Jump to content

A Modest Propsal


Triyun
 Share

Should you have a minimum  

32 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.

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1313900922' post='2785439']
Tibet was not a nation. :smug:
[/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 by KaiserMelech Mikhail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...