Currently in the game, you only have ICBMs, nuclear ballistic missiles, and nuclear cruise missiles. How about adding different ones, for example, a B83 for the Western research doctrine, an RDS-37 for Eastern, and the Yellow Sun/Red Snow for the European doctrine. These would be delivered through heavy bombers, and would be considerably more powerful than the missiles. Thoughts?
Another level of nuclear weapons past ICBM?
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
Are you hoping to have your Morale actually drop BELOW zero?
thanoscar21 wrote:
Currently in the game, you only have ICBMs, nuclear ballistic missiles, and nuclear cruise missiles. How about adding different ones, for example, a B83 for the Western research doctrine, an RDS-37 for Eastern, and the Yellow Sun/Red Snow for the European doctrine. These would be delivered through heavy bombers, and would be considerably more powerful than the missiles. Thoughts?
*** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
The KING of CoN News!!!
The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way
"Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD -
I fail to see what role this new missile would fill in the game the way it is currently structured:
Cruise and Ballistic missiles can be conventional, chemical or nuclear. Ballistic have stronger stats then cruise but can only be aimed at city/province centers.
ICBM have the strongest stats in the game can only be nukes and be aimed at city/province centers.
What you propose is another type of missile even stronger then ICBMs , my question is what for? -
I would imagine that such a bomb would do full damage where current nukes only do splash damage, and it would do splash damage in a range of 200 or something crazy like that.
corax wrote:
I fail to see what role this new missile would fill in the game the way it is currently structured:
Cruise and Ballistic missiles can be conventional, chemical or nuclear. Ballistic have stronger stats then cruise but can only be aimed at city/province centers.
ICBM have the strongest stats in the game can only be nukes and be aimed at city/province centers.
What you propose is another type of missile even stronger then ICBMs , my question is what for?
The problem with this idea is that it would break the game for small nations. I could wipe out many nations with a couple missiles, whereas the big nations, esp Russia/America/China, would have little more to fear from the new missile as the current ICBM. -
so what you say is that we need a weapon to surpass
metal gearICBMs?I am The Baseline for opinions -
So, this would be a 'bomb' and not a 'missile'? Would this mean that they would use the same system for delivering their damage as heavy bombers do at the moment? So, it would effectively be a heavy bomber with an attack damage of 500+ vs units, completely wipe out all buildings and halve the population? And would you be able to have a group of 5 of these bombers in a stack, for a combined unit damage of ~2,500? And how many HP would these bombers have, like 100-150 for a 5-stack? Would the only way to prevent a strike be to destroy all 5 of the bombers before they reached their target? And, not being a missile, would that mean Theatre Defence Systems would then be pretty much useless at stopping them, and instead you'd need to fill all your homeland cities with SAM launchers combined with 5-stacks ASFs patrolling above each city permanently?
thanoscar21 wrote:
These would be delivered through heavy bombers, and would be considerably more powerful than the missiles.
Because... I don't really like the sound of that very much. -
So like you want the equivalent of a nuclear bomber in CoW? In compensation for it to be easier to be shot down, you want it to be more buffed?
-
That's the thing: if it were to be like the nuclear bombers in CoW, it'd be completely useless because it'd get shot down; whereas, if you were able to group them together to boost the HP, they'd be almost unstoppable.
Pyth0n wrote:
So like you want the equivalent of a nuclear bomber in CoW? In compensation for it to be easier to be shot down, you want it to be more buffed?
I guess they could make it so you have a single bomber that can't be grouped, but give it like 50 HP or something? -
Well, currently, rockets can't be altered once they're in the air. With planes, you can target a unit that's moving. Cruise missiles can follow a unit, but they aren't as powerful. This would be like an ICBM, maybe 50% stronger, but also the plane could drop it anywhere, not just a province center/city.
corax wrote:
I fail to see what role this new missile would fill in the game the way it is currently structured:
Cruise and Ballistic missiles can be conventional, chemical or nuclear. Ballistic have stronger stats then cruise but can only be aimed at city/province centers.
ICBM have the strongest stats in the game can only be nukes and be aimed at city/province centers.
What you propose is another type of missile even stronger then ICBMs , my question is what for?
-
Since the bombs would be really, really heavy, the bombers would be extremely vulnerable (say, -80% HP). Also, for the sake of fairness, you also wouldn't be able to stack units in those. This would make it easier to stop. And maybe another option would be that it takes 7 days to mobilize, making sure that you couldn't use too much of those.
