Wargaming rules suggestion, CNRP2

[The Zigur]

Well right now we have highly hypocritical nuke rules that pick and choose from both in game and real life elements to favor larger nations.

[The Zigur]

For example, according to some because I have no SDI in game I cant use my legitimate AEGIS assets to counter ICBMs, however, we are to ignore the fact that these nations cant even nuke me in game in the first place because they are far larger.

[Hereno]

For example, according to some because I have no SDI in game I cant use my legitimate AEGIS assets to counter ICBMs, however, we are to ignore the fact that these nations cant even nuke me in game in the first place because they are far larger.

<Hereno> the SDI is not a hard wonder to get
<Hereno> you should have it by the time you're 25k NS
<Hereno> everyone should have a SM, SSS, ISS, MP, and SDI within a year of playing
<Hereno> and if you don't then your alliance sucks
<Hereno> that said
<Hereno> i wouldn't be against having a base 20% chance or something for any nuke to get shot down

Edited June 10, 2014 by Hereno

[Helios]

Obviously we do with the Japan China fiasco. Implementing structured wargaming is simple and has the following effects:

-Discourages trivial wars and makes diplomacy important
-Penalizes the aggressor by requiring a deployment cooldown (so forces dont just teleport all over the place)
-Gives every war its own separate and organized thread that is easier to monitor
-Results in strategy, even if godmodding takes place, deployed forces are off the table elsewhere.
-Strong defensive advantage even for inactive players
-Burden of proof lies with the attacker

 

Uh, no we don't. The Asian nukefest was and is not representative of all conflicts present and future. In fact, it's really more of an anomaly given all the OOC bullshit at the time. Nobody teleports their forces all over the place and this isn't HoI3RP.

 

 

Well right now we have highly hypocritical nuke rules that pick and choose from both in game and real life elements to favor larger nations.

 

The rules aren't hypocritical, there's no picking and choosing. If someone has nukes and you don't, tough shit.

[The Zigur]

All I want is for people to stop godmodding against my AEGIS and missile defense capabilities. This is basically what is going on:

Me: Set up an intricate layered defense network
Them: Your AEGIS cant work because you dont have SDI in game
Me: Well if we are going to use in game standards, you cant nuke me anyway if youre too big
Them: Thats not how it works in real life
Me: I agree, in real life AEGIS can intercept ICBMs
Them: No, we are using in game standards and you need an SDI

[Helios]

All I want is for people to stop godmodding against my AEGIS and missile defense capabilities. This is basically what is going on:

Me: Set up an intricate layered defense network
Them: Your AEGIS cant work because you dont have SDI in game
Me: Well if we are going to use in game standards, you cant nuke me anyway if youre too big
Them: Thats not how it works in real life
Me: I agree, in real life AEGIS can intercept ICBMs
Them: No, we are using in game standards and you need an SDI

 

It's not god-modding mate. The one rule above all has always been that what you have in-game is what you have IC. If you don't have a Strategic Defense Initiative in-game, then accordingly you have no viable anti-ICBM system IC. Any weapons-related system that stakes a claim to having anti-ICBM capability, AEGIS, THAAD, SM-3, whatever, is not viable for use until you obtain the SDI in-game.

 

You're afraid of being nuked to hell and back with impunity. That's understandable. The solution is not to piss off people who have nukes and, moreover, to gain allies who could possibly help with ballistic missile defence. Again, Asia was a stupid fluke of IC-OOC crossover, with the personalities of the users behind Japan and China clashing fiercely and leading to unrealistic gameplay. I doubt we will observe anything like what happened there for a while to come.