Manhattan Project - $100,000,000 - The Manhattan Project allows nations below 5% of the top nations in the game to develop nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project cannot be destroyed once it is created. The wonder requires 3,000 infrastructure, 300 technology, and a uranium resource.

The MP was originally added to the game to compensate for certain outcomes of the evolution of the game which threatened to unbalance things by restricting control of a powerful weapon to an increasingly elite group of nations which was increasingly monopolized by a handful of powerful alliances. Also, as the game grew and continued, it became such that nations perfectly capable of supporting nuclear weapons were unable to purchase them because they were in the top 10%, for example, but unable to break the 5% barrier.

The MP achieved this, and gave nations outside the top 5% who wanted nukes and could support nukes the option to do so, though at a cost. This was good.



What has happened in recent months, and has been becoming increasingly common, however, is the abuse of the Manhattan Projects. Nations have used them, coupled with warchests, to go “rogue” for weeks or even months at a time, nuking other nations essentially with impunity. In addition, and perhaps more important on a macro level, is the continuing devaluation of nukes (and every other resource in the game).

Originally, when MPs were introduced, a nation had to make a legitimate choice between sacrificing a considerable chunk of cash and a wonder cycle or forgoing nuclear weapons. This is no longer the case, as both the commonness of nukes as a weapon and the reduced value of wonder cycles for many nations has led to a rapid proliferation of MPs, which has led to a rapid proliferation of nukes, which has contributed greatly to nukes no longer being a goal to be earned, or a symbol of accomplishment, or even something to be feared.

Nations in the top 5% now buy MPs and are expected to buy MPs, even though it would seem redundant, solely because it would allow them to continue to nuke if they were knocked out of the top 5%. This is not necessarily a major problem in itself, but it does reflect how MPs no longer have a meaningful or appropriate opportunity cost.



It is clear that the game has continued to evolve, and just as the original introduction of the MP was a response to such evolution, the MP must now be updated.

Simplest part first: the requirements. The price tag of 100M probably doesn’t need to be changed, but the prerequisites do. 3k Infra and 300 technology are nothing and might as well not be there at all. Secondly, the purchase and use of nukes. Regardless of whether a nation has the MP, they should not be able to buy and fire nukes endlessly with impunity. From here, I see two basic options.

Option One: Make the MP no longer automatically allow one to buy nukes. One would have to be in a percentage group (or, perhaps, meet a much higher infra/tech requirement, though this would be more complicated) to buy nukes, say 20% or 25%. If you’re not that high, then you probably have no business buying nukes anyway. The requirements could be left unchanged or could include the percentage requirement or modified infra/tech requirements. This is probably the simplest solution.

Option Two: Add requirements for firing nukes. You could still buy them at any time. These requirements could be as simple as copying the MP requirements, which may or may not include a percentage requirement or modified infra/tech requirements.

In both cases there could conceivably be instances where a nation can be nuked without being able to nuke back (potentially while holding nukes, even). This is already true in the game to some extent anyway, which is one reason for the proliferation of MPs to begin with. However, an argument could be made that as the MP is meant to be a safeguard against this, it should still actually be a safeguard. In this case, you could simply add “Or an opponent has nukes” or maybe “Or the nation is in nuclear anarchy.”

In either of these cases, the goal is to restrict the power of the MP, which is currently seen as overpowered, in order to curb the proliferation and devaluation of nuclear weapons as well as the proliferation and increased destructiveness of impervious rogues.

approved for discussion.

I totally approve this,

like 80% of the people above 25k got nukes.

nukes are just another weapon. I feel no need to add artificial restrictions such as being in a top XX%. The MP was a way to solve the original artificial restriction of top 5%.

I really have no problems if everybody in the world had nukes.

As it is we have to wait 24 hours to launch a nuke, something that is wholly unrealistic, but added to the game from what I understand to curb losses due to nuke rogues. We have SDI, which knocks down nukes and forces attempted relaunches, causing a nation to burn through their nuke stockpiles faster. We also have spy attacks in increasing variety, which allow nations to spy away nukes from nuke rogues before they can be launched and destroy warchests. Finally, Team senators can kill trades of nuke rogues and deprive them of a source of Uranium (naturally this doesn't work if the rogue has Uranium as a resource, but the number of nations going nuke rogue with Uranium as a resource is so tiny as to almost not be worth mentioning), disabling their ability to make further nuke purchases.

