[Lavo_2]

First of all, the past ruling on one needing a WRC to have fusion nukes and that nukes can be 1MT max are gone, seeing as every single nation has the technology for those or better (made in the 1950s, and everybody has at least late Cold War tech).

Secondly, the new system. I propose that 1 IG Nuke is equal to a number of MT (the number to be decided by you all). This allows nations to customize their nuclear arsenal (tactical nukes, artillery shells, Tsar Bombs, etc.), reduces abuse, and allows for nukes to be what they are, deadly. It also deals with the senseless "20-25 Nukes Max" problem while still being based upon your IG nuke count. Individual nuclear warhead sizes (regardless of how much MT one has) will be limited to 50 MT. WRCs will still double the amount of nukes you produce per RL day, by doubling the total MT amount of nukes produced (ex. 3MT total times two).

Pros:
Customization of one's arsenal
"More" Nukes
Less abuse
More deployment methods for nukes
More RP options/scenarios (rogue states being a threat, MAD, etc.)

Cons:
You have to think more
"More" Nukes

[Mergerberger II]

Honestly, this system makes perfect sense and I have been in favor of it since you mentioned it sometime ago as an idea of yours. It is more complicated, yes, but we can deal with that, I think, and trade for a more realistic system of nukes that is still based directly on the in-game numbers.

I like it.

[Drakedeath]

Sense. This idea makes it.

It allows extreme diversity with your number and the strength of your nukes, and it allows difference between each nation. Right now everyone has the same nukes but with different names. With this, you actually get a choice.

[Sargun]

"More" is worse. Just get back to IG = RP, all of these new choices just open room for abuse and confusion.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Sargun, on Aug 2 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

"More" is worse. Just get back to IG = RP, all of these new choices just open room for abuse and confusion.

I'm with Sargun here. If someone decides to go nutso like GNR did at the end and fire off all their nukes, less is definitely better. It will also lead to better rping (maybe), as more more conventional fighting must be done instead of just dropping nukes all over a country.

[iKrolm]

KaiserMelech Mikhail, on Aug 1 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

I'm with Sargun here. If someone decides to go nutso like GNR did at the end and fire off all their nukes, less is definitely better. It will also lead to better rping (maybe), as more more conventional fighting must be done instead of just dropping nukes all over a country.

I am not opposed to changing the nuke system, but I don't think this will work. Under the changes, a nation could be hit by a single 50 megaton nuke or carpet bombed by 5,000 10 kiloton nukes and realistically, you're going to need a LONG time to recover from that, which makes it seem an aweful lot like forced role play.

[Shadowsage]

Yeah. I'd just make a ton of little-yield nukes and swamp a SDI.

[Voodoo Nova]

iKrolm, on Aug 2 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

I am not opposed to changing the nuke system, but I don't think this will work. Under the changes, a nation could be hit by a single 50 megaton nuke or carpet bombed by 5,000 10 kiloton nukes and realistically, you're going to need a LONG time to recover from that, which makes it seem an aweful lot like forced role play.

A nation could currently be hit by 20-25 nukes now from one nation and they would still need to RP a long time the rebuilding.

[Drakedeath]

iKrolm, on Aug 2 2009, 05:33 AM, said:

I am not opposed to changing the nuke system, but I don't think this will work. Under the changes, a nation could be hit by a single 50 megaton nuke or carpet bombed by 5,000 10 kiloton nukes and realistically, you're going to need a LONG time to recover from that, which makes it seem an aweful lot like forced role play.

If rebuilding is forced roleplay, then wars would be forcing rebuilding too. Let's restrict war while we're at it!

[Executive Minister]

Drakedeath, on Aug 2 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

If rebuilding is forced roleplay, then wars would be forcing rebuilding too. Let's restrict war while we're at it!

Trust me...i'm waaay ahead of you...no forced rp has become a 'baby' of mine....an obsession

[Lavo_2]

Sargun, on Aug 2 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

"More" is worse. Just get back to IG = RP, all of these new choices just open room for abuse and confusion.

If we have to get to IG = RP, then when are we getting rid of all the modifiers? Not everything IG = IC, unless you are in Botha mode (which only 2 RPers are). And please give examples of abuse, as I do not see any. As for confusion, just keep 20-25 nukes if you want. It would be optional for a nation to make more or less nukes.

KaiserMelech Mikhail, on Aug 2 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

I'm with Sargun here. If someone decides to go nutso like GNR did at the end and fire off all their nukes, less is definitely better. It will also lead to better rping (maybe), as more more conventional fighting must be done instead of just dropping nukes all over a country.

