Jump to content

Henry's Blog

  • entries
    12
  • comments
    97
  • views
    6,564

Bring back "For the Love of God, Think of the Children!"


Dagrr

323 views

 Share

  

38 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

On the eve of another nuclear exchange, we find ourselves facing how absolutely boring warfare has become in game. The outcome is already decided; NEW will do “x” amount of damage depending on: how much cash they are sitting on, target selection, and wonder/nuke nation strength tiers. If any of NEWs other allies hope in, it will be the same, just on a larger scale. I noted the stats last night, but I’m not even going to bother looking at them again for 8 more hours when nukes start to fly. Conventional anarchy is absolutely irrelevant, especially when NEW has a reserve of nations in peacemode able to declare at their leisure. It wasn’t always like this.

Back in late 2006-early 2007, there was an interalliance agreement that banned first strike nukes: “The For the Love of God, Think of the Children Convention.” Legion took the lead in creating the treaty. They had first hand knowledge of how a small group of powerful, nuclear equipped nations could cause damage from the Warpstorm War. The Convention was signed by most of the major alliances and made nuclear strikes a faux pas.

After the legendary failure of the NAAC and the rest of the League to launch their nukes in Great War II, the winds began to shift in favor of mass nuke use. The first widespread nuclear strikes occurred during the initial phases of Vietfan. Nukes could still be fired right after declaring war back then, making FAN’s tactics even more effective then they would be today. In the wake of Vietfan, the remaining alliance signatories began to withdraw from the Convention. The final barrier was breached when the Mushroom Kingdom went nuclear in the War of the Coalition. The use of nukes is now the norm instead of the exception.

Back in the day, I was told keeping money on hand during war wasn’t a good idea because the enemy would loot it. This would still be true, if ground attacks were still the most damaging attack in a non nuclear world. I took the time to calculate how much to deploy and still have enough left home to defend. Now though, it’s easy. Deploy max w/o anarchy, nuke, and repeat. I know there are still little gamey tricks with deployments and when to GA but any damage done by it pales in comparison to when those first nukes land. I’ve probably thrown about 30 nukes and taken 20 or so during my career here. It really lost its appeal after that first war I used them in.

The restraints on Nukes were taken off because it was the only way available for an underdog to do lasting damage to a larger adversary. If you’re not massively outnumbered, I don’t think you should initiate a nuclear exchange. Back in Great War III, FAN and TOP took down Legion with conventional forces only. Legion was full of ghosts back then. It was still fun and you had to stay active to have a chance to rebuy soldiers when you got FANpiled. Today, all I do is sit on a mound of cash and wait for the war to come to launch my ordinance and I’ll do my fair share of damage. Ask yourself this, why would anyone stick around in this game if this is all you have to do to be successful? To read the forums? Surely, you jest. Everyone has been going around in circles trying to prove the other side is a hypocrite since Karma. Every single damn one of you is a !@#$@#$ hypocrite. Do you honestly think that you don’t have double standards for your allies? You are a terrible alliance if you don’t treat you allies different from your enemies. You're not Jesus, you're not Gandi, you're not Martin Luther King.

All this said, it is impossible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle unless the community as a whole changes. I won’t hold my breath.

 Share

14 Comments


Recommended Comments

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NUKE THE CHILDREN!

And yeah, there's about as much chance of the genie going back in the bottle as there is of it happening in the real world.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just because I've only been around since 2008, but I honestly don't get the rage on nukes.

They're a weapon like any other. Right?

It seems to me that if people didn't use nukes it would just prolong wars since it'd take longer to wreck everyone's stuff.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just because I've only been around since 2008, but I honestly don't get the rage on nukes.

They're a weapon like any other. Right?

It seems to me that if people didn't use nukes it would just prolong wars since it'd take longer to wreck everyone's stuff.

I don't really rage and they are a weapon like just like any other in game. I just think the game was better off when there was some hesitation to push the nuke button.

In 2006-2007, wars were actually shorter as a whole though. The average was about 2-4 weeks. Vietfan being a notable exception. Warchests are responsible for wars lasting a month or longer now. Players back then would rebuild fairly quickly and do it all again a few months later. Now that warchests have arrived on the scene, people don't actively look for fights until they are ready with their cash. The costs are perceived as too high to go to war as often as back then.

If warchests stay and nuke go, I grant you wars would last a lot longer. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing though.

Link to comment

Back in the day, I was told keeping money on hand during war wasn’t a good idea because the enemy would loot it. This would still be true, if ground attacks were still the most damaging attack in a non nuclear world. I took the time to calculate how much to deploy and still have enough left home to defend.

No, it wouldn't. The problem with ground attack money damages is the cap is far too small for the modern world. I don't care if I loot 2 mil, it covers my wartime bills for a few hours at best.

Link to comment

No, it wouldn't. The problem with ground attack money damages is the cap is far too small for the modern world. I don't care if I loot 2 mil, it covers my wartime bills for a few hours at best.

Back in the day, I was 1000 NS and 2 million would have been a rather substantial amount.

It would be different for nations of my size (30,000 ns)in a nuclear exchange if that's what you mean by modern day. Small nations don't really need warchests until they're in range of those pesky Manhattan Projects. Unless they get anarchied conventionally, smaller nations can just go on collecting right through a non-nuclear war without a warchest. That is why anarchy rates used to be much more important. Without cash aid, a anarchied nation goes under quick. The "skill" element in war would return without a warchest or nukes in my estimation because it would be vitally important that a nation avoid being anarchied and win ground battles. By winning ground battles, the enemy's infrastructure would be reduced faster and their collection amounts would go down. Eventually one side caved because they can't collect cash to cover war costs. "Banks" were used to shuttle money out in wartime in the early days and gradually this evolved into every nation needing warchests so it could fight efficiency in a mass anarchy environment. It's completely different now and CN sucks.

This is really all a fools errand though, warchests were adopted because you can't count on winning all the ground battles in conjunction with mass nuclear use and warchests aren't going anywhere. Not using nukes every war is a slightly more realistic hope, but is also hopeless.

I should note I haven't fought a war without nukes since 2007 and I've been at 30-50k NS for 3 years. :P

Link to comment

Warchests are a result of larger nations, not just nukes.

You still have contests over ground battles and coordination with nukes. And when one side is way outnumbered they won't be able to be competitive with ground attacks anyway.

Link to comment

And when one side is way outnumbered they won't be able to be competitive with ground attacks anyway.

This is not the case. Yay for the underdog bonus, which I abused to great effect against NV in Bipolar. :)

Link to comment

Warchests matter because the amount that you're able to loot of a 5-10B warchest is negligible by comparison to the total. Whether you win or lose, warchest will help you rebuild to full functionality in a fraction of the time it would take for a non-warchested nation.

Because looting is virtually useless on a war-scale, underdog advantage amounts to a carrot dangled in front of a mule to keep him plowing. A carrot that turns out to be rotten once you get it since it will neither win you the battle or the war. If UA is your primary war strategy, you've already lost.

Nukes will not go away because there is no reason to NOT use them. Is war more interesting without them? Perhaps. But when you have them in spades and the enemy doesn't, nukes will win you the war. Winning is always more interesting than losing.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...