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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.


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.


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.

I like the idea

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).

Please see this thread.

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.

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.photobucket.com/albums/oo274/p...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.

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

It's more realistic and provides more RP opportunities.

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

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.

I agree with this suggestion... before, once one had 20-25 nukes max (nukes are already something only power-players enjoy using ... me is slightly greatly one) and you would have a WRC it would be in your nations best interest to have 20 40 MT nukes... that's just nastily devestating O_o. The weapons research complex SHOULD determine when one got fusion weapons, maybe...

Maybe, before the WRC you get fission bombs with each nuke representing the max available energy in terms of 15 kTons per nuke. AKA, a nation with 50 can make one 750 kt warhead. (This shoots a little above Orange Herald the most powerful pure fission bomb which had a power of about 700 MT)

After the WRC you can get fusion bombs with each nuke representing the max available energy in terms of 1 MT per nuke (Showing the rapid growth in power associated with transfer to fusion technology over fissionable devices).

Even the most powerful nuclear weapon currently in service in the United states (I'm admittedly using wikipedia as a source, but that is acceptable from my end as this is an RP) is B83 nuclear bomb coming in at about 1.2 Mt. We do for instance use MIRVed with 10 300 kT warheads in a package or 12 475 kT warheads in a Trident II missile. So you would likely see (for anything that would qualify for intercontinental ballistic missiles). Weapons like B61 variants can have about 60 kT or even 1.5 kilotons... This would ultimately allow nuclear weapons to fall in the hundreds during a military conflict... but they wouldn't all be Tzar Bombas.

I like the idea. Gives some more flavor to nuclear conflicts from the more standard routine. That way I'm not "wasting a nuke" on a AIM-26 falcon or suitcase bomb. It causes more strategy in nuclear warfare.

And just in case you wanted my source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

I was originally in favor of this idea, but after reading the objections to it (nicely reasoned out, most of you), I'm not so sure.

It seems like it would overly complicate an already complex RP world...

We could could always get rid of Nukes. No Nukes = No Problem.

Perhaps there would be an option to scale the SDI with the amount of nukes fired so when firing say 100 small ones the chances of blocking on getting to 90% allowing perhaps 10 through, another option would be grouping several nukes in one standard form for the SDI say I built 100 smaller nukes who equal in total X megaton or 1 IG nuke if the sdi blocks the 1 IG nuke all small ones get blocked. If you have enough to equal 2*X there would be 2 rolls each for one group. This still allows diversity maintaining the effect of a SDI

Well, once the definition for what 1 IG nuke is for 1 IC nuke, then the SDI issue won't be one. You'll still calculate it out like we currently do.

Not happening...sorry, no way...


That might actually work. The KISS method wouldn't be offended...

Not a bad idea to keep that balanced, but it doesn't help nations without an SDI. What if we allow more flexibility as Lavo suggested, but impose a 1 IG to 5 IC cap?

Smaller nations without SDI are currently bad off too

I like the idea but it is a bit complicated, so I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Either way, it's not like Nukes matter much in RP. Nukes are not really RPed, as their effects last for a very little time compared to RL nukes. They're just obese cruise missiles. If we're gonna change anything about nukes it'd be to RP them properly, and understand their long term unavoidable effects (With exceptions for new nations which wish to take a place in the map previously nuked, so as not to cripple newbies)

I like this idea personally. I think the current (or previous) system basically made the use of tactical nuclear weapons impossible, and made it extremely un-advantageous to RP them. It also made the use of nuclear weapons in a military capacity less effective as you would have less to spend. Part of the reason why the war against you lavo turned out to just be a bunch of people throwing nukes at major cities was, there was no way to use it on militaries without it being a total waste. If this were the case I would personally consider just breaking down one of my nukes into several small tactical nukes and using them as an anti-naval weapon in a last ditch invasion of my islands. Overall I don't think this will result in that much abuse because we can just essentially set 1 IG nuke divided up whatever way results in a relative amount of damage be it dropped on one large target or a bunch of smaller ones. This is basically how it works IG, a nuke destroys 150 infastructure every time, just apply that same conceptual model to CN, a bunch of little nukes add up to one large one. (I get what lynneth is saying about how a 100 kt nuke can either totally cripple a medium city if not outright destroy it, I guess this is kind of just one of those CNRP times) Other than that I think common sense can dictate reasonability. I mean breaking down my 25 nukes into 25,000 1kt nukes and carpet nuking tahoe can be clearly identified as abuse and rejected by GM judgement. Just weigh it by a case by case basis, as for SDI, just roll it like we have in the past. 65% (or was it 75...) of nuke damage gets thwarted in the current system, the same would apply in a new system.

Mainly I just want to be able to use nuclear weapons in a tactical capacity without undermining the overall strategic capabilities of my nation.

