Nuclear powers

[JuliaAJA]

I have always considered Cildania to have a strong agricultural sector. Cildania has an official capacity for nuclear weapons though the nuclear weapons themselves have never been thoroughly discussed in parliament. I do not see why there should not be a balance of certain powers.

[Khaler]

We RP very unrealistically. Anyone can do almost anything. The nations are already too balanced, so it's only through RP that we can really add some inequality.
Colonies should also count for something for nations that have them (added population, therefore added taxes).

Last I checked we RP to have fun. Some might find "unrealistic" fun, while some might not. In the end it should be up to the players in every unique RP-event what they want. The more rules and restrictins equals less fun.

[Siggon Kristov]

We RP very unrealistically. Anyone can do almost anything. The nations are already too balanced, so it's only through RP that we can really add some inequality.
Colonies should also count for something for nations that have them (added population, therefore added taxes).

Last I checked we RP to have fun. Some might find "unrealistic" fun, while some might not. In the end it should be up to the players in every unique RP-event what they want. The more rules and restrictins equals less fun.

I'm not all for more rules and restrictions, but a few players could at least try to accept some humility. Gaduridos, for example... I deliberately tried to RP it as a 3rd world nation to add some diversity and imbalance.

When everyone is using the last part of a "fun RP" war thread to argue OOCly about who should win, it isn't so fun anymore. Everyone wants to play the same game, and win at the same time while expecting everyone else to lose in this perfectly balanced and equal world. How fun would war be if over 70% of the nations have nuclear weapons? How fun would war be when everyone wants to be all great and invincible?

Check out pages 10 & 11 of the "Great Dovani War" thread.
Or check out page 8 in the thread about the war in Keymon.

The reasons they put rules and regulations is that you'll find a group of players wanting to RP a war, and both sides expect to win, so they spend most of the time arguing who should win. Since the game variables are things we can't change, as players, the outcome of wars will never be biased. It's good when a player ignores the game variables and accepts defeat when he could instead easily win according to the rules, but we hardly have that; we have players bickering about who should be allowed to have what. Everyone wants their nation to be invincible in every war, having the biggest strongest army with the fanciest technology. Where are the 3rd world countries? We could RP as 3rd world countries. The few things we can change are the budget. We should at least use our budgets as a part of RP. The nation with the highest taxes and highest government spending shouldn't RP as the most libertarian Capitalist societies. The nations with all the pacifist laws, especially with terribly low spending in Defence, Infrastructure/Transport & Science/Technology, shouldn't RP as nuclear superpowers.

[EEL123]

Maybe we could use the NPI (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4772). Any country under a certain score shouldn't have nukes, unless they have a very good explanation.

[Siggon Kristov]

Maybe we could use the NPI (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4772). Any country under a certain score shouldn't have nukes, unless they have a very good explanation.

I don't think Khaler likes that: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4781&start=0

[EEL123]

I don't think Khaler likes that

He can mock it all he likes, but we need sort of objective standard that things can be measured against when people are going to slaughter each other OOC to gain an upper hand IC. You can't just hand out nukes. Khaler can play with his robot polka band (which I have a strong urge to deride, but I will restrain myself), but if his robots are going to invade Tukarali, I would very much like him to calculate his Robot Power Index.

[JuliaAJA]

We RP very unrealistically. Anyone can do almost anything. The nations are already too balanced, so it's only through RP that we can really add some inequality.
Colonies should also count for something for nations that have them (added population, therefore added taxes).

Last I checked we RP to have fun. Some might find "unrealistic" fun, while some might not. In the end it should be up to the players in every unique RP-event what they want. The more rules and restrictins equals less fun.

I have twice had civil was with myself and the best set of rules were the second. My first set of rules did not end well for me or for Talmoria. My second set of rules worked very well for me in Barmenistan.

1) All Territorial losses and gains are decided by me
2) If you are not already involved then you are not invited.

I don't think Khaler likes that

He can mock it all he likes, but we need sort of objective standard that things can be measured against when people are going to slaughter each other OOC to gain an upper hand IC. You can't just hand out nukes. Khaler can play with his robot polka band (which I have a strong urge to deride, but I will restrain myself), but if his robots are going to invade Tukarali, I would very much like him to calculate his Robot Power Index.

Excuse me, the Massive Robot Polka Band was mine. He just came up with the Robot Power Index and the Polka Music Index.

I admire the guidelines on which a war can be fought though I like that if I want to I can have my own rules for a conflict.

[EEL123]

I don't think Khaler likes that

He can mock it all he likes, but we need sort of objective standard that things can be measured against when people are going to slaughter each other OOC to gain an upper hand IC. You can't just hand out nukes. Khaler can play with his robot polka band (which I have a strong urge to deride, but I will restrain myself), but if his robots are going to invade Tukarali, I would very much like him to calculate his Robot Power Index.

