Yes. And?

Yes. With ICBM and Cruise Missiles.

Yep

I nuked Moscow with China in my very 1st game

Nukes are just a novelty item unless you are using gold and have unlimited resources.

It is not cost effective or part of any winning strategy under any circumstances.
Even if nukes did double damage, my opinion would remain unchanged. And this fact solidifies my opinion even more.

Anytime you see nukes used in a high end match, it is only because it became lop sided at some point and someone had money to blow.

I'd love to see them triple the effectiveness. Then we might start to see them used in real games.

Im sure if they did that they would also triple the negative side effects as well...

Nukes were good before the latest update and possible to use. I would go down the Nuke tree if I saw 3 people get ahead of me with VPs, it would be time to go rogue with ICBM's. After the update, its not a viable strategy. I once launched 3 ICBM's to kill off a guy that was in 2nd place to drop him down lower than my allies, I think I was at -18 for crimes against humanity, so newly conquered non city provinces didn't stop smoking for a couple of days instead of at game day change. The three cities dropped from 10 to 3, and pretty much knocked 1 level off his maxed buildings. I don't know if he had bunkers to mitigate. Conventional Cruise seem to work better.

Yeah, first time I ever saw OR used an ICBM was after the nerf.
But I nuked a City with a 76 count stack in it.
When I launched I was feeling sort of like a school kid on Christmas morning. I was laughing at the poor smuck who was about to lose his entire Army to 1 nuclear fire.
The nuke hit and then he had a 75 stack instead of a 76 stack. His level 4 airport was damaged but was still a level 4.
At first I thought it was an old intel issue. I came in for a closer look and sure enough... 75 stack just sitting there.

I've never even considered ICBM's ever since.
It would probably do more damage to send in a stack of infantry.

Probably due to you dropping a nuclear cruise missile level 1. Nonetheless even then it should have done more damage obviously.
We cannot replicate it here (maybe the city had bunkers etc?), but we are slightly increasing the damage of the nukes anyway in the coming update.

Here is an example of a modern metropolis late game - fully populated at 10, buildings fully built up to level 5 without bunkers on the receiving end of a maxed out ICBM:

I'd call this "devastating"...

@Germanico

Has it been increased significantly since the big nerf a few months ago?

Anyhow, I am mostly just concerned with damage to units and air bases.
At the stage where someone can afford even a simple nuke, the games are all but over already.
Damaging population and economy is not relevant to the outcome during this stage.
All of the units needed to win the game are already created.

Anyhow, this being said, your result is not what I got months ago. So I will try testing it again the next time I feel like putting cash into a pub.

Btw i wish you would find a way to make nukes feasible to have in a No Gold contest too. And not only for purchase.
As it currently stands... a no gold player has to choose between an entire army to win the game with or 1 nuclear ICBM so late in the game that they would be lucky to fire it before they are over run completely.
I understand that you do not want to make the game into a nuke war. But how many games currently ever see a nuke?
I've not seen a nuke detonate in months except for that tournament. And it was definitely purchased.

I'd like to see the economic and damage structure set in such a way that occasionally you see a nuke used in competitive games and not just as a novelty.
In No Gold matches, and not just when purchased.

I know you wont follow it so it is ok lol...
But my recommendation is to cut the total economic path to all nukes by 50%.
And bring the damage back to where it was before the nerf.

My evidence is simple... Look at your feeds and see just how little these weapons are used.
Now look at your top end feeds. The Challenge Matches. How many times have they been used?
Now look at No Gold feeds only.

You know you have the balance set correctly when nukes are sometimes used in these settings. But not used too often.
In my full history at CON I have never seen a nuke in a No gold game. And i have never seen a nuke in a Challenge Match. (Not once)

I'm a no gold player when it comes to research and can easily have an army composed of mech infantry and tanks while still getting an ICBM launcher + several nukes about 20 days into the game, not hard.

Just for clarification: Olaf above has no connection to the team, is no family member and we didn't pay him any money to say this. Thank you Olaf!

Since competitive games do not last for 20 days... I think he made my point for me.
The only way you will see a nuke used in a competitive match, is when it is purchased.

Germanico, my offer still stands to have a friendly game between Dev's and Legion
Maybe you can teach us something. Or maybe we teach you something.

One thing for sure, if you are wasting resources on nukes, you will be over run before the initial research has completed.

Pls no challenges in the forum - if we hold dev games we will announce them accordingly. Besides the fact that pro-gamers in alliances will probably beat us blindfolded - don't forget we got families and a job

Personally, I perceive nukes "coming to late" in alliance games rather as a benefit than a flaw - after all then it is player skill and not some overnight ICBM deciding the match. This being said it would be an interesting approach to pool resources (if this was possible ... and yes, we've not dropped the idea) having one dedicated nuke player while the others focus on their according front lines.

//G

What I am really trying to say with the nukes is i would like the balance to be as such where different strats were viable.
Where investing in nukes would be risky but if pulled off, could yield a benefit equal to that risk. A benefit to the extent that the enemy would want to know this and try to stop it.
But I'd like the same for economy builds.
Currently Economy and Nuke builds are risky. But if pulled off into day 7+, there is no benefit that comes close to the risk. The same would be said for both builds at day 14 or so. Some benefit yes. But not enough for the risk.
The risk is that while your making nukes, your ally is invaded and you can't help him. So now you have less Allies. WIll the economy build or the nukes make up for this?

I'd like to see different strats pay off on a time scale that makes sense with the life span of the match.

Right now we have a game that has these things paying off at day 20 + with the game life ending around day 12.

I believe that the game should be balanced for team games as a priority. And from the top down.

TBH I would really love the rush from waking up during a challenge match and seeing the nuke screen and knowing it wasn't one of ours.

Game life does not end on day 12 and please leave it to us balancing the game.

Closed.