With all that in place, I'm just not seeing a need here. Perhaps what is needed instead, and would be far more effective, is a change in player culture that makes going nuke rogue upon deciding to depart the game or at other times simply unacceptable. It will of course take significantly longer to accomplish, but as I say, it is the ultimate solution.

That will be hard to accomplish without some direct downside to launching nukes by a player as in alliance wars, the laws that govern nuke rouges doesn't apply. The effect would have to be continuous or until collection.

what about if they added some sort of senate thing where if a person went rogue they could block him from using nukes.

That's a bit too powerful as you can still get trades when your sanctioned, just not bonus happiness.

Perhaps a good middle road solution would be to tier the maximum possible nuclear arsenal by nation rank.

The system would work like this: the top 5% of nations would be allowed arsenals of no more than 25 nukes, the 5-10% range nations would get no more than 20 nukes, the 10-15% would get no more than 15 nukes, 15-25% get no more than 10 nukes, the 25-35% get no more than 5 nukes, 35-45% get no more than 2 nukes, and anybody below the top 45% would be allowed no more than one nuke.

This would be better than Heft's solution since it doesn't have the effect of entirely screwing people out of the MPs they bought- it only reduces their effectiveness. Meanwhile, it would address many of the problems Heft raised since as nations went down in rank, they would be allowed fewer and fewer nukes. By shrinking the maximum nuclear stockpile for smaller nations, lower level nations will see their nuclear ambitions more rapidly quashed by spies, SDIs, and time. I think this would be sufficient to nerf the MP for the lower levels.

Plus, this isn't entirely unrealistic- even little nations can get nuclear weapons- just not very large stockpiles of them.

In a similar vein, should the changes in stockpile size be inadequate, the rate at which nuclear weapons can be purchased might be made to be larger for the top 5% and then become slower and slower for the lower tiers.

I would much prefer instead, the inability to send nukes against targets with say <2000 infra or so.

I seriously disagree with this. Do you know what it's like to be destroyed in war and have only 1000 infra left, but thousands of tech? You are going to face opponents with 3000, 4000 or even 5000-6000 infra. The only way you can really harm them is with nukes, otherwise you are seriously screwed because you'll be losing a ton of money per day, putting even more of an emphasis on having billion dollar warchests. And there's no way to get quickly get rid of that tech, you can only send out 300 every 10 days, which takes forever if you have, say, 5000. If you don't have nukes in this situation, the only feasible solution would be to turtle until the war is over, that way you'd only lose $5m per day instead of 10-15. You can only CM your enemies anyway so it doesn't matter if you turtle.

The people doing this are fighting a guerrilla war against superior forces, why cripple them even further? It's not my fault the enemy is afraid to engage me (I've had 3 open war slots for 10 days now), allowing me to pillage their lower ranks to keep my warchest up indefinitely. I know there are nuclear nations in my range, they're just not attacking me for whatever reason.

Leave it alone
There is nothing wrong with someone who has built up the cash reserves going Rogue for weeks on end if that is what they so choose,
Nukes are just another weapon of war at the top levels,
and there is nothing wrong with nations in the top 5% buying MP's and building WC's for the next war,

The best prepared win, which is the way it should be.

I would also like to point out that a single ground attack does the same damage to me as a nuke. The infra I lose from a nuke can be rebuilt VERY cheaply. It's losing ground attacks that truly kills me, and the enemies I meet start out with a ground advantage. So I don't see the problem. Even if they had nukes, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Wars tend to be lopsided because those young nations are too concerned wtih their economical improvements to buy guerrilla camps. If I meet a nation with 3k infra and 5 guerrilla camps I'm in for a hell of a fight, even if they have no nukes.

I agree that this is 100% not needed.

If you make the change to increase the percentage, the MP fails to fulfill its function. Eventually we'll get to the point where the top 10% is relatively stable and nobody is able to break into it to get nukes, and so on and so forth. The concept of a top percentage getting nukes and nobody else is inherently flawed, which is why the MP was made in the first place.

Increasing the requirements for nuking (to 3k infra or whatever) isn't AS bad, but again, not necessary. You complain about rogues going on for months nuking constantly, I don't see this as a problem. It's something that should be possible. Crippling the ability of someone to commit war while they are being beat down is the LAST thing that this game needs. The ability to buy from 0 to 1k infra to buy/launch nukes every day is a valid part of nuclear warfare for someone who has a warchest. Taking that away just makes beatdowns that much easier, and is again the last thing we need in this game.

Well bluntly the OP makes an assumption and claim that nuke rogues are bad, when I see no reason to agree with this. I've been prepping my war machine for over two years, if I want to go rogue and fight the world till my warchest runs dry I should be allowed to do that. And I shouldn't be penalized for it, as long as I have the wonders, keep paying bills, have Uranium, and have enough cash to keep purchasing nukes I should be able to.

Now I do in general agree, now that everyone has nukes it isn't as interesting as it would be if there were more differences based on nations development and sacrifice. However the solution to this is just to add new wonders with large cash, infra, and tech requirments so that the very most dedicated warriors will still have an advantage. A few example wonders...

H-Bomb: Doubles nuke damage.
Breeder Reactor: Eliminates Uranium requirement, can purchase +1 nuke/day.
Nuclear Missile Silo: +10 nuke cap
...And there are many more good ones, we just need to add in more wonders that allow the most dedicated military powerhouses to have an edge on those who prefer eco0nomic strategy, instead of allowing everyone to have nukes and all military wonders.

I like these last suggestions better. Make nuclear capabilities more diverse but don't change the Manhattan Project itself. Nuclear rogues are just one of the hazards that you must live with here on CN, like tech raids... and poaching.

I am glad so many others have offered reasons why this is a poor suggestion so I do not have to also do so.

i think the real problem here is that nukes have become nothing more than giant CM for many people and combined with ever increasing warchest war now takes months to do any long lasting damage against an opponent.

What i think would be a good solution to the problem is to greatly increase the cost of maintaining nukes as well as the power the nuke has. Other things with nukes need to be changed to as in uncapping the number of nukes a nation may have as well as when they can launch and how many they can launch a day.

What this would do is make it so that lower level nations can only purchase 1 or 2 nukes without destroying their economy while large nations can hold an indefinite but must be able to support them all and as such people will be forced to walk a fine line between holding an incredibly powerful weapon and maintaining a large warchest.

Also to make sure that large nations can't hold a ridiculous number of nukes each nuke you buy should have the maintenance cost increased x1.5 from the last nuke.

Then I'll go further...

Anything else you do in the name of curbing nuke rougery with game mechanics is simply one step too far. You have already ratcheted down realism and added a significant number of other game features, yet it still continues.

Short of not having nukes in the game at all, you will not prevent it. You do stand however, to make playing the game even more exasperating if you aren't careful with the rules lawyering and nitpicking for the sake of saving a couple of players now and again an unnecessary a green glow.

I see no reason MP's have to be nerfed at all.

If someone wants to save up the cash, buy an MP, get a uranium trade, max out on nukes, and then attack others until their warchest is depleted, they should be allowed to do that.

Your "problem" is not a problem. It's the inherent right of every nation to wage war by going "rogue" even if it's not CN politically correct.

This suggestion is excellent, and should be investigated more, the OP suggestion is off base completely IMO.

MP overpowered? Then what does that make the WRC (which allows a nation to destroy a full 1k worth of infra in a single day with enough tech).

The OP brings up poor reasons to restrict the MP even more then it is for the simple reason of rouges and sacrifice. Well heres a little kicker, 100m for ANY nation without many wonders under 5k infra is a (pardon me) !@#$%* to come up with. Plus, what about those nations who been knocked so far down they have to rebuy to the 1k infra level just to BUY nukes. It would be foolhardy to criple its capabilites all because of the sake of rouges.

People have been complaining about nuke "rogues" since nukes were introduced. I propose that we eliminate wars altogether, as it's the only way to make sure someone isn't mean and attacks another person.

I think you should have 2k infra and 1k tech to be able to purchase nukes really, the 1k infra margin is waaay too outdates - i mean you even need 1k infra 500 tech for level 9 planes.

thedestrooooooooooooooo



Seriously, he speaks the truth. In fact, if there were more nuke rouges in cn, i would be happy.