Excuse me, the Massive Robot Polka Band was mine. He just came up with the Robot Power Index and the Polka Music Index.

I admire the guidelines on which a war can be fought though I like that if I want to I can have my own rules for a conflict.

Okay, your robot polka band. But my point remains the same.

[Khaler]

I'm not all for more rules and restrictions, but a few players could at least try to accept some humility. Gaduridos, for example... I deliberately tried to RP it as a 3rd world nation to add some diversity and imbalance.

And that is exactly what I meant, players (you) doing what they want to do. Gaduridos actually has a history of 3rd world reigns in the past, and so do many other nations.

When everyone is using the last part of a "fun RP" war thread to argue OOCly about who should win, it isn't so fun anymore. Everyone wants to play the same game, and win at the same time while expecting everyone else to lose in this perfectly balanced and equal world. How fun would war be if over 70% of the nations have nuclear weapons? How fun would war be when everyone wants to be all great and invincible?

The reasons they put rules and regulations is that you'll find a group of players wanting to RP a war, and both sides expect to win, so they spend most of the time arguing who should win. Since the game variables are things we can't change, as players, the outcome of wars will never be biased. It's good when a player ignores the game variables and accepts defeat when he could instead easily win according to the rules, but we hardly have that; we have players bickering about who should be allowed to have what. Everyone wants their nation to be invincible in every war, having the biggest strongest army with the fanciest technology. Where are the 3rd world countries? We could RP as 3rd world countries. The few things we can change are the budget. We should at least use our budgets as a part of RP. The nation with the highest taxes and highest government spending shouldn't RP as the most libertarian Capitalist societies. The nations with all the pacifist laws, especially with terribly low spending in Defence, Infrastructure/Transport & Science/Technology, shouldn't RP as nuclear superpowers.

That is nothing new, it has always been like that. I have been part of dozens OOC-whining contests, aswell as dozens of threads like these where people try to come up with solutions. People don't understand that point of RP is not to win, but to have fun. The winning-attitude is the problem, and it does not go away with things like the NPI, that only makes it worse. Now people might argue over it, and in the end some times nation A may win and some times nation B, but if we start using some kind of charts and indexes, nation A will always win and nation B will always lose. And while that cuts the OOC-whining, it just limits the RP-possibilities, which is always a bad move.

but we need sort of objective standard that things can be measured against when people are going to slaughter each other OOC to gain an upper hand IC.

In theory, why not, but in reality, no. The economics and other stats of this game are broken and static, they can not be changed through the players actions, thus such set of standards will render certain nations to always win and others to always lose regardless what the players do in those nations. That is not the answer to this problem and will cause even more problems in the end. The game engine is just not good enough for what you want, as it was never meant to be used for international conflicts, so the solution can not come from game statistics.

My solution has not changed in 5 years, and it is simple: agree on a winner before you even start. It has worked every time.

[EEL123]

The winning-attitude is the problem, and it does not go away with things like the NPI, that only makes it worse. Now people might argue over it, and in the end some times nation A may win and some times nation B, but if we start using some kind of charts and indexes, nation A will always win and nation B will always lose. And while that cuts the OOC-whining, it just limits the RP-possibilities, which is always a bad move.

The NPI will define the power of a nation, but does not unreasonably restrict RP. For example, by any measure, the US is among the most powerful, if not the most powerful, nation in the world. Yet that does not necessarily mean that all of its enemies are automatically doomed to annihilation. Look at the Viet Cong and the Taliban. They've given the Americans one hell of a lot of trouble. Same with the NPI. It is a measure of how powerful a nation is; how a nation uses its power is at the sole discretion of the players. We will not use the NPI to say, "I've got a higher score than you do, so you die! [Hysterically evil laugh]". It's more, "This is what you've got. Do what you will with it".

The economics and other stats of this game are broken and static, they can not be changed through the players actions, thus such set of standards will render certain nations to always win and others to always lose regardless what the players do in those nations.

it was never meant to be used for international conflicts.

Lots of the inputs can be changed. For example, you can easily adjust your military budget or any other aspect of your budget. Budgets spent on different areas are the most important factor in determining your NPI, by far. Then there are several other modifiable inputs such as whether conscription and paramilitaries and allowed, or the distribution of seats in the national legislature, or your budget surplus. Unchangeable stuff like your land area play a comparatively smaller role.
The NPI is not static. Only very small parts are frozen; the rest is just as changeable as military strategy. It also allows legislation to have some sort of flow-on effect to RP; otherwise the game and RP are nearly completely autonomous.