Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Proposal: Multiple Missiles

unpopular 2-4 failed by card

Adminned at 24 Aug 2017 20:57:46 UTC

Amend in section “Missiles”:

Each CIC, except for the UNSG, is either targeting missiles at, or not targeting missiles at, each other CIC. The CICs at which a CIC is targeting missiles may be referred to as that CIC’s “targets”, defaulting to none, and is tracked privately by the UNSG.
As a Command action, a CIC may target another CIC that they are not currently targeting as long as the new number of targeted CICs does not exceed the amount of Missile resources.
As a Command action, a CIC may cease targeting a CIC that they are currently targeting.

to:

Each CIC, except for the UNSG, is targeting a number of missiles at each other CIC. The CICs at which a CIC is targeting missiles may be referred to as that CIC’s “targets”, defaulting to none, and is tracked privately by the UNSG.
The number of missiles targeted at a target is referred to as the missiles “dedicated” to that CIC.
As a Command action, a CIC may change the amount of missiles dedicated to a CIC as long as the new total sum of dedicated missiles does not exceed the amount of Missile resources.

Amend in section “Ticks”:

If A and B are both targeting each other, rolling DICE20. If it is 1 through 10, A and B are each Nuked by the other. When a CIC is Nuked, they lose 1/8 IE for each IE that CIC has at the beginning of the Tick, rounded randomly to a whole IE. For each IE a CIC loses this way, they gain 5 Recovery. A whole number W with a fractional part N/D is “rounded randomly” to W+1 if DICE(D) is less than or equal to N, or to W if it is greater than N.

to

    • If A is targeting B, but B is not targeting A, A gains the amount of IE that equals the missiles from A dedicated to B and B loses the same amount of IE that A gains.
      If B is targeting A, but A is not targeting B, B gains the amount of IE that equals the missiles from B dedicated to A and A loses the same amount of IE that B gains.
      If A and B are both targeting each other, the CIC with the most dedicated missiles towards the other CIC gains the difference between the missiles dedicated from them to the other CIC, and the amount of missiles the other CIC is dedicating to them. The other CIC loses the same amount. Then the UNSG shall roll a XDICE20, where X is the lesser amount of missiles one in the pair has dedicated towards the other. The amount of numbers between 1 through 10 is the amount of times that A and B Nuke each other. When a CIC is Nuked, they lose 1/8 IE for each IE that CIC has at the beginning of the Tick, rounded randomly to a whole IE. For each IE a CIC loses this way, they gain 3 Recovery. A whole number W with a fractional part N/D is “rounded randomly” to W+1 if DICE(D) is less than or equal to N, or to W if it is greater than N.
  • Reducing Recovery due to nuclear holocaust this can cause.

    Comments

    card:

    23-08-2017 22:18:12 UTC

    “dedicated to a CIC as long as the new total sum of dedicated missiles does not exceed the amount of Missile resources.”
    Whose resources? If it’s the CIC which is being targeted, would that allow them to set their military to under 5 and not be targeted at all?

    Also you removed the portion about politicians.

    pokes:

    24-08-2017 01:06:18 UTC

    I don’t see where this gets rid of politicians, and “whose resources” seems clear from context.

    for

    Sesquipedalian:

    24-08-2017 04:20:55 UTC

    It does seem like it should be spelled out. Also, I think this will place too much of an emphasis on missiles and allow IE to be lost and gained too quickly.
    against

    Kevan: Oracle he/him

    24-08-2017 07:42:56 UTC

    against

    derrick: he/him

    24-08-2017 14:03:02 UTC

    against

    Thunder: he/him

    24-08-2017 19:03:48 UTC

    I’m assuming that all of you are voting against for Sesquipedalian’s reasons (since you didn’t give any other reasons).
    1. The “Missile resources” thing is already in the rules. If that was an issue it already would be one.
    2. Check the before and after amendments. I didn’t change any of the politician stuff, being outside the modified text.
    3. People were also worried about that happening with politicians, which didn’t happen. The Cold War did also involve massive military build-ups.
    4. I will make one with the IE more or less halved, if there is enough support.
    Would the no-votes support one with a lower IE cost?

    card:

    24-08-2017 20:45:33 UTC

    against for being triple the size of the rule it’s replacing. While not always the case in these games, I do feel that having too much complexity can cause issues. In this case I feel like it increases the confusion creep in the rules.