As it stands, the top 5% of nations can acquire nukes. That’s great and all, but I was thinking, wouldn’t it be interesting if say, you could aid a smaller nation a nuke. Think of it from an alliance standpoint. The leader could buy a nuke, and then aid it to one of his smaller nations to hold onto. This does a few things. A. Muddles the amount of nukes an alliance has (the Alliance score would reflect this, but if you aided properly, it would be hard for a bystander to calculate exactly how many nukes the alliance has). B. Can be used to keep nuke costs down, by spreading them around. C. Nations wouldn’t be so quick to jump to war, because at a lower infa level a nuke can do a lot of damage. As for how to aid a nuke I propose a nuke transfer look something like 50 lvls of tech, maybe it should cost money to aid a nuke as well. You’re not aiding 50 tech either; it just looks like it to the observer. I don’t know, I thought it'd make things a little more interesting.

No. I'm too pissed off to give reasons.

Absolutely not. Nuclear proliferation is not a good in-game objective. In fact, there are too many nukes as it is.

Perhaps the single worst idea ever. No more to say than that... <sadno>

i love it

No. Tiny nations don't need nukes.

The upkeep would kill them...

Nopity for obvious reasons (same reasons which you have been swimming around and trying to make positive).

I think we should restart cn and give each new nation a dozen nukes. :awesome:

~TRE

Make that a suggestion! :P

I'd have to warn the mods ahead of time, wouldn't I? :ehm:

~TRE

What about..

- Severe thinking here -

Oh okay, if theres a smaller nation under 10 nation strength in my alliance trying to kill a rogue, give him a nuke or two, and the war is over, the rogue is dead...

Hm..

Naw

I disagree. Nuclear proliferation is just what this game needs to remain interesting for those of us who have come damned close to achiving nuclear capability NUMEROUS times only to watch the ranks skyrocket again and again leaving us in the dust.

I'd suggest a limit of 10 percent of max rank for nations reciving nuclear weapons as aid, only to keep things a little more fair for everyone.

thank you!

you dont need nukes if you dont have hte NS.

edit: i also voted for everything.

No.

How about VFABIC!!!

The game is fair.
Today's big nations were once small. Most of them received much less aid during their life time than those players who instead of learning the game and developing their nations keep whining about how unfair the game is.
You want nukes? Great. Meet the requirements and get them.

"those of us who have come damned close to achiving nuclear capability NUMEROUS times only to watch the ranks skyrocket again and again leaving us in the dust" surely do something wrong if this happens to them NUMEROUS times.

I have to agree. I haven't purchased anything but a Wonder in a month now and thusly have dropped 1.3% in the rankings. I'm still well within that top 5%. If you notice, I'm actually a couple weeks younger than Hickersonopolis. The gross sum of aid that I received as a young nation was...$6,000. Since becoming a larger nation, I've sent out tens of million in Aid. Please don't tell me it's impossible to get into the top ranks now. With the aid new nations can get, it'll take you a lot less time than it took me. (About 8-9 months).

I actually think this is pretty cool, though there would have to be some absurd consequences, maybe aiding a nuke to a smaller nation = auto sanction of both nations for 10 days.

It would be completely fine, since - as someone mentioned - the upkeep would be penalty enough.

No, upkeep on nuclear weapons is practically nothing. Even at 20 nukes the upkeep is less than 600k (without uranium) which isn't all that much to mid to large nations. When you only have a few nukes, lets say three, the upkeep cost is so minuscule it doesn't even matter.

Now, I'm assuming you are talking about aiding nations who are mid to large in size, not about giving a bunch of nukes to super tiny nations. What you are doing is essentially lowering the top 5% to around the top 20%. The requirements to get nuclear weapons were set so that they would be a reward of sorts to people who have stuck with the game for a long period of time, not some kids who have been playing for a month or so and have gotten lots aid from their alliance/friends. Sure you can support nukes financially, but you certainly don't deserve them.

To anyone who says that it's impossible/near impossible to get into the top 5%, no. Just no. When I started out I got a tiny bit of aid just like everyone who joins an alliance. I played the game properly and after the better part of a year I am well within the top 5%. Over the course of that time I've been tech-raided, nuked, mauled in a GW, had more viral outbreak events than African countries have AIDS, and I ZT'd myself for the lawls. Just stop whining and learn how to play the game.

Voted all 3 because i could...
Other than that: bad idea.

Bad idea. Voted for all because I could.

how do you get it so ppl cant vote all three?

back on topic:

@ jihadist...I was thinking more of the covert movement of nukes within an alliance, not handing nukes to a toddler nation. Nukes would still only be bought by the top five percent, who could then aid them down to smaller nations if they choose to. This idea was geared more towards adding more realism to alliance relations, like the US and USSR not knowing exactly how many nukes the other had, or exactly where they were. Like admins espionage idea.

That would be total hell for unaligned nations... and things aren't exactly peachy for them right now. :P

You accept the default settings in New Poll.

i suprisingly say yes. if it was secret i would supply so many rogues...

but only if it was secret.

I like the idea, the only problem is that if a newb fires a nuclear weapon, it would have to be at its own nation strength. If small nations go around, firing at every target, we would have another great war. I suggest allowing nuclear weapons to cost less. I mean look at Iran, or North Korea, they can just buy them from Russia or China illegaly. Why can't we do that on CN? So I voted yes. :jihad: <crying>

WOrst idea eva

BEst idea eva :J

I vote no

I voted for all because I could, but I really think no.

so any1 want to post ways to make this idea better, besides just saying no?

Get rid of it?

~TRE

Part of the reason why it's hard to stay in the top 5% is that Admin will sporadically block new registrations, meaning many nations get deleted. Most of those that get deleted are NOT in the top 5%, causing the top 5% to get even smaller while not having hardly any change in your numerical rank.

Complain about that instead. 5000 nations have been deleted in the past few weeks (I think it used to be around 37k nations, not it's around 32k).

This is the "problem" as you see it.

next vote for all because I am able/want/believe/god wanted me gets a warn

That's true.
And yet if you are a good player and in a good alliance, you should have no problems reaching nuclear-capability.

Yeah man, u rock :J, big alliances will now lure their recruits with a nuke stead of money... big nuclear wars at all scales on all fronts, BACK TO THE STONE AGE of CyberF***inNations !!!

awful idea