General Vengeance Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Bob's surface area: Surface area 510,072,000 km² 148,940,000 km² land (29.2 %) 361,132,000 km² water (70.8 %) Land should play a larger role on planet Bob, if not the largest. Presently that is not the case. As a result it comes as no surprise to see a large influx of more neutral based alliances. To ensure indefinite conflict there must be an objective to do so. Edited July 8, 2009 by General Vengeance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commisar Gaunt Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Ok, forget that then. Even so, think about what is happening to the real world. Nearly all World Powers want peace, not war.And I would realize, that obviously some new nations and alliances would be starting wars all the time, but I'm thinking big alliances. No I was addressing Bama, carry on -Commisar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Everyone has their own way to run their nation/what they want in an alliance. I also fail to see who made you god-king on how others should manage their nations and alliances affairs. If it's fighting and drama you seek, find and/or make your own. Did EVERYONE miss the MY World Opinion This is MY view of things, and I am NOT trying to tell other alliances how to run their nations/alliance. Besides, if my opinion is wrong, I win. If it's right, I'll probably end up not playing CN anymore. Right now, I'm just doing buisiness as normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I didn't put much thought into this, besides what I feel is happening to CN(like, I did, but it all came from me, errr... you know what I mean!) Think about it. Eventually nations will be utterly peaceful in CN, and TE will be the only war-mongering Cyber Nations Not putting much thought into it might have been the first problem :/ You're looking at a couple of alliances and then basing them on the rest of CN. There will always be wars, alliances will keep trying to be 'The King of The Hill'. CN:S will not become peaceful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Earth's surface area: Surface area 510,072,000 km² 148,940,000 km² land (29.2 %) 361,132,000 km² water (70.8 %) Land should play a larger role on planet Bob, if not the largest. Presently that is not the case. As a result it comes as no surprise to see a large influx of more neutral based alliances. To ensure indefinite conflict there must be a an objective to do so. The start of a very good idea, problem is how such could be implemented. Do you just stop all current natural land growth? I wouldnt mind seeing new technological breakthroughs in weapons that can destroy parts of the world (land). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Not putting much thought into it might have been the first problem :/You're looking at a couple of alliances and then basing them on the rest of CN. There will always be wars, alliances will keep trying to be 'The King of The Hill'. CN:S will not become peaceful Then I win. See for me, if I'm wrong, it's not such a bad thing. EDIT: nvm Edited July 8, 2009 by King Alias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 What do you win? You make no sense at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Did EVERYONE miss theThis is MY view of things, and I am NOT trying to tell other alliances how to run their nations/alliance. Besides, if my opinion is wrong, I win. If it's right, I'll probably end up not playing CN anymore. Right now, I'm just doing buisiness as normal. Yes, your opinion is that the big alliances should dance for your entertainment. Again, you want fun go make it and quit waiting for others to do it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Did EVERYONE miss theThis is MY view of things, and I am NOT trying to tell other alliances how to run their nations/alliance. Besides, if my opinion is wrong, I win. If it's right, I'll probably end up not playing CN anymore. Right now, I'm just doing buisiness as normal. If you didn't want people to disagree with you, you shouldn't have stated your opinion. There's always going to be at least one person in any community that will disagree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 EDIT:You cannot prove an opinion wrong I disagree. Explain to me how you can't prove an opinion wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Yes, your opinion is that the big alliances should dance for your entertainment. Again, you want fun go make it and quit waiting for others to do it for you. No, I'm expressing my opinion about how boring the game would be if all the large alliances, and small ones, etc. became locked in a mode of peace. I'm not saying thats wrong, I'm saying it would be really boring, and I don't want it to happen. EDIT: I'm not trying to fight anyone here, I'm just expressing my opinion. Freedom of speech for ya Edited July 8, 2009 by King Alias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I disagree. Explain to me how you can't prove an opinion wrong. It's a trap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 It's a trap Shush you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 A lot of MK members take part in that as a joke. I think a majority of those sigs are a joke, even.