Read it "CyberNations Nation SIMULATION game," so that better be kidding, or I'll go to my forum and take out my war-hammer. That is an intentional war-hammer, btw)

I mean, seriously, war is a big piece of everything realistic, aswell, removing it would mess up the entire game, I mean, come on, now, navy, nukes, and planes are expensive, and what is this, now, a sweep of hyperinflation around CN, as war was just disabled, making war stuff complete obsolete?

Your logic, if you were not kidding, defies me.

He was kidding. Clearly making fun of the hippyish nature of the proposal.

I basicly agree with everything SynthFG says here. Also, regarding this point:



I am sure most of the newer players would disagree with you. Unless you get a ton of outside aid, you will not see nukes before 6 months at least I would say. Even those nations that do buy them early like that are going to be paying a really high price to get that MP + nukes, and then maintain them. It's much more of a burden on small nations to maintain a nuclear stockpile. I know when I did not have nukes I was worried about being hit by a nation that did; the fear is still there.

The MP being so common is probably the single biggest warchest killer in the game, when you consider all the damage the nukes cause combined with the costs to buy and maintain. Maybe a nation with a huge warchest can survive a big war, but can they handle a second one right after? No matter how big your reserve is, if you keep fighting you WILL run out eventually. The MP is fine the way it is.

suggesting that the game mechanics could have a direct downside to launching nukes is now rules lawyering?

I basically agree, nuclear weapons and "roguing" equalize the playing field and allow guerrilla warfare and asymmetrical warfare to be possible. Changing it up would just return thing to the way things were, an uneven playing field based on shear numbers. IMO just leave it the way it is.

I agree with this. People have abused them and will continue to abuse nukes. Although it is essential now for an alliance to have them in case of a major war, the people who get nukes needs to be limited.

I agree that nukes are losing their value, but this suggestion is not the answer. If I were to do anything to limit nuclear weapons, I'd just raise the price for a Manhattan Project, say to $250,000,000.

There's a reason why we have IC forums - this is a role-playing game. If I want to RP all Kim Jong-Il and stick a nuke up your $@! because I'm a terrorist, then damn it that's what I'm going to do.

the only thing that makes sense is more nukes = more needed infra

I remember when nations were buying nukes at 6k

I remember when they were buying them at 3999 infra, and this was still not the earliest time people could get them.

I still think 6k infra is the best level for buying an MP without cutting your nation's growth too much really. Besides unless you have like 10k tech you won't be doing too much $ worth of damage with your nukes at that level so i really don't think it's the best answer. Raising MP's price would prolly raise this to about 7k and make it much harder for small infra nations who want to gloat on their nuclear e-peen about having nukes because stopping at 3-4k infra for long enough to collect 250 mil would be downright retarded so i guess that could work as well.

Anyway, like i stated before nukes should require a higher tech level at least to be purchased because as it stands too many can buy them really early and too many can keep nuking on their way down easily. I think having nukes require a higher tech level for purchasing would at least partially solve the problem.

I believe he meant 6k NS at the very start of the game when that was considered top 5%

Also I disagree with just about everything you said as far as needing higher requirements for nukes. You buy a MP to have nukes forever, the suggestion at hand cheapens that investment.

You buy an MP to get nukes earlier and to keep them more during war, especially since the NS value of tech was lowered and most attacks remove tech as well as infra (and maybe land), lowering your NS a lot faster than before.

I don't think MP's were meant to keep you an eternal nuclear nation. But that's just me.

I don't like this suggestion at all, it would just make curbstomps easier. It would further create a disincentive to offer surrender terms to defeated enemies after paying the initial cost of eating their nuclear load. Easier forced disbandments, perma-ZIs, and eternal warfare are a terrible idea for this game. The ability of defeated nations to keep nuking small nations attacking them, which if done on a large scale bleeds huge amounts of resources from the stomping alliance, is one of the few things (reparations being the other) that gives a material reason for wars to end. It may not be completely realistic, but it prevents the smaller of any two sides from being completely stomped out of the game without a huge price being paid by the stompers, and from a gameplay perspective, that's a good thing.

