Posted: Oct 09 2003
It looks like Battlegoat is planning to let players start without nuclear weapons (they can of course build them later) even if the country in question is a nuclear power(has nukes today).
They hope to prevent something like an early "Zergling Rush" were everyone just would launch the weapons before much time has progressed.
The comment can be found in the "Future Unit - European Bomber" thread.
I agree that a tactic like this (with full arsenals) would end the game quite early,but the result might be that everyone looses.
In case the player would receive retaliation from another player then it would be punished by the WM.
In fact I remember someone from BG mention "incomming WM ICBMs".
So in the end he would have to pay for his actions because Supreme Ruler 2010 (unlike Starcraft DOES simulate consequences.
Even if he wouldnt be punished by the WM then he would still have to suffer from internal troubles like revolting people.
And in case that the show is going on the world map then I just assume that there always will be somoene with an active nuclear arsenal so that there will be retaliation.
And since SR 2010 also features fallout I dont think that the remaining wastelands wont be of much use anymore so the player who is left wont be able to claim the resources left.
So there is no "real" power gain,much more a loss for everyone.
As opposed to the "Zergling Rush" in Starcraft.
Nuclear combat is simply damn risky when there is a balance of forces.
Im sure there are whole books about whether it is possible to win a nuclear war or not.
As long as there are consequences I dont really see an option to "abuse" these weapons.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-10-09 07:45 ]</font>
They hope to prevent something like an early "Zergling Rush" were everyone just would launch the weapons before much time has progressed.
The comment can be found in the "Future Unit - European Bomber" thread.
I agree that a tactic like this (with full arsenals) would end the game quite early,but the result might be that everyone looses.
In case the player would receive retaliation from another player then it would be punished by the WM.
In fact I remember someone from BG mention "incomming WM ICBMs".
So in the end he would have to pay for his actions because Supreme Ruler 2010 (unlike Starcraft DOES simulate consequences.
Even if he wouldnt be punished by the WM then he would still have to suffer from internal troubles like revolting people.
And in case that the show is going on the world map then I just assume that there always will be somoene with an active nuclear arsenal so that there will be retaliation.
And since SR 2010 also features fallout I dont think that the remaining wastelands wont be of much use anymore so the player who is left wont be able to claim the resources left.
So there is no "real" power gain,much more a loss for everyone.
As opposed to the "Zergling Rush" in Starcraft.
Nuclear combat is simply damn risky when there is a balance of forces.
Im sure there are whole books about whether it is possible to win a nuclear war or not.
As long as there are consequences I dont really see an option to "abuse" these weapons.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-10-09 07:45 ]</font>