10-04-2025, 03:15 PM
I remember the days when simply making nuclear technology and ICBMS took weeks if not months to complete. Because I think in part, we upheld the community to realism standards and made sure that those who engaged in nuke RP did it "the right way".
But we come to the issue: "what is the right way?".
I think there are multiple layers here we need to talk about: from community standards, to OOC issues, IC issues/consent, and the acknowledgement of realism. I, for one, have NEVER RPed nukes in my time in PT. I have found the RP strenuous and futile. I don't think the presence of nukes in the game actually adds anything useful--except give players and nations a military ego boost. Could it be used to end a decades long arc that involved multiple players? Yes, but that's not what's always happening.
I'm on the fence here. Do I think this game would be fine without nukes? Absolutely. Do I think this game can somehow adapt to somehow allow nukes? Yes. But I lean towards the former. I just don't think we need nukes. It needs time, management, accountability, and constant checks to ensure the RP is realistic, but that's where we run into problems: who is going to actually do that? It seems like there's going to be more management and regulation by allowing them, than just banning them altogether.
I am open to seeing suggestions on how to keep nukes. I think chemical weapons are not an issue tbh. I see them differently than nukes. But I don't think I want to accept a nation going inactive for 500 years, coming back and saying, we have nukes. Y'know? It's going to need a lot of management and ideas to get something stable going, but as of right now, I'm not fully convinced of their usefulness in the game.
But we come to the issue: "what is the right way?".
I think there are multiple layers here we need to talk about: from community standards, to OOC issues, IC issues/consent, and the acknowledgement of realism. I, for one, have NEVER RPed nukes in my time in PT. I have found the RP strenuous and futile. I don't think the presence of nukes in the game actually adds anything useful--except give players and nations a military ego boost. Could it be used to end a decades long arc that involved multiple players? Yes, but that's not what's always happening.
I'm on the fence here. Do I think this game would be fine without nukes? Absolutely. Do I think this game can somehow adapt to somehow allow nukes? Yes. But I lean towards the former. I just don't think we need nukes. It needs time, management, accountability, and constant checks to ensure the RP is realistic, but that's where we run into problems: who is going to actually do that? It seems like there's going to be more management and regulation by allowing them, than just banning them altogether.
I am open to seeing suggestions on how to keep nukes. I think chemical weapons are not an issue tbh. I see them differently than nukes. But I don't think I want to accept a nation going inactive for 500 years, coming back and saying, we have nukes. Y'know? It's going to need a lot of management and ideas to get something stable going, but as of right now, I'm not fully convinced of their usefulness in the game.
![[Image: Your-paragraph-text-60.png]](https://i.ibb.co/Jwww0CVb/Your-paragraph-text-60.png)