Tibet Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Yes, but I used to be in the top 5%, and I'm a lot closer now than when I did fall below the mark originally. In RL, those who have the ability to build and maintain nuclear weaponry don't magically lose it if other nations become stronger than them. Am I right? I would agree to that. Prehaps in the future, a screenshot could be saved as "proof" of their "nuclear testing detonation" allowing them to have Nukes in RP and not losing them due to IG Wars or changes. I can imagine posts now of "Nuclear Test Successful" and a screenshot being posted. LOL I think that would bring a sense of realness to CNRP. I think we also need a stick thread of "Nuclear Power" Nations to where everyone will agree to who they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Tsk tsk tsk...you should know I'm a man of my word. I do know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Temps: getting a temporary trade for a day or two just to use the benefits of those resources, and then dropping it when you get a permanent one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Temps: getting a temporary trade for a day or two just to use the benefits of those resources, and then dropping it when you get a permanent one Sargun speakz the truth!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KujaSin Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 I had to use many when I was trying to get into my Circle Luckily those involved knew my situation and had no problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Yes, but I used to be in the top 5%, and I'm a lot closer now than when I did fall below the mark originally. In RL, those who have the ability to build and maintain nuclear weaponry don't magically lose it if other nations become stronger than them. Am I right? You've got a point there. With the many different opinions in regards to nuclear weapons, should we create a separate thread to better discuss nuclear guidelines (mainly concerning possession of nukes by nations who are not nuclear in-game), or just keep on discussing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranather Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 I vote for a seperate thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 This thread is here for that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 I do know that. Well, Temps: getting a temporary trade for a day or two just to use the benefits of those resources, and then dropping it when you get a permanent one Too bad I didn't have that option...as I was already in the circle. You've got a point there.With the many different opinions in regards to nuclear weapons, should we create a separate thread to better discuss nuclear guidelines (mainly concerning possession of nukes by nations who are not nuclear in-game), or just keep on discussing here? No, I do not believe we should make a separate thread. Sargun makes a good point...see below. This thread is here for that reason. Exactly. Discussions like these are the reason this thread was created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 I personally believe that if you are nuclear-capable in-game but cannot purchase them (lack of money, want the environment bonus, whatever) or have used them all up that you should be still allowed to have them. However, if you cannot produce them and still have them, you can have as many as you have in-game, and cannot make anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 I personally believe that if you are nuclear-capable in-game but cannot purchase them (lack of money, want the environment bonus, whatever) or have used them all up that you should be still allowed to have them.However, if you cannot produce them and still have them, you can have as many as you have in-game, and cannot make anymore. Interesting proposal. It makes sense...What does everyone else think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Sounds good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Sure, except I will still RP the small number of nukes that my allies GAVE ME in the RP. It's like, 5 hiroshima bombs, and 2 halfinium from Martens. I plan to use them up quickly anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 I don't mind letting you use them, seeing as it was so long ago we can't question it now anyway. Besides, those are some pretty weak nooks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 I personally believe that if you are nuclear-capable in-game but cannot purchase them (lack of money, want the environment bonus, whatever) or have used them all up that you should be still allowed to have them.However, if you cannot produce them and still have them, you can have as many as you have in-game, and cannot make anymore. I agree with this. Also, any nukes given before this rule is still allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Of course, anything before the guideline would be out of the question. For instance, Uberstein's nukes from many months ago would not be affected. Can everyone agree on this guideline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 (edited) Can everyone agree on this guideline? I can. Of course, this means no s for me, but it's not like I was going to use them anyway...would have made a nice demonstration of what happens to pirates, though. Edited September 24, 2008 by Vedran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 LOL You.. LOL Alright, I'll wait for a few more 'yeas' before putting it up, in case someone has an objection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 While I generally agree that nuclear capable yet nuclear unarmed should be able to RP nukes, I simply do not think they should be up to par with those who own them in-game. After all, nuke owners take quite a hit on their income and environment to be able to sustain their arsenal. I can't think of something to make up for that, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 I can.Of course, this means no s for me, but it's not like I was going to use them anyway...would have made a nice demonstration of what happens to pirates, though. I would rather have than a nuclear cannon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 While I generally agree that nuclear capable yet nuclear unarmed should be able to RP nukes, I simply do not think they should be up to par with those who own them in-game. After all, nuke owners take quite a hit on their income and environment to be able to sustain their arsenal. I can't think of something to make up for that, though. How about those who are unarmed by capable have nukes that aren't as powerful in RP? I'm not saying a drastic reduction, but enough to make a sizeable difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 How about those who are unarmed by capable have nukes that aren't as powerful in RP? I'm not saying a drastic reduction, but enough to make a sizeable difference. How about limiting the number of nukes to say, 20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 What about aircraft? For aircraft, I've been RPing that the number of an aircraft I have in game is equal to how many squadrons of that aircraft I have in RP. Each squadron is around 7-10 aircraft, so it's basically a 10x aircraft too. I also RP the fact that I have two aircraft carriers that are only used for aid, and have no real military use for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Sure, except I will still RP the small number of nukes that my allies GAVE ME in the RP. It's like, 5 hiroshima bombs, and 2 halfinium from Martens. I plan to use them up quickly anyway. Uh oh, I don't like the sound of that... Of course, anything before the guideline would be out of the question. For instance, Uberstein's nukes from many months ago would not be affected.Can everyone agree on this guideline? Yes. Of course, this means no s for me, but it's not like I was going to use them anyway...would have made a nice demonstration of what happens to pirates, though. Wow... What about aircraft? For aircraft, I've been RPing that the number of an aircraft I have in game is equal to how many squadrons of that aircraft I have in RP. Each squadron is around 7-10 aircraft, so it's basically a 10x aircraft too. I also RP the fact that I have two aircraft carriers that are only used for aid, and have no real military use for them. That's about what I do, really. Most completely modernized nations have more than just 50 or 60 aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 That's about what I do, really. Most completely modernized nations have more than just 50 or 60 aircraft. Same here. Especially larger Nations will have more Aircraft. 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.