Nuclear limitation

6 lvl fortification is a good tool for the lazy players. A good player with the threat of missile attack would not keep the main forces in the dangerous city.

Sandevot wrote:

6 lvl fortification is a good tool for the lazy players. A good player with the threat of missile attack would not keep the main forces in the dangerous city.

A nuke shelter is not a fortification, it's more expensive than say a military fortification, a nuke shelter is built underground and have supplies for months to wait the fallout to pass.

The nuke shelter should be a building of its own and its only purpose is to reduce the damage nukes do to the city and units.

SaintDamien wrote:

Sandevot wrote:

6 lvl fortification is a good tool for the lazy players. A good player with the threat of missile attack would not keep the main forces in the dangerous city.

Not every player can be online 24/7.

Sandevot wrote:

SaintDamien wrote:

Sandevot wrote:

6 lvl fortification is a good tool for the lazy players. A good player with the threat of missile attack would not keep the main forces in the dangerous city.

Not every player can be online 24/7.

This is true. But a nuclear missile or bomber is not sent into the unknown void, always only after investigation. Find out in advance the direction of impact is not so difficult.

We were talking about shelter/fortification and lazy players (or a lack of time).

NOT the use of nukes and bombers... thats the other side of it. (attacker)

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

A nuke shelter is not a fortification, it's more expensive than say a military fortification, a nuke shelter is built underground and have supplies for months to wait the fallout to pass.

The nuke shelter should be a building of its own and its only purpose is to reduce the damage nukes do to the city and units.

I think it would be better to incorporate this into something existing.

well if were talking about withstanding a damage value of 3000 infantry type, 2010 armor type, 990 air type and 390 air type. then its going to be really expensive

Nuke shelters in the U.S. were not meant to protect full divisions of the Army. They were meant to protect very important people who would be crucial in the event of a nuclear attack, e.g. the President and some high-ranking generals. Nuke shelters were in the middle of nowhere, stuck in mountains, and most were only for important people/important stuff. Barely any were for civilians, and none at all for Armed Forces. There was a type of nuclear 'Anderson shelter' for civilians, but barely nothing.

Yes, maybe have it as a researchable thing? And you can get better ones for higher levels of nukes.

So it's going to be its own building?

Pablo22510 wrote:

Anderson shelter'

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

So it's going to be its own building?

You probably understood me wrong. I meant that people in this game want the shelter to protect troops, but that never happened.

Russia also never fought USA and Algeria never conquered the world.

in the Soviet Union it was for the whole bunker. bunker with a nuclear power plant and even a bunker for submarines (Объект 825ГТС).

But i do not think that it should be in the game

Great we're back in square one.

I was thinking of a counter measure againts nukes, a missile is going to intercept an incoming missle in an area, well? Since we're not agreeing on the army sized nuke shelter might as well this.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

That was for conventional bombs. It was just sheet metal and dirt that was tested by jumping on it. I don't think it could withstand a nuke.

Are you on about the English Anderson shelter during WWII or what?

I would still suggest to get the option to develop higher level of fortifications.

Those will allow to minimize nuclear damage, and or save troops.

I do agree that it should be really expensive. (whether its one extra nuclear lvl, or multiple)

Al tough we wish it, it will never be like the real thing.

So at least we can make it playable.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Are you on about the English Anderson shelter during WWII or what?