Executive Minister Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) The poll pretty much speaks for itself. Also, as a rule of principle, the results of this poll will only take effect after my and J Andres' nuking. Edit: For some reason non-nation-states was filtered. I do not know why. Edited January 6, 2011 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 IG = = RP only if you have a proper nation :3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Get a proper nation. What is a proper nation? Cities, infrastructure, enough land for an actual nuke plant and the required missile silos. Minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I selected other and go even further, in my opinion if someone's land is occupied they should no longer be able to get nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1294323953' post='2565824'] The poll pretty much speaks for itself. Also, as a rule of principle, the results of this poll will only take effect after my and J Andres' nuking. Edit: For some reason non-nation-states was filtered. I do not know why. [/quote] Because nation-states is the name of a game rival to CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Voted for. [b]No, IG==RP but only if you have a proper nation[/b] Failsafes are there for a reason and Red Octobers do not happen. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 What Cochin said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1294324306' post='2565835'] Failsafes are there for a reason and Red Octobers do not happen. Ever. [/quote] As much as I love that movie... I choose the second option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 We should probably make it clear this is for CNRP only, as I already see two non-CNRPers voting in the poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1294328664' post='2565871'] We should probably make it clear this is for CNRP only, as I already see two non-CNRPers voting in the poll. [/quote] I made it public for a reason, so we could ignore the ignoramuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Sorry, I'm going against the grain here, because all I see is a bunch of people who are butthurt about being nuked with no way to retaliate against it in any meaningful fashion. Oh, the horror, you can't glass his nation. Oh, the horror, you can't destroy his pixels. Oh, the horror, you can't dogpile him and force him from the game. You know what? Suck it the $%&@ up, Nancy. Do I agree with the way Ty is choosing to leave the game? No, I do not. I'm not a fan of "lolnuking". However, is he fully within his rights as a CNRP'er and fully within the rules of CNRP to do what he is doing? Abso-!@#$@#$-lutely. Simply because a "Red October" scenario hasn't happened doesn't mean it never will. Should there be failsafes on Ty's nukes so the government can prevent them from launching, or destroy them before they hit their targets? Certainly. But if Ty chooses not to place those safeguards on his missiles, then there aren't any. I mean, seriously? You $%&@tards want to talk about what is plausible and what is not plausible? This is CN-!@#$@#$-RP. We thirve on the implausible and saying it's plausible. The number of nukes Ty has shot off should be plunging us all into a mini-nuclear winter. And how many of you are going to RP that? Huh? Anyone? Barely anyone? Yeah, that's what I thought. Start acurately RPing the effects of stuff such as this, even if it doesn't directly impact your nation, and then you can have your soapbox to stand on about how plausible or implausible it is that a "Red October" scenario is occurring. Also, this has been done before. How do I know? I !@#$@#$ did it. Louis Egon made off with a submarine and a nuclear missile all by himself. No one noticed until he was just about ready to fire it off due to my RP. And then, bam, Brisbane gone. No one said a !@#$@#$ peep then. Ty has the RP to back this up. He had the nation, the resources, to put this all together. It's not like some random person came in and went "hurr, I have mah subz in teh oceanz, they be nukin ur citiez." These subs were RP'd out, they were Ty's to control, and they were his nuclear weapons. He hasn't done anything completely out of the realm of possibility yet. If he fires off more than another 20, then I'll say he should be limited. But until that point, no way. So, in summary: 1) Stop acting butthurt, suck it up Nancy. 2) "Red October" could happen because Sean Connery said so. 3) Start RPing a nuclear winter or STFU. 4) This has already been done before. 6) You're team-killing $%&@tards. Edited January 6, 2011 by Pravus Ingruo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 U mad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 This poll is about REPLENISHING nukes if you have no nation. If Ty brought 20 nukes on the sub, can he fire more because he would get more in game? That is the question. So stay the $%&@ out with Red October scenarios and !