The incidence of rogues on Planet Bob is a social problem and should be solved by social means. There is a huge legitimate need for MPs to exist, and it is foolish to deny their function (which will create a much larger problem) in the effort to solve a smaller problem.

Bad idea, gets thumbs down from me.

I wouldn't be opposed to making nukes harder to purchase. Perhaps it could be more economically harmful to a nation to keep a nuclear arsenal. However, if such a change were to be implemented, I'd want to see an increase a potency of nuclear weapons. There was a time in this game when a single nuclear launch was outrageous enough to start a global war, and if someone went "nuke rogue," everybody got their panties in a wad over the GRL. So, that's my suggestion, to recap:

1. Make nukes more economically harmful to nations developing them (maybe bigger environment penalties and high upkeep costs).
2. Make nukes more potent (maybe cause them to destroy infrastructure and technology on a percentage, so that for huge 100k nations a nuke would actually hurt.)
3. Increase the GRL cap and make one nuke have a greater effect on GRL (although I think the idea of uncapping GRL failed)

I could possibly go with this if the price of the MP was increased.

Isnt the MP already 100 million dollars? >.>

Totally against this idea.

You talk about having to chose between nukes or wonders. With the 100 mill price tag nations have to chose between nukes and growth. Its not like most nations have 100 mill just lying around. At the levels most people buy MPs they have to save a lot of cash up and sacrifice growth to buy the MP.

Why increase the cost of MP when you're making owning nukes more harmful youwish? :iiam:

That said making nuclear penalties harsher I agree with. I wouldn't mind a flat doubling of the base nuke upkeep cost, while making the upkeep scale exponentially with the number of nukes held, and just uncapping the number of nukes someone can hold.

Make it so yes, a nation with 15k infra pulling in 20mil per day can hold on to 50 nukes, but his nuke bills are something ridiculous like 10mil per day. Effectively allowing someone to completely stunt their growth for maximal nuclear arsenal.

It's also a double edged sword, because with bills that high, your warchest would get drained much faster, potentially bill locking you before you ran out of nukes.


I also agree with modifying the GRL in some way. Make it affect more than just environment. Say all nuclear armed nations take income a penalty based on the GRL. Also have nations being the target of the nuke get hit by the income penalties first. (While this sucks for rogue targets, in general anyone being nuked is also nuking in turn. And it just makes sense that the environment sucks more at ground zero than in an unrelated area).

I don't agree with the need to make nukes more powerful. The destruction is already more formidable than other attacks by a significant margin. Changing GRL would be more than enough to add more stigma to nukes, damage on an individual level doesn't need to be reassessed.

Well, without Uranium the cost of 50 nukes would be around 27 million, so 13.5 million. I think uncapping should be done via a separate wonder personally.



The upkeep does scale exponentially now.

It increases by 500 per nuke and then you gain the amount of nukes.

So if the 20th nuke was 14.5k per nuke upkeep, the 21st is 15k per nuke upkeep.

I'm suggesting instead it goes to 16.5k, 18k, 20k, 22.5k, etc, meaning the costs raise much faster than currently.

But doing the math for nukes as they are I see you're right, it'd almost 15million in upkeep for 50 nukes. (29.5k per nuke).

That said I don't think it necessarily needs to be a separate wonder. Make it the HNMS, or just make it default and make HNMS lower your effective nukes by 5 for upkeep purposes (meaning you could keep 25 for the cost of 20 and so on)

I like the idea, it would keep mid sized nations still interested and possible of attacking nations that are higher than them in
alliance wars.



As one of the economic strategists, i agree with your idea. At my range (~25K) almost everyone has all the improvement slots
that mean anything militarily and economically. I know it happens eventually with wonders too, but I think having more wonders
that effect one or the other will create a more diverse playing field.

Exactly. It's not broke, so why fix it?

Next thing you know, you won't be able to declare war without approval in triplicate from all sanctioned alliances.

I think instead of giving a hard max the rate could be tied to your infra. Up until that point your upkeep increases by 500k/nuke. Above that, each additional nuke increases the upkeep by 500*n where n=number of nukes above you have above the soft ceiling. This allows anyone to try and keep a larger arsenal, but at some point they will be sacrificing immense profits.

A HMNS would be able to protect any of the nukes below the ceiling, but not above.