A New Age has Dawned

[D34th]

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.

If a nation like North Korea can have nukes our lower tier can too.

If Nukes aren't all that special anymore, let's get a bigger better bomb specifically for the top 5%.

H-Bomb? Bomb of neutrons?

If you get ZIed in the game, you get ZIed in RL.

Oh! That's why in GW2 when I was zied an ex-grilfriend told to me "You worth nothing!"

[PhysicsJunky]

Oh! That's why in GW2 when I was zied an ex-grilfriend told to me "You worth nothing!"

I think it might have been the size of your warchest

Man, I remember when I first went nuclear a little after Great War III. Was all proud of myself and thinking there was no way anybody would want to tangle with the FCC and our 600 nukes or the like, which at the time put us in the top handful of alliances. Now they're like those little Chinese firecrackers you set off on New Year's Eve.

[WarriorConcept]

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 like this idea or something similar to it.

[Heft]

Billion Plus dollar warchests are a much more pressing problem for the game than nukes are. Nukes have their flaws, and I wouldn't mind getting rid of them entirely (something which, IIRC, Vladimir actually suggested way back in 2006), but the game is more or less designed to accomodate them. Billion+ warchests take the game into the realm of absurdity, where to do any proper damage one has to either fight someone for literally months or impose ridiculous reps and peace terms. Nukes take some strategy out of individual wars, but they don't make the war entirely pointless, at least.

[Bob Janova]

Warchests are a symptom though – of not having any high end material to buy. I have a large warchest, growing all the time, because there's basically nothing that is worth me spending my money on, and I stack it up much faster than I can send aid offers.

[Dr Jekyll]

Warchests are a symptom though – of not having any high end material to buy. I have a large warchest, growing all the time, because there's basically nothing that is worth me spending my money on, and I stack it up much faster than I can send aid offers.

Constantly adding more things to buy won't solve the problem. It needs to be hard to actually run a nation that big, it should take a little thought and time. This game needs some new negative variable that increases exponentially. The larger your nation the higher the chance that you'll be hit by a meteor, for instance, and meteors can destroy wonders if they're lucky, as well as whatever else. Just a random example.

[potato]

Constantly adding more things to buy won't solve the problem. It needs to be hard to actually run a nation that big, it should take a little thought and time. This game needs some new negative variable that increases exponentially. The larger your nation the higher the chance that you'll be hit by a meteor, for instance, and meteors can destroy wonders if they're lucky, as well as whatever else. Just a random example.

I bet you wouldn't say that to a dinosaur.

Meteors are immoral, put this in your sig if you're down.

Edited June 30, 2009 by potato

[PhysicsJunky]

Constantly adding more things to buy won't solve the problem.

It's really just a matter of refining variables within the current system. At the moment they're inflationary compared to war loses.

Simply increasing the cost of upkeep somewhere could pull the problem under better control. Ideally you want to disproportionately effect larger nations while leaving the main money sink for them (infra) alone or you'll worsen the money hording problem.

That makes nukes or navies the logical candidate to target. Raise the upkeep on nukes high enough and it will slow the largest players down some, in turn it also discourages so many people from stockpiling them and provides a possible route for people to catch up to the upper tier players. Then your main problem becomes supply/demand as when you raise the price less people will hold onto 20-25 nukes to dodge the effective upkeep tax. To counter it you simply lower supply by increasing the time it takes to purchase a nuke so people can't just buy and launch their way through a war.

Big nations keep a firepower advantage, middle nations keep some nukes, stops inflation and gives people starting a chance to catch up.

[Bob Janova]

It needs to be hard to actually run a nation that big

For any definition of 'that big', there is a slightly smaller size where everyone would stop. Right now there's no point going to 20k infra, so people stop at 15k – and accumulate warchest.

[Dr Jekyll]

For any definition of 'that big', there is a slightly smaller size where everyone would stop. Right now there's no point going to 20k infra, so people stop at 15k – and accumulate warchest.

Exactly.. Accumulating a warchest shouldn't be that easy.

[anenu]

Nukes should be allowed for everyone after reaching a certain tech/infra level. To prevent massive nuke counts though the maintenance price should increase dramatically making it so that many smaller nation just having reached the tech/infra line for nukes can only have 1 or 2 and still make a profit, large nations should be able to hold an infinite number but for everyone one you buy the upkeep for the next goes up x1.5 or some such. Also to make nukes still worthwhile the damage they do should increase and SDI's should be less effective.

[He Who Has No Name]

FAN practiced cohesive nuclear doctrine before it was "cool'.

Get off our lawn.

[Tarikmo]

Gentlemen, the age of nukes is over, it's time, for the mother of all bombs, twice as strong as a nuke, and only for the top 5%. that way, everyone can have those nukes we all want, but only the big boys get a special toy.

[Frankdolf]

If Nukes aren't all that special anymore, let's get a bigger better bomb specifically for the top 5%.

Death Star?

inb4 NSO spamming the suggestion board for this

[Diogenes]

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.

Nukes are not toys - that is a very irresponsible opinion. They are dangerous weapons, and they should be barred from existence and use.

I'd also appreciate it if you took back what you said about long-term trauma; numerous citizens of Hannah Montana 2 are currently being hospitalized for radiation poisoning brought on by the nuclear attacks against it just a few days ago. It's too early for you to be making such cruel and insensitive statements about what they've endured, and what they're enduring.

[Drostan]

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter...

[Canik]

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.

I agree, except that I think Manhatten Projects should just be harder to get. 100 million is cheap considering it gives you by far the most destructive weapon in the game.

[ChairmanHal]

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.

Given that there were hundreds of thousands of G.I.s that were alive after World War II (not to mention millions of Japanese) because the Americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of invading the Japanese home islands, damn skippy I support the use of nukes in RL. Do I support turning North Korea into a glass parking lot tomorrow? Of course not. The bar for using nukes is almost (but not completely) impossibly high--as it should be.

In game they are yet another war feature. As a rule it's polite to be the second person to use them, but there's sound military reasons at times for going first strike with them. If you want realism in the use of nukes, spies, and most other aspects of combat, frankly you came to the wrong place.

The combat system is what it is and I try to throw in my opinions/suggestions for changes now and again.

[Azhrarn]

Given that there were hundreds of thousands of G.I.s that were alive after World War II (not to mention millions of Japanese) because the Americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of invading the Japanese home islands, damn skippy I support the use of nukes in RL. Do I support turning North Korea into a glass parking lot tomorrow? Of course not. The bar for using nukes is almost (but not completely) impossibly high--as it should be.

In game they are yet another war feature. As a rule it's polite to be the second person to use them, but there's sound military reasons at times for going first strike with them. If you want realism in the use of nukes, spies, and most other aspects of combat, frankly you came to the wrong place.

The combat system is what it is and I try to throw in my opinions/suggestions for changes now and again.

I don't believe nukes were needed to defeat the Japanese. I feel the US Government nuked Japan for geopolitical reasons - to warn Russia away from Asia, for one thing.

[Dr Jekyll]

Hist101 argument incoming. o/

Good show romanian gypsy.

[ChairmanHal]

I don't believe nukes were needed to defeat the Japanese. I feel the US Government nuked Japan for geopolitical reasons - to warn Russia away from Asia, for one thing.

Then you don't know Harry Truman. While he was no fan of Joe Stalin by that point, saving American lives by ending the war was his primary motivating factor. It should also be noted that had the nukes not persuaded the Japanese to surrender, plans were underway to conduct further nuclear bombardment in support of the invasion.

[Gruthenia]

Overall I'm pretty apalled by the light hearted attitude people take towards nukes in this game. Nukes have killed people irl so everybody who's ever launched a nuke, maybe next time you should stop for a minute before nuking that guy and think of all the dead and mutilated people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe if more people did that nukes would be treated with the gravity they deserve and not go so wild with all those Manhattan Projects and Hidden Nuclear Missile silos.

[Dr Jekyll]

Then you don't know Harry Truman. While he was no fan of Joe Stalin by that point, saving American lives by ending the war was his primary motivating factor. It should also be noted that had the nukes not persuaded the Japanese to surrender, plans were underway to conduct further nuclear bombardment in support of the invasion.

All Hail ChairmanHal, Knower of Harry Truman!

[D34th]

Billion Plus dollar warchests are a much more pressing problem for the game than nukes are. Nukes have their flaws, and I wouldn't mind getting rid of them entirely (something which, IIRC, Vladimir actually suggested way back in 2006), but the game is more or less designed to accomodate them. Billion+ warchests take the game into the realm of absurdity, where to do any proper damage one has to either fight someone for literally months or impose ridiculous reps and peace terms. Nukes take some strategy out of individual wars, but they don't make the war entirely pointless, at least.

I agree with you, should be implemented a warchest limit based on infra level and improvements and wonder like banks and federal aid comission for example.

[Heft]

I agree with you, should be implemented a warchest limit based on infra level and improvements and wonder like banks and federal aid comission for example.

I see two rough solutions to the warchest problem.

1) Remove the hard cap on money taken/destroyed in wars. Tie it to a percentage of total money on hand, and have that percentage increase as the total money on hand increases (i.e, 50% for anything over a billion, 5% for anything under a million).

2) Institute penalties for having stale cash (i.e, larger bills the larger your warchest).