CNRP'40 Rule Discussion: Mergers

[Uberstein]

At the moment, there is no rule on mergers; GM powers are (intentionally) limited in such a manner that the GM team cannot simply create a rule for them, as such, a discussion and vote is necessary to introduce a merger rule.

 

The conundrum at the moment is that because there are no rules on mergers, only "precedent" from other RP's, that there is no effective way for the GM to manage them. There is no rule disallowing their existence, nor a rule allowing them. Nor anything explaining exactly how they should work.

 

So, discuss. What does the community want with mergers?

[Mogar]

No.

[Yerushalayim]

Mergers can happen. The merged nation has a total of 800 points to work with. Anything else is a gross misuse of the point system and unfairly unbalances a system created with the intent to put everyone on an even footing.

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

What's wrong with mergers? It's basically the same as two nations having a strong alliance, just under the same name. Limiting mergers to 800 points isn't going to do anything, because anyone who really wanted to game the system would just have a separate nation next to the person they wanted to merge with and act as if they were merged ICly.

[Mogar]

at least then they have to write their own posts, or copypaste them from someone else.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Mogar

[Yerushalayim]

What's wrong with mergers? It's basically the same as two nations having a strong alliance, just under the same name. Limiting mergers to 800 points isn't going to do anything, because anyone who really wanted to game the system would just have a separate nation next to the person they wanted to merge with and act as if they were merged ICly.

Yes, someone determined to evade the spirit of the game, and to game the system, can do so. I see no reason to make it easier for them.

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

You're not making it hard for them, though. They'd just go with the OOC notion that they are separate countries, but RP ICly like they are one. The pretence could be anything - vassal, Personal Union, whatever. If anything it's easier, since they don't have to go through the whole hassle of merging OOC proper.

It's not a misuse of the system in the slightest if a nation has 1,600 points, since the points would be coming from two different players. Just make the inactivity rules apply to both of them, so they both have to keep posting or something. You're trying to overcomplicate things now, and there rarely even are mergers in-game anyway.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Horo the Wise Wolf

[Generalissimo]

What's wrong with mergers? It's basically the same as two nations having a strong alliance, just under the same name. Limiting mergers to 800 points isn't going to do anything, because anyone who really wanted to game the system would just have a separate nation next to the person they wanted to merge with and act as if they were merged ICly.

I agree completely!

800 points to any merged nation.

[Yerushalayim]

You're not making it hard for them, though. They'd just go with the OOC notion that they are separate countries, but RP ICly like they are one. The pretence could be anything - vassal, Personal Union, whatever. If anything it's easier, since they don't have to go through the whole hassle of merging OOC proper.

It's not a misuse of the system in the slightest if a nation has 1,600 points, since the points would be coming from two different players. Just make the inactivity rules apply to both of them, so they both have to keep posting or something. You're trying to overcomplicate things now, and there rarely even are mergers in-game anyway.

Let's see. Which is more complicated.

 

All nations have 800 points, period.

 

All nations have 800 points, except in these special circumstances here, there, and in this other places.

 

Yes. I'm the one making it complicated. ;)

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

Let me fix that for you.
 

Let's see. Which is more complicated.
 
All nations have 800 points, period.
 
All players have 800 points, period.
 
Yes. I'm the one making it complicated. ;)

If you think that's the best way of doing it, sure. Just stay mindful that this solves neither an