@#$ like that, it's irrelevant in here. Discuss that in the OOC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Californian' timestamp='1294085951' post='2562197']Complicating this even further was the fact that these submarines also held a nuclear arsenal totaling 20 warheads.[/quote] How can he fire two more nukes when he has already stated the subs only had 20? Doesn't matter if you can get two more a day with a WRC if he said he has 20 nukes, they can't really poof out of nowhere in the middle of the ocean when he has already limited himself to 20 warheads. Can you own more than 20 warheads at a time, but only use 20? Edited January 6, 2011 by King Timmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1294329875' post='2565887'] U mad? [/quote] Thank you for adding something productive to this conversation, bluetard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1294330039' post='2565890'] Thank you for adding something productive to this conversation, bluetard. [/quote] He is correct. This thread is not about disabling the ability to rage nuke with submarines at all, its about replenishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1294329968' post='2565888'] This poll is about REPLENISHING nukes if you have no nation. If Ty brought 20 nukes on the sub, can he fire more because he would get more in game? That is the question. So stay the $%&@ out with Red October scenarios and !@#$ like that, it's irrelevant in here. Discuss that in the OOC. [/quote] My vote in teh poll still stands, because I think the question is too vauge for this particular scenario, and it's broad-based wording would hurt other, legitimate RPs. In this scenario, because Ty specifically stated that he only had 20 nuclear missiles on his sbumarines, he should not be allowed to fire more than 20. However, if, for instance, I say that I load my entire nuclear arsenal on to my submarines, I could technically have up to 192 nukes (eight nuclear missile capable subs x 24 Trident II SLBMs (what the Ohio-class carries)). By not giving a specific number, I can continue to "replenish" my nuclear missiles up to said number, because my subs could technically carry that many nukes. In short, because Ty named a specific number, he shouldn't be able to launch more than that. If he used language that was more vauge, you wouldn't have a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1294330407' post='2565893'] He is correct. This thread is not about disabling the ability to rage nuke with submarines at all, its about replenishment. [/quote] Sorry, you may want to tell you little flock of sheep that then. I saw three responses pertaining to a "Red October" scenario, more than any other response here. Including one from Zoot. So, check them before checking me, mkay pumpkin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1294330685' post='2565898'] Sorry, you may want to tell you little flock of sheep that then. I saw three responses pertaining to a "Red October" scenario, more than any other response here. Including one from Zoot. So, check them before checking me, mkay pumpkin? [/quote] You got it, honeyboo. In any case, I'd say this was a discussion for the applicability of the IG game mechanics surrounding Zoot's OOC posts in the 'This is Not a Drill' thread. Should the IG/OOC mechanic that IC'ly we are allowed to replenish however many nukes a day when someone has relinquished any and all control of their IC nation still apply? I know very well it's possible to store more than 20-25 nukes on a fleet of subs. The question is whether or not that should be allowed. Last I checked other things possible IRL were banned in CNRP. I apologize for the confusion. If you wish, dear, I can make a new poll after we've thoroughly discussed complaints in here. Edited January 6, 2011 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1294331016' post='2565906'] You got it, honeyboo. In any case, I'd say this was a discussion for the applicability of the IG game mechanics surrounding Zoot's OOC posts in the 'This is Not a Drill' thread. Should the IG/OOC mechanic that IC'ly we are allowed to replenish however many nukes a day when someone has relinquished any and all control of their IC nation still apply? I know very well it's possible to store more than 20-25 nukes on a fleet of subs. The question is whether or not that should be allowed. Last I checked other things possible IRL were banned in CNRP. I apologize for the confusion. If you wish, dear, I can make a new poll after we've thoroughly discussed complaints in here. [/quote] I don't think a new poll is necessary, darling. As I stated previously, since Ty specifically said "I have 20 nukes on these subs", he's handcuffed in my opinion. If he had been more vague, just given the capacity of the subs, he would have been fine. At that point, even though the IG mechanic would have been "replenishing", he was really just firing off nukes that he already had in stock on the subs. I see no issue with anyone [b]saying[/b] they have more than 20-25 nukes stored on subs. They just can't fire more than 20-25 in a day, and only 1-2 everyday after that (until they stop firing and their stock replenishes). Like I