[Vote] (6-15) Nuclear Non-Proliferation WC Changes

Approval Vote (select all options you'd be okay with)

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
Not open for further replies.


Baller Magnus
Dec 31, 2005

(6-15) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Triggers 15 Turns of Locked War, No Sanctions​

What to changeCurrentProposedRationale
Nuclear Non-ProliferationAll Civilizations are prevented from constructing new nuclear weapons (Atomic Bomb and Nuclear Missile). Weapons already constructed, however, are not disarmed.All Civilizations are prevented from constructing new nuclear weapons (Atomic Bomb and Nuclear Missile). Weapons already constructed, however, are not disarmed.

Any Civilization that uses nuclear weapons will automatically be locked into war with all civs (excluding vassals) for 15 turns.

Other civs gain no warmongering penalty for declaring on the civ as part of this. They still receive warmongering for capturing cities.

Unlike coop or bribed wars (which only start adding War Weariness after the 10/15-turn timer ticks down), War Weariness still applies in this war.

NOTE: Any Defensive Pacts that the offender has are canceled.
The same rationale as the original proposal, except it has a timer, making it more useful as a deterrent in multiplayer.

Being at war and unable to make peace is effectively a temporary sanction (and also breaks peace deals, which sanctions don't).

(6-15a) Nuclear Non-Proliferation forbids using nukes at all​

Proposal: While Nuclear Non-Proliferation resolution is active, all players cannot build or use nukes (Atomic Bomb, Nuclear Missile).

Rationale: Instead of adding a potential death trap for the AI and new players, we simply stop nukes from being fired. The World Congress is just so powerful in this game that it can forcibly enforce anything passed, even to already sanctioned players. If you want to use your nukes, repeal the resolution, but you risk others nuking you.
Last edited:
My general feel on this one is that this idea is undercooked.

I like the direction it's heading --inspiring a global war from this weapon use-- but I think there's too many inconsistencies. If you're the "top dog" in a defensive alliance, wielding nukes, and you use it against your enemies, why would your defensive pact allies turn on you, even if there's a congress resolution (which they might not have voted for...). It just takes the Sanctions Resolution problems and puts them into overdrive.

It also has every civ declaring war against the attacker, then a bunch of caveats to make it so that doesn't destroy everyone's mutual relationships, instead of having the attacker declare war against everyone else. Would have been much cleaner to have nuke-user auto-declare on the world.
Not a fan.

I don't like the idea of being forced into a war by an external game event if I wasn't nuked or didn't do the nuking.
The status quo implies the World Congress has the power to enforce no building nukes, but no power to stop nukes from being used.
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom