71,199

[Kryievla]

I say we uncap GRL as well, but I don't think it will deter nuke usage, if anything people might try pushing it as high as possible adding more fun to nuclear warfare. happy.gif

I agree wholeheartedly. Lack of cap on GRL will put outside pressure on some alliances, to peace more quickly, but it won't stop nukes from flying in the first place. It would also be kind of neat, to see how high we could pump that GRL

[Adrian LaCroix]

The GRL almost reached sanction status during the last big war, if I recall correctly.

[Sandwich Controversy]

The GRL hit 15 or 16, unfortunately the effects are capped at 5. Damn you admin!

[Bob Janova]

The Polar/Hyperion war would have bill locked most of CN with an unrestricted GRL, I think.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

Then that's the price we pay for unrestricted nuclear warfare. I also vote the GRL gets uncapped.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Then that's the price we pay for unrestricted nuclear warfare. I also vote the GRL gets uncapped.

I love it, but something tells me GPA wouldn't be all for it.

[Blacky]

Admittedly it'd difficult to prove why something didn't happen because... well, it didn't happen, so we don't know about it.

It is difficult and therein lies the problem you have trying to prove that nuclear stockpiles are a cause for why something hasn't happened. Especially when taking into account that a better and more logical explanation exists for why that is so.

Moreover, my point with GW2 was that the forces were relatively evenly matched, including the nukes (which are an important aspect of force, as were the potential alliances coming in on each side (though I don't remember a great deal of concern on our side about ODN/Legion entering)), and this made things more cagey -- and of course that the nukes played an important part in the quick peace

This is why I find it incredibly hard to believe some of the more reasonable points you make. Are you honestly saying the possible entrance of Legion/ODN in GW2 was less of a concern than the fact that League had more nukes?

However, I also brought up the pre-GPW period where more equal wars were fought without allied assistance relatively frequently, in contrast to the modern day, along, with the longer and longer peace as nuclear stockpiles have increased

I don't feel I should even have to answer this point as I already have throughout the thread. The reason for more wars prior to the GW1 was that the political structure was very different than it is today, with very little in terms of MDP's or the newer concept of blocs. This, rather than nuclear stockpiles is the cause for wars being fought less often. As others have said in wars with relatively even numbers nukes only serve to speed things up rather than change the outcome of war.

if they had attacked before the forces on their side had been gathered they would have been destroyed, and alliances are fairly universally destruction-adverse.

Again this has more to do with diplomatic manouevering than purchasing more nukes to make up the difference.

"You miss the point: mutually destructive. If both sides have nuclear weapons then off course it is a deterrent, because both sides will lose much more strength as a result, thus moving them down the ranks and reducing their power. Thus military warfare, insofar as it can be seen as a move designed to benefit the attacking side (whether by some sort of 'imperialism' or simply a defence against something (eg. espionage)), becomes too destructive and the cons outweigh the pros."

Nuclear war only speeds up the process as all forms of military hardware and the different types of attacks are mutually destructive. Infact such is the nature of warfare, both sides damage each other. In a war fought with ground attacks alone a similar scenario would still emerge whereby the wars themselves are merely prolonged.

You once again forgot that it's all about relative strength compared to competitors, not simply strength vis-a-vis your direct opponent.

I haven't forgotten anything. Wars aren't set to last a specific number of days. They last until one or both sides reach their objectives. Nuclear stockpiles have no effect in regards to this except where one side is greatly outnumbered, nukes then serve as an equaliser.

That depends. You can say 'nukes don't act as a disincentive if the alliance is set on its own destruction and attacks you anyway'

Yes, Vladimir. Games are made to be enjoyed. This is why wars where it is uncertain of who will win are the most fun. You can't trade in your units of infrastructure for a car once admin ends the game.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Blacky

[Lord Brendan]

The Polar/Hyperion war would have bill locked most of CN with an unrestricted GRL, I think.

Really? I don't remember all that well but I don't think my economy was significantly impacted, maybe lost a few thousand citizens. So let's say GRL was three times that, I'd lose what, 10 000 citizens? 20 000? I would still be able to pay my bills with my daily collections.

It might cause trouble for small nations without anyone to aid them, but I don't think it would be all that devastating for most people.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Hey does anyone remember how much damage one of Syz's nukes did in one hit in the last big war? I wonder how much more damage teched-up, WRC'd, nuke-and-navy-heavy alliances can now inflict than when Polar got rolled? I think we'll see nations that have been building up for years reduced to ashes very rapidly when the next war rolls around.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Kryievla]

I wish I could remember the numbers. It was an event of pure awe and much discussion.

[Hyperion321]

Hey does anyone remember how much damage one of Syz's nukes did in one hit in the last big war? I wonder how much more damage teched-up, WRC'd, nuke-and-navy-heavy alliances can now inflict than when Polar got rolled? I think we'll see nations that have been building up for years reduced to ashes very rapidly when the next war rolls around.

