Skip to Content
 

Nuclear War

2 replies [Last post]
Matt201
Matt201's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/29/2010

So I've had this idea for a while where the object of the game is to sneak a nuclear warhead into your enemy's territory (either one- a capital city, or several hit points- population centres).

Each player is the leader of a Super power, and the catch is you don't have enough resources to advance, so you are relying on trade with other people (for example, one area is rich in uranium, but has no money to fund anything, so they rely on selling uranium to other powers). You can also agree to apply sanctions on players to try and slow their progress, but the people you enter an alliance with may just have a nuke of their own heading your way!

There are a variety of ways to transport nuclear weapons, the easiest one being nuclear submarines, because enemy forces can't see them. In this respect, that part of the game is a little bit like battleship, where except for bombing random sea zones you ping them, and you can also blockade area(s) with battleships, etc. And because the subs are always moving, the player can only mark last known positions and are never too sure of where an enemy sub is exactly, or if it's carrying a nuke or not.

You can also have nukes on battleships (and maybe planes if gameplay allows it). If your tech reaches a certain level, you can build long range missile launchers, and don't even need to sneak the nuke into enemy territory.

I'm not sure how serious to make this (a deep strategy in a Cold War setting or a tongue-in-cheek sort of approach).

It's just a really rough idea, and any input would be great.
Cheers

RGaffney
RGaffney's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
I like the nuking idea, and

I like the nuking idea, and the way it provides a natural time limit on game play. Essentially you are playing a German style economic victory game until suddenly 'MERICA! you just got obliterated.

I would think about about a single nuke victory condition, so the goal isn't so much "be the last to survive" as "be the first to nuke somebody" that way you don't get a whittling down of the players into an eventual drawn out standoff between 2 while everyone else is bored.

I think it should be tongue-in-cheek. Call it something like "Kablowey" and pepper it with Dr. Strangelove themes. you are talking about the end of the world here, It's a depressing subject. And it's harder for players to get behind the idea of "Ok now I'm playing Russia, and winning means destroying the US and causing nuclear war" versus my goal is to yell "You just got Kabloweyed" at my roommate while I pantomime riding a nuke while waving a cowboy hat.

I think you need at least 4 delivery systems, with ascending levels of surefireness.

Truck, Plane, Sub, ICBM. the first being almost certain to fail, the last being an unstoppable economic victory condition (yet another reason you don't want cold war, where both sides had hundreds of ICBMs and nothing happened.

Of all those I think your sub mechanic is going to be the most problematic, but you seem to have a good start on that, and you need to devise a good non-nuclear battle mechanic for those battleships and such.

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
So long as...

So long as a scenario results in North Korea getting bombed I'm in.

(I now feel that there should be an expansion where Human Rights Groups spur gonverments to humanitarian intervention and the Korea's can be brought together in economic peace and harmony)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut