Lynneth Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I'd support a MT-limit, split between one for Subs, and one for Land-based missiles. Land-based should be 5 MT, sub missiles at most 1 MT. In my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Restriction to missiles is pretty silly, given that these might be vulnerable to first strikes. I'd say, just allow the full range of deployment. If a person wants to prove who it was after the nuclear missile hit, you can compare samples, as has been done in the RP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 and proved nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 A special case, I would say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Highly special I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) Now hold your horses everyone.... We are overlooking something. Right now, lol nuking is just being called "if someone nukes another nation and then rerolls it should be wiped". What happens if someone lolnukes me because they know it'll devistate my RP and they don't really care about the consequences and are willing to RP an obliterated nation? Now you have someone just launching lolnukes and staying in their nation while they force the other person to reroll. This needs to be adressed. Just a side note I do not like nuclear weapons because they have the capability to ruin RP. Shoot some bio weapons at me? That might be fun because I can RP scientists in a bunker trying to find a cure. But if you nuke me? Suddenly the core parts of my nation where RP is veneered can't support life for years to come Ontop of millions of people being slaughtered. That's my primary problem with nukes. It allows some useless scumbag to destroy the RP of someone they don't like just because they can. It is literally the equivalent to Triyun invading another nation and forcing them to reroll just because he can. I think it's wrong. EDIT: That being said I think there are some reasonable aspects to Zoot's proposal. Y'all wanted a CNRP where people aren't just wiped off the map for being different? Nuclear weapons need to be adressed. We can't just sweep it under the rug. Edited June 4, 2014 by PresidentDavid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Now hold your horses everyone.... We are overlooking something.Right now, lol nuking is just being called "if someone nukes another nation and then rerolls it should be wiped". What happens if someone lolnukes me because they know it'll devistate my RP and they don't really care about the consequences and are willing to RP an obliterated nation?Now you have someone just launching lolnukes and staying in their nation while they force the other person to reroll. This needs to be adressed.Just a side note I do not like nuclear weapons because they have the capability to ruin RP. Shoot some bio weapons at me? That might be fun because I can RP scientists in a bunker trying to find a cure.But if you nuke me? Suddenly the core parts of my nation where RP is veneered can't support life for years to come Ontop of millions of people being slaughtered. That's my primary problem with nukes. It allows some useless scumbag to destroy the RP of someone they don't like just because they can. It is literally the equivalent to Triyun invading another nation and forcing them to reroll just because he can. I think it's wrong.EDIT: That being said I think there are some reasonable aspects to Zoot's proposal. Y'all wanted a CNRP where people aren't just wiped off the map for being different? Nuclear weapons need to be adressed. We can't just sweep it under the rug. They mean that the trollish nuke will be wiped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Now hold your horses everyone.... We are overlooking something. Right now, lol nuking is just being called "if someone nukes another nation and then rerolls it should be wiped". What happens if someone lolnukes me because they know it'll devistate my RP and they don't really care about the consequences and are willing to RP an obliterated nation? Now you have someone just launching lolnukes and staying in their nation while they force the other person to reroll. This needs to be adressed. Just a side note I do not like nuclear weapons because they have the capability to ruin RP. Shoot some bio weapons at me? That might be fun because I can RP scientists in a bunker trying to find a cure. But if you nuke me? Suddenly the core parts of my nation where RP is veneered can't support life for years to come Ontop of millions of people being slaughtered. That's my primary problem with nukes. It allows some useless scumbag to destroy the RP of someone they don't like just because they can. It is literally the equivalent to Triyun invading another nation and forcing them to reroll just because he can. I think it's wrong. EDIT: That being said I think there are some reasonable aspects to Zoot's proposal. Y'all wanted a CNRP where people aren't just wiped off the map for being different? Nuclear weapons need to be adressed. We can't just sweep it under the rug. PD does bring up a valid point. How about rather than limiting or getting rid of nukes we only allow them by mutual consent? If someone wishes to use nukes they need to get the other parties consent first. If they say okay then all is fine but if they say no then nukes will not be allowed at any point in the conflict at any time. I mean those who have the ability to launch nukes should have a fairly well developed nation by that point and so they should be fine with conventional warfare if nukes are not agreed to. TLl;DR Nukes only by mutual consent between all involved parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 no. Troll nukings or rage nukers aren't going to get much traction here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yerushalayim Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 I'm not really a huge fan of nukes in RPs like this. They're basically the equivalent of someone knocking over the chess board. Nukes aren't used in RL for some pretty legit reasons, but I've never seen a national RP where someone didn't get butthurt and start lobbing nukes around just 'cause nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Handle it ICly is my opinion if GM approval is out. If someone launches a nuke, get mad ICly if they're hitting your nation or not unless you feel the reason for launching is valid. Report troll/rage nuking to be retconned. Problem solved. For example, if Eva wasn't nuked first and nuked like she did, I'd probably emboss sanctions from the Ukraine and a blockade if