W3C - Nuclear attacks and damage to neighbors

Nuclear attacks used to cause damage in neighboring countries.
The feature was tuned down.

we are considering the reintroduction of the function into Simcountry.

Your opinions are welcome.

Yes.

Nuclear weapons in the game should behave as nuclear weapons in real life.

Effects of a nuclear blast should be based on distance from the detonation, not on which countries border the target country. Countries within that distance should be affected, especially from radiation.

As for losses, of course there's the immediate lost from the blast, which should be relative to the distance in the real world. So, if a nuke blast in the real world affects an area of 30 miles of blast and shockwaves, it should in the game. Radiation, which takes more time and may not be immediate, should also affect hundreds of miles around. All cities/countries within that range should be affected.

Andy, I believe there should be severe penalties for using nuclear weapons. I am a proponent of nukes in the game, so this is coming from a place of realism than anything else.

In the real world, right now, if a country nuked another country,

YES YES YES!!

I would even be happy to see the price going up 10 times or more together with damage increase.

Dubletar.
Thanks for the suggestions.

I will look into it.

now,
before everyone jumps to conclusions, we will not change anything.

we will first bring suggestions to this discussion.

I would like to see this change also.

Andy,

Do you have a plan on how to prevent the old exploits from coming back?

From what I've heard, players used to use Nuclear Weapons against countries, in order to hit the surrounding countries (what weren't part of the war) with fallout. Since those nations weren't part of the war, there was nothing they could do to defend themselves.

For balance and exploit reasons, it would probably be a good idea to confine fallout to the nation being attacked, (or at least, to nations/federations actually involved in the war) so that players always have at least some way to defend themselves.

Signed President of DanNation on LU

I'll pay you 100 bucks cash to make fallout work the way it used to Andy. No qualifiers or outs like the previous post suggests.

Best offer you'll get today.

Here are my thoughts on this:

• All attacks should be reported on International News
• Nukes could destroy weapons placed in bases/airports like in the past
• Nukes should be acquired at much larger costs than today, it should be hard to get them. Now you can buy many thousands without any problem
• Damage should be extremely higher so people would be forced to protect their civilian targets
• I don't think that rebellions is a good option, because i can simply buy free country for 30 GCs and attack from there
• Damage to the civilians could depend on material like iodine, so population would die from radiation if not using enough of iodine.
• C3 should be still protected from nuclear attacks.
• I don't think that losing few hundred thousands people would be a big deal for anyone but millions could be, so maybe it also has something to do with how much damage neighboring countries would receive.
• Using nuclear weapon

Great ideas Mndz!

Though, I dont think anyone cares much about the security council.

For the love of the game please do not do give nukes their fall out back. I was there when the great nucleair apocalypse happend on LU. I had 4 countries that took me months to build. It was devastating to see them being destroyed because other people had to push te button. All the people in favor and posting here are big players with lots of experience. For those people this will probably be a nice ‘extra’
For the rest of the players it is almost impossible to wrap their heads around the fact that they have to suffer if other players have a beef with each other. I am not even talking about exploits like nuking the country next to the one you are at war with because it probably has fewer defenses to damage them through the fall out.

Please say no to fall out!

Shhh it will be ok. I will nuke anyone who damages your country.

I think this would be great if Nuclear weapons were extremely expensive. And it caused major unrest in the attackers country. The amount of fallout damage should be enough to make everyone angry at the attacker but not enough to cripple a neutral nation.

Maybe the unrest potential should be proportionate to the length of the war and the number of casualties. Starting a war with nukes should cause massive rebellions that cripple the attackers country, while if waiting until huge portions of their population are already injured or dead it causes little to no rebellions.

Thank you Johannes

HAIL THE PINKTATOR!

Having said that here is something else to think about. A lot of people in this thread agree that nukes should cost a lot. What is a lot? Is that 5B per missile? 50B? 100B? 500B? 1T?
Ask yourself this question: Would you be able to spend 100B on 1 missle? I can and if they are strong enough I will. Will you be able to spend 500B on 1 missle? I can and if they are strong enough I will. Let me be blunt. The rich people can and will buy these weapons if they become really powerful. The rest will simply not be able to if the price increases to much.

Unrest and damage to my country? The security council? Other forms of backlash after using them? All of those are a joke. Most people stop caring about those things once they have been playing a while. I will happily suffer unrest or any other penalty.

Please

Good points Letsie...

It seems nothing will stop those that really want it. Therefore, let nuclear proliferation commence!

I think the main question is still about the damage,the price and how to defend.

Personally i would like to cause massive damage to the country i am attacking and i don't care so much about neighbors.

Price should be high enough just to prevent people from spamming these lethal weapons. 20-30B would be good enough.

Defense also needs to work differently and must be range based like air defences, because what is the point to protect all targets individually when they are hurt even if bomb is launched somewhere close. Range would also help to intercept missiles that are lauched at neighbors, so there would be no abuse. Range of nuclear defense would be higher than explosion radius.

We could also have something where the effects of fallout are very minimal if the country has enough of the required disaster relief. So someone getting nuked repeatedly would require an international disaster relief effort to mitigate the effects. It would be a way for peaceful players to assist someone in a war.

The nuclear defense changes are a great idea. Would really make the system more realistic as well.

One conclusion is clear.

no damage to neighboring countries.

It will be very difficult to make it "fair" in any way.
too many possibilities for misuse.

Seems like that indeed

Currently nuclear disasters are turned off.
They should be on but we should introduce some consequences to the use of nukes.

there are some suggestions here.

The price should increase as said here.

the problem with the existing stockpiles is smaller than feared.

Maintenance cost will reduce the appetite for large stockpiles.

We will move in that direction and introduce features arround it.

Every change will be announce here ahead of time.

In the mean time, we allow a wider price range for nukes. Will extend it to all related products.

Andy,

"Maintenance cost will reduce the appetite for large stockpiles."
As far as I know, it's only the launch platforms, not the bombs, that cost maintenance?
So people would still be able to stockpile unlimited numbers of nuclear bombs.
Additionally, even if the nuclear bombs themselves required upkeep. Players can just stock them in their CEOs instead, reducing upkeep cost to zero.
As such, maintenance cost will not prevent mass stockpiling.

"In the mean time, we allow a wider price range for nukes."
Since nuclear bombs and launch systems are a small military market, they often have oversupply.
During those frequent periods of oversupply, this change would cause them to become even cheaper.

"the problem with the existing stockpiles is smaller than feared."
I was under the impression, that there were players with thousands of nuclear bombs. That hardly seems small.

I probably have the most on LU. I use them as yard art.

Nothing like a strategic bomb door stop to be a conversation starter.

@Johanas, do you have more that this?

I am sharing as nuclear transparency is very important.

There are 23,867 countries in Simcountry, counting all 5 worlds, and including all C3s.

From the screenshot posted above, Lord Mndz has 1,691,803 Nuclear Bombs.

That is enough to drop 70 Nuclear weapons on every single country in the game, and still have bombs left over. And that is just the stockpile of one player.

Simcountry's Nuclear stockpiles aren't small, they are big enough to destroy every world in the game, many, many, many, times over.

Maintenance cost isn't controlling the size of the stockpiles in the slightest.