Jump to content

A New Age has Dawned


Mirreille
 Share

Recommended Posts

I meant to make this thread a couple days ago, but forgot, so this is a bit late:

http://www.cybernations.net/stats_improvements_wonders.asp

So, 4644 Manhatten Projects, to 4597 SDIs. The number of MPs has surpassed the number of SDIs, despite being 33% more expensive, and not being in the game as long as the SDI has been. Well, we all know why. :rolleyes:

3960 nuclear armed nations out of 27456 is just about 17% of the world being nuclear armed. ....All hail the :nuke: ?

I for one welcome our new :nuke: Overlords. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I meant to make this thread a couple days ago, but forgot, so this is a bit late:

http://www.cybernations.net/stats_improvements_wonders.asp

So, 4644 Manhatten Projects, to 4597 SDIs. The number of MPs has surpassed the number of SDIs, despite being 33% more expensive, and not being in the game as long as the SDI has been. Well, we all know why. :rolleyes:

3960 nuclear armed nations out of 27456 is just about 17% of the world being nuclear armed. ....All hail the :nuke: ?

I for one welcome our new :nuke: Overlords. -_-

Manhattan Projects were a horrible addition to Planet Bob. Nukes once actually meant something. Now almost 1 out of 5 nations has them. It's ridiculous. They're just super destructive cruise missiles that have taken a lot of the strategy out of wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manhattan Projects were a horrible addition to Planet Bob. Nukes once actually meant something. Now almost 1 out of 5 nations has them. It's ridiculous. They're just super destructive cruise missiles that have taken a lot of the strategy out of wars.

Yes, it would be wonderful if the only people in the game with nukes were the Grämlins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manhattan Projects were a horrible addition to Planet Bob. Nukes once actually meant something. Now almost 1 out of 5 nations has them. It's ridiculous. They're just super destructive cruise missiles that have taken a lot of the strategy out of wars.

Its funny because nukes actually add strategy to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are so silly, nukes are for losers who need an instant anarchy button. Strategy? I laugh at you.

If you support the use of nukes in-game, you support their use IRL, I hope you know this.

Edited by lebubu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nukes are immoral, put this in your signature if you're down.

For the Love of God, Think of the Children!

Nukes hit neutrals, noobs and allies the alike with filthy radiation. If you use nukes, you hurt everyone you love and care for.

Nukes are immoral.

Edited by alpreb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nukes are not immoral in this game, just in RL.

If you named it differently a'la "The big bomb", everyone would use it.

I bet you wouldn't say that to a survivor of the nuclear attacks on Japan. The sentiments associated with nuclear weapons transcend the boundaries of real life, and yes, exist even in this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I guess that would just be so unfair. Sort of like having one alliance completely dominating the game.

You really showed him. Mushroom Kingdom are your new overlords. We are the one alliance completely dominating the game.

The game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manhattan Projects were a horrible addition to Planet Bob. Nukes once actually meant something. Now almost 1 out of 5 nations has them. It's ridiculous. They're just super destructive cruise missiles that have taken a lot of the strategy out of wars.

Eh, I am willing to bet that half those nations have less than adequate warchests and could not maintain their nuclear stockpiles for more than ten days of solid war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In GW3 I was the second Aegis nation to be hit by a nuke rogue. That was a big deal. The other guy was ejected from his alliance (GGA) which, after the war ended, actually compensated me for my losses.

In the UjW I approved of and took part in the NoV High Command's decision to launch first strikes to bring its wars to a speedy end. That seemed like a controversial decision at the time, but for our allies the greatest problem it caused was that it ultimately reduced the reps received from these various alliances. (To me, this was the first hint that nuclear weapons were being viewed more and more as just another tool in the toolbox.)

Various alliances had nuclear first-strike policies in place for defensive wars, but I don't recall any of these being invoked until the noCB War. (I could be wrong. Someone please tell me if I am.)

The initial revulsion to nuclear weapons was caused by the incredible damage they did. Various changes in the effects of nuclear weapons on both 'recipient nations' and the world at large mean that we have grown accustomed to them. With a cap on the GRL, we know at the very least that things cannot get any worse.

Removing or significantly increasing the GRL cap would change this perception all over again.

Now, while I welcome the opportunity to reminisce about my own experience with nukes and to present my opinion regarding the GRL cap's impact on the use of nuclear weapons....was there really a point to this?

"In a world that has become desensitized to nukes, people feel they need to have them as a deterrent before they build a possible defense against them." An incredibly obvious statement, but I think that's what the OP is really saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be all in favour of removing the GRL cap to make the in-game effects of a nuke war more like the globally devastating effects of a real nuke war.

Perhaps this will make the nuke a thing that is truly feared rather than a oversized cruise missile.

After all CN is a nation simulator so it needs to accurately simulate these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...