I had a friend with the same opinion strong enough to help do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Handle it ICly is my opinion if GM approval is out. If someone launches a nuke, get mad ICly if they're hitting your nation or not unless you feel the reason for launching is valid. Report troll/rage nuking to be retconned. Problem solved. For example, if Eva wasn't nuked first and nuked like she did, I'd probably emboss sanctions from the Ukraine and a blockade if I had a friend with the same opinion strong enough to help do it. There will be no gm approval process. If you insist on it, consider the answer ALWAYS to be no and don't ever bother asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) There will be no gm approval process. If you insist on it, consider the answer ALWAYS to be no and don't ever bother asking. Yes but what about the new Idea? AKA Status Quo with a "Get mad about nukes" vibe? If they decide not to do anything ICly about nations nuking each other ICly, then they should not care when they get nuked either. Otherwise, do something about it ICly. Edited June 6, 2014 by Rotavele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yerushalayim Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Yes but what about the new Idea? AKA Status Quo with a "Get mad about nukes" vibe? If they decide not to do anything ICly about nations nuking each other ICly, then they should not care when they get nuked either. Otherwise, do something about it ICly. This actually isn't a bad idea for a RP like this. I mean, it's never a bad idea to add IC consequences to something like nukes. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Might I suggest that nuke be defined as an individual warhead? That way people can't spam MIRVs. Juuust to close a little loophole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Might I suggest that nuke be defined as an individual warhead? That way people can't spam MIRVs. Juuust to close a little loophole. I like this suggestion and fully support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 It's kind of sad when such basic concepts as "you can't nuke four cities with one nuke" have to be coded into rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yerushalayim Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 It's kind of sad when such basic concepts as "you can't nuke four cities with one nuke" have to be coded into rules. Welcome to RP. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 It's kind of sad when such basic concepts as "you can't nuke four cities with one nuke" have to be coded into rules. To be fair I just would launch 4 or 5 ICBMs then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 What's the current proposal on this thread and how much support exists for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Nukes should be fired from silos with a max yield based on tech somehow. ie. up to 5k tech (5 MTs) and then we just cap them there to keep them reasonable. The nuclear subs thing is incredibly dumb, and now everybody is just going to make the generic poorly-planned-and-researched "yeah I'm doing ASW around my nation" post. Just get rid of the damn things and use silos that would restrict us to our own neighborhoods where people will fight back anyway. Silo based missiles can hit most places on earth. SSBN's exist IRL and should exist in CNRP2, HOWEVER, with the naval rules in place, it makes it a hard decision to make for nations to maintain credible navies and submarine forces, whilst essentially wasting a submarine slot on an SSBN which is never going make an appearence in RP until it fires its load. ASW around a nation makes zero difference as SSBN defence as most boomers carry missiles with ranges between 4500 miles and 7000 miles. I can however, get behind the MT limit based on tech and 5MT sounds reasonable. I'd support a MT-limit, split between one for Subs, and one for Land-based missiles. Land-based should be 5 MT, sub missiles at most 1 MT. In my opinion. Might I suggest that nuke be defined as an individual warhead? That way people can't spam MIRVs. Juuust to close a little loophole. People want Vedran's suggestion seemingly unanimously of defining a nuke as a single warhead. The other three quotes are proposals, with mine being the base of Zoot's and Lynneth's alterations, which make up the two main proposals. 1. Nuke strength is based on tech, with tech/1000 being the MT strength of your nation's nukes. 2. Nuke strength is based on where the nukes are coming from, with 5 MT for land, and 1 MT for submarines. I'd like to propose a combination: 3. Nuke strength is based on tech, with differing strengths based on what is firing the missile, with tech/5000 being submarine strength, and tech/1000 being silo strength, in MT. This effectively caps missiles at 5MT and 1MT for silos and subs, giving us a difference, but also allowing tech to factor in to make our nukes different, but only at lower levels, so as to not give any significant advantage to really big nations with nukes over smaller ones with nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Seems a little convoluted to me. Why not 5 mt cap for silos and 1 mt cap for subs and leave it at that? Everyone is between 2000 and 2014 tech. Full strength for those with a WRC, 1/2 strength for those without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 1. People want to be realistic, well in RL you cant build a nuke every day. 2. You shouldnt be able to nuke a nation outside your NS range and outside your realistic delivery capability. However, if you can nuke a small nation by being a button pusher, if the small nation has AEGIS, ARROW or other capabilities in RP that shouldnt be magically dismissed because they have no SDI in game (ffs SDI doesnt even exist in real life, it was a propaganda campaign by Reagan) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Why should we disallow being nuked if you don't have the same NS range? It seems silly - either we allow all nations to be nuked, or none. Don't shield people from IC consequences because nukes are scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Im fine with that, but dont pick which in game rules are enforced here and which ones arent... I have people telling me they can break one in game rule by nuking me, but I cant "break" the SDI in game rule by using my AEGIS and PATRIOT assets to their full capability. That's seriously fcked up and allows lazy big nations to get around all my intricate defenses by having over 9000 forces 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.