matt2004 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) [double post] Edited September 19, 2016 by Matt2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Interesting idea even if it came from Lord Rahl Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Ahhh the truth is not shown into light, its ok for SOME nations and people to have freedom to "spy away nukes" but is taboo and not ok for others to produce a large amount of nukes. You all really that butt hurt over the nukes and food thing? Jeez, it almost sounds like your alliance has a vested interest in this whole thing not coming to fruition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted September 19, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) Jeez, it almost sounds like your alliance has a vested interest in this whole thing not coming to fruition. I dislike nukes, yet I don't want to see this happen because someone in the group is gonna spy one of my members and kill something while getting caught. Then I'm gonna have to attack that person, then that alliance is going get upset about a member getting attacked, even though it was for reasons outside of their alliance's activity, and want to fight back. So now I'm in an alliance war with several alliances because I'm sure they have treaties because someone wanted to play world police. Edited September 19, 2016 by Prefontaine 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVDCCHN Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 best of luck with this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 I dislike nukes, yet I don't want to see this happen because someone in the group is gonna spy one of my members and kill something while getting caught. Then I'm gonna have to attack that person, then that alliance is going get upset about a member getting attacked, even though it was for reasons outside of their alliance's activity, and want to fight back. So now I'm in an alliance war with several alliances because I'm sure they have treaties because someone wanted to play world police. This. A much better idea is just to have a nuclear policy agreed between alliances. A treaty. From there, if members or the alliance were to not follow the treaty even when they signed it, they would be dealt with. Leave the members who have a lot of nukes to the alliance its self, not some out of alliance body that cant really uphold what it stays. 4 Quote All hail Irken All hail the Tallest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Interesting idea, I will be watching how this unfolds 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 This. A much better idea is just to have a nuclear policy agreed between alliances. A treaty. From there, if members or the alliance were to not follow the treaty even when they signed it, they would be dealt with. Leave the members who have a lot of nukes to the alliance its self, I would be very content with this outcome, personally. I believe we could consider the league a success if it never had to conduct a single spy operation. I guarantee that the league has the capacity to uphold what it says. 2 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Licorice Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 This is gonna be good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Clooney Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 So basically a group of players decided on an arbitrary "limit" on nukes because...well they give a reason, but I'm not buying it. That however doesn't matter. Ultimately people will do whatever they think they can get away with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 I dislike nukes, yet I don't want to see this happen because someone in the group is gonna spy one of my members and kill something while getting caught. Then I'm gonna have to attack that person, then that alliance is going get upset about a member getting attacked, even though it was for reasons outside of their alliance's activity, and want to fight back. So now I'm in an alliance war with several alliances because I'm sure they have treaties because someone wanted to play world police. Sounds like a fun time! 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 So basically a group of players decided on an arbitrary "limit" on nukes because...well they give a reason, but I'm not buying it. That however doesn't matter. Ultimately people will do whatever they think they can get away with. The Sheepy change is forcing the players to either be held hostage by nuke users, or contain nuke users to a limited arsenal. There's no neutral ground here as a nuke hit impacts all the players of a continent. 3 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerospear Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Hmm, something like this would severely limit the destructive power of NK and Alpha if their nukes are limited, would make it easier for their potential enemies to keep them down and get away with it, makes it seem like this group was made to counter alliances like those, but do what you will, who knows how this would turn out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) then that alliance is going get upset about a member getting attacked, even though it was for reasons outside of their alliance's activity, and want to fight back. hmm, if you can prove said nation is doing hostile spy ops against the wishes of the AA. then thats grounds for dismissal. so just give the AA's Gov a heads up. They can either choose to A: Kick said member for unauthorised attacks. or B: accept that said members actions are acceptable and take responsibility. Be it war or otherwise. Truly i'd be surprised if the latter was even chosen one out of ten times. Edited September 19, 2016 by Callum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 hmm, if you can prove said nation is doing hostile spy ops against the wishes of the AA. then thats grounds for dismissal. so just give the AA's Gov a heads up. They can either choose to A: Kick said member for unauthorised attacks. or B: accept that said