WalterChang wrote:
So, this would be a 'bomb' and not a 'missile'? Would this mean that they would use the same system for delivering their damage as heavy bombers do at the moment? So, it would effectively be a heavy bomber with an attack damage of 500+ vs units, completely wipe out all buildings and halve the population? And would you be able to have a group of 5 of these bombers in a stack, for a combined unit damage of ~2,500? And how many HP would these bombers have, like 100-150 for a 5-stack? Would the only way to prevent a strike be to destroy all 5 of the bombers before they reached their target? And, not being a missile, would that mean Theatre Defence Systems would then be pretty much useless at stopping them, and instead you'd need to fill all your homeland cities with SAM launchers combined with 5-stacks ASFs patrolling above each city permanently?thanoscar21 wrote:
These would be delivered through heavy bombers, and would be considerably more powerful than the missiles.
Because... I don't really like the sound of that very much.
-
I like your idea, but maybe not more powerful nukes. EMPs would be a great weapon though. The premise behind it is it would stop all recourse and troop production in a city for a certain period of time and significantly drop morale without causing casualties against your country's own morale. But being the powerful weapon it is, it would have to be just as costly as getting nukes, if not more.
thanoscar21 wrote:
Currently in the game, you only have ICBMs, nuclear ballistic missiles, and nuclear cruise missiles. How about adding different ones, for example, a B83 for the Western research doctrine, an RDS-37 for Eastern, and the Yellow Sun/Red Snow for the European doctrine. These would be delivered through heavy bombers, and would be considerably more powerful than the missiles. Thoughts?
-
funniest thing i read today imma quote it
Dealer of Death wrote:
Are you hoping to have your Morale actually drop BELOW zero?thanoscar21 wrote:
Currently in the game, you only have ICBMs, nuclear ballistic missiles, and nuclear cruise missiles. How about adding different ones, for example, a B83 for the Western research doctrine, an RDS-37 for Eastern, and the Yellow Sun/Red Snow for the European doctrine. These would be delivered through heavy bombers, and would be considerably more powerful than the missiles. Thoughts?
-
Lol, spoke my mind...
WalterChang wrote:
So, this would be a 'bomb' and not a 'missile'? Would this mean that they would use the same system for delivering their damage as heavy bombers do at the moment? So, it would effectively be a heavy bomber with an attack damage of 500+ vs units, completely wipe out all buildings and halve the population? And would you be able to have a group of 5 of these bombers in a stack, for a combined unit damage of ~2,500? And how many HP would these bombers have, like 100-150 for a 5-stack? Would the only way to prevent a strike be to destroy all 5 of the bombers before they reached their target? And, not being a missile, would that mean Theatre Defence Systems would then be pretty much useless at stopping them, and instead you'd need to fill all your homeland cities with SAM launchers combined with 5-stacks ASFs patrolling above each city permanently?thanoscar21 wrote:
These would be delivered through heavy bombers, and would be considerably more powerful than the missiles.
Because... I don't really like the sound of that very much.
-
Maybe it could work like UGVs where you have to build the equipment for it first, only in this case you'd have to build a certain amount of nuclear warheads first. This might not be the best idea, but it shouldn't be too easily dismissed. I would rather have EMPs that would wipe out a city's economy and damage troops, but not inflict any casualties.
-
EMPs would be cool
-
But in reality what is beyond a ICBM. Which imho shouldn't even be in game as no one has used in a war in 70 yrs."And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "
aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp -
Nukophobe!Buckeyechamp wrote:
But in reality what is beyond a ICBM. Which imho shouldn't even be in game as no one has used in a war in 70 yrs.
*** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
The KING of CoN News!!!
The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way
"Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD -
Well in reality all of world has been Nukophobe for 75 yrs. And no one will ever launch a nuke ICBM (unless a lunatic). Could possibly see a release of tactical nukes but launching ICBMs insures mutual destruction.
Dealer of Death wrote:
Nukophobe!Buckeyechamp wrote:
But in reality what is beyond a ICBM. Which imho shouldn't even be in game as no one has used in a war in 70 yrs.
And Atomic bombs dropped less power than todays conventional MOABs or a nuke CM. Firebombing of Tokyo killed way more than both Nukes combined."And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "
aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp -
I was just making a joke, brother.Buckeyechamp wrote:
Well in reality all of world has been Nukophobe for 75 yrs. And no one will ever launch a nuke ICBM (unless a lunatic). Could possibly see a release of tactical nukes but launching ICBMs insures mutual destruction.Dealer of Death wrote:
Nukophobe!Buckeyechamp wrote:
But in reality what is beyond a ICBM. Which imho shouldn't even be in game as no one has used in a war in 70 yrs.
And Atomic bombs dropped less power than todays conventional MOABs or a nuke CM. Firebombing of Tokyo killed way more than both Nukes combined.
*** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
The KING of CoN News!!!
The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way
"Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD -
I know.. but just brought up point why nuke icbms shouldn't be part of game."And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "
aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
-
Share