Trading in nukes

rasqual · 08-27-2005, 05:43 AM

How about an incentive for disarmament? Kind of a "cash for guns" deal? ;-)

Not something you'd expect to hear from a Strangelove type, I guess . . . ;-D

araT · 08-27-2005, 05:45 AM

You're the last person I expected to hear this from

I've started to refer to you as Rasqual-the-conqueror

T.

elk-tamer · 08-27-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasqual

How about an incentive for disarmament? Kind of a "cash for guns" deal? ;-)

Not something you'd expect to hear from a Strangelove type, I guess . . . ;-D

Von Neumann may suggest it as a ploy to get his opponents to trade in THEIR nukes, without ever planning on trading in his own.

rasqual · 08-27-2005, 06:53 PM

And another idea -- how about nuclear shields only lasting for a given period of time? That could get interesting. In fact, I'd say this -- raise the cost of the nuclear shields, and let them expire.

Here's another suggestion that 's more fundamental, though. I think anything with economic consequences ought to be tied to statistics generated by other economic factors in the system, rather than to arbitrary factors. Mickey has already implemented some supply and demand automation on the conversion factors for commodities -- brilliant. I'm hoping he keeps up this salutary modeling methodology. So in the case of "expiring shields," I'd say the rate they expire (as well as their cost in the first place) should be a function of how much provision their is in a city-state's economy for maintenance of such a system. A "nuclear shield" would expire because an economy could no longer sustain it, or because another country's technology found ways to circumvent the shield.

Perhaps, with this in mind, no "shield" should be impermeable. Perhaps the amount of money spent on a nuclear weapon would lend it more likelihood of penetrating a shield -- no shield being 100% perfect.

Here's something else that I think might be important. If there's at least a random chance of nukes getting through to a city, then the owner of the city might be more reliant on diplomacy and alliances to prevent takeovers, than on the [realistically improbable] certitude that nukes would never get through. Invincibility against nuclear annihilation presses toward seeking invincibility through force size, meaning that those who have one form of invincibility will seek the second, becoming doubly invincible and rendering diplomacy irrelevant to them. And I suspect that in the long term, invincible powers with no interest in diplomacy could be a problem for the game.

Another thought -- nuclear weapons would themselves degrade, and need to be replaced. That, AND they would not always be available. I suggest a random abscence of availability, tied to game activity in some way (e.g., number of attacks in the last 24 hours divided by some function of economic activity in the military sector plus a random fudge factor and a regulatory coeffictient to prevent duration of this eclipse beyond XX number of hours, all of course raised to the power of whether the tax base votes for Mickey to assume Alan Greenspan's role in this world ;-)

LOL

Mickey "the Greenspan" Mellen. I like it.

Another prospect connected to an earlier suggestion that nukes take time to reach their target (enabling troops to take cover, which wouldn't save all but would at least preserve some -- the governing authority would also be responsible to warn the populace, otherwise the value of the city would be decreased as well [there's something wrong with the value of a city staying constant no matter what happens to it, merely because that's what its population actually is in the real world; maybe the population and values could change but some automated elasticity would gradually return them in the real-world population's direction, leaving the cities "intrinsically valuable" but possibly otherwise for durations consistent with activity in this parallel world Mickey's created] -- good grief, I lost my way. If nukes took time to reach their target, then perhaps, well, let me reframe a thought.

******

Maybe the efficacy of a "nuclear shield" should be tied to whether one's regional cohabitants *consent* to you having that shield.

Yes! That's it!

Nuclear shields must only be *permitted* on the basis of some kind of alliances/diplomacy!

That's such a novel thought I'm not going to think further about how that should pan out. Anyone else have any thoughts?

-_-ComputerGeek-_- · 09-10-2005, 04:40 AM

I like the idea of only having the nuke shields last for a period of time. Because the nuke shields will stay there forever and after a while the nukes will be pointless because all of the big cities worth nuking will all have shields.

-_-ComputerGeek-_-

Lukepuuk · 09-10-2005, 02:50 PM

Time Expiring nukes: Yes
Chance of a nuke shield not being a 100%: I don't know

The problem is that there are players who do nothing else but sit at their home base and just save Jewels for Nukes.
It's no fun if you are being diplomatic with lots of alliances and just get everything you worked for shot down because of one guy who is bored with the game and just wants to irritate other people.
That would be a reason for me to stop playing I think.
You should be able to protect a city for a 100%...and only be defeaten by armies who have actually worked their *** off to get to you.

I have spoken

Lukepuuk · 09-10-2005, 02:52 PM

Oh and also: being able to sell Nuke Shields. Take over cities just for the money of the shields.
That way a lot of cities will be without shields again. Especially those who become unoccupied.

rasqual · 09-11-2005, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukepuuk

Time Expiring nukes: Yes
Chance of a nuke shield not being a 100%: I don't know

The problem is that there are players who do nothing else but sit at their home base and just save Jewels for Nukes.
It's no fun if you are being diplomatic with lots of alliances and just get everything you worked for shot down because of one guy who is bored with the game and just wants to irritate other people.
That would be a reason for me to stop playing I think.
You should be able to protect a city for a 100%...and only be defeaten by armies who have actually worked their *** off to get to you.

I have spoken

Well, how about this -- if 66% of the bottom half of the games' players (net worth-wise) all send nukes at the home base of ANYONE -- they're done, Kaput. Out.

Such a policy would encourage mercy among the strong -- and intelligence among those otherwise inclined toward the casual nuking you describe.

But I'm on record as saying that nuclear technology should only be possible for the most developed nations to obtain. It should be EXPENSIVE. This would make these things of strategic value for developed players who've payed their dues -- not something that can be casually obtained by any fool.

Mickey?