members actions are acceptable and take responsibility. Be it war or otherwise. Truly i'd be surprised if the latter was even chosen one out of ten times. I think a lot of it is going to come down to the power of the alliances being spied and their willingness to initiate war over it. Once you get caught, its really not that much different than raiding in that you have engaged in what everybody considers a hostile act against your alliance. I doubt any AAs that support this initiative will pay reps or allow for a military retaliation. Maybe they will allow counter spy attempts, but even then I think its worth it for the league. There are longstanding norms from this and other games regarding raiding that everybody follows, but this I think would be a first. I'm curious to see, in the end, what will happen. Will an AA getting nukes spied risk a broader conflict by retaliating against the offending nation, even if their AA won't allow it? If they do, will the perpetrating alliance still follow through on their policy and initiate a larger conflict over it? A lot of that is going to depend on the real military might of both alliances involved and their potential allies. I honestly have no idea, depends on who it is I guess and how much the nuclear alliances value those nukes, and how much importance league alliances put on this initiative. Quote Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 I dislike nukes, yet I don't want to see this happen because someone in the group is gonna spy one of my members and kill something while getting caught. Then I'm gonna have to attack that person, then that alliance is going get upset about a member getting attacked, even though it was for reasons outside of their alliance's activity, and want to fight back. So now I'm in an alliance war with several alliances because I'm sure they have treaties because someone wanted to play world police. They won't hit you guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 They won't hit you guy. Incorrect. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Clooney Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 The Sheepy change is forcing the players to either be held hostage by nuke users, or contain nuke users to a limited arsenal. There's no neutral ground here as a nuke hit impacts all the players of a continent. So it doesn't occur to you that some alliances might want to hold a lot of nukes for reasons other than just watching the world burn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent W Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 So it doesn't occur to you that some alliances might want to hold a lot of nukes for reasons other than just watching the world burn? Sure, they do it because it's the only tool in a loser's arsenal when they're getting curbstomped. 4 Quote Former Imperial Officer of Internal Affairs and Emperor of the New Pacific Order, Founder of the Syndicate, Current Chief Global Strategist of the Syndicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 So it doesn't occur to you that some alliances might want to hold a lot of nukes for reasons other than just watching the world burn? Thanks for the laugh, haha. Good one. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Its an interesting idea in any event. I think it could also be interesting to try and get an international convention going, put some teeth behind the league. The alliances pledge to follow the limits set forth in the OP as well as state their support for league activity. With enough teeth behind it, it would make countering the spying much more difficult. Before it gets the critical mass such that it effectively becomes international law, the league would effectively work as described initially, as a more underground organization. 1 Quote Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolores Abernathy Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 If there isn't a public member list, what's to stop this from just being Mensa sponsored nuke killing? Will you target your own members' nukes the same way you target another alliances'? If an Alpha nation has 15 nukes and 10 cities, and a Mensa nation has 15 nukes and 10 cities, which one are you going to take out first? There needs to be some form of checks and balances before many players will see this as fair. The only way I could ever see this working is if every alliance sponsored xyz amount of members to ensure other alliances are also staying within the lines and aren't dogpiling on alliances they aren't allied to. 1 Quote Hullo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) If there isn't a public member list, what's to stop this from just being Mensa sponsored nuke killing? Will you target your own members' nukes the same way you target another alliances'? If an Alpha nation has 15 nukes and 10 cities, and a Mensa nation has 15 nukes and 10 cities, which one are you going to take out first? There needs to be some form of checks and balances before many players will see this as fair. The only way I could ever see this working is if every alliance sponsored xyz amount of members to ensure other alliances are also staying within the lines and aren't dogpiling on alliances they aren't allied to. The league will absolutely target any alliance that violates the rules. As the OP, I assume you target MENSA in your question. If it is required for some reason I would leave MENSA and spy their nukes - I give that as an extreme example ... I would just ask someone else to do so. I will send you a PM of an SK member to PM if you desire? Edit: to kill a double post thing. Edited September 19, 2016 by LordRahl2 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcKnox Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Mensa has nukes? 2 Quote Praise Dio. Every !@#$ing day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Richardson Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=1039 Nuclear Weapons: 0 Quote ☾☆ And Dio said unto him, "I trust you. Share my word." 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.