NationStates

Name:
Pisciculos in Mare Magnum

Description:

Thanks to being armed with nuclear weapons @@NAME@@ has been under the international spotlight, as longer-standing nuclear world powers look concernedly towards this new entrant onto the world strategic stage.

Validity:

Valid for nations between X and Y million population (issue editors discretion)
Not valid for nations without nuclear weapons.
Option 2 only valid for nations with private industry above 30%.
Option 3 only valid for nations with state owned industry above 70%.

Options:

[option]"Your nation having nuclear weapons destabilises the whole region, and in fact has security implications for the whole world," says World Assembly Nuclear Arms Commission representative @@RANDOMNAME@@, "You have to disarm now, and wind down your military presence as well, as you're making other nations - other more powerful, more heavily nuclear armed nations - very nervous indeed. You want peace, right? You want trade with these global giants, right? Then put the nukes away."
[effect]recently disarmed of nuclear weapons the nation is trying to stay out of the way of more belligerent nations
[stats]pacifism increases, defence forces and defence spending decreases, nuclear weapons removed, industry: arms manufacturing reduces, tourism increases, safety increases

[option]"Hey, buddy, let's talk about Freedom!" exclaims cowboy-hat wearing Brancalandian @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, "We represent a treaty organisation of democratic, civilised nations that act as peacekeepers and moral guardians for the whole world. You should join our club, and help push our values on other nations. Its all about FREEDOM. Nothing to do with Oil. Freedom. Say it with me now: Freeeedom."
[effect]the cultural imperialism and high handed morality of @@NAME@@ offends many nations
[stats]economy increases, industry: retail increases, industry: automobile manufacturing increases, industry: arms manufacturing increases, pacifism decreases, slight movement towards political and economic freedoms, safety decreases, wealth gaps increase, increase private owned industry at cost of state owned industry,

[option]"Comrade, the People united are stronger than when apart," says East Bigtopian Main Camp Administrator @@RANDOMNAME@@, "You have to arm yourself against the capitalist pig-dogs, and to protect your ideology. We understand that. Come join our brotherhood pact, and we will stand together. Either that, or you can stand against us. Do you really want to do that, comrade?"
[effect]in the Brotherhood Pact all nations are equal but some are more equal than others
[stats] industry: automobile manufacturing increases, industry: arms manufacturing increases, industry: mining increases, sector: manufacturing increases, sector: agriculture increases, pacifism decreases, defence forces / defence spending increases, slight movement away from political and economic freedoms, safety decreases, wealth gaps decrease, authoritarianism increases, lose democracy if they have it, increase state owned industry at cost of private owned industry,

[option]"We don't need to join any community of nations," says proud patriot @@RANDOMNAME@@, looking up at your nation's flag as it waves in the breeze, "We stand alone and proud, and if others don't like it, that's WHY we've got nukes. My country, right or wrong! @@NAME@@ Forever!"
[effect]the nation grows increasingly isolated from global diplomacy
[stats]economy decreases a little,industry: arms manufacturing increases, pacifism decreases, defence forces / defence spending increases, foreign aid spending decreases, cheese exports reduces, industry: tourism reduces, stupidity increases, youth rebellion decreases, authoritarianism increases, happiness increases, social conservatism increases

It'd be Mare Magnum if you are going for big ocean or great sea, literally.

Thanks!

No idea why I went for the cod latin (ho ho). Was thinking that if this issue is looked on favourably would do a chain of them stemming from this one, with each title being a common saying translated for no reason into Latin.

Pretty good, although a few things about the validity:

1. Why is the population exclusion there?
2. I think the options should be valid in regards to civil rights and economic freedoms.

Population exclusion is to make it an issue for nations that feel small when they click on other people's profiles, and see that they are in the multi-billions. The issue doesn't really apply for a nation that's big enough to be an established player.

As to the validity criteria, I was thinking option 2 is for western democracies, and option 3 for communist countries, but with some wiggle room where people inbetween can go either way. How would we state those validity criteria?

"Communist countries" would often refer to nations that have banned private industry, and change the validity on option 2 from political freedoms to civil rights.

1) The population cap is going to only cause grief. I understand the sentiment that you wish to make it only for nations that feel small, but that is only going to rile up our veterans of NS. I recommend removing it. After all, there's always a bigger fish.

2) For the effect line of option 1, how about something like ''a recently disarmed @@NAME@@ is trying stay out of the way''. I also feel a small hit on tourism might be in order considering the lines both of us have made.

3) The communist and capitalist blocs... who's in them? I would quite like it if they were being dominated by some sort of superpower, which would make it clear what is being traded away here. And of course put in a cold war-ish dynamic that would make things interesting. I recommend (thanks to the NPC nation list I can do this!) either Brancaland or Marche Noir for the cowboy hat option, and either North Bigtopia or Maxtopia for the communist.

4) The lack of references to gulags in option 3 disappoints.

5) ''Our nation, right or wrong''.

Amendments made, including a Gulag reference for you. I'll stick with "My nation, right or wrong", as its a direct reference to the Carl Schurz quote. I know that Decatur said "Our Country", but the former is a better known expression of blind patriotism.

Damn, looks like I keep editing the spoilered "pre-change" version rather than the draft.

Never mind, I may as well abandon keeping a spoiler copy now, as I've lost track of the original's wording.

I'm very pleased with the edits you've made!

In option 4, I wonder if social conservatism wouldn't go up? As an expression of patriotism (a stat that is only partly covered by youth rebelliousness).

Sounds good to me!

Ok, lets let it sit, but I'll submit it soon.

What "larger and better established nuclear world powers"? NPC nations have so far generally been characterized as either backwaters or rogue states.

