Nuclear War VI signup

[Adagio]

You mean that stockpiled nukes dissapears, if being sabotaged? I vote to that also...

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, vote on both; and I think, on reflection, that both changes are a good idea.If spies can sabotage bunkers, then that option becomes almost entirely pointless, since it's fairly standard procedure to sabotage someone before launching The Big Strike (tm) anyway.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by ADG
You mean that stockpiled nukes dissapears, if being sabotaged? I vote to that also...

Only if being fired that turn I said. Otherwise they remain.

[Adagio]

Yes of course...

[Skanky Burns]

I think spies should be able to be set to "Home defence", killing a single spy that is sent out to sabotage your production. Both spies would be eliminated in the process, but your orders would still get through. This way you actually have a counter to sabotage, and a cost associated with it.

To balance this, spies sent to spy on other players shouldn't be killed even if nukes hit the enemy city. This makes the weaker spying on others option somewhat worth persuing.

Finally, I am in this game. There's revenge to be had!

[DrSpike]

I think that's an overnerf. I concur that bunkers are not a great counter, leaving spies still powerful. Maybe starting with none but keeping my proposed rule is the way to go, since that way you have to use a turn to get them. Also, Skanky's suggestion looks a little better with none to start also, since it isn't the case that everyone will have a spy they can set to defend from the start.

[Jamski]

I like that. You need to train a spy before the "bigstrike" (tm)

As it is there's no good counter for stockpile, then spy and strike.
Well, there's not even a BAD counter.
Just adjust starting spies to 0, and make it possible to use a spy up by deploying him at home.

-Jam

[DrSpike]

Well let's separate the issues. At present there is no counter, but my bunker suggestion alone yields a counter to (maybe stockpile) nuke with spies sabotaging.

Quite possibly people think that is not enough. So vote for either:

1) bunker suggestion alone
2) bunker suggestion with 0 spies to start
3) bunker suggestion with spies able to defend
4) bunker suggestion with spies able to defend and 0 to start

More thought would have to be done if 3) or 4) is preferred. However my money is on 2), which retains spies effectiveness but makes them harder to get, with a possible counter anyway. You're only going to be able to pull off one big strike (TM) per game, and 3 turns to do it with these rules makes bunkers an appropriate counter IMO.

[Jamski]

Let's go with 2. Its a small nerfing of spies, but keeps the game mostly intact (unlike the abortive governments idea )

-Jam

[Skanky Burns]

I could accept 2 as well. 3 turns for a big strike still allows the potential target to send out 6 of their own nukes...

[Vlad Antlerkov]

I'm in. I vote for option 2.

[Jamski]

Looks like 2 is popular. Perhaps we can get 2 or 3 more players this time too?

-Jam

[Skanky Burns]

Who is listing the players who have signed up so far? Spikie?

[Jamski]

Yeah, let's push some responsibilty for something his way. He's been on this site long enough to know what to do, I suppose

-Jam

[Skanky Burns]

Its more because he started the thread. The first post is always the best spot to put a list. I don't think he does know what to do though.
You can't trust those economists.