I think you are getting the the WRC thing wrong. As it stands now, if one "uses up" nukes in RP they can rebuild 1 per day (2 with WRC). The bit about the WRC in my post says that with a WRC you will be able to rebuild the equivalent of 2 IG nukes per day.


Basically, if I read your post correctly, if someone (for example) launches two 500kT nukes (and in this case 1 IG nuke = 5 MT) if one SDI roll is successful, both nukes are stopped? If so, I like this and it is a nice way to fix a possible "nuke spam" scenario (which I have been trying to find a good solution for).

I support this. Makes nukes more realistic. After all, what modern nation would have only 20-25 nukes?

If you want to be realistic, then I propose that we base the # of megatons not on a single set number per increment, but an exponentially increasing # per nuke with 50 being equated to the total nuclear yield of the United States weapon stockpile at its peak.. divided by 50. Why divided by 50? Because I think mergers and alliances act a lot like the United States does in reality, thus it would make sense that the max per state yield be equal to a single U.S. state which could theoretically be its own nation in the absence of a grouping, collective, federal government.

So to approximately

(Max U.S. Yield/50) = (50 IG Nukes)(x)

X is the formula we must determine..

Since the Mahatton project produced two bombs with roughly 40 Kiltons, I propose increment 1 be 50 kilotons and work up. to that super massive # for 50.

Theoretically we could max cap 50 IG nukes at 10000 Total Megatons.. as that's more than sufficient to leave the world in immense pain.

Mael, that just makes everything far more complicated, and also kills the fixed link to IG nukes. That and nations getting an arsenal the size of the US' is extremely unbalanced, unnecessary, and will not happen. Personally, I'd make 1 IG Nuke = 1 MT which is how it is atm.

I was thinking 1 IG nuke = 2 MT. This allows for a max of 50 MT, which makes the nuclear customization a bit more open, and even for allowing the possibility of one 50MT nuclear bomb.

Now that's scary!

Back when I was stupid as Saboria, I gave Sumeragi a 100 Megaton nuclear bomb to blow up part of New Guinea.
She thought it'd be enough to trigger continental plates and sink the islands.

Well, if it were placed right, it could possibly trigger such effects

But not where she had it.

.... O_o. ROFL

I sunk your battleship!

Yeah! Well I sunk your island!

Nope.
An earthquake produces much more energy, on the order of several magnitudes.

<--- still thinks Nukes should erased. Runs off to build Soviet Time Machine.



Command and Conquer players should know what I mean.

I'm not saying it would all be the nuke's energy, now am I? I said it would be the trigger.

The trigger on a gun isn't what kills the target, it's the bullet that the trigger releases. If the bomb is set in the right area, on a tectonic plate, it's going to trigger an earthquake.

@ Kevz. I know what you're referring to...

Yes, I do. But Einstein must invent Time Travel and remove Hitler first.

I don't know the geography of the area, but you don't need to create all the energy, you just need to trigger it's release along an already stressed fault line. Wouldn't sink the island by a long shot though, and you'd need numerous bombs pretty deep underground.

It really depends on the island. A volcanic plume like the canary islands, could be easily sunk using a high yield nuclear weapon. As all you would need to do is crack the plume and the entire thing would basically collapse. However islands like mine, or sargun's wouldn't be effected that way as they are actually the tips of pieces of crust sticking out from the ocean. Rather than being volcanic rock which is rather fragile they are made out of granite, or limestone; which are considerably stronger they also lack the same internal structural deficiencies of volcanic plumes.

To trigger an earthquake, you need the power of continents.
Not something a nuclear warhead can achieve.

You can kind of simulate an earthquake, the american's basically created an "earthquake bomb" which burrowed its way a few hundred meters beneath the surface before setting off a large conventional explosive. The power of that could easily be greatly increase with a nuclear weapon. Of course that wouldn't mimic the transverse wave patterns of an earthquake but it might feel similar within a fairly limited range. Of course... why not just use a nuke; as its destructive power would probably be easily greater than the same nuke buried underground .

As ikrolm said, place it along a stressed fault line, and most (excepting, of course, the sinking of the island) of the effects would still occur.

It wouldn't even have to be along a fault line, any shallow underground detonation would be easily felt along a fairly wide area depending on the yield. But it would be limited, it wouldn't have the wide spread effects of a true earthquake. But I don't think a detonation along a fault line would really trigger an earthquake. Plate lines are massive, and the forces you are dealing with are pretty much beyond anything a nuke can provide. I mean in my mind the only time a nuke would have any effect on a fault line would be if it was JUST about to snap; when it was balancing on the edge of an earthquake, but how you RP that without totally godmoding idk.

A 100 megaton nuke on a fault line would vaporize about 20 kilometers of rock before the shock wave even started to hit anything. You'd make a stupid lava flow before you made a earthquake