7 replies to this topic

[Hereno]

I was thinking about how much everybody and their mother having an MP has lead to really, really destructive wars and how it has kind of screwed things up. However, we obviously can't take MPs out of the game overnight and screw a bunch of people over, either. So, what I suggest is significantly raising the cost of nuke upkeep as the number of nukes you have on hand increases.

 

Currently, this is set at 10% more for each nuke:

 

In addition to the initial cost, nuclear weapons also have a starting cost of $5,000 a day to maintain (Upkeep cost is doubled if you do not have access to Uranium). This cost increases +10% for every nuclear weapon that you own.

 

So, for my nation right now with uranium and 19 nukes, my upkeep costs for nukes are a little over 200k daily. This makes it pretty easy to maintain full 25 nukes at all times on an economy of just 4k infra (what I had rebuilt to before I had to go fight Kaskus), but I have seen nations even lower than that running a budget surplus with full nukes.

 

If we were to up this number to, say, multiply the upkeep cost by 1000% for each new nuke (or something like that, I'm less arguing the number than the idea behind it), this would keep smaller nations with nuclear weapons from being able to just sit around with 20-25 nukes on hand at all times. In order to keep their economies running efficiently, they might only be able to keep 2 or 5 or 10 on hand at any time, else they might even risk running a negative budget until they start getting up into the WRC-level infra ranges where they can really afford. This also adds a bit more strategy to nation building, preparation for wars, and the wars themselves; and also helps to keep the majority of nuclear war in the upper tiers where nukes were originally intended to be. However, it also allows people to keep the wonder they invested so much money into and doesn't completely revamp the game mechanics. Additionally, because this increasing upkeep cost already exists in the game, it should be very simple to just modify the number.

 

On implementation: I'd give people like a month in advance that the change is going to occur to give them time to either use their nukes, lose their nukes, or accept having to pay more for nuke upkeep.

[lordliam]

Okay, so yea, preparations for global war will take about a month instead of little more than a day and will be very harder to reverse by alliance governments, making it more likely that leaders will decide to just keep going instead of chickening out on diplomatic incidents.

 

You're also making the assumption that highly destructive wars are bad. Which isn't a terrible assumption to make, but it's really debatable at this point. Especially when we're, you know, in the middle of a highly destructive war.

[Hereno]

Okay, so yea, preparations for global war will take about a month instead of little more than a day and will be very harder to reverse by alliance governments, making it more likely that leaders will decide to just keep going instead of chickening out on diplomatic incidents.

 

You're also making the assumption that highly destructive wars are bad. Which isn't a terrible assumption to make, but it's really debatable at this point. Especially when we're, you know, in the middle of a highly destructive war.

 

Your first claim seems baseless. You really think alliances are going to wait an entire month to funnel dongs into their noobs to pay for the upkeep and purchase cost of nukes the smaller nations' economies can't support, just so their lower tiers can have a few extra nuclear weapons (all while your enemies probably see what is going on and are stocking up themselves)?

 

Highly destructive wars are bad because they lead to long rebuilding times and make people less likely to go to war. What you seem to think is a negative (leaders being more likely to go to war) I see as a positive - maybe people wouldn't sit around having to wait for wars to happen for months or even years for *just* the right moment if losing didn't mean you were crippled for a year.

Edited by Hereno, 30 January 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[Grigoris Lambrakis]

I very much agree with Hereno. Wars were more fun before the MP, carefull tactics and coordination mattered a lot more. Nowadays you have to be in the low tiers to enjoy war. You even see old nations with loads of money staying in the lower tiers simply because it's more fun. Nukes should be made less affordable.

-

[Icewolf]

I like this idea. It does seem that nuclear upkeep is too cheap. 

 

The only concern I have is that large nations with an SDI knocked down to low levels very quickly gain an even bigger advantage than they already have.

[Iceknave]

Just means an even greater warchest burden across the board to actually have enough cash to fight with nukes continously.

Edited by Iceknave, 31 January 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[andyt2k]

With 25 nukes and uranium, my upkeep is $425,000.00

 

I think that's plenty

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

This sounds decent. Nukes could cost more than the damage they deal, which would make people think more about using them.