Page 1 of 1

Posted: Oct 09 2003
by Juergen
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>

Posted: Oct 11 2003
by tkobo
Are the regions devoid of nuke weapons ? Or just unable to use or find the ones in the region ?

For instance-
Bunch of nukes sitting in New mexico-the country/U.S. breaks up-Now although the nukes are in N.M. nobody in the new region has the codes to use them as intended.
So the people in the new region decide to use them in what ever way they can(take the warheads out of the missiles and launch them with REALLY big catapults :smile: ).
But they find out that they dont have enough trained personel in the region to remove the warheads safely.
So while the region HAS nukes-they simply can't use them correctly/safely at the moment.

Posted: Oct 13 2003
by BattleGoat
In a campaign, we are not giving anyone starting Nuclear Inventories. However, they might have some key components needed to facilitate WMD development. Since you mention New Mexico, I will tell you that New Mexico and many of the midwest states start with Missile Silos -- so that's one less thing to research and build giving it an advantage in any nuclear weapon race.

Posted: Dec 22 2003
by Balthagor
Clearly, looking at the France map and Marseille player with its silo loaded with a pair of nuclear ICBMs, this is one more thing that remains in state of flux. There are arguments for inclusion and exclusion for both single player and multiplayer but looking at where we are at now, I think that no one should start with nukes in multiplayer but single player is fine. Or there should at least be a lobby option for the host to set "no nukes". Consequences in multiplayer games will sometimes be hard to balance since most of these effects would follow you through the campaign to really be felt. Also, single player offer you some AIs with an agenda to deal peacefully. We've found it hard when all players are human not to give into our conquring nature sooner or later. Nukes might spoil some of this.

Posted: Dec 22 2003
by Juergen
"Consequences in multiplayer games will sometimes be hard to balance since most of these effects would follow you through the campaign to really be felt"

Thats sad to hear,I thought the reduction of domestic approvals might be quite a punishment when the player is playing a "democratic" country.
And wouldnt the WM retaliate a first strike with nukes?
Since these effects (as well as the nukes) are not currenlty in the beta I just cant say.

"Or there should at least be a lobby option for the host to set "no nukes". "

Do you mean no nukes at the start of the game or none at all?

"Nukes might spoil some of this"

Nukes dont,people do :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-22 07:17 ]</font>

Posted: Dec 22 2003
by Balthagor
The consequences will be there, but some players will try and “run the gauntlet” of DAR and use the nukes for a quick kill thinking the can outrun the domestic fallout. You’re right, this is a case of the player WITH nukes spoiling it, but same effect.

As for the no nukes idea in the lobby… Either? Both? What would you like?

Posted: Dec 22 2003
by Empier4552
Lobby option is best

Posted: Dec 22 2003
by Juergen
I believe that additional options in a game are always a good idea.

I would include these options in multiplayer:
1)Nuclear arsenals right at the beginning
2)No nuclear arsenal but they can be build
3)No nukes at all (why would anyone want this :wink: )

As far as Im concerned I think I will always choose number one :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-22 12:13 ]</font>