Sephiroth Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord GVChamp Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted yes. Game should be reset if GRL reaches 100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingEater Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Eh, voted no on the basis that people would likely just not fire nukes and you'd start seeing alliance policies about never allowing nukes and stuff. It's actually sometimes fun to not have that touch of realism and just be able to launch weapons without worry as much about the bunnies and the trees. As for those uninvolved, there might be many reasons why they're not fighting such as alliances being unable to engage due to no treaties allowing it. I think your wrong here because alliances on the losing side would immediately use nukes to punish their enemies and those who won't come to their aid...kinda like a 3rd world nation threatening to use a nuke. This senario would be more realistic and make politics much more complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am nobody Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Yes.THIS IS A POLITICAL SIMULATOR PEOPLE. The point of a simulator is to emulate, at least to an extent, some form(s) of reality. If you really think that the fallout of a nuclear explosion quite literally is contained within the borders of one nation, well, I pit you and whoever taught you that notion. We should probably fix all this as well: -A 40k NS nation being able to support as many planes and navy vessels as a 200k NS nation. -A 30k NS nation being able to support as many nukes as said 200k NS nation. -Soldiers just kind of appearing. Why does hiring 150,000 soldiers not have an affect on your population? There can't be that many mercs in the world. -The world's ability to support 30,000 nations -Being nuked 5+ times kills everyone in your country. -There is no limit on how many times you can attack/be attacked. -There is no limit on how many attacks of any form you can use per day. Especially for air force. (seeing as one CN day /= one RL day, shouldn't we be able to launch far more attacks? And for that matter, to be able to deploy more than once? -Thousands of nukes being dropped result in a nuclear winter, causing everyone to die. -You can have as many trade slots as you want -You cannot build your country on water or move it whenever you want -You are not limited to 5 of each improvement - Etc, etc, etc This is game is fun, but it is not realistic. The fact that nukes would affect other nations IRL is not a reason to include that in this game. EDIT: Also, this would result in new nations being in bill lock within a couple days. That would kill the game. Edited April 27, 2009 by I am nobody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Remember when there was a global treaty designed to limit their use? Remember when nuclear rogues were the pariahs of CN? The problem with the GRL now is that we've become accustomed to it. As a result, nukes are now seen as little more than extremely powerful cruise missiles. Anyway..... Voted 'Yes', although rather than uncapping it I would propose raising it to 10 or, alternately, extending the length of its effects. (or both) Economic devastation for everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) -A 40k NS nation being able to support as many planes and navy vessels as a 200k NS nation.-A 30k NS nation being able to support as many nukes as said 200k NS nation. I don't see how in real life a small nation could support as much of a military as a nation 5x its size. -Soldiers just kind of appearing. Why does hiring 150,000 soldiers not have an affect on your population? There can't be that many mercs in the world. Or is there? Think about Germany in WWI and WWII... do you know how many soldiers died in WWI? Yet; not too long after they had enough people to send to their death again. -The world's ability to support 30,000 nations Well if you look at the land; we don't even cover the complete area of Earth. And who said Bob is as small as Earth? -Being nuked 5+ times kills everyone in your country. Thats kind of what were getting at in this thread. -There is no limit on how many times you can attack/be attacked. -There is no limit on how many attacks of any form you can use per day. Especially for air force. (seeing as one CN day /= one RL day, shouldn't we be able to launch far more attacks? And for that matter, to be able to deploy more than once? - Uhm no. You only have a limited number of airplanes you can't keep sending them out over and over. In real life pilots black out after flying too long or too much. - Attacks = use of soldiers. If were using all our deployed soldiers in an attack we should actually be able to attack ONCE. because soldiers in real life only get 1 mission a week or so on average. - Why would you deploy more than once? Just deploy all your soldiers in one deployment. In real life you don't get to the other country; sorry if I shattered your dreams of instant transportation//teleporting. P.S. Santa doesn't exist either. Sorry for double post but I had more then the allowed quoted blocks of text. Edited April 27, 2009 by Rajistani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) -Thousands of nukes being dropped result in a nuclear winter, causing everyone to die. Again, thats kind of what were getting at here. -You can have as many trade slots as you want And also pay tariffs on these trades? Maybe after 4-5 trades; the cost outweighs the benefit. -You cannot build your country on water or move it whenever you want The native americans had a city on water; Tenochtitlan. -You are not limited to 5 of each improvement Why would I have more than 5 banking systems? Or anything for that matter? After a little while it becomes redundant and does no good. Think of it as the more banks you have, the more competition there