Better nuke idea

From what I've seen, all the people who advocated nukes suggested an overcomplicated system very different from the traditional afterwind; away from the spirit of the game. I want to present to you guys my idea of how nukes could be implemented, and how they could make the game better.

1. NO NUCLEAR RESEARCH, SILOS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Everyone should be able to build nukes without preconditions. I mean having nukes as unlockable with SP may seem like a good idea, but it would really be overpowered to people who don't have it. Devs ought to make it available to everyone. Right away.

2. Nukes would have same range as stealth, and cost about 2000$

Nukes then would only be cost effective world games, and then still not able to blitzkrieg random people 10000 miles away.

3. A play would have to declare "nuclear war" on someone before they used nukes on them.

That would work the same way switching from peace to war mode; your would delcare "nuclear war" after you already declared war on someone. Its the next natural escalation in conflict, and it would prevent abuse.

Maybe, if this proves to be a non deterrent, someone who declared nuclear war on anyone ever would be allowed to use nukes against all the players; ex, any countries at (regular) war with a country that was a nuclear instigator could use nukes and fight a nuclear war against the instigator without having to declare nuclear war back. BASICALLY, the instigator country would be able to use nukes against everyone, but everyone would be able to use nukes on them without becoming an official nuclear instigator.

4. Anti aircraft would serve as a counter to nukes.

This could possibly make a useless unit useful. Players would have to start putting an anti air in their cities to protect them from nukes. The AA could suceed or fail but it would still make your city a lot safer. It would greatly increase the skill level of the game.

5. Nukes would be unable to turnblock or stop units from moving

If their was an AFK player who left his stack still for a turn after someone aimed a nuke at it, the nuke would kill them all. If someone moved their stack when a nuke was aimed at it, the nuke would die wasted and the troops survived. If someone really wanted to use a nuke on a stack, they could send a small army to stop (turnblock) said stack the same turn they send the nuke to make it so the other stack doesn't get away.

6. Nukes kill cities, but not entirely.

If a city gets nuked, then its income would drop to maybe 5% and drop to only 1 reinforcement, no matter how big it used to be. The city would permanently turned to black (with some icon to let the player know they still control it). Having a system where cities can't be completely destroyed would prevent capitol nuking and breaking the game. EVERY unit inside would die.

7. (maybe) Have nukes take up 6-8 reinforcements.

I don't know if that would be possible on the AW engine or it might be glitchy, but it would make the game more realistic and prevent overuse of nukes. Nukes would then also only be able to come from powerful countries making it more realistic. I mean Timbuktu won't be researching nuclear weapons any time soon.

8. (Credit: Yoba) Nukes can be disabled in both normal and scenario games.

9. The nukes in game ought to be a short range Ballistic missiles (think Iran); not ICBM's

This would make the game more realistic; because not everyone in game is USA or Russia with 40 megaton ICBM's. Most of the countries that would meet the requirement for nukes wouldn't be able to afford top quality nukes like the USA and Russia have. Countries like Iran and NK would able to make nukes with a few hundred KM range and a maybe 5 kt yield. This system would make the game oh so much more balanced. Of course, American mega nukes could still be in the game, sure, but only as rare units, as not to destroy the games balance.

This way of implementing nukes I feel is solid. I don't like all these other ideas on the forum about nuke silos and research centers; they are too complicated and would make the game to nuke centric. If nukes get put in, they should be made to compliment existing game play; not replace it.

What are your thoughts?

1. Yeah LOL, you're right. Tunder3 must be so mad right now, but it's true.

2. The movement range and cost sound good, but are the nukes themselves in stealth? Realistically, they probably wouldn't be in stealth but we can always bend the rules if necessary. I believe that they might be a bit underpowered if they're not in stealth, as I'd assume nukes have a pretty weak defence. It's best if the nukes are in stealth as well.

3. I like the idea of a nuclear war mode, but I think it fails to prevent abuse. I could start as China or the USA and immediately declare nuclear war on everyone, bombing a sending out a nuke every round after week 4 or 5.

4. If anything, this lowers the skill level needed to play the game. It's like "put an anti-air or two in your cities and you're covered". We seriously need to re-think this point and it's crucial that we do.

5. This makes nuclear weapons extremely overpowered, especially if you're striking deep into enemy territory when you're least expected.

6. Genius. Very well thought-out.

7. Great idea. But I think 8 would be a bit better, so only a select few cities can produce nukes. We don't want people to get Zerg rushed with nukes in 50k games.

One more thing:
8. Nukes can be disabled in both normal and scenario games.

For normal games, to increase competitiveness, as well as to avoid potential problems with players launching dozens of nukes in the early game in 25 and 50k games. For scenarios, to balance them out a bit better, historical concerns for such scenarios and because more customisability is always a good thing.

I don't like the whole idea behind nukes in after wind.

Escrito por YOBA, 03.04.2012 at 16:13

1. Yeah LOL, you're right. Tunder3 must be so mad right now, but it's true.

2. The movement range and cost sound good, but are the nukes themselves in stealth? Realistically, they probably wouldn't be in stealth but we can always bend the rules if necessary. I believe that they might be a bit underpowered if they're not in stealth, as I'd assume nukes have a pretty weak defence. It's best if the nukes are in stealth as well.

3. I like the idea of a nuclear war mode, but I think it fails to prevent abuse. I could start as China or the USA and immediately declare nuclear war on everyone, bombing a sending out a nuke every round after week 4 or 5.

4. If anything, this lowers the skill level needed to play the game. It's like "put an anti-air or two in your cities and you're covered". We seriously need to re-think this point and it's crucial that we do.

5. This makes nuclear weapons extremely overpowered, especially if you're striking deep into enemy territory when you're least expected.

6. Genius. Very well thought-out.

7. Great idea. But I think 8 would be a bit better, so only a select few cities can produce nukes. We don't want people to get Zerg rushed with nukes in 50k games.

One more thing:
8. Nukes can be disabled in both normal and scenario games.

For normal games, to increase competitiveness, as well as to avoid potential problems with players launching dozens of nukes in the early game in 25 and 50k games. For scenarios, to balance them out a bit better, historical concerns for such scenarios and because more customisability is always a good thing.

Number 5 actually would make the nukes less useful. I said nukes COULDN'T turn block, and you'd have to turnblock with a second stack to make them useful.

The way you talked it sounded like you were talking to Ivan/Amok. I have no idea how this would work in the game. These are just my suggestions as how things specifically ought to work.

Other details like stealth/not stealth or their cost aren't so important. Ivan and Amok would test it and change things till the found the sweet spot. I want my thread to be a community based thing where everyone shares their opinions and collaborates to make the best system possible.

EDIT: How #5 would decrease skill gap? It would just add another dimension to the game; think of it as being in the same family as walling off cities,

What if someone who declared nuclear war on anyone ever would be allowed to use nukes against all the players; ex, any countries at (regular) war with a country that was a nuclear instigator could use nukes and fight a nuclear war against the instigator without having to declare nuclear war back. BASICALLY, the instigator country would be able to use nukes against everyone, but everyone would be able to use nukes on them without becoming an official nuclear instigator.

Escrito por YOBA, 03.04.2012 at 16:13

1. Yeah LOL, you're right. Tunder3 must be so mad right now, but it's true.

2. The movement range and cost sound good, but are the nukes themselves in stealth? Realistically, they probably wouldn't be in stealth but we can always bend the rules if necessary. I believe that they might be a bit underpowered if they're not in stealth, as I'd assume nukes have a pretty weak defence. It's best if the nukes are in stealth as well.

3. I like the idea of a nuclear war mode, but I think it fails to prevent abuse. I could start as China or the USA and immediately declare nuclear war on everyone, bombing a sending out a nuke every round after week 4 or 5.

4. If anything, this lowers the skill level needed to play the game. It's like "put an anti-air or two in your cities and you're covered". We seriously need to re-think this point and it's crucial that we do.

5. This makes nuclear weapons extremely overpowered, especially if you're striking deep into enemy territory when you're least expected.

6. Genius. Very well thought-out.

7. Great idea. But I think 8 would be a bit better, so only a select few cities can produce nukes. We don't want people to get Zerg rushed with nukes in 50k games.

One more thing:
8. Nukes can be disabled in both normal and scenario games.

For normal games, to increase competitiveness, as well as to avoid potential problems with players launching dozens of nukes in the early game in 25 and 50k games. For scenarios, to balance them out a bit better, historical concerns for such scenarios and because more customisability is always a good thing.

1.- FUCK YOU YOBA,
Mr. Castro i dont think silos are a bad idea. we dont wanna see nukes being just a useless rare units. nukes actually suck, and die before hitting, are useless.. is why nukes need to have a special effect, or first hit rule...
and if they have a effect, just rich countrys will have it.

Were never going to have nukes ok? maybe in a year or two at the least or never most likely

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. "5. Nukes would be unable to turnblock or stop units from moving', oh, so I can make a bomber kamikaze into a tank, and that stops it right? So shooting A FUCKING NUKE doesn't block it? Funny shit bro.

I think it has more to do with logic. The nuke is designed to attack large population centres to decimate population, government and resources in the area, not to directly attack soldiers.

But a nuke, LOL HAHAHAHA, a nuke strikes a city from usa to russia in seconds....
if they implemented they should have a range of 3 bombers with blitz

Many of you guys don't seem to know what you are talking about.

If nukes could turnblock, it would be horrendously OP as you could kill any large stacks attacking a city; also, why is it unrealistic for moving troops to be able to escape a rocket being fired at a fixed location?

