Nuclear Requirements

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Nuclear Requirements

      Esto puede ser una sugerencia impopular, pero estoy encontrando casi demasiado fácil de construir armas nucleares en este juego.

      El juego - cuando estiró - tiende a ver a los misiles nucleares y bombarderos vuelan quiera o no después de objetivos militares y ciudades.

      Sí, un tanque pesado nivel 3 podría sobrevivir a un ataque nuclear de proximidad en el mundo real (apenas).

      Propongo aumentar la eficacia de las armas nucleares para que coincida con su potencial en realidad. En lugar de agrupar a los materiales nucleares con "Materiales raras", el juego tiene que tener un "separado de agua pesada" o "materiales radiactivos" o "uranio Convertido recursos".

      El reactor nuclear se debe utilizar para convertir toda la producción de "materiales raros" en una provincia con "agua pesada" utilizando una relación (es decir, de 3 a 1 por lo que 300 "Material Raro" se convierte en 100 "agua pesada"). Una vez que una nación tiene algo de "agua pesada" almacenado, que pueden vender en el mercado abierto a otras naciones nucleares investigado. "agua pesada" para la construcción. Además, la nave no debería necesitar ser construido con un reactor nuclear actual, sólo tienen acceso a suficiente "agua pesada" entre los otros recursos para construir. Además, pesada" siempre debe requerir un Reactor Nuclear de la cosecha, no debería ser un recurso independiente "Uranio" que puede ser excavado o de lo contrario el juego será un poco demasiado complejo por adelantado para los nuevos jugadores que no necesitan pensar armas nucleares cuando están aprendiendo cómo jugar el juego.

      Tener estos requisitos mucho más restrictivo hará que la búsqueda de armas nucleares mucho más difíciles, pero mucho más realista.

      Gracias por considerar esta sugerencia.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • I mentioned that in my post, I am proposing that not be so.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Bringing more types of res is a terrible idea. I didn't bother reading your post since it seems ridiculous. You know it would be unpopular so you shouldn't have bothered supporting it. You are going to get little to no support.

      Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

      Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

    • I did lead with "This may be an unpopular suggestion, but..." for a reason. This implies that thinking people should reasonably consider the suggestion. Accept or reject it after considering it...or form no opinion (as if that were possible). But don't dismiss it out of hand without reading it and then expect me or anyone else to take your posts seriously.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • i rather like this idea you are very right. it was hard to get nukes in the war and it should be the same in game. in one of my games i have a very large army, navy and air force but one of the players have nukes my army stands no chance if he wants to nuke my troops i would be done my nation would be left bear to invaders. I think Bombers and rockets should be much harder to get and the ships too because if you think about it, they are the most powerful thing in the game and if they are to easy to build them some one can go from the weakest to the strongest player in less then a week.
      Also during WW2 american and Russians worked together to stop the german nuklear project and it worked. this idea could also involve spies to stop or slow your enemy s reseach or steal tech from your enemy.

      if you were to read the post bill you would see that it is a good idea

    • mrgreeen4567 wrote:

      i rather like this idea you are very right. it was hard to get nukes in the war and it should be the same in game. in one of my games i have a very large army, navy and air force but one of the players have nukes my army stands no chance if he wants to nuke my troops i would be done my nation would be left bear to invaders. I think Bombers and rockets should be much harder to get and the ships too because if you think about it, they are the most powerful thing in the game and if they are to easy to build them some one can go from the weakest to the strongest player in less then a week.
      Also during WW2 american and Russians worked together to stop the german nuklear project and it worked. this idea could also involve spies to stop or slow your enemy s reseach or steal tech from your enemy.
      I like the spying idea. I considered it, but didn't want to tackle it in my already-lengthy post. However, as it currently stands, the nukes are vastly under-powered against military units and do not do legitimate damages to troops.

      I just thought of something else: Nuclear Bombers probably ought not to have the "Patrol" feature. For that matter, strategic bombers probably shouldn't either. I've actually lost more nuclear bombers while sleeping because they were on patrol near the front than on the ground far behind my lines. (But that's my fault and I shouldn't be whining about it.)

      Nuclear Rockets don't even seem like they belong in the game as such development was not even put into effect until the early 1960's I think, and I'm not even referring to ICBM's which came later.

      Regular (non-nuclear) rockets, though not highly pursued by many nations during WWII, do seem to be balanced fairly well in this game. They have reasonable ranges, reasonable development R&D, and reasonable power. Germany's V2 program was not pivotal in the war, but quite harassing and terrorizing all the same much like the rockets in CoW.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3


    • mrgreeen4567 wrote:

      . it was hard to get nukes in the war
      This is mainly a Cold War game and America could build nukes very fast and the USSR wasn't so bad at it either. As for ships, the fastest ship that was built was built in one week. I do not want or care to read to the post, I will dislike the idea either way. I have extensive knowledge of WWII and the reason that nukes were "hard" to build was because they were not top priority. They were not even classified.

      Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

      Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kalantigos ().