Skjuludde

I would like to stress that it's incredibly boring being a new player. I was so excited about this game, you have no idea, when i read about the wars, the alliances, the intrigues and overall politics. Then i join the game and go "That's it?" After that i walk over here just to see that 9months-2years REAL LIFE TIME was standard to cross the line of being a small nation to being a tiny bit larger. As far as i can read in those threads i've taken my time to read it all has an effect on eachother. Thanks to the political environment letting players reach the end of the game mechanics (massive, old nations taking years to build up) that effects back on the political environment where people now want to keep what they have gotten. Sure it is the community that makes the game, but the game itself effects the community. If the game changes the table for the political environment gets affected, since the two are linked together. Right now the rift between the rich and poor is increasing rapidly. The poor can't do anything, the rich can do anything but are to scared to actually do something. Now let's for example go for some game mechanic communism and capping the relative strength and economy into a window where the rift between rich and poor, big and small is not as big. Would that be able to cause an effect on the political environment? As said if more and more people find themselves of more equal strenght, and the recovery time being significantly lower, wouldn't the risk of losing years of growth disappear? That would also call for some more thinking in the game itself, in the sense that you can't really replace your troops forever anymore. Your neverending supply of soldiers and tanks disappear and you have to think about before you use them and who you are using them on. Sure the infrastructure maintenance cost increase is a way to cap it in a way. But people seemed to have found a way to, with time, grow past those barriers. Not saying that i want great wars to happen weekly. More that the shifts of power would have to be more frequent, diplomacy more valuable then ever and complete dominance harder to maintain. For me atleast that would be a bit interesting. I kind of want to be a part of this game, not a by-stander for the next two years.

In a way i feel sorry and bad for you Euroboy. I hate seeing attempts, no matter how naive, fail. But these guys know a thing or two. Sure you are not forced to follow them but they are good advice. Even if some people just have to be mean, just in order to be mean. Good luck! I almost joined you simply because i felt bad for you

[quote name='Karolina' timestamp='1289842485' post='2513646'] So everyone else's responses weren't real, simply because you don't like them? Don't know why I bother sometimes. [/quote] I'm sorry if i offended you, that was not was I was aiming to do. No. I respect everyone's opinion. Everyone has their own, otherwise it would be kind of boring. I'm deeply sorry once more. [quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1289844134' post='2513659'] "Good luck" isn't actually a real response Nukes were a bit of a taboo a long, long time ago, but these days, they're just common warfare. Think of CN as somewhere in Earth year 2100, where everyone has nukes except the smallest, most backwards country. Nukes in Planet Bob are as common as bombers on Earth today. Precision weapons and bombs were once viewed as immoral during early WW1, but are now acceptable for common use. Nuclear weapons will probably be acceptable in the real world when everyone has them. You're obviously welcome to start a program to disarm nukes, if you like, but nukes are pretty much a symbol of strength in CN. The Manhattan Project can't be disbanded. 15 million dollars per nuke isn't enough to get people to disarm them, because that's less than the amount of damage they inflict. [/quote] I did not know that they were a taboo subject, or it's use frowned upon, back in the days. Haha and yeah worldwide disarmament and disbandment of nukes seems like a long shot. I was just testing the idea. I'm intrigued over how the politics work in this game. Mostly because it's an out of game thing.

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1289826135' post='2513537'] Why are you trying to change the game at such a young age? You can't know what it's like to be raided, right? The need to protect yourself and the need to use what the game offers. [/quote] It's nothing really i have against nukes. I just see Cybernations as such a place where that would actually be possible to occur. In other words i could see it happen. [quote name='Holy Ruler' timestamp='1289834448' post='2513591'] LOL he asks in his 1st post to ban nukes. [/quote] Ehh. I didn't ask really. I just put forward a plan. I could try to make it into a Cybernations parliamentary policy debate for ya if you want. "Cybernations should ban nuclear weapons" I have nothing against nukes in that sense. My nation as such see nuclear weapons as needed for it's early survival. I would like to stress that this is not a whining thread where i have just been nuked five times and demand nukes to be banned. The reason i put it in this forum is two-fold. First of i didn't really know where to go. Second of all i just wanted to check what the general opinion was in the cybernations community. I do once again of course understand that i won't be able to change a thing. Just sounded like a neat thing to be done. Maybe include that after next world war hehe. [quote name='Aimee Mann' timestamp='1289838227' post='2513621'] The only way they'll be banned is through use of force (ie. demands as part of a surrender), or if the game mechanics change to make the impacts of using them more devastating to the world as a whole (ie. removing the cap on Global Radiation Levels). At this moment in time too many people like blowing stuff up, and there is too little incentive for any political pressure to be applied in favour of regulating nuke use, for there to be widespread voluntary adoption of your idea I'm afraid. [/quote] Finally a real response. Thank you. Yeah i've noticed that the majority supports nuclear weapon use. But thanks once again for a good reply

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1289812272' post='2513469'] Yeah. Good luck with that... Most nations prefer to have them and use them but sure, no one's going to force you to. [/quote] Nothing like a good ol' challenge

(This thread does not reflect Veritas Aequitas or any of it's associates, treaty partners, allies, friends, members or leaders thoughts, opinions or values.) Dear nations of planet Bob. This will be a short and informal post. It's only real debatable thing is as the title says, the ban of nuclear weapons. It is my highly personal belief that the great alliances and nations of Cybernations should take a stand from using these reckless weapons. A world-wide, complete ban of all nuclear weaponry and a non-tolerance to re-armament. Since cooperation have existed before to eradicate extreme elements and ideologies from Cybernations, there should be a possibillity for cooperation to eradicate the extreme weaponry that is being used. Reimbursement for decommissioned nukes would be in place. If anyone were to develop nukes the world community would take a massive stand against that. Wars of course could continue as always before I'm quite aware that with my only post this thing has zero authority or persuasive ability. It's just something i came to think of since Cybernations seems to resemble real world politics from time to time. So yeah, don't flame me too much hehe.