is and the more efficiency there is. But there is a make to how much efficiency there is, five. Post-five improvements means max efficiency and getting a sixth would make no difference. - Etc, etc, etc Maybe you should elaborate on these "etc's" since the above ones didn't work. This is game is fun, but it is not realistic. The fact that nukes would affect other nations IRL is not a reason to include that in this game. True, its not realistic, but its meant to be to some extent. EDIT: Also, this would result in new nations being in bill lock within a couple days. That would kill the game. Not really. A new nation starts with $20 bills, and $50,000 dollars. They would last a long time. Sorry for double post but I had more then the allowed quoted blocks of text. Edited April 27, 2009 by Rajistani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Requia Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 This is a very bad suggestion. If the GRL was uncapped and could go negative than nobody would be able to collect more than their bill costs. That's the point. Though i don't think it would be quite that bad, negative environment is still capped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke81 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I voted yes. It makes the game more realistic. Nukes are devastating to the whole world and so they should be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 HELL YEAH! UNCAP IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feuersturm Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Remember when there was a global treaty designed to limit their use? Remember when nuclear rogues were the pariahs of CN?The problem with the GRL now is that we've become accustomed to it. As a result, nukes are now seen as little more than extremely powerful cruise missiles. Anyway..... Voted 'Yes', although rather than uncapping it I would propose raising it to 10 or, alternately, extending the length of its effects. (or both) Economic devastation for everyone! Exactly. There should be huge consequences for those who initiate the nuclear war. It would piss everyone off, and keep the war conventional for some time. Those who use it first would become #1 enemy politically. Currently the cap is too low to have any real effect. I barely even notice it. BTW, where is the stats for the GRL? Edited April 27, 2009 by Feuersturm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) It'd be nice if they reworked the forumla before uncapping it, so as to prevent us from all instantly bill-locking. Then again, that would be a really awesome resolution to this game. Now that the war has finally started, I feel ready for this world to end soon. Edited April 27, 2009 by Prodigal Moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmcfalcon12 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I wonder if it will get to a point where there's so much radiation that all the people on the planet die. Does the game end? Do we all float away and colonize the moon in a new game called "Cyber Moon?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Wolfe Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I think it should be uncapped. It would make people think twice about the use of nuclear weapons and screwing over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EngineerSean Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 EDIT: Also, this would result in new nations being in bill lock within a couple days. That would kill the game. I'd be down with global radiation only affecting nations after their first seven days or only if their nation strength is above, say, 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) BTW, where is the stats for the GRL? On your nation view, under your enviorment; but to see what the RL level is without the cap you have to go to tools then statistics. Edit: Link Edited April 27, 2009 by Rajistani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co God Ben Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Let's see what happens. I'm in full support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Everyone should burn. Totally being emo right har. But srs bsns wise, take the cap off. Once you pop the fun dont stop. Edited April 27, 2009 by mykep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philp110 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 GRL has so little affect the way it is now - upcap it or at least make it hurt like hell when we have thousands of nukes going off. Voted yes, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hombre de Murcielago Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Yes, but not in this war. It would add something interesting to plan for in global wars. Even neutral nations would need to increase their warchest to pay bills when the nukes start flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagrr Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted yes. But to all the nuke lovers out there: uncapping global radiation could lead to the return of the negative stigma attached with nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reptyler Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted no. It really wouldn't be fair to the casual players who aren't involved in this war at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted yes. But to all the nuke lovers out there: uncapping global radiation could lead to the return of the negative stigma attached with nukes. Considering people use them like ordinary weapons now, I think this would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted no. It really wouldn't be fair to the casual players who aren't involved in this war at all. Voted no, for the very same reason. If Admin ever does consider it, it should not be done in the middle of a global war, but I am sure he knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts