[GO] Targeted Nukes

[TheMissionary]

I like this idea, however it may be more plausible to make an anywhere nuke need 5 cards? Possibly all the same color or at least bbrrg, or some variance of the example?

[Armandolas]

I like this idea, however it may be more plausible to make an anywhere nuke need 5 cards? Possibly all the same color or at least bbrrg, or some variance of the example?

agree, it should not be that easy to get a "nuke anywhere"

[Metsfanmax]

Had another idea tonight about the nukes. Since only a very great fool would nuke themselves or their teammate how about a fail-safe rule that makes self/team nukes duds! no damage it would make stockpiling safer as well. The nuke rules need to change I thoroughly agree. Although I like nuke games I would prefer a modicum of control over the most powerful weapon in Conquer Land !

One could reasonably nuke a teammate with the intent of eliminating them and taking their cards in an escalating game.

[Armandolas]

Had another idea tonight about the nukes. Since only a very great fool would nuke themselves or their teammate how about a fail-safe rule that makes self/team nukes duds! no damage it would make stockpiling safer as well. The nuke rules need to change I thoroughly agree. Although I like nuke games I would prefer a modicum of control over the most powerful weapon in Conquer Land !

One could reasonably nuke a teammate with the intent of eliminating them and taking their cards in an escalating game.

??how can u nuke in a escalating game?

[Metsfanmax]

Had another idea tonight about the nukes. Since only a very great fool would nuke themselves or their teammate how about a fail-safe rule that makes self/team nukes duds! no damage it would make stockpiling safer as well. The nuke rules need to change I thoroughly agree. Although I like nuke games I would prefer a modicum of control over the most powerful weapon in Conquer Land !

One could reasonably nuke a teammate with the intent of eliminating them and taking their cards in an escalating game.

??how can u nuke in a escalating game?

Derp. Ignore my comment ;-P

[TuffyLess]

I like this idea as an additional option. It creates a more realistic situation. Can't tell u how many times, I've been forced to nuke myself because I held the wrong 5 spoils.
While it may not work good on all maps, that is easily controlled by not using it on those maps.
THUMBS UP!!

Add two more thumbs.
I support the ability to choose where to nuke over the current random.
For those maps where particular tert(s) must be held else be elim'd, this would not be an ideal option for the host to use.

If a host does opt to use on those particular maps, however; the joining players should know what they are getting into.
If they don't know - they will the next time.

[crasp]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Kinda pointless gaining something as a spoil and then having to take out a team mate or your own troops. Spoils should give you an advantage.

[greenoaks]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Kinda pointless gaining something as a spoil and then having to take out a team mate or your own troops. Spoils should give you an advantage.

that is the concept. nukes are rogue events that may or may not be of benefit.

[Armandolas]

Good for the USA that they didnt bomb alabama instead of nagasaki

[Mithridaties]

I would like to see targeted nukes! bring it on!

[emperor_stone]

just say yes to nukes

[Melkor52]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Kinda pointless gaining something as a spoil and then having to take out a team mate or your own troops. Spoils should give you an advantage.

that is the concept. nukes are rogue events that may or may not be of benefit.

Name a country on Earth who randomly targets their nuclear arsenal? What is currently in place is more like random terrorist attacks.

[patrickaa317]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Kinda pointless gaining something as a spoil and then having to take out a team mate or your own troops. Spoils should give you an advantage.

that is the concept. nukes are rogue events that may or may not be of benefit.

Name a country on Earth who randomly targets their nuclear arsenal? What is currently in place is more like random terrorist attacks.

Name a war on Earth that has ever involved dice to see who wins.

[Melkor52]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Kinda pointless gaining something as a spoil and then having to take out a team mate or your own troops. Spoils should give you an advantage.

that is the concept. nukes are rogue events that may or may not be of benefit.

Name a country on Earth who randomly targets their nuclear arsenal? What is currently in place is more like random terrorist attacks.

Name a war on Earth that has ever involved dice to see who wins.

All of them. Chance is always a factor in war, human relations, weather, intelligence, production of weapons, etc. But something as important as where you aim a thermonuclear device is never left to chance. I know. When I was in the army I served in a Pershing Missile battery. There are safe guards upon safeguards to ensure if and where a missile was to be launched.

Any other foolish questions?

[patrickaa317]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Kinda pointless gaining something as a spoil and then having to take out a team mate or your own troops. Spoils should give you an advantage.

that is the concept. nukes are rogue events that may or may not be of benefit.

Name a country on Earth who randomly targets their nuclear arsenal? What is currently in place is more like random terrorist attacks.

Name a war on Earth that has ever involved dice to see who wins.

All of them. Chance is always a factor in war, human relations, weather, intelligence, production of weapons, etc. But something as important as where you aim a thermonuclear device is never left to chance. I know. When I was in the army I served in a Pershing Missile battery. There are safe guards upon safeguards to ensure if and where a missile was to be launched.

Any other foolish questions?

Yes, I get chance is used all the time in war but they do not use 6 sided dice. That's my point.

[Melkor52]

And a point that has no bearing on the realism of nukes being launched at random. If you have a better way of determining battle outcomes than die rolls then make the appropriate suggestion in the suggestions forum. However, the discussion here is weather a targeted nuke spoils would be a benefit to the game. Since I don't advocate removing the current nuke spoils but rather to add a new type of spoils do you have a reason that another spoils type should not be introduced?

[patrickaa317]

And a point that has no bearing on the realism of nukes being launched at random. If you have a better way of determining battle outcomes than die rolls then make the appropriate suggestion in the suggestions forum. However, the discussion here is weather a targeted nuke spoils would be a benefit to the game. Since I don't advocate removing the current nuke spoils but rather to add a new type of spoils do you have a reason that another spoils type should not be introduced?

Nukes are not an overly popular setting, creating additional offshoots of not overly popular settings doesn't seem to be a good idea. I was just pointing out your argument of a 'country doesn't use nukes on itself' argument for this game type to be quite odd/poor reason for a new game setting.

[Melkor52]

Well how about this, perhaps the reason nukes aren't so popular is because people don't like the idea of random strikes. After all, spoils are supposed to help you not hinder you and your team mates. Perhaps nukes would be much more popular if they where a benefit not a potential hindrance.

[greenoaks]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Kinda pointless gaining something as a spoil and then having to take out a team mate or your own troops. Spoils should give you an advantage.

that is the concept. nukes are rogue events that may or may not be of benefit.

Name a country on Earth who randomly targets their nuclear arsenal? What is currently in place is more like random terrorist attacks.

regions aren't necessarily nuked as there were none in Ancient Greece or the Pelo Wars. Nukes is a concept. it could be the region is hit by plague, floods, tornado, tsunami, earthquake or a volcano erupted. perhaps it is as you said, a terrorist attack.

whatever the event, the region is no longer operating effectively with adjacent regions (bonuses are broken). control needs to be regained.

we could have called it 'Random Natural or Man-made Disaster' but Nuclear fits better on the page while also conveying the concept that everything is lost.

[Melkor52]

Once again your argument is invalid. Call them nukes, call them curses or call them offensive magic attacks, the point is no one unleashes these things on themselves or allies. If one receives these as spoils of war then unleashing them should not be detrimental. If just random "things" happen they should be part of the map not be spoils of war. And once again, what do you have against another game option that others would enjoy?

[greenoaks]

Once again your argument is invalid. Call them nukes, call them curses or call them offensive magic attacks, the point is no one unleashes these things on themselves or allies. If one receives these as spoils of war then unleashing them should not be detrimental. If just random "things" happen they should be part of the map not be spoils of war. And once again, what do you have against another game option that others would enjoy?

Nukes was discussed at length prior to implementation. It was agreed that the possibility of a knockout blow to your enemies or yourself was part of the allure of this 'not played anywhere else' type of spoil. We wanted to mix things up but not force it on everyone. You decide beforehand if you want to play a game with a setting that will randomly be for & against you and you get to do it on any map. You are not restricted to 2 or 3 maps as you would be if incorporated into a map's design.

As for another game option i addressed that on the previous page.

no support for this from me.
the idea is not original enough to warrant inclusion. all it will do is split those who like playing with Nukes in two, making games slower to start and reducing everyone's enjoyment.
if you don't believe me, check out the tumbleweeds rolling through the 'Join Speed Games' tab.

