500k improvement is the difference between a win and loss for you when you are at the size where you would expect to be getting nuked, then you are doing something wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) It could be a targeted emp where it destroys all powerplants but nothng else. You understand that that defeats the entire purpose of having the nuke kill the power plant right? The goal of wiping out the power plant is that now the nuked player is forced to either rebuy the infra so that they can rebuy the power plant, decom a ton of improvements so that they can open up a slot for a new power plant, some mix of the two, or just suck it up and leave a city crippled and lose the troops that city provides. Edited January 11, 2016 by Sweeeeet Ronny D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 you blow up 500k power plant, and that is considered overpowered? if losing a 500k improvement is the difference between a win and loss for you when you are at the size where you would expect to be getting nuked, then you are doing something wrong. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^ I mean if nukes can take out 2 Improvements, what if a nuke takes out 2 Drydocks (not likely I know, but....) and the loss of ships that go with them......$250k/Drydock ($500K) and 10 Ships at $50k each ($500k) that would be $1M plus the cost of the resources to rebuild those. I also think if you target a power plant, that would use up the 2 Improvements. I'm also in favor of the temporary plant disablement......say for as long as you are at war with the person who shot the nuke......so max of like 4 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 but it doesn't change strategy. it's just a buff to nukes. why wouldn't attackers also use them for the same purpose? why not just make nukes deal more damage? messing with my power supply just sounds annoying. and it doesn't really make sense. why would nukes target power plants specifically? don't we already have a weapon that targets improvements? Of course it makes sense, it is simulating the EMP effect which follows a nuclear attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Of course it makes sense, it is simulating the EMP effect which follows a nuclear attack. Electromagnetic Pulse In addition to other effects, a nuclear weapon detonated in or above the earth’s atmosphere can create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), a high-density electrical field. An EMP acts like a stroke of lightning but is stronger, faster, and shorter. An EMP can seriously damage electronic devices connected to power sources or antennas. This includes communication systems, computers, electrical appliances, and automobile or aircraft ignition systems. The damage could range from a minor interruption to actual burnout of components. Most electronic equipment within 1,000 miles of a high-altitude nuclear detonation could be affected. Battery-powered radios with short antennas generally would not be affected. Although an EMP is unlikely to harm most people, it could harm those with pacemakers or other implanted electronic devices. http://www.ready.gov/nuclear-blast i didn't know they could do that. fair enough, it does make it a better simulation. Edited January 12, 2016 by Hierophant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannan13 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Maybe instead of destroying a power plant it disables it? Power plants aren't cheap. Interesting idea otherwise. Well coal mines are, but if you EMP a nuclear power plant then you are in trouble. Quote Tiocfaidh ár lá =Censored by Politics and War Moderation team= 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.