Mirreille Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. 3960 nuclear armed nations out of 27456 is just about 17% of the world being nuclear armed. ....All hail the ? I for one welcome our new Overlords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeCat Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't SDI's and MP's released at the same time. I do believe they were, but my memory isn't what it used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I like to think MK made nukes as popular as they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I like to think MK made nukes as popular as they are. GOD was into nukes before they were cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I remember "For the Love of God, Think of the Children!" Convention and I remember when nukes were an immoral weapon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Colt Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 You can thank Polaris for a good amount of the MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. 3960 nuclear armed nations out of 27456 is just about 17% of the world being nuclear armed. ....All hail the ? I for one welcome our new 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velka Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 It'll be interesting to see what role nukes play in the future. A new age is upon us all, and new ages usually come with a new set of rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Yes, it would be wonderful if the only people in the game with nukes were the Grämlins. Yes, I guess that would just be so unfair. Sort of like having one alliance completely dominating the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Yes, I guess that would just be so unfair. Sort of like having one alliance completely dominating the game. Well, exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Ratz Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Its funny because nukes actually add strategy to war. I was thinking the samething. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) 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 June 30, 2009 by lebubu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. Nukes are immoral, put this in your signature if you're down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Nukes are not immoral in this game, just in RL. If you named it differently a'la "The big bomb", everyone would use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpreb Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) 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 June 30, 2009 by alpreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCFalkenberg Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) GOD was into nukes before they were cool. They aren't the only ones ps, is that nuke flag ever going to be added? I would totally rock that. Edited June 30, 2009 by JCFalkenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeCat Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyInc Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I'm surprised to see anyone was actually monitoring that particular statistic so closely. Maybe it's just me that doesn't find it at all interesting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 There's really nothing that special about nukes anymore. The 5% system had flaws but it still made having nukes pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. 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.