said, I feel this poll's wording is too vague and will hurt legitimate RP in the future, rather than looking at this specific situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I vote no but I do not believe IG should equal one day replenishment at all times. If people are posting IC actions of every couple hours, physically constructing a nuclear bomb every couple hours and mounting it on a delivery is impossible. At the height of the Cold War arms build up when regular production was going a weapon took a week to be constructed and then there is the process of mounting it on a delivery vehicle, a several hour task by itself assuming they are even in the same general area. Whereas the normal standard time is one month= 1 year CN RP and a day could work then, during combat scenarios I think it should take a two weeks IC to assemble and deploy a new warhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1294331443' post='2565910'] I don't think a new poll is necessary, darling. As I stated previously, since Ty specifically said "I have 20 nukes on these subs", he's handcuffed in my opinion. If he had been more vague, just given the capacity of the subs, he would have been fine. At that point, even though the IG mechanic would have been "replenishing", he was really just firing off nukes that he already had in stock on the subs. I see no issue with anyone [b]saying[/b] they have more than 20-25 nukes stored on subs. They just can't fire more than 20-25 in a day, and only 1-2 everyday after that (until they stop firing and their stock replenishes). Like I said, I feel this poll's wording is too vague and will hurt legitimate RP in the future, rather than looking at this specific situation. [/quote] I am really unsure that the rules is 20-25 nukes a DAY then a trickle. Wasn't it 20-25 in existence? Wasn't there a big hulabaloo over that? Isn't that why we have no MARV's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1294331681' post='2565915'] I am really unsure that the rules is 20-25 nukes a DAY then a trickle. Wasn't it 20-25 in existence? Wasn't there a big hulabaloo over that? Isn't that why we have no MARV's? [/quote] You're completely missing what I am saying. I'm using this specific example. Ty fired all 20 of his nukes at once. [b]IF[/b] he had not said [b]specifically[/b] how many nukes were on the subs (we're dealing with a hypothetical now) then he could fire only 2 a day from now on until he could no longer get nukes IG or hit whatever magical number (I think he had 6 subs so 6 x 24 = 144 - 20 = 124 left, minus the one sub with 23 left (launched one then sunk) gives us 101 nukes/2 per day = Ty being able to carry on like this (launching 2 per day) for 50 days (assuming none of his other subs were sunk) and then launch one nuke on the last day). I personally think it to be stupid to assume nations only have 20-25 nukes in existence. I always have. My interpretation was always that due to IG mechanics, we could only have 20-25 that could [b]FIRE[/b] at any given time. But that's just me. Again, we're in a hypothetical now. My position on the current situation has already been stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1294332251' post='2565924'] You're completely missing what I am saying. I'm using this specific example. Ty fired all 20 of his nukes at once. [b]IF[/b] he had not said [b]specifically[/b] how many nukes were on the subs (we're dealing with a hypothetical now) then he could fire only 2 a day from now on until he could no longer get nukes IG or hit whatever magical number (I think he had 6 subs so 6 x 24 = 144 - 20 = 124 left, minus the one sub with 23 left (launched one then sunk) gives us 101 nukes/2 per day = Ty being able to carry on like this (launching 2 per day) for 50 days (assuming none of his other subs were sunk) and then launch one nuke on the last day). I personally think it to be stupid to assume nations only have 20-25 nukes in existence. I always have. My interpretation was always that due to IG mechanics, we could only have 20-25 that could [b]FIRE[/b] at any given time. But that's just me. Again, we're in a hypothetical now. My position on the current situation has already been stated. [/quote] It appears we are at an impasse. You think your interpretation of nuclear counts, while I think of mine (which is silly, I know, but I seem to recall a strict 25 nukes in existance at a time max). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1294332604' post='2565933'] It appears we are at an impasse. You think your interpretation of nuclear counts, while I think of mine (which is silly, I know, but I seem to recall a strict 25 nukes in existance at a time max). [/quote] Acutally, we're not at an impasse at all. We actually agree [b]on the current situation[/b]. My point is, has been, and will continue to be, that this poll is far too broadly worded and will hurt legitimate RP's in teh future. My interpretation of the nuke count is not really different from yours, and is in fact much more realistic. 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.