Lukepuuk · 09-11-2005, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasqual

Well, how about this -- if 66% of the bottom half of the games' players (net worth-wise) all send nukes at the home base of ANYONE -- they're done, Kaput. Out.

You mean like really getting a player out of the game?
I thought that MIckey's whole idea out of a home base was that a player would never totally be out of the game?

Corporal · 09-11-2005, 03:03 AM

If the nuke shield is going to expire, then shouldn't nukes cost more to compensate?

And I wouldn't ever want to spend 250 geos on a nuke shield because it takes me long enough to collect jewels for my armies as it is. I don't have any diamond mines/oil wells/cotton plantations either. Obviously if one of the top players who's scripting all his jewel collection and stuff wants to pick a fight then I'm going to be at a disadvantage since I won't even have time to move my armies out of my cities.

08-27-2005, 05:43 AM	#1
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	Trading in nukes How about an incentive for disarmament? Kind of a "cash for guns" deal? ;-) Not something you'd expect to hear from a Strangelove type, I guess . . . ;-D

08-27-2005, 06:53 PM	#4
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	Nuclear concerns -- see end of this note, especially And another idea -- how about nuclear shields only lasting for a given period of time? That could get interesting. In fact, I'd say this -- raise the cost of the nuclear shields, and let them expire. Here's another suggestion that 's more fundamental, though. I think anything with economic consequences ought to be tied to statistics generated by other economic factors in the system, rather than to arbitrary factors. Mickey has already implemented some supply and demand automation on the conversion factors for commodities -- brilliant. I'm hoping he keeps up this salutary modeling methodology. So in the case of "expiring shields," I'd say the rate they expire (as well as their cost in the first place) should be a function of how much provision their is in a city-state's economy for maintenance of such a system. A "nuclear shield" would expire because an economy could no longer sustain it, or because another country's technology found ways to circumvent the shield. Perhaps, with this in mind, no "shield" should be impermeable. Perhaps the amount of money spent on a nuclear weapon would lend it more likelihood of penetrating a shield -- no shield being 100% perfect. Here's something else that I think might be important. If there's at least a random chance of nukes getting through to a city, then the owner of the city might be more reliant on diplomacy and alliances to prevent takeovers, than on the [realistically improbable] certitude that nukes would never get through. Invincibility against nuclear annihilation presses toward seeking invincibility through force size, meaning that those who have one form of invincibility will seek the second, becoming doubly invincible and rendering diplomacy irrelevant to them. And I suspect that in the long term, invincible powers with no interest in diplomacy could be a problem for the game. Another thought -- nuclear weapons would themselves degrade, and need to be replaced. That, AND they would not always be available. I suggest a random abscence of availability, tied to game activity in some way (e.g., number of attacks in the last 24 hours divided by some function of economic activity in the military sector plus a random fudge factor and a regulatory coeffictient to prevent duration of this eclipse beyond XX number of hours, all of course raised to the power of whether the tax base votes for Mickey to assume Alan Greenspan's role in this world ;-) LOL Mickey "the Greenspan" Mellen. I like it. Another prospect connected to an earlier suggestion that nukes take time to reach their target (enabling troops to take cover, which wouldn't save all but would at least preserve some -- the governing authority would also be responsible to warn the populace, otherwise the value of the city would be decreased as well [there's something wrong with the value of a city staying constant no matter what happens to it, merely because that's what its population actually is in the real world; maybe the population and values could change but some automated elasticity would gradually return them in the real-world population's direction, leaving the cities "intrinsically valuable" but possibly otherwise for durations consistent with activity in this parallel world Mickey's created] -- good grief, I lost my way. If nukes took time to reach their target, then perhaps, well, let me reframe a thought. ****** Maybe the efficacy of a "nuclear shield" should be tied to whether one's regional cohabitants consent to you having that shield. Yes! That's it! Nuclear shields must only be permitted on the basis of some kind of alliances/diplomacy! That's such a novel thought I'm not going to think further about how that should pan out. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-27-2005, 05:45 AM	#2
araT Licensed to Ban Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sydney, Oz Posts: 1,244	You're the last person I expected to hear this from I've started to refer to you as Rasqual-the-conqueror T.

09-10-2005, 04:40 AM	#5
-_-ComputerGeek-_- Banned Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madison South Dakota Posts: 39	I like the idea of only having the nuke shields last for a period of time. Because the nuke shields will stay there forever and after a while the nukes will be pointless because all of the big cities worth nuking will all have shields. -_-ComputerGeek-_-

09-10-2005, 02:50 PM	#6
Lukepuuk Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 847	Time Expiring nukes: Yes Chance of a nuke shield not being a 100%: I don't know The problem is that there are players who do nothing else but sit at their home base and just save Jewels for Nukes. It's no fun if you are being diplomatic with lots of alliances and just get everything you worked for shot down because of one guy who is bored with the game and just wants to irritate other people. That would be a reason for me to stop playing I think. You should be able to protect a city for a 100%...and only be defeaten by armies who have actually worked their *** off to get to you. I have spoken

09-10-2005, 02:52 PM	#7
Lukepuuk Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 847	Oh and also: being able to sell Nuke Shields. Take over cities just for the money of the shields. That way a lot of cities will be without shields again. Especially those who become unoccupied.

09-11-2005, 03:03 AM	#10
Corporal Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 83	If the nuke shield is going to expire, then shouldn't nukes cost more to compensate? And I wouldn't ever want to spend 250 geos on a nuke shield because it takes me long enough to collect jewels for my armies as it is. I don't have any diamond mines/oil wells/cotton plantations either. Obviously if one of the top players who's scripting all his jewel collection and stuff wants to pick a fight then I'm going to be at a disadvantage since I won't even have time to move my armies out of my cities.