Can you imagine MOTU vs Matt Miller? My God that would be fun to watch.

[Mogar]

Hey does anyone remember how much damage one of Syz's nukes did in one hit in the last big war? I wonder how much more damage teched-up, WRC'd, nuke-and-navy-heavy alliances can now inflict than when Polar got rolled? I think we'll see nations that have been building up for years reduced to ashes very rapidly when the next war rolls around.

I believe the math makes a single nuke do roughly 1000 infra damage.

[W_A_R]

Time for Admin to develop a Doomsday device, I say. $1 Billion to purchase and $1 million a day to maintain.

Destroys 50% infrastructure, 50% tech, specifc improvements and wonders.

EDIT - Missed a million thereabouts.

Edited March 18, 2009 by W_A_R

[Goose]

Yes, Vladimir. Games are made to be enjoyed. This is why wars where it is uncertain of who will win are the most fun. You can't trade in your units of infrastructure for a car once admin ends the game.

We can't? Damn it! Why have I spent over 2 years here?!?!

[Sanru]

Really? I don't remember all that well but I don't think my economy was significantly impacted, maybe lost a few thousand citizens. So let's say GRL was three times that, I'd lose what, 10 000 citizens? 20 000? I would still be able to pay my bills with my daily collections.

It might cause trouble for small nations without anyone to aid them, but I don't think it would be all that devastating for most people.

You need to take into consideration that you also are in a much better place than most; top 10% with access to full border walls which won't touch your other improvements. Its the medium - small sized nations that would be thrown into bill-lock by an un-capped GRL, not the large nations.

That being said, I'd love to see a more realistic GRL system, possibly a scaled system causing more damage to the upper tier of players, the ones who would be causing most of the GRL and better equipped to handle it.

[Bob Janova]

Incidentally last time we had this discussion I attempted to submit 'Uncap the GRL' as a suggestion and it was rejected without even being allowed to a discussion thread

[Bordiga]

Nukes can be useful as the OP said in delivering a lot of damage to your opponent, but unless you're on the winning side it doesn't really matter- those who use nukes first even in defense can be attacked by their opponents as having broken some ridiculous law and allow for the party which fired first to be given much harsher terms or even to withhold terms altogether.

[Lord Brendan]

You need to take into consideration that you also are in a much better place than most; top 10% with access to full border walls which won't touch your other improvements. Its the medium - small sized nations that would be thrown into bill-lock by an un-capped GRL, not the large nations.

I'm not so sure. The percentage-based reductions in citizens and happiness hit large nations harder, since they have more. I don't know how high GRL got in the last round of TE but I don't think it bill locked that many people, and everyone is a small nation there.

[Bob Janova]

GRL is capped to 10 in TE.

[Lord Brendan]

GRL is capped to 10 in TE.

Did it ever reach that?

[Bob Janova]

Yes, every round

Also, a GRL of 20 would wipe out between 60 and 95% of the daily profit of a small sample of randomly selected nations (depending on improvements, resources, wonders and militarisation). So it wouldn't bill lock people, just make things very slow.

[Lord Brendan]

Yes, every round

Also, a GRL of 20 would wipe out between 60 and 95% of the daily profit of a small sample of randomly selected nations (depending on improvements, resources, wonders and militarisation). So it wouldn't bill lock people, just make things very slow.

I don't think that would be so bad. It's not like all-out nuclear wars happen every day. You'd just had to sit tight and be happy with the fact that although you're not getting any bigger, you're going up the ranks faster than if there was no war.

edit: Environment doesn't go above 15, right? So even an uncapped GRL would have an effective cap.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Lord Brendan

[Bob Janova]

Hmm, I wasn't aware that environment was capped.

And yeah the high-GRL scenario isn't as drastic as I thought it would be to be honest.

[njndirish]

Since going neutral, I have seen such an event always on the brink, but no one is ever willing to truly pull the trigger. An all out nuclear war would potentially return CN to a lower NS.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

I believe the math makes a single nuke do roughly 1000 infra damage.

Ouch. That's just infra too, land and tech would go in large chunks as well, I'd imagine. I wonder how many people would have the guts to risk war with someone who can dole out that sort of carnage in one hit?

Time for Admin to develop a Doomsday device, I say. $1 Billion to purchase and $1 million a day to maintain.

Destroys 50% infrastructure, 50% tech, specifc improvements and wonders.

EDIT - Missed a million thereabouts.

This might be a silly question, but aren't Doomsday devices designed for a MAD-style policy i.e. it would destroy your nation as well as everyone else's? Why would anyone build one except for the purposes of going out with a bang? I think that'd be a little unfair for those who want to keep playing the game but lose 50% of their stuff whenever a nuke rogue decides to quit PB for good.