If you don't like the idea that spoils won't always go in your favour, don't play Nukes or Monopoly. I like playing Monopoly and take a Chance card knowing it could be "Advance straight to jail, do not pass go" or i might have "Won 2nd prize in a beauty contect, collect $15". My kids think it is soooo funny i might get 2nd place.

[BigBallinStalin]

And a point that has no bearing on the realism of nukes being launched at random. If you have a better way of determining battle outcomes than die rolls then make the appropriate suggestion in the suggestions forum. However, the discussion here is weather a targeted nuke spoils would be a benefit to the game. Since I don't advocate removing the current nuke spoils but rather to add a new type of spoils do you have a reason that another spoils type should not be introduced?

Nukes are not an overly popular setting, creating additional offshoots of not overly popular settings doesn't seem to be a good idea. I was just pointing out your argument of a 'country doesn't use nukes on itself' argument for this game type to be quite odd/poor reason for a new game setting.

Why not? It seems that there's a problem with the current nuke spoils, so why not adjust it until more people start liking it?

I'm just sayin', we can't refute the possibility that some change could yield great satisfaction from something almost worthless.

[patrickaa317]

And a point that has no bearing on the realism of nukes being launched at random. If you have a better way of determining battle outcomes than die rolls then make the appropriate suggestion in the suggestions forum. However, the discussion here is weather a targeted nuke spoils would be a benefit to the game. Since I don't advocate removing the current nuke spoils but rather to add a new type of spoils do you have a reason that another spoils type should not be introduced?

Nukes are not an overly popular setting, creating additional offshoots of not overly popular settings doesn't seem to be a good idea. I was just pointing out your argument of a 'country doesn't use nukes on itself' argument for this game type to be quite odd/poor reason for a new game setting.

Why not? It seems that there's a problem with the current nuke spoils, so why not adjust it until more people start liking it?

I'm just sayin', we can't refute the possibility that some change could yield great satisfaction from something almost worthless.

The problem is that this is likely to be less desired by the community given that this deviates even further away from the standard structure of the board game. Plus, the suggestion was to not adjust it but create a new one.

[greenoaks]

And a point that has no bearing on the realism of nukes being launched at random. If you have a better way of determining battle outcomes than die rolls then make the appropriate suggestion in the suggestions forum. However, the discussion here is weather a targeted nuke spoils would be a benefit to the game. Since I don't advocate removing the current nuke spoils but rather to add a new type of spoils do you have a reason that another spoils type should not be introduced?

Nukes are not an overly popular setting, creating additional offshoots of not overly popular settings doesn't seem to be a good idea. I was just pointing out your argument of a 'country doesn't use nukes on itself' argument for this game type to be quite odd/poor reason for a new game setting.

Why not? It seems that there's a problem with the current nuke spoils, so why not adjust it until more people start liking it?

I'm just sayin', we can't refute the possibility that some change could yield great satisfaction from something almost worthless.

The problem is that this is likely to be less desired by the community given that this deviates even further away from the standard structure of the board game. Plus, the suggestion was to not adjust it but create a new one.

spot on

[BigBallinStalin]

And a point that has no bearing on the realism of nukes being launched at random. If you have a better way of determining battle outcomes than die rolls then make the appropriate suggestion in the suggestions forum. However, the discussion here is weather a targeted nuke spoils would be a benefit to the game. Since I don't advocate removing the current nuke spoils but rather to add a new type of spoils do you have a reason that another spoils type should not be introduced?

Nukes are not an overly popular setting, creating additional offshoots of not overly popular settings doesn't seem to be a good idea. I was just pointing out your argument of a 'country doesn't use nukes on itself' argument for this game type to be quite odd/poor reason for a new game setting.

Why not? It seems that there's a problem with the current nuke spoils, so why not adjust it until more people start liking it?

I'm just sayin', we can't refute the possibility that some change could yield great satisfaction from something almost worthless.

The problem is that this is likely to be less desired by the community given that this deviates even further away from the standard structure of the board game. Plus, the suggestion was to not adjust it but create a new one.

One could use the same argument against nuclear spoils too...