-Bama You know, Rey, I really expected better of you. Nuclear weapons are immoral, inherently so. Anything capable of killing tens of thousands of men and women in an instant cannot be good, after all. The only reason nukes should ever be used - and I mean the only reason - is to protect the free market from the grip of communism. - Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoralDecadence Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Think about what would happen to the whole game if all the alliances signed TDO's World-Peace doctrine, thingy. This is actually really easy to imagine considering TDO's "world-peace doctrine" is actually not a "world-peace" doctrine at all. It's their declaration of global neutrality. It's them asking other alliances to aknowledge their indifference to all of their issues. Basically it's a giant "Hey, you guys can go war and do your thing but do us a favor and recognize that we don't want to do it with you." They're not asking anyone to stop going to war. Just asking you not to go drag them into Planet Bob's politics. Good job at not researching the stuff you're bashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Vengeance Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) The start of a very good idea, problem is how such could be implemented. Do you just stop all current natural land growth? I wouldnt mind seeing new technological breakthroughs in weapons that can destroy parts of the world (land). Just an initial idea. All new nations start off with X amount of land. ie: 5 km of land and natural growth as well, and land purchases can continue so long as there is a surplus of land to do so. The current land values would have to be changed for all nations. Once land runs out, all new nations are always ensured 5 km of land. If they elect not to join an alliance population density will eventually become a problem. However, joining an alliance with a surplus of land could now be used to entice membership as land could be bought and sold, much like Technology. As far as weapons to destroy land, Bob already has them. Nuclear fallout makes land inhabitable. Thus reducing the overall inhabitable surface area. If anything there should be Wonders for land regeneration, to cleanse the enviroment. I think it would add a whole new dimension to Planet Bob, where green power and the resistance to use Nukes become more important. However, those are just suggestions that could be discussed at further length in the suggestion box. Edited July 8, 2009 by General Vengeance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 No, I'm expressing my opinion about how boring the game would be if all the large alliances, and small ones, etc. became locked in a mode of peace.I'm not saying thats wrong, I'm saying it would be really boring, and I don't want it to happen. EDIT: I'm not trying to fight anyone here, I'm just expressing my opinion. Freedom of speech for ya Again you're kinda missing the boat here. You're here offering your opinion on how things ought to be for your enjoyment, instead of somewhere else making your enjoyment happen. You're more than free to express your opinion till the cows come home, but unless you go and do, others will step forth and make this what they wish for their enjoyment, which might or might not coincide with yours. If you feel strongly about it, go and do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 This is actually really easy to imagine considering TDO's "world-peace doctrine" is actually not a "world-peace" doctrine at all.It's their declaration of global neutrality. It's them asking other alliances to aknowledge their indifference to all of their issues. Basically it's a giant "Hey, you guys can go war and do your thing but do us a favor and recognize that we don't want to do it with you." They're not asking anyone to stop going to war. Just asking you not to go drag them into Planet Bob's politics. Good job at not researching the stuff you're bashing. Thats what I meant, is that they wont par-take in any wars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 You know, Rey, I really expected better of you. Nuclear weapons are immoral, inherently so. Anything capable of killing tens of thousands of men and women in an instant cannot be good, after all. The only reason nukes should ever be used - and I mean the only reason - is to protect the free market from the grip of communism. - Bama I'm sorry for being so foolish, I'll learn better. Just don't whip me again. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoralDecadence Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Thats what I meant, is that they wont par-take in any wars Have you tried attacking them? They'll war you up till your heart's content. Just because they don't want to deal with Planet Bob's politics, and I can't blame, doesn't mean they won't defend themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Thats what I meant, is that they wont par-take in any wars Go look at their war report screen. They're partaking in plenty of wars. Difference being, they have no desire to partake in things they don't feel are any of their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 without war this game would be ruined and only TE would really be worth anything. oh btw Alias, you could thank me for finding that sig of yours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I agree in that holding down alliances so that they may never again be in a position to be in a war again downright goes against what this game is about. As a nation building simulator this game is way behind the times. As a political simulator it rocks and that is due to the people who are part of and lead the alliances. A major portion of that political simulation is the threat of war. That is why I dont understand the constant desire to remove all threats to one's alliance. That's like saying "Why would a company want to eliminate competition when competition is a vital part of capitalism?" This is a political and war simulator, and with new innovation must come adaptations. When NPO invented eternal war (out of necessity, in their opinion), and the alliances/people at eternal war adapted to win. That's just how CN works. When your opponents invent something, you must adapt to it. You can't blame an alliance for looking out for its interests, especially on the grounds that alliances should constantly put themselves at risk for the sake of "playing a game." You can't control the market, only how you can profit from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 without war this game would be ruined and only TE would really be worth anything. oh btw Alias, you could thank me for finding that sig of yours ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OOC: thanks this basically are my thoughts I think I over-explained them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 The thing is war will always be a part in CN:S 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.