Nuke buff

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

    • Nuke buff

      So currently in the game, I don't think nukes are as powerful as they should be, right now the only real use is for bombing massive stacks. so this is my suggestion:

      When a city is Nuked, everything should be destroyed (except maybe level 5 bunkers) and for a number of days the city should be innacesable and a number of days after all construction should be halted

      If the Capital is nuked, then I think that for a day or two, you shouldn't be able to control your units, its a heavy penalty, but if you think that all the player's decisions and government are stationed in the capital, then they would be wiped out.

      let me know what you think and be free to criticize and add :tumbleweed:
      President of The Forum.

      (As elected October 2023).

      Can be found on Call of War itself as "Zaktty".

    • yes because nukes dont turn a fun game of strategy and wits into a rat brained slugfest of who can make the most and knock out the enemies production the fastest as it is , even tho its a "realistic" weapon for the time period i think they have no place in the game in the first place as soon as the damn things come into play the winner of the incoming war is basically RNG based, instead of buffing them i think the host while creating the match should be able to alter the settings wether you can even get the damn things in that match or not in the first place, 2-3 nukes is all you need to massivly swing a war in your favor if your oponent has none as it is and you want to BUFF the damn things?

    • DecendedDemon wrote:

      yes because nukes dont turn a fun game of strategy and wits into a rat brained slugfest of who can make the most and knock out the enemies production the fastest as it is , even tho its a "realistic" weapon for the time period i think they have no place in the game in the first place as soon as the damn things come into play the winner of the incoming war is basically RNG based, instead of buffing them i think the host while creating the match should be able to alter the settings wether you can even get the damn things in that match or not in the first place, 2-3 nukes is all you need to massivly swing a war in your favor if your oponent has none as it is and you want to BUFF the damn things?
      I get the complete opposite, nukes make hardly any difference to wars unless used really well, remember that, unlike HOI4, most players will have huge medieval/ancient era empires. therefore, destroying 2-3 cities makes hardly any effect, and on rounds like Clash of Nations, you nearly have enough time to research them, let alone use them. Right now the best use for them is knocking out stacks, and if you ask me, its a silly idea to build level 5 of all buildings in a city.
      President of The Forum.

      (As elected October 2023).

      Can be found on Call of War itself as "Zaktty".

    • Zaktty wrote:

      I get the complete opposite, nukes make hardly any difference to wars unless used really well, remember that, unlike HOI4, most players will have huge medieval/ancient era empires. therefore, destroying 2-3 cities makes hardly any effect, and on rounds like Clash of Nations, you nearly have enough time to research them, let alone use them. Right now the best use for them is knocking out stacks, and if you ask me, its a silly idea to build level 5 of all buildings in a city.
      now try and get 3-4 of your strongest stacks nuked and say it doesnt make a differece

    • DecendedDemon wrote:

      Zaktty wrote:

      I get the complete opposite, nukes make hardly any difference to wars unless used really well, remember that, unlike HOI4, most players will have huge medieval/ancient era empires. therefore, destroying 2-3 cities makes hardly any effect, and on rounds like Clash of Nations, you nearly have enough time to research them, let alone use them. Right now the best use for them is knocking out stacks, and if you ask me, its a silly idea to build level 5 of all buildings in a city.
      now try and get 3-4 of your strongest stacks nuked and say it doesnt make a differece
      Nukes can be countered easily, nuclear bombers can be shot down and rockets can’t track a stack, not to mention how expensive they are and that it takes a long time to research and build. In my eyes nukes are a late game counter to op stacks. Early game players don’t have many different units available so it’s easier to counter stacks, late game stacks become very powerful if done right you can have a basically invincible stack that has no true counter except spamming more units. That’s where the nuke comes in, being a counter against that stack. However due to the last reasons I explained nukes can be stopped somewhat easily, limiting their usage. So I think that it would be beneficial to add some more usage to nuclear weapons, maybe they can decrease the overall morale of a country but also lower your global popularity.

    • Nukes are a gold (ab)user's dream.

      I played against a gold user whose goal (in his words) was to mess with my head. So he spent huge sums of money to insta-build nukes and demolish every city and every unit I had on the map. He also insta-scouted me to launch nukes at every remaining unit trying to escape a nuclear blast radius, and insta-built paratroopers to advance into my territory, build more air bases, and of course more nukes and more paratroopers. He basically walked across the entire world with impunity. Probably cost him hundreds of real-world dollars to do this, but he did it, and he did mess with my head enough to make me quit the game for over a year.

