|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Jul 16, 2023 22:03:43 GMT
The following will be a simple selection of rules to create a more interesting environment for Cold War Rps.
Message interception: I believe that Message interception should be available to both the U.S and USSR from the start of a game, with a 9 dice roll being a successful cracking, and a 6 alerting those you are attempting to intercept. Other countries should be able to research the ability to use interception, and research should be available on both sides to either make interception more or less effective
Secret projects should be an option. They should of course be reasonable for the time. If one is used and it is not considered reasonable, it can either have it's research time extended, or be completely thrown out from the game if considered truly too op. The name of the project should be posted openly, and a description should be posted in a spoiler. That way, by using message interception, it would be possible for other players to find out what was researched.
Nuclear warfare: This is the biggest one. Obviously nukes should have major consequences, but what should said consequences be? I personally think that a single nuke should be able to level a decent sized city, and 3 should level major cities or capitals. Any armies in city fighting scenarios would be killed, from either side. This incentivizes a more air and artillery based approach when things go nuclear, as to space units further apart. We could also include some sort of radiation penalty, but I haven't thought of one specifically.
So, what do yall think?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 17, 2023 4:03:27 GMT
The following will be a simple selection of rules to create a more interesting environment for Cold War Rps. Message interception: I believe that Message interception should be available to both the U.S and USSR from the start of a game, with a 9 dice roll being a successful cracking, and a 6 alerting those you are attempting to intercept. Other countries should be able to research the ability to use interception, and research should be available on both sides to either make interception more or less effective Secret projects should be an option. They should of course be reasonable for the time. If one is used and it is not considered reasonable, it can either have it's research time extended, or be completely thrown out from the game if considered truly too op. The name of the project should be posted openly, and a description should be posted in a spoiler. That way, by using message interception, it would be possible for other players to find out what was researched. Nuclear warfare: This is the biggest one. Obviously nukes should have major consequences, but what should said consequences be? I personally think that a single nuke should be able to level a decent sized city, and 3 should level major cities or capitals. Any armies in city fighting scenarios would be killed, from either side. This incentivizes a more air and artillery based approach when things go nuclear, as to space units further apart. We could also include some sort of radiation penalty, but I haven't thought of one specifically. So, what do yall think? 1. To the first one, I agree. It makes the game more interesting and comparable to the real cold war. However, I do not want this to extend to any other RPs which takes place in the pre WW1 period. 2. No. It would make the powerful countries even more powerful because while poorer countries develop industry, the rich ones develop secret projects and soon the power gap would increase by a lot. 3. No nukes. I mean, a dozen nukes could easily wipe out my 4 million men and I would be defenseless in a first strike. Playing as India, the only thing on my side is numbers and nukes offset that advantage. For a compromise, I think nukes should be used only on their own soil, against an attacking enemy. And it should be wielded only by USA and USSR |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Jul 17, 2023 10:01:13 GMT
1 and 2 - agree with John Marston3 - if nukes are allowed, then it seems like any IRL nuclear nation should be allowed to research them, and probably even near-nuclear nations like Japan. At the very least nukes should be available to China and probably India/Pakistan (especially since they've united in the current RP). There definitely need to be some restrictions either on use or on effect, I don't think we can rely on MAD alone. We could hardcode MAD and say no offensive first strikes are allowed against nuclear or aligned states (basically a softer version of the rule proposed by John Marston). Strikes against non-aligned non-nuclear states would be allowed, but probably with some kind of negative consequences. Smaller countries for the most part would have to align with a nuclear power for protection; that's probably ok. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jul 17, 2023 10:10:26 GMT
1 and 2 - agree with John Marston3 - if nukes are allowed, then it seems like any IRL nuclear nation should be allowed to research them, and probably even near-nuclear nations like Japan. At the very least nukes should be available to China and probably India/Pakistan (especially since they've united in the current RP). There definitely need to be some restrictions either on use or on effect, I don't think we can rely on MAD alone. We could hardcode MAD and say no offensive first strikes are allowed against nuclear or aligned states (basically a softer version of the rule proposed by John Marston). Strikes against non-aligned non-nuclear states would be allowed, but probably with some kind of negative consequences. Smaller countries for the most part would have to align with a nuclear power for protection; that's probably ok. I mostly agree with John Marston and you. The point in the beginning of the Cold War was that only the US and the USSR had nukes though, this was what made them special. So, I agree with John Marston about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 17, 2023 15:07:03 GMT
1. The thing is still that alternative means of communication exist. I suggest that we will allow certain actions (eg. nuke transportation) to be hidden in spoilers and then these can be attempted to crack. 2. Agree with John Marston. 3. I already held the UN meeting following the nuking, but you all just defending USA. I think there should be some diplomatic penalties from using nukes unprovoked (reduced production, lower army morale etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jul 17, 2023 15:20:53 GMT
1. The thing is still that alternative means of communication exist. I suggest that we will allow certain actions (eg. nuke transportation) to be hidden in spoilers and then these can be attempted to crack. 2. Agree with John Marston. 3. I already held the UN meeting following the nuking, but you all just defending USA. I think there should be some diplomatic penalties from using nukes unprovoked (reduced production, lower army morale etc.). 1. Should there be a limit to how many posts you can try to crack in a certain amount time or page? Or should you be able to do it as much as you want? If there is a limit, as there's no way you can know which message to crack, it'd be based completely on luck. 3. Agreed. If someone used a nuked irl, many non-aligned countries would vote against them, and perhaps join the other alliance. The thing is, we don't have enough neutral countries for this to be be possible. The alliance with more members will always win in the UN, so it'd be unfair and unrealistic. I agree that nukes should be as limited as possible. Otherwise, everyone would just produce nukes, and the one with the most would win by just destroying all its enemies. Nukes shouldn't be be-all and end-all. It'd be unfair to both the countries without nukes, and the ones with less nukes. I also think nukes should be limited to only the US and the USSR as John Marston said. Because that's the whole point. If everyone had nukes, it'd be meaningless. If three countries could develop nukes, two of them might join the same alliance, which would make that alliance too OP. Like I said, I think nukes shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jul 17, 2023 20:02:39 GMT
For the nukes thing, I think there should be several levels. The USA and Soviet Union are the only two who should be able to get nukes at the very beginning of the game, but nations that have already had or will have a nuclear program can get stuff like Atomic, and much later Hydrogen Bombs.
|
|
