Buorhann Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 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 December 16, 2017 by Buorhann Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 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. 1 Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 3 hours ago, Placentica said: We all know you guys love your VD's. I actually had to take the time to look this up. That's how bad of a project that is. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Nukes are just fun, guys. Not everything has to be min/maxed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betulius Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 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 4 Quote Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]> God your worse the grealind >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 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. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) 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 December 17, 2017 by Partisan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G'Kar Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) 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 December 17, 2017 by Sir Scarfalot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobby the Free Elf Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 your face is a NK notice of cancellation. Nukes are for losers. I'm a loser. Why don't I have nukes? Quote Quiet people have the loudest minds. A wise man once said nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted December 17, 2017 Author Share Posted December 17, 2017 Come to the apeside 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 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 December 22, 2017 by Placentica aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers 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.