Issues are generally written from the point of view that your nation matters, and can aspire to the greatest heights or lowest depths of the world, rather than getting kicked around by NPCs. (Usually, you're the one kicking the NPCs about. There's actually no way to lose the war with Brasilistan, regardless of your stats, and nor is there an option to ask the international community for help and let someone else invade and liberate them.) Only if you have a really terrible military does Wezeltonia come and kick you around a little, and even then it only chips away at some remote territories of yours.

Maybe you mean small compared to other player-controlled nations, but the game is also generally based on the assumption that player nations don't influence each other, so there's no way of knowing how big other nuclear powers actually are. At the very least, it would be better to have the validity specify nations which have small Defense Forces (despite having nukes), rather than being based on population, both so that nations that have invested heavily in the military don't get insulted, and because an issue that you can never receive again after growing to a certain size is boring ("population" is really supposed to be more of a meta stat).

Implying the major conflict worldwide comes down to a stereotyped "capitalist bloc" and "communist bloc" is also kind of boring. The Cold War is over in real life, and in-universe NationStates might well have conflicts over entirely different issues. Also, as Leppikania points out, capitalism and communism are about economic freedoms, not civil freedoms.

Well, recently I rped disarming my nuclear weapons. Time to do it for real, good job mate

Trotterdam wrote:What "larger and better established nuclear world powers"? NPC nations have so far generally been characterized as either backwaters or rogue states.

Issues are generally written from the point of view that your nation matters, and can aspire to the greatest heights or lowest depths of the world, rather than getting kicked around by NPCs. (Usually, you're the one kicking the NPCs about. There's actually no way to lose the war with Brasilistan, regardless of your stats, and nor is there an option to ask the international community for help and let someone else invade and liberate them.) Only if you have a really terrible military does Wezeltonia come and kick you around a little, and even then it only chips away at some remote territories of yours.

I don't see a problem with the premise of the issue. I mean, we have issues with the premise that other nations in the region have better healthcare systems, or better education systems. Having a better military isn't beyond the realm of imagination.

Sanctaria wrote:I don't see a problem with the premise of the issue. I mean, we have issues with the premise that other nations in the region have better healthcare systems, or better education systems.

That's generally just used as an indication of "we still have room to grow in this area", though, not "we need to bow down and appease our betters or we might get glassed".

Trotterdam wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:I don't see a problem with the premise of the issue. I mean, we have issues with the premise that other nations in the region have better healthcare systems, or better education systems.

That's generally just used as an indication of "we still have room to grow in this area", though, not "we need to bow down and appease our betters or we might get glassed".

The latter is a valid approach. Just because we haven't used it in our issue base before doesn't mean we can't, or won't.

Also, option 3 should be for nations that have banned private industry, not have low civil rights. Communist countries are perfectly capable of having good civil rights. (The Mallard Islands is an example)

Leppikania wrote:Also, option 3 should be for nations that have banned private industry, not have low civil rights. Communist countries are perfectly capable of having good civil rights. (The Mallard Islands is an example)

Yes, actually I wasn't altogether too comfortable with changing the validity option to be based on civil rights either. let me make some switches. State vs private owned industry is a much better way of determining communist vs capitalist leanings.

Trotterdam wrote:What "larger and better established nuclear world powers"? NPC nations have so far generally been characterized as either backwaters or rogue states.

Issues are generally written from the point of view that your nation matters, and can aspire to the greatest heights or lowest depths of the world, rather than getting kicked around by NPCs. (Usually, you're the one kicking the NPCs about. There's actually no way to lose the war with Brasilistan, regardless of your stats, and nor is there an option to ask the international community for help and let someone else invade and liberate them.) Only if you have a really terrible military does Wezeltonia come and kick you around a little, and even then it only chips away at some remote territories of yours.

Maybe you mean small compared to other player-controlled nations, but the game is also generally based on the assumption that player nations don't influence each other, so there's no way of knowing how big other nuclear powers actually are. At the very least, it would be better to have the validity specify nations which have small Defense Forces (despite having nukes), rather than being based on population, both so that nations that have invested heavily in the military don't get insulted, and because an issue that you can never receive again after growing to a certain size is boring ("population" is really supposed to be more of a meta stat).

Implying the major conflict worldwide comes down to a stereotyped "capitalist bloc" and "communist bloc" is also kind of boring. The Cold War is over in real life, and in-universe NationStates might well have conflicts over entirely different issues. Also, as Leppikania points out, capitalism and communism are about economic freedoms, not civil freedoms.

I hear what you're saying, certainly. Regarding making a nation feel small, you can see that there's an option for those who don't think they need anybody else helping them out. Also, the mention of bigger and better armed nations is something that would be the case if the population limit is in place.

Personally, I'm not sure why there's an objection to a population based validity criteria. I mean, there's plenty of issues a nation will never get to see. This one is one that everyone can get to see, till they grow past a certain size.

What would be the point in an issue called "Little Fish in a Big Sea" for long established powerful nations in this game anyway?

Anyway, as I have already conceded that I will leave it to the issue editors to decide whether to use that validity item or not, I'm going to change the description to simply "longer-standing nuclear powers". Now no-one is saying that your nation is any weaker, they're just saying that other nations may have had nuclear weapons before you. That's reasonable, I think.

The WAC guy making not-so-veiled threats can still insinuate that you're weaker, as that's in character, of course.

For the record, re: validity, the reason I changed it TO civil rights was because that was what LEPPIKANIA initially suggested. Look back through this thread to see this, sixth post down. He helpfully observed that civil rights would be a better validity indicator than political rights. As it turns out, I think private vs state owned industry is an even better suggestion, again from the same person.