Bob Janova Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 MPs have ruined the game ... we just have an ever increasing number of nuclear nations, and soon all wars will be nuclear, even in the lower tier, making anarchy irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum 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. I agree completely. I've only been playing a year so the cap has always been on for me and it's certainly survivable with a healthy warchest. Nuclear wars on the scale we have have seen via the karma war should be devestating the nations of planet bob regardless of participation or not. This will change a lot of aspects of the game, more then just strengthening the nuke arsenals but alliances will have to plan for the real decline of thier nations indirectly involved in war. The one thing that I was always curious about was the lack of impact GRL has on infrastrcuture. Perhaps that can be a tie in as well, if there is a massive nuke war and the GRL sky rockets it wouldnt be a stretch to impose some kind of decline on infra and tech on nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 MPs have ruined the game ... we just have an ever increasing number of nuclear nations, and soon all wars will be nuclear, even in the lower tier, making anarchy irrelevant. Exactly. Coordination and skill is much less important in a nuke war then in a conventional and MPs have "dumbed down" the game. Times when you had to have skill and coordination with your alliance mates to keep an enemy anarchied for 7+ days are long gone. Now anyone can do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roofus Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) At my rate of growth, I'll be armed with Nukes in a month or two. That's pretty bad for a nation that's 70 days old. There is a solution to this nuclear problem we have and that's to uncap the GLR. Seriously, how long would it take before alliances merge against alliances involved in a nuclear war when their nations start growing heavy bills because they can't produce any income? Seriously, two things to fix this without having to remove the MP: 1. Uncap GRL. 2. Reset the game when GRL hits 50 like it did in the Karma War. Done and done. If people are irresponsible enough to screw around like that and harm innocents, they should be able to screw the game up for everyone and be held responsible for the damage done in the new world. It's the only way to insure that people don't go over the top in abuse. Edited June 30, 2009 by Roofus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 1. Uncap GRL.2. Reset the game when GRL hits 50 like it did in the Karma War. This is not a solution, this is an incentive. If people are irresponsible enough to screw around like that and harm innocents Oh go on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Admin will never uncap GRL because in that case large scale war would lead to people leaving the game due to deletions. Players in the game are income for him and adding something that could easily throw half the world into bill lock is not something he'll willingly add. It's a shame but it's the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learz Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 If you support the use of nukes in-game, you support their use IRL, I hope you know this. If you support the use of war in-game, you support it IRL, I hope you know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 If you support the use of war in-game, you support it IRL, I hope you know this. I know but thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 If Nukes aren't all that special anymore, let's get a bigger better bomb specifically for the top 5%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Exactly. Coordination and skill is much less important in a nuke war then in a conventional and MPs have "dumbed down" the game. Times when you had to have skill and coordination with your alliance mates to keep an enemy anarchied for 7+ days are long gone. Now anyone can do it. The point of coordination in this day and age is to do more damage in attacks. Anarchy is a fairly meaningless objective considering warchest size these days, but coordination is required to maximize attack effectiveness whether a war is nuclear or not. You might as well complain about modern warchest size dumbing down the game. I don't see TOP eschewing warchests or MPs though, so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Another simple solution that wouldn't involve mass deletions would be to simply raise upkeep to a level that it's prohibitive to all but the top 5-10% of nations and increase the time that it takes to build a nuclear weapon. Essentially make it so that while you can buy an MP keeping more than a couple nukes in stock could cripple your economy. Extending the time it builds a nuke out to two or three days would strengthen the effect. That is 20% of people could still have nukes at some limited capacity but only the top 10% or so could really bring a devastating arsenal to bear. From a realism standpoint, not that this game needs to be, building a nuke involves a lot of time compared to something like a tank. Enrichment, ultra-fine machining and the like. Or just add an H-bomb to the game for the top 3-5% with devastating effects. That would certainly create some turnover at the top levels that people seem to be thirsting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I know but thanks for the info! If your pixels die in game, they die IRL. Hope you know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Silas Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 There is a difference to having nukes in the game and supporting them in real life. This is a game and in a game it doesn't matter what you have as long as it's just for fun and no real people get hurt. My God people it's like the 70's again with all the anti-nuke protests! IT"S A GAME and I hope you know that. As for the GRL, get used to it and adapt to it. Nukes are a great strategy weapon to use at times, does that mean we have to use the all the time, no of coarse not! Does it make it more fun to use the nukes, yes but that's only to the person using them I think that nukes should never be used on nations that doesn't have an AA or for nations under 8000 NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 If your pixels die in game, they die IRL. Hope you know this. I'm not risking my pixels for anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 If you get ZIed in the game, you get ZIed in RL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Silas Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted June 30, 2009 Author 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? I actually agree, it's not all that interesting. I just noticed the number was getting closer and closer and I wondered if/when it would actually pass the SDI count. The last time I looked at the percentage, it was 15% of nations being nuclear armed. I am wondering where it will top at out, percent wise. I think the MP may have added to strategy, the damage being done in the middle and even lower NS tiers has increased dramaticly, and the potential for guerilla nuclear warfare has greatly increased. Before the MP, all you had to do was knock your opponent out of the top 5% to eliminate his nuclear capability; those days are over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master-Debater 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 ha me to! That was a long time ago and those days are long gone now. All hail th glowing mushroom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I like nukes, hell ask the people I'm attacking right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 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. You got me all wrong. Nukes in RL are immoral and unnecessary. Nukes in this game are just toys to play with. The fact that we call it a nuke makes it immoral for most of you. If we call it "Cruise missile 2", everyone would be using this. In this game... Well, anyone who has been nuked hasn't got a long-time trauma out of it. It just happens and we can all live with it. It takes about 20 days of collection for an average nation to recover from nuclear losses. Don't take RL into this game. It is just wrong. CN =/= RL. Stop thinking otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 This is what Karma has done! Just As Bad!™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 In my opinion the Manhattan Project should just lower the 5% rule to 20% or something similar. That would prevent everybody from having nukes still. Regardless this isn't the suggestion forum, and I'm a fan of nukes in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WcaesarD Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) In my opinion the Manhattan Project should just lower the 5% rule to 20% or something similar. That would prevent everybody from having nukes still.Regardless this isn't the suggestion forum, and I'm a fan of nukes in the game. I agree with not only this suggestion, but that nuclear proliferation is a good thing to have. I still think that the anti-nuclear sentiments simply stem from GW II when the league outnumbered TI in nukes, and thus it was a public relations move to get the League to fight without the nuke advantage they held. It could be other things, though. Edit: Clarification Edited June 30, 2009 by WCaesarD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the damned 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 Oh man, this takes me back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Nukes are fun. 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.