Also, all nuclear weapons are not necesarilly as advanced and USA + Russia's ICBM Programs. Most countries (like Iran and NK) are only able to deliver nukes to countries a couple hundred miles away. It would make more sense to model a games nukes after the more primitive nukes available to poor countries because all countries will be able to build nukes; Afterwind DOES suggest all countries are on the brink of economic collapse. Thus a short range makes perfect sense

Finaly, to Tunder, the circumfrence of the earth is about 25000 miles; most nukes would travel around 4000-5000 mph. Moscow - US flights would definitely NOT take a few seconds.

So many AW players believe nukes wouldn't work with the game. If they were put into the game the way you guys would have it, they would be right. Nukes shouldn't be given endless lists of advantages; otherwise they would overshadow conventional weapons, which are the primary focus of AW.

We dont care about primitive countries.
most of the 90% of afterwind players will hate the idea of a african country sending a nuke to europe or america......
whats the point of being USA,Russia,China, if a African or European countries will overun your country with nukes.........
is better to nukes to be expensive and have advantages, otherwise is not called Nuclear Warfare....
and no, is not possible to a army to scape a nuke... if some one decides to strike moscow, the russian army gets wipeout... no way to be faster than a nuke....
a nuke strikes on 5-10 minutes, or seconds... no way to scape from a city in 10 minutes...(people running in the streets,cars trafic, walls, panic etc.)
if a bomber moves in 5 weeks from usa to spain with blitz, without it is like 10 turns. why not a nuke to move from USA:Atlantic to Russia:Central in 2 weeks?'


and, if a militia can turn block 100 bombers, why not one nuke a army? (btw just a noob makes stacks of +20)

Escrito por Tundy, 04.04.2012 at 20:23

We dont care about primitive countries.
most of the 90% of afterwind players will hate the idea of a african country sending a nuke to europe or america......
whats the point of being USA,Russia,China, if a African or European countries will overun your country with nukes.........
is better to nukes to be expensive and have advantages, otherwise is not called Nuclear Warfare....
and no, is not possible to a army to scape a nuke... if some one decides to strike moscow, the russian army gets wipeout... no way to be faster than a nuke....
a nuke strikes on 5-10 minutes, or seconds... no way to scape from a city in 10 minutes...(people running in the streets,cars trafic, walls, panic etc.)
if a bomber moves in 5 weeks from usa to spain with blitz, without it is like 10 turns. why not a nuke to move from USA:Atlantic to Russia:Central in 2 weeks?'


and, if a militia can turn block 100 bombers, why not one nuke a army? (btw just a noob makes stacks of +20)

Its all in the name of ballance my friend. Some countries in AW are already pretty weak; if nukes were implemented fully realistically. I think that African issue is solved by the 6 reenforcement thing, and besides, having everyone able to make nukes is more fair.


Again, I don't care about the specifics; whatever is ballanced for its speed is what it should be at.

I can understand you TB logic; TB itself isn't a very realistic system though. As you said, one militia can stop 200+ bombers. TB with nukes just sounds OP to me.

How about instead of all this complicated stuff we simplize it and just give it a fuck ton attack and weak defense.

That way it'll just kill shit and be over with.

Everyone is being a nuke fan boy ever since my nuke ideas. But SHUT UP ABOUT< the devs said games will be implanted soon in the future, let them decide, sheesh, you can give suggestions, BUT DON'T DOMINATE THE GAME

Everyone is being a nuke fan boy ever since my nuke ideas. But SHUT UP ABOUT< the devs said games will be implanted soon in the future, let them decide, sheesh, you can give suggestions, BUT DON'T DOMINATE THE GAME

Escrito por darkstorm777, 05.04.2012 at 22:52

Everyone is being a nuke fan boy ever since my nuke ideas. But SHUT UP ABOUT< the devs said games will be implanted soon in the future, let them decide, sheesh, you can give suggestions, BUT DON'T DOMINATE THE GAME

That's kinda what I'm saying better UP nukes than OP nukes

Escrito por darkstorm777, 05.04.2012 at 22:52

Everyone is being a nuke fan boy ever since my nuke ideas. But SHUT UP ABOUT< the devs said games will be implanted soon in the future, let them decide, sheesh, you can give suggestions, BUT DON'T DOMINATE THE GAME

your idea?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
it wasnt your idea...
the idea of nukes have more time than your account.
(i post nukes idea before you darkstorm777)
and my topic has more post and views...
and, maybe is goin to turn into a Sticky Topic.

I put this in for you guys special:

" 9. The nukes in game ought to be a short range Ballistic missiles (think Iran); not ICBM's

This would make the game more realistic; because not everyone in game is USA or Russia with 40 megaton ICBM's. Most of the countries that would meet the requirement for nukes wouldn't be able to afford top quality nukes like the USA and Russia have. Countries like Iran and NK would able to make nukes with a few hundred KM range and a maybe 5 kt yield. This system would make the game oh so much more balanced. Of course, American mega nukes could still be in the game, sure, but only as rare units, as not to destroy the games balance. "