      It was disgusting, demoralizing, and made me feel powerless and stupid for even playing a game where this is possible.

    • randomperson0195 wrote:

      Nukes can be countered easily, nuclear bombers can be shot down and rockets can’t track a stack, not to mention how expensive they are and that it takes a long time to research and build. In my eyes nukes are a late game counter to op stacks. Early game players don’t have many different units available so it’s easier to counter stacks, late game stacks become very powerful if done right you can have a basically invincible stack that has no true counter except spamming more units. That’s where the nuke comes in, being a counter against that stack. However due to the last reasons I explained nukes can be stopped somewhat easily, limiting their usage. So I think that it would be beneficial to add some more usage to nuclear weapons, maybe they can decrease the overall morale of a country but also lower your global popularity.
      like it doesnt take half an hour of you not being online to send in intercetors to intercept nukes to clean out your entire army

    • DecendedDemon wrote:

      randomperson0195 wrote:

      Nukes can be countered easily, nuclear bombers can be shot down and rockets can’t track a stack, not to mention how expensive they are and that it takes a long time to research and build. In my eyes nukes are a late game counter to op stacks. Early game players don’t have many different units available so it’s easier to counter stacks, late game stacks become very powerful if done right you can have a basically invincible stack that has no true counter except spamming more units. That’s where the nuke comes in, being a counter against that stack. However due to the last reasons I explained nukes can be stopped somewhat easily, limiting their usage. So I think that it would be beneficial to add some more usage to nuclear weapons, maybe they can decrease the overall morale of a country but also lower your global popularity.
      like it doesnt take half an hour of you not being online to send in intercetors to intercept nukes to clean out your entire army
      *ahem* there’s this thing called an “anti aircraft gun”

    • SlamHammer wrote:

      Has anyone ever had a nuke bomber shot down?
      In the days of 1.0, I think I have.

      Wait no, I definitely have in at least some of the doomsday events.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • Yeah, for me at least anti-air is useless, I just feel that intercepters are a better alternative.

      And I don't use stacks for the reasons that I don't like gold abusers smashing my units, so I have stacks of maximum 4 and spread them out, if a stack is in a city or province, then I might place anymore units on the roads.
      President of The Forum.

      (As elected October 2023).

      Can be found on Call of War itself as "Zaktty".

    • DecendedDemon wrote:

      randomperson0195 wrote:

      *ahem* there’s this thing called an “anti aircraft gun”
      you'd need like 4 a stack, they only shoot down nukes if the total air damage of the stack its attacking exceeds the nukes health
      Since when was it hard to stack a few anti aircraft in a stack? Nukes are expensive and difficult to produce, you need a level 5 secret lab if you want to be able to produce them at a semi decent pace, thousands of resources and manpower not to mention research costs. While it is much cheaper to make some interceptors or anti air.

    • randomperson0195 wrote:

      DecendedDemon wrote:

      randomperson0195 wrote:

      *ahem* there’s this thing called an “anti aircraft gun”
      you'd need like 4 a stack, they only shoot down nukes if the total air damage of the stack its attacking exceeds the nukes health
      Since when was it hard to stack a few anti aircraft in a stack? Nukes are expensive and difficult to produce, you need a level 5 secret lab if you want to be able to produce them at a semi decent pace, thousands of resources and manpower not to mention research costs. While it is much cheaper to make some interceptors or anti air.
      Where's the fun in that lol
      "Do not discriminate, kill them all."
      SlamHammer 2022
      :evil:

    • randomperson0195 wrote:

      Since when was it hard to stack a few anti aircraft in a stack? Nukes are expensive and difficult to produce, you need a level 5 secret lab if you want to be able to produce them at a semi decent pace, thousands of resources and manpower not to mention research costs. While it is much cheaper to make some interceptors or anti air.
      since for every AA you make you're not making AT's to stop you from getting heavy tank roflstomped

    • DecendedDemon wrote:

      randomperson0195 wrote:

      Since when was it hard to stack a few anti aircraft in a stack? Nukes are expensive and difficult to produce, you need a level 5 secret lab if you want to be able to produce them at a semi decent pace, thousands of resources and manpower not to mention research costs. While it is much cheaper to make some interceptors or anti air.
      since for every AA you make you're not making AT's to stop you from getting heavy tank roflstomped

      I've never seen a successful use of heavy tanks. I've seen them slowly plodding along and getting pounded by artillery. They are too slow to be a real threat, in my experience, losing most of the benefits of armor while inheriting the weaknesses against artillery and air power.