(2-VT) Using a Nuke Locks All Victory Types for that Civ (except Domination) for x Number of Turns

[usadefcon1]

If sponsored this would be a 4 choice poll with the options being:

Using a nuke locks all victory types for that Civ except Domination.
- or -
Using a nuke locks all victory types for that Civ for 100 turns except Domination.
- or -
Using a nuke locks all victory types for that Civ for 50 turns except Domination.
- or -
Using a nuke locks all victory types for that Civ for 25 turns except Domination.

 

[Stalker0]

I think those conditions are just way too high on standard speed. I would go with 25 and 50 turns as your options. 100 turns is forever.

 

[usadefcon1]

Edited to add 25 turn option.

 

[CppMaster]

Nah, it's too arbitrary. What's the reason for that proposal?

 

[Legen]

Nah, it's too arbitrary. What's the reason for that proposal?

It seems inspired on the idea of the world sanctioning any warmonger that resorts to nuclear threats. You use a nuke, you suffer global repercussions.

I think it is too extreme as it is, but I can see it being reasonable if it is something to be added as an addendum to the "nuclear non-proliferation" WC proposal, rather than a default rule in the game.

 

[josh4]

It seems inspired on the idea of the world sanctioning any warmonger that resorts to nuclear threats. You use a nuke, you suffer global repercussions.

Sure, especially I see the western world sanctioning USA for using nuclear weapons in a war that they had basically won already.

Wait, it was considered a major victory for them, and no one gives a thing.

In a real world any sanctioned for using nukes in war never happened, quite the contrary. If there would be a real conflict, with nuclear states involved, it would be again the victors, who used nuclear weapons, to establish a new world financial, like US in Bretton Woods after using nuclear weapons, and political order like US did with big three conferences and UN, to sanctions who does not conform to their interests, not the other way.

 

[Legen]

Sure, especially I see the western world sanctioning USA for using nuclear weapons in a war that they had basically won already.

Wait, it was considered a major victory for them, and no one gives a thing.

In a real world any sanctioned for using nukes in war never happened, quite the contrary. If there would be a real conflict, with nuclear states involved, it would be again the victors, who used nuclear weapons, to establish a new world financial, like US in Bretton Woods after using nuclear weapons, and political order like US did with big three conferences and UN, to sanctions who does not conform to their interests, not the other way.

I agree with you, which is why I only see it being reasonable as part of the "nuclear non-proliferation" WC proposal. The idea of a global sanction against a nuclear warmonger is very recent, practically post Cold War era. In the WWII, nobody really understood the full implications of the atomic bomb; in the Cold War, nuclear threats were a constant paranoia that most nations could do nothing about.

 

[CppMaster]

It seems inspired on the idea of the world sanctioning any warmonger that resorts to nuclear threats. You use a nuke, you suffer global repercussions.

Ok, but a sanction is completely different than disabling win condition. Automatic sanction would make sense instead.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal vetoed.

Reason: Not feasible to make the AI able to handle this, too out of scope for the mod. Also, please make one proposal, not four.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.