Wars should be about maneuvering armies, not flinging nukes hoping that one eventually sticks.

well if you really wanted to be technical kane if we are gonna make this game all based on what can actually happen then a single nuke can hit anywhere within minutes. Of cource the game is about moving armies, so moving your army out of the way of a nuke is manuvering is it not? This case the price is much more severe for your mistake. You want activity, well theres some activity for ya.

We should be reducing the need for activity, not increasing it. Otherwise the same hyper-active players will win even if they might be "better" or not.

Reducing the need for activity? Thats the last thing i would be hearing from you. You know as well as any vet player this game is soly based on activity. More activity is good for the game last i knew. I understand where your leading this as your taking it as some form of noob bashing, but lets face it they are not active in the first place. In fact, i think option 2 would strenghen the "little guy" letting his one single nuke to obliterate you or force a whole 400 squad army to turn back i think that is genious.

Your trying to make the game easier for yourself when the game should be more difficult so even the little guys can pull something off. The gap between noobs and vets has increased since the new client began, its too easy to just quell or shut down a noob, you over power him and have much higher skill than him in the first place. Your going to win reguardless, so i say give a chance for the little guy for a change than just us vets.

Just because I'm able to be really active and win doesn't mean I realize the need for activity is too high. The #1 complaint when players leave is simply "It takes too much time". To keep this bug now that everyone is more aware of it simply increases the amount of times I have to call people back online to turn 200 squads because 1 player shot 1 nuke at a colony we were attacking.

Keeping this bug isn't doing something for the little guy. What if we just made all players rank 500 and worse get x2 damage on their units? Would that make sense? Just because it strengthens weak against strong players doesn't make it a good idea.

1 nuke being shot should not invalidate an attack of hundreds of squads. That is asinine.

I do really think having it set as Parked squads and the squads leaving and entering the destination (one tick out) would be the best option.

My reason is simple. During war, both sides have to have an opportunity to "gain one over" on their opponent.

The game is engineered well enough to support that, but having it set as what I mentioned, would make it a lot easier.

Obviously the alliances want to catch units as they return from battle, and hoping that even if the player(s) they are attacking come online, that they will still only by one tick out by the time the nuke/missile hits.

This is just my sole opinion on it

-Dawn

Okay! so you want to fix Nukes?

The reality is, I only use nukes to take down Admin Relics and scare off newbs. Why? Because it is impossible to hit an active player or alliance with nukes. Add to that the heavy (ab)use of red tokens, which let alliances shoot down half a dozen nukes without breaking a sweat.

I can recall last era E2. NAM turned entire Europe into a nukefield but in 350 ticks of battle, they managed 0 hits on HINI. NAM arent newbs. They know how to use nukes. I didnt succeed either in the few eras I played. So what's the point of having a heated debate on some trivial technicalities when the NUKE itself has become obsolete and useless?

I can suggest a few modifications such as:

a) Squads flying same tick as nuke should take damage so alliances attacking a op must turn if nuke catches them same tick ALSO alliances should be able to nuke anything - even his own colony (for fun?...:p)
this proposition has two parts:
1 - to be able to nuke own op / base if needed (which is rational)
2 - same eta nuke + squad = u die so alliances must fly 1 tick behind the nuke to be safe.
At present, in a situation where alliance X is attacking say ETA 6 to alliance Y op and eta 7 to alliance Z op. it is impossible for alliance Y to hit them with a nuke because in first case, they cant nuke own op and in 2nd case, alliance Y must fire nuke ETA8 to alliance Z op . So alliance X just land and ion and nuke is rendered useless. In proposed system, Alliance Y will be able to fire nukes in both instances matching ETA of enemy (alliance X) and force alliance X to turn
Now, many will debate this saying allowing alliances to nuke own base will allow them to hit enemy squads while keeping them on shields. I agree. But this is countered by making nukes far less available to alliances (discussed below). It’s a nuke, you just don’t give it to the Taliban or IRA.
b) The ion cannon cost should be set in relation to the ETA of the nuke. Long eta (+7) nukes should cost 250E to shoot down (lets say your satellites do the tracking and firing). Medium ETA nukes (7 to 5) should cost 300 E cos the nuke is close and u must use both ur land and satellite guidance to pinpoint target. At 4 ETA and less, with every tick less ETA, it should cost 50E more (the nuke is closing in, moving fast and its small, u are solely dependent on land based guidance and must attempt number of shots to hit the nuke, right?). so killing a ETA1 nuke will cost some whooping 500E. Boosters gather more reds pls.

c) If nukes are made more useful, Nukes should also be made far more expensive. Making a NUKE silo for 1k metal and arming one for just 500 metal is awful, even a armor tank costs much higher with a decent overhead. A player should be forced to choose between making a silo / arming a nuke or creating a full 3/7 squad at 0 overhead (~6k metal). This will prevent nukes being abused by newbs and stockpiled in mass like the US and Russia. There should be a maintenance cost for nukes in metal and oil. Maybe 5 m / 3 o for each nuke. The arming time for Nukes should hit 30 ticks. This will seriously discourage alliances to build nukes like chocolate factories which they do now.

d) The damage nukes deal is ridiculously high. You will say - oh cmon its a nuke. But we arent hitting office workers here. We are aiming at trained soldiers who should have nuke-safe bunkers and gears. So 10% killed off guard on surface is fine, but the rest should go to half HP. But the damaged squads should not regenerate for 2 ticks (radiation after affect)

If we can really turn the nuke into an useful and feared (I’m sure many of you are already afraid!) Weapon of Mass Destruction, I think the game will become far more challenging and exciting. Players will stop firing nukes indiscriminately and learn the art of nuking.
Only then we can discuss the further technicalities and trivial issues like damage from a 3rd party nuke on returning squads. I once got caught in a similar situation where my sub alliance nuked my squads and was offline while taking down a hostile colony. With nukes becoming more expensive to arm and maintain, there will be less and less chance for taking advantage of this situation (I don’t call it a bug).

Cheers.

a nuke is a nuke let it aFFECT all N THE AREA ON HIT AND THE ONE TICK AFTER ATTACKING OR DEFENDING

I dont even understand how you think of that as being fair and helping the little guy. So a guy who logs in once a day, doesnt conquer, and solely lives on boosts can build a nuke, and destroy your army of 400 squads, just
because you couldn't counter a nuke with an ion? Thats just absurd.

You talk a lot about skill. Battledawn today is a simple game. Activity is needed, but there isn't much "skill" involved. I mean game mechanics have changed pretty much to let the guy with the most amount of squads to win. I think people who might have played before me in the old client would probably agree that lots of the "strategy" has been taken away from the game. Heck I have played 2 years and I think a lot has changed. But that said choosing option 2 isn't bringing back strategy or adding strategy to a game. This is a flawed game design.

I read to page six before I fell asleep last night anything after that I was not read. There were many good points made and some just good rhetoric.

I voted for option two. It is best that nukes hold the same destructive power against everyone. This is the value of the nuke. It does affect game play...as it should since it is the ultimate peace maker. It needs to continue to be held in high regard when used.

I keep hearing that everyone move should have a counter....I do not know why this concept has to be a must. I can understand when alliances are fighting head up this may be the best. This is not a 1 vs 1 world and and you can counter when fighting and an