Yeah, parts of the GNR went insane at it's end. That is life, some people should never get in control of nuclear weapons. For many, nuclear retaliation is a last resort, a last ditch attempt to do damage or get a more favorable outcome in war. As bad as the nuclear attack on Sarah was ICly, I fail to see how this is a "horrible" thing and should be stopped at all costs. As for better RPing, as it is now, conventional fighting is all about numbers and/or tech. Wars such as the East African conflict are far and few between, massive gangbangs such as parts of the GNR war or when I was carpet nuked are the norm.

iKrolm, on Aug 2 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

I am not opposed to changing the nuke system, but I don't think this will work. Under the changes, a nation could be hit by a single 50 megaton nuke or carpet bombed by 5,000 10 kiloton nukes and realistically, you're going to need a LONG time to recover from that, which makes it seem an aweful lot like forced role play.

That is exactly how it is as of now. If you are hit really hard one must RP rebuilding. How is it forced role play to have to play out the consequences of a brutal war? If a nation suffers major damage during a war, they should not come out of it without a scratch.

[Nick and CIB]

I like the idea

[iKrolm]

Drakedeath, on Aug 1 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

If rebuilding is forced roleplay, then wars would be forcing rebuilding too. Let's restrict war while we're at it!

I'm not talking about a rebuilding from a normal war, I'm talking about rebuilding from a massive nuclear barrage which alone which would render most of a small-to-mid sized countries or all the urban areas from a large country uninhabitable. Keep in mind that the US army said it could only take 1,000 bombs for nuclear 'really, really bad fall' (or winter as the rest of us would call it).

This post has been edited by iKrolm: 02 August 2009 - 12:13 AM

[iKrolm]

Nick and CIB, on Aug 1 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

I like the idea

Please see this thread.

[Lavo_2]

iKrolm, on Aug 2 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

I'm not talking about a rebuilding from a normal war, I'm talking about rebuilding from a massive nuclear barrage which alone which would render most of a small-to-mid sized countries or all the urban areas from a large country uninhabitable. Keep in mind that the US army said it could only take 1,000 bombs for nuclear 'really, really bad fall' (or winter as the rest of us would call it).

As it stands now, we allow fallout to be gone after 2-3 months (RL) ICly provided reconstruction and clean-up RP is done. We do not force people to deal with radiation forever if they are nuked. And yes, a lot is destroyed and radiated. That's what nukes are, weapons of mass destruction.

[Tahsir]

a 50 megaton bomb is not recoverable from. The area for miles around it will not simply be destroyed. Bedrock was atomized by the air burst of the Tsar Bomba when it detonated 4 kilometers above the ground.

There is no rebuilding from that.
http://i383.photobuc...ngbangbooom.jpg


Also the idea of making thousands of tiny bombs is the idea behind MIRVs. Multiple small bombs hitting close to one another causes even more damage than one larger bomb

This post has been edited by Tahsir Re: 02 August 2009 - 12:35 AM

[JerreyRough]

Tahsir Re, on Aug 2 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

a 50 megaton bomb is not recoverable from. The area for miles around it will not simply be destroyed. Bedrock was atomized by the air burst of the Tsar Bomba when it detonated 4 kilometers above the ground.

There is no rebuilding from that.
http://i383.photobuc...ngbangbooom.jpg


Also the idea of making thousands of tiny bombs is the idea behind MIRVs. Multiple small bombs hitting close to one another causes even more damage than one larger bomb

Nuclear Winter is not recoverable from. But hey, Planet Bob is still here! I think god's fist comes around after a bit and crushes the fallout. Only explanation.

I'm against having more and more nuclear bombs that could do more damage than a few better (but lesser in number) weapons.

[Raritan]

I think this idea makes sense and I would support it.

It's more realistic and provides more RP opportunities.

[HHAYD]

I support the suggestion, it allows RPers to have diversity in their nuclear weapons.

[Lynneth]

I for one would honestly like to see no nuclear weapons, but that's only because I'm a simmer, even in CNRP.

For me, the problem is that a 10 or 20 Kton nuke can take out a medium city rather easily, while a 50 Mton nuke is just for intimidation. Logically, everyone will just get Mnogo Nukes, using hundreds or thousands of small-scale warheads so that no SDI can possibly stop them all.
This would make the SDI a lot less useful than before, when only a maximum of 25 nukes was coming for you. At 500 nuclear weapons, an average of 200 or so nukes would still be coming for you. That's more than enough to wipe any country, including Russia, China or the United States of A from the map, quite literally. Any major city'll be annihilated for huge countries like that.
Small countries? Just gone.

That said, only two powers ever had more than 350 nuclear weapons, and we all know who those are.
If I need to choose, I'd just prefer a smaller, more managable amount of nukes instead of amounts where a single roll decides the fate of a dozen or more cities.

This post has been edited by Lynneth: 02 August 2009 - 06:02 AM