Removed

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

    • Removed

      I think that nukes in this game should act like they do in CoN. Not only are the current bombs unrealistic when used, they don't carry the meaning of what a nuclear weapon is. Many new players will think that the nuclear weapon is the strongest and most key unit to research to based off of their meaning in our real world, but in-game it's just an oversized conventional bomb. Even if we're forgetting realism or historical accuracy, the nukes we have aren't even nukes. Spending all the resources and time for a rocket or bomb that isn't even real, let alone useful in most games. If they're gonna have nuclear rockets in a WWII game then at least make them the right way.

    • Your take is a little harsh, but you do make a good point. Seeing as that radiation stain lasts for a few days, a smart idea would be for anything within its radius to take a certain amount of attrition (similar to force march) constantly. Of course the atom bomb being weaker would still fade after a few days, but it would get that radiation damage.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Nukes... I almost forgot they existed, I haven't seen them in the games I played for years. Really no need to make some complicated new system for them, if you want to do that, get rivers or a supply system done first.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Nukes... I almost forgot they existed, I haven't seen them in the games I played for years. Really no need to make some complicated new system for them, if you want to do that, get rivers or a supply system done first.
      The thing is with you is that you're an experienced player, I would even argue the majority of players will attempt to research nuclear weapons. Especially since Bytro advertises them in YT ads and the in-game tutorial. My post didn't intend to be harsh, but the unit serves no purpose beyond being a bad goal for new players. If anything, I would get rid of the nuclear rocket, debuff nuclear damage, and add radiation damage.

    • Commander Schleicher wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Nukes... I almost forgot they existed, I haven't seen them in the games I played for years. Really no need to make some complicated new system for them, if you want to do that, get rivers or a supply system done first.
      The thing is with you is that you're an experienced player, I would even argue the majority of players will attempt to research nuclear weapons. Especially since Bytro advertises them in YT ads and the in-game tutorial. My post didn't intend to be harsh, but the unit serves no purpose beyond being a bad goal for new players. If anything, I would get rid of the nuclear rocket, debuff nuclear damage, and add radiation damage.
      Maybe. But they would need to make it more of an actually useful weapon. I currently isn't, compared to the price you pay for it. And for me, personally, it feels like out-of-scope. I know nukes were invented in those days, but I still feel this game should be about tanks, planes, and artillery. Nukes are the odd one out, they don't really fit into the game no matter how much anyone likes Oppenheimer. So I'm cool if they CAN be researched, but then I'd want to have them have as few impact as possible, so less people would develop them next game))) Yeah I'm biased to these weapons, no matter "how" you do them they will always be unbalanced.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Commander Schleicher wrote:

      If anything, I would get rid of the nuclear rocket, debuff nuclear damage, and add radiation damage.

      I agree, to an extent. There is a reason it takes long to research, when you reach the endgame stage it can be assumed the years go into the 1950s. I personally have no problem with nukes, but if they're not going to be fixed then why have them around? Unfortunately, they are used as a marketing tool since Bytro shows a lot of nuclear weapons in ads and tutorials.

    • Commander Schleicher wrote:

      Commander Schleicher wrote:

      If anything, I would get rid of the nuclear rocket, debuff nuclear damage, and add radiation damage.
      I agree, to an extent. There is a reason it takes long to research, when you reach the endgame stage it can be assumed the years go into the 1950s. I personally have no problem with nukes, but if they're not going to be fixed then why have them around? Unfortunately, they are used as a marketing tool since Bytro shows a lot of nuclear weapons in ads and tutorials.
      Wow, did you just tell us that you agree with yourself?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Commander Schleicher wrote:

      Commander Schleicher wrote:

      If anything, I would get rid of the nuclear rocket, debuff nuclear damage, and add radiation damage.
      I agree, to an extent. There is a reason it takes long to research, when you reach the endgame stage it can be assumed the years go into the 1950s. I personally have no problem with nukes, but if they're not going to be fixed then why have them around? Unfortunately, they are used as a marketing tool since Bytro shows a lot of nuclear weapons in ads and tutorials.
      Wow, did you just tell us that you agree with yourself?
      No, you mentioned getting rid of the nuclear weapons which I had already said before so I was quoting my previous statement that matched what you said, which then I responded to the rest of your message. Sometimes I feel like people don't read what I say, so that's why I felt the need to clarify my position as you tried to argue against mine as if it was completely different. Basically what I did was have an enlarged foot note.

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