Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 It would be unfair to countries; lets say a giant earthquake affects region A in country B, and had ended in massive destruction in region A. Lets say in RP that region is just one RP'er. That wouldn't be fair if everyone said that it must happen and they must adapt. Especially if they are gone; for example, Lo1S is doing exams, what if a massive hurricane hit him and he couldn't respond in a long period of time. Same thing with drought, or any other disaster for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRCatD Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) @Sargun: No? (Why?) It would be unfair to countries; lets say a giant earthquake affects region A in country B, and had ended in massive destruction in region A. Lets say in RP that region is just one RP'er. That wouldn't be fair if everyone said that it must happen and they must adapt. Especially if they are gone; for example, Lo1S is doing exams, what if a massive hurricane hit him and he couldn't respond in a long period of time. Same thing with drought, or any other disaster for that matter. I think the RP would be done by the country affected, so he/she'll respond when he/she gets back. In addition, it is slightly unfair if some nations spend resources preparing for natural disasters, while others never prepare for them and never RP getting hit by them. Edited December 18, 2008 by XRCatD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Why no? Because it's retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRCatD Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 @Sargun: It's not retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Why no? Because it's retarded. Can you offer a better reason than "it's retarded?" Perhaps something like what JerryRough posted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 I'm thinking, when real world natural disasters happen, we should also RP them occuring on Planet Bob. That's retarded. I don't think another boxing day tsunami would go over very nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRCatD Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) Those major disasters are the type that would be the most interesting for nations to RP. Edited December 18, 2008 by XRCatD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 That's retarded. I don't think another boxing day tsunami would go over very nice! You have to admit, it would liven things up a bit without the need for mutally devastating wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 I think the RP would be done by the country affected, so he/she'll respond when he/she gets back.In addition, it is slightly unfair if some nations spend resources preparing for natural disasters, while others never prepare for them and never RP getting hit by them. It's your own RP, you're preparing for a potential disaster if you want to. Likewise, you RP the disaster itself if you wish to as well. No one should be compelled to roleplay a disaster just because someone else said so. Also, natural disasters occur much more often in some part of the worlds than in others - there'd be great geographical discrepancies if "disasters" were to be "regulated" (e.g. while natural threats such as Hurricanes are commonplace and damaging in the Gulf of Mexico, not much is going to happen in, say, Scandinavia). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 You have to admit, it would liven things up a bit without the need for mutally devastating wars. And it would also be unfair to those who don't want their nations to be hit by natural disasters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 We could have a trade war! "I'll buy it for 2 grand!" "No, I got a better deal! 3 grand" "P'ch, thats nothing! I'll buy it for 4 grand!" "Why are you listening to his lies? 5 grand from me is a far better deal!" Etc... How about the option of a natural disaster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRCatD Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 And it would also be unfair to those who don't want their nations to be hit by natural disasters. That's like how wars are unfair to those who didn't want to be attacked by other countries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 That's like how wars are unfair to those who didn't want to be attacked by other countries... Comparing war to natural disasters? There goes your credibility! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) And it would also be unfair to those who don't want their nations to be hit by natural disasters. Just like in real life. We can't pick when and where natural disasters strike. No one said it was fair. That's like how wars are unfair to those who didn't want to be attacked by other countries... This is truth. Edited December 18, 2008 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Oh, yeah, except wars you're able to do something about it, fight, and win a war if need be - with a natural disaster, you have to take it. It also disregards treaties, PREVIOUS ACTIONS THAT CAUSE THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE, things like that. Stupid idea, and I'll never follow it or have anything to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) Oh, yeah, except wars you're able to do something about it, fight, and win a war if need be - with a natural disaster, you have to take it. It also disregards treaties, PREVIOUS ACTIONS THAT CAUSE THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE, things like that.Stupid idea, and I'll never follow it or have anything to do with it. The others say you have to take it if someone twice your strength invades you and you have no help. There's nothing you can do to affect the outcome. And by no means do all wars have a legitimate Causus Belli. What would you say to the fairness of those, hmm? Edited December 18, 2008 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 The others say you have to take it if someone twice your strength invades you and you have no help. There's nothing you can do to affect the outcome.And by no means do all wars have a legitimate Causus Belli. What would you say to the fairness of those, hmm? In wars that don't have a legitimate CB, people come to help. Like the Saboria-Nordland war, the South America war. The DKT war doesn't count because nobody likes DKT - any CB is valid enough against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 In wars that don't have a legitimate CB, people come to help.Like the Saboria-Nordland war, the South America war. The DKT war doesn't count because nobody likes DKT - any CB is valid enough against them. Really...still wasn;t fair, and in the end, Sumer wasn't really able to affect the outcome. As you would say, it wasn't fair. And it's not always clear when the causus Belli isn't legitimate. Case in point, the feigned attack on the Tahoan civilians that was blamed on DKT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Really...still wasn;t fair, and in the end, Sumer wasn't really able to affect the outcome. As you would say, it wasn't fair. And it's not always clear when the causus Belli isn't legitimate. Case in point, the feigned attack on the Tahoan civilians that was blamed on DKT. And we all know it wasn't real. I refuse to have someone else tell me what happens to my country. If someone wants to invade me and deal with the PAC and win, they obviously deserve to do it. Otherwise, they can shut their $@! up and stop pretending they can run my nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 How about the option of choosing? End of argument. And I was wanting a hover tank so badly b/c I've recently been replaying and loving BattleZone: Rise of the Black Dogs for N64... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 You already have the option to have a natural disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 The nation of Boomtown has protected itself from natural disasters by building a massive wall made out of the 53 million DKT civilians that were nuked during the war. We feel this will help our budding fishing industry as well. Finding bait will be quite easy now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 /Thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) And we all know it wasn't real. I refuse to have someone else tell me what happens to my country. If someone wants to invade me and deal with the PAC and win, they obviously deserve to do it. Otherwise, they can shut their $@! up and stop pretending they can run my nation. Nobody is trying to tell you anything. This is a discussion thread, and itt was a suggestions put up for, you guessed it, discussion! Edited December 18, 2008 by Subtleknifewielder 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.