Triyun Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I would like to propose a simple rule change. In game we have a strength cap and floor on who you can attack. Obviously this doesn't work for CN RP, however I would like to propose something of that nature. Proposal: All nations under 20, 000 nation strength may not be attacked by a nuclear weapon from any player [u]unless[/u] they meeting the following criteria: 1) developing biological, chemical, area effect EMP, or radiological weapons 2) have nuclear weapons or a manhattan project in game 3) Solicit a larger player to nuke or WMD another player. In other words to attack someone under 20, 000 nation strength, you must use conventional means alone, unless they specifically provoke a nuclear attack under the criteria above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 This sounds like an excellent idea to me. More RP is generally good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I have to agree. There really isn't anything that sucks more for a sub-20k player than being nuked by a larger power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I agree: you don't see real-world powers using nukes on third world countries, even when half the world does team up to take down a small rogue state (Libya). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 [quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1313882898' post='2785327'] I agree: you don't see real-world powers using nukes on third world countries, even when half the world does team up to take down a small rogue state (Libya). [/quote] You don't see real-world powers using nukes at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Why 20,000 specifically? Just wondering. BTW, neutral for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1313883027' post='2785333'] Why 20,000 specifically? Just wondering. BTW, neutral for now. [/quote] 20,000 NS is around the point a nation could feasibly buy a Manhattan Project and get nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 This works for CNRP well; it has my support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 This can only be to the advantage of smaller nations. I support this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 I support this measure. Benefits the smaller members, makes for better RP, in my honest opinion. Conventional > Nuclear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1313883202' post='2785336'] 20,000 NS is around the point a nation could feasibly buy a Manhattan Project and get nukes. [/quote] Pretty much this. I kinda think I was slightly above that point when I bought an MP, so I used that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Not particularly against the idea, but for some reason I would rather put it at 25,000, taking into consideration the following stats: Infra: 5,000 (15,000) Tech: 1,000 (5,000) Land: 1,000 (1,500) Troops: 10,000 (200) Airforce: 50 (2250) Nukes: 25 (500) When you add in the navy, it can easily reach 30,000 (the number which I advocate personally) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Why not just keep it as-is and not have to debate it further? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Remind me to nuke if we're in war, Markus Wilding. Edited August 21, 2011 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 I'm not above 20k, though, and I ain't building any WMDs, so no go for you I'm afraid. :3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1313875081' post='2785258'] I would like to propose a simple rule change. In game we have a strength cap and floor on who you can attack. Obviously this doesn't work for CN RP,[/quote] Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Just showing how much I care about you, Markus Wilding~♥♥♥ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Careful Markus first she says she cares, then she drives you to insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 What is stopping someone from just roflstomping a small nation with conventional forces. Using a nuke when the power imbalance is so large is a waste of a nuke anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Nothing, but the point of this is not to segregate CN RP (the inverse of your case would be several small nations contributing to attacking a larger nation, or any sort of combination coalition). This is specifically to stop a larger nation from in a fight not RPing anything beyond firing an H-Bomb to end it instantly without substantive RP, and to protect small nations from nuclear rogueing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1313898466' post='2785428'] What is stopping someone from just roflstomping a small nation with conventional forces. [/quote] Nothing, and this happens all the time. See US vs Iraq 2003, or US vs Afghanistan 2002, or US vs Libya 2011, or US vs Panama 1991, or Russia vs Georgia 2008, or China vs Tibet 1951. Yeah, it happens a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Tibet was not a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1313900810' post='2785438'] Nothing, and this happens all the time. See US vs Iraq 2003, or US vs Afghanistan 2002, or US vs Libya 2011, or US vs Panama 1991, or Russia vs Georgia 2008, or China vs Tibet 1951. Yeah, it happens a lot. [/quote] ehem, please call them by their proper names: US & UK vs Iraq, NATO vs Afghanistan, UN vs Libya, Evil Socialist Overlords vs Free Liberty-Loving Innocents, and Evil Socialist Overlords vs Free Liberty-Loving Innocent Buddhists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1313900922' post='2785439'] Tibet was not a nation. [/quote] So it was a Chinese civil war? [quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1313902774' post='2785453'] ehem, please call them by their proper names: US & UK vs Iraq, NATO vs Afghanistan, UN vs Libya, Evil Socialist Overlords vs Free Liberty-Loving Innocents, and Evil Socialist Overlords vs Free Liberty-Loving Innocent Buddhists. [/quote] I go by who did the most (Murka). Although, I really must give France (and NATO, not the UN) some props in Libya. NATO is doing their fair share in Afghanistan, so their name deserves to be on the list too. Edited August 21, 2011 by KaiserMelech Mikhail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axolotlia Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1313887035' post='2785378'] Not particularly against the idea, but for some reason I would rather put it at 25,000, taking into consideration the following stats: Infra: 5,000 (15,000) Tech: 1,000 (5,000) Land: 1,000 (1,500) Troops: 10,000 (200) Airforce: 50 (2250) Nukes: 25 (500) When you add in the navy, it can easily reach 30,000 (the number which I advocate personally) [/quote] Smaller nations usually don't, (or at least shouldn't) support standing air forces and have that many nukes anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.