Jump to content

NK notice of cancellation.


Apeman
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

-Snip-

Ok, now run the numbers on Naval attacks (3 of them, considering it's 12 MAP for a Nuke) and Air attacks.

Nuke does front loaded damage on a single city.  3 separate successful Naval/Air attacks spreads it across 3 cities.

Use the same Infra (2000) in your analysis.

----

EDIT:  While maintaining a military is a running costs (So is having 100+ nukes stashed up), there's other benefits to it as well.  Minor though (Such as looting, blockading, etc).

I think last we checked, if you have over 1700 Infra - that's when Nukes start becoming efficient, any less than that and they're useless.  Conventional strikes doesn't suffer as much in comparison.

Obviously the more Infra someone has, the more cost effective a Nuke becomes.

Thinking about it though, anybody have the Average Infra per City with the Top 15 Alliances?

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Ok, now run the numbers on Naval attacks (3 of them, considering it's 12 MAP for a Nuke) and Air attacks.

Nuke does front loaded damage on a single city.  3 separate successful Naval/Air attacks spreads it across 3 cities.

Use the same Infra (2000) in your analysis.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know you guys love your VD's.  Stop being coy.

Y'all are not going to get a call from my insurance agent.  He's making a mint off Fark and Ape.  NB making that guy rich.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

I actually had to take the time to look this up.  That's how bad of a project that is.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I actually had to take the time to look this up.  That's how bad of a project that is.

He obviously meant venereal diseases

  • Upvote 4

Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]>    God your worse the grealind >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

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.

You forgot the cost in gas and muni when running air /naval attacks and the rebuy costs if any for the planes and ships. Nukes are a one time cost other than upkeep. Conventional attacks cost you to buy, upkeep and use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did state there are variables that's hard to cost in.  You'd have to have a pre-determined number of Ships/Planes before you're able to calculate in the cost of Fuel/Munitions into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Who Me said:

You forgot the cost in gas and muni when running air /naval attacks and the rebuy costs if any for the planes and ships. Nukes are a one time cost other than upkeep. Conventional attacks cost you to buy, upkeep and use them.

>Nukes are a one time cost

 

> other than upkeep.

 

That makes it a structural expense by definition.

 

Bruh.

Edited by Partisan

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

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.

Three problems.

1. You did not factor into your math the fact that you'll lose 1/3 to 1/2 of your nuke stockpile before its ever used.

2. If you solve that issue by only building right before launching, then you are limited to one nuke a day.

3. Saying conventional forces have upkeep that makes them worse is doubly dishonest. AS a, so do nukes, and b you have to maintain a conventional force to keep nukes effective anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, G'Kar said:

Three problems.

1. You did not factor into your math the fact that you'll lose 1/3 to 1/2 of your nuke stockpile before its ever used.

2. If you solve that issue by only building right before launching, then you are limited to one nuke a day.

3. Saying conventional forces have upkeep that makes them worse is doubly dishonest. AS a, so do nukes, and b you have to maintain a conventional force to keep nukes effective anyways.

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.)

51 minutes ago, Partisan said:

>Nukes are a one time cost

 

> other than upkeep.

 

That makes it a structural expense by definition.

 

Bruh.


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.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2017 at 0:17 PM, Betulius said:

He obviously meant venereal diseases

:)  I really missed out on that treaty dick topic too.  That was a quality page or two in there.

Edited by Placentica
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.