o ya baby Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 As I already said, these things do NOT interwine. If they did, any war will be just as immoral as any nuclear weapon. May I add that there have been more people killed by ground attacks in RL than the 2 nukes. The ground attacks are worse on a moral point of view. (In CN, then) Also, in this game, nukes do not kill citizens. They kill soldiers, land and infra. Citizens just "leave" the country. Soldiers are meant to fight the war and die for your country Y/N? Death, ruination, destruction - is that or is that not the point of war? In CN! Yes, I don't care for pixels. In CN! CN is not the same as RL. Please learn it. I like humanity in RL. CN is a different thing. CN is a nation building and war simulation. Global radiation... It is not realistic in this game. 30 days and it is all gone. The real radiation takes centuries to fade. This means that the radiation in this game makes it reasonable to use the nukes. After 30 days, it is all back to normal. In CN! This is the big difference between CN and RL nukes. And this is the main reason why people hate nukes in RL. But you don't have to hate nukes in CN because they don't have quite the same effect. It is just the damn name you are afraid of. How heartless are you? The suffering the nukes have...the pain and the deformities that come along with them... you really have no conscious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 There are still people behind the computers, and you don't know what kind of personal connections they may have to RL soldiers. Maybe their grandfather was in a war? It is morally irresponsible to just assume that everyone has the same sensibilities as you do. Not everyone can click a button and callously ignore the images or lingering traumas that that button represents, and to brush away their objections with cries of "It's just a game!" is the height of arrogance.I suppose, though, that you wouldn't understand this, seeing as how you apparently lack any empathy for other human beings. Clearly, we must remove soldiers from the game. Exactly. I applaud your forward thinking and compassion. If we are to end violence in "real life" we must begin by ending violence in our "virtual" homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) It has nothing to do with being a large nation or letting other nations catch up or anything else like that. It had to do with curbing the utterly ridiculous and game-breaking "warchests" and inflation in general.If a line in your bills was added that added on some percentage of your current cash holdings to your bills, and that percentage increased the larger your cash holdings (NOT the larger your nation) then it would not punish you in anyway. You would still be able to find a value that allows you to do whatever you want to do with your cash (Send out aid, buy every wonder and eventually !@#$ tons of land because why not?). The only thing it would prevent is having tons and tons of money lying around making it impossible for nations to be damaged in any meaningful way. Because none of the above options are effective. I'll have bought every wonder in 2 months (and they only cost 2 days of collection). Buying land is retarded. It's the most easily destroyed target in war and nets you very very little additional benefit comparative to its price. Buying infra is retarded. You make less money after a certain point. It would certainly be punitive to nations who have nothing to spend it on. I can't imagine wasting 8 or more months of collections on land. Ugh, the thought is just terrible (and cruel and unusual and most indefinitely punitive). There's nothing left to do except warchests. Give me something worthwhile to spend my money on. Expensive, but worthwhile and I might do it. That with your above suggestion would be far better. Otherwise it is just forcing you into a box of buying useless infra and land. Edited July 2, 2009 by Dr. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Because none of the above options are effective. I'll have bought every wonder in 2 months (and they only cost 2 days of collection). Buying land is retarded. It's the most easily destroyed target in war and nets you very very little additional benefit comparative to its price. Buying infra is retarded. You make less money after a certain point. It would certainly be punitive to nations who have nothing to spend it on. I can't imagine wasting 8 or more months of collections on land. Ugh, the thought is just terrible (and cruel and unusual and most indefinitely punitive).There's nothing left to do except warchests. Give me something worthwhile to spend my money on. Expensive, but worthwhile and I might do it. That with your above suggestion would be far better. Otherwise it is just forcing you into a box of buying useless infra and land. It would bring your collection down to a size where you are actually using that money (whatever size that is would be dependent upon you). Adding new toys to buy does not change the fundamental problem of running out of toys to buy, it just postpones it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) It would bring your collection down to a size where you are actually using that money (whatever size that is would be dependent upon you). Adding new toys to buy does not change the fundamental problem of running out of toys to buy, it just postpones it. Right, no toys means no fun. Give me more toys or at least something that I can invest in perpetually that has value to it. Infra used to solve that, but then it was capped. Edited July 2, 2009 by Dr. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Wait, people actually launched their nukes? My nation keeps them only as a deterrent and would never deploy them against my fellow man. You'd have to be pretty heartless to push that button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I must say I'm pretty disappointed and quite frankly disgusted by how easily (some) people dismiss the horrors of nuclear war.edit: some of us have seen and felt the effects of radiation IRL and you talk about nukes like they're some sort of over-sized cruise missiles. I must say I'm pretty disappointed and quite frankly disgusted by how easily (some) people dismiss the horrors of ground attacks. edit: more of us have seen and felt the effects of ground warfare IRL and you talk about tanks like they're some sort of over-sized soldiers. ' The ground warfare has had much more casualities. The traumas from there are just as bad. I don't see anyone hesitating when launching ground attacks. I would post a ****load of pictures from all the soldiers who have been hit by grenade launchers, stepped on mines or shot in the face and survived with their bodies disfigured for their whole life. With nuclear radiation, your life will end faster than those who survived from a non-radioactive explosion. Now that hurts me more than a nuclear blast. Mostly since there are still ground attacks going on in the world and IRL people do not use nukes. The last nuke was launched over 50 years ago. The last ground attack... Well, they are going on at the moment somewhere in Afghanistan and maybe in Africa. Are you going to read this too or just make fun of me because I support nukes just as I support ground attacks? Pacifists lol... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I like to think MK made nukes as popular as they are.I like to think MK made nukes as popular as they are. You forgot most of NPO's top nations not having SDIs or warchests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 You forgot most of NPO's top nations not having SDIs or warchests. That was wonderful, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir jesus Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I must say I'm pretty disappointed and quite frankly disgusted by how easily (some) people dismiss the horrors of ground attacks.edit: more of us have seen and felt the effects of ground warfare IRL and you talk about tanks like they're some sort of over-sized soldiers. ' The ground warfare has had much more casualities. The traumas from there are just as bad. I don't see anyone hesitating when launching ground attacks. I would post a ****load of pictures from all the soldiers who have been hit by grenade launchers, stepped on mines or shot in the face and survived with their bodies disfigured for their whole life. With nuclear radiation, your life will end faster than those who survived from a non-radioactive explosion. Now that hurts me more than a nuclear blast. Mostly since there are still ground attacks going on in the world and IRL people do not use nukes. The last nuke was launched over 50 years ago. The last ground attack... Well, they are going on at the moment somewhere in Afghanistan and maybe in Africa. Are you going to read this too or just make fun of me because I support nukes just as I support ground attacks? Pacifists lol... LMAO, I'm sorry to ruin everyone's fun.... Dude, every single person in this thread is playing a joke. All of the people decrying nuclear war are doing it just to get rational people like you fired up. Personally I think it's hilarious, but I don't want you to think everyone here is a dolt. Just look at the AA of half of these "pacifists," it's Mushroom Kingdom! They are notorious for the first-strike nuclear policy. So don't get worked up over it. Obviously your point is correct, and everyone agrees with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) I must say I'm pretty disappointed and quite frankly disgusted by how easily (some) people dismiss the horrors of ground attacks.edit: more of us have seen and felt the effects of ground warfare IRL and you talk about tanks like they're some sort of over-sized soldiers. ' The ground warfare has had much more casualities. The traumas from there are just as bad. I don't see anyone hesitating when launching ground attacks. I would post a ****load of pictures from all the soldiers who have been hit by grenade launchers, stepped on mines or shot in the face and survived with their bodies disfigured for their whole life. With nuclear radiation, your life will end faster than those who survived from a non-radioactive explosion. Now that hurts me more than a nuclear blast. Mostly since there are still ground attacks going on in the world and IRL people do not use nukes. The last nuke was launched over 50 years ago. The last ground attack... Well, they are going on at the moment somewhere in Afghanistan and maybe in Africa. Are you going to read this too or just make fun of me because I support nukes just as I support ground attacks? Pacifists lol... Just because more people have died of conventional warfare in real life, that makes it okay to dismiss the plight of those hurt by radiation and nuclear weapons? Ground warfare is bad, but so are nuclear attacks. I hope one day you can find in your heart some sympathy for those whose lives have been horrifically altered by nuclear warfare. Edited July 2, 2009 by Quiziotle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Dude, every single person in this thread is playing a joke. All of the people decrying nuclear war are doing it just to get rational people like you fired up. Personally I think it's hilarious, but I don't want you to think everyone here is a dolt.Just look at the AA of half of these "pacifists," it's Mushroom Kingdom! They are notorious for the first-strike nuclear policy. So don't get worked up over it. Obviously your point is correct, and everyone agrees with you. I think they would be very offended by your sweeping generalizations. The Mushroom Kingdom was about to end its nuclear first strike policy for good when meddling NPO came in and offfered a PIAT. It was a tough choice, but the appeal of a steadfast ally like NPO was too much to handle in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 So nukes are immoral in game for the same reasons as they are IRL, but everything else - CMs, bombing, battles aren't? So it's okey to kill humans and so forth, so long as it's with non-nuclear weapons? Give me a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleda Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 It comforts me to know that barring an actual rule change , anyone who FAN attacks or gets attacked by , are getting nuked regardless of liberal lefty "think of the children" banter I've read here. Anyone who allows another to dictate their actions in war is doomed to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britanicca Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I remember a thread about nukes on the old boards, where somoene posted the nuke stats, i believe at the time IRON had the most nukes at 40 and this was said to be an "ungodly amount" lol how times change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Lots of crying about free pixels ITT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Some of you really need to tune up your sarcasm detectors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 The last 2 pages I just went with it. I knew that MK people can't be so anti-nuclear. Still. One nuke a day keeps the NPO away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nuclear weaponry is immoral - each one of these 'bombs' is really just a drop of the Devil's hate...not just for your enemy, but for all things, such as flowers, art, puppies and beautiful music (like Yanni or John Tesh). Join me and destroy your arsenal! Think of Yanni: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WcaesarD Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nuclear weaponry is immoral - each one of these 'bombs' is really just a drop of the Devil's hate...not just for your enemy, but for all things, such as flowers, art, puppies and beautiful music (like Yanni or John Tesh). Join me and destroy your arsenal! Think of Yanni: Nukes are immoral put Yanni in your sig if you're down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Some of you really need to tune up your sarcasm detectors. They were damaged in the last nuclear strike! heh. EDIT: sorry, didn't think this post actually posted and so it double-posted on me... I would delete it if I could. Edited July 2, 2009 by Drostan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Really the only thing I think should be done to deal with the excessively huge warchests is to give people especially larger nations more stuff to spend their money on. Give huge nations some ridiculous wonders that also cost a ridiculous amount of money. I suggest adding a low orbit ion cannon to the game. Or perhaps a giant laser on the moon that only the top 0.5% of nations are able to buy and it costs them an arm and a leg. I dunno what it can do, attack multiple targets at once or something? It's hard to develop weapons greater than nukes that make any sort of sense at all. So I suggest we abandon our childish attachment to reason and plunge whole-heartedly into the realm of ridiculous weaponry. We could always do biological weapons that 'infect' all of their trade partners and those with whom they have aid agreements... That would be a weapon with serious consequences. Edited July 2, 2009 by Drostan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Drostan... No. I don't think there is much to do for the larger nations to make them spend all that money. And stealing a percentage of their money instead of a set amount... It is just wrong. If Mexico attacked USA and stole 5% of their money etc, they would get significantly stronger without USA being able to do anything. In reality, the defenses are strong, counterattacks immediate and the money can't be stolen like that. A set amount is good. Maybe the set amount increases at every 1000 infra by 1 mil over 8000? At 10k infra, people can steal 3 mil, 12k - 5 mil. From there, at every 3000 infra. 15k infra - 6 mil, 18k infra - 7 mil 21k infra - 8 mil. And maybe add some wonders that have an effect ONLY if you exceed the requirements. Economic wonders that need 14k infra to function. If you drop below that, you lose the benefit until you have 14k infra again. It will be useful to grow large nations even bigger but when they get ZI'd in the war they either regrow and use it again or sell it and try to grow themselves back to 14k infra. I like the idea of 20% with Manhattan Project. Also, a nation shouldn't be able to manufacture nukes at low infra (0-3000). Or it should take them more time than 1 day per nuke. Maybe 3... I don't see North Korea building as many nukes per day as USA. (Maybe not use infra but tech in this case. How many nukes you can build per day. And wonders...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Maybe the set amount increases at every 1000 infra by 1 mil over 8000? That would be even worse, because it would make it even more likely that people sit and don't buy more infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 But you have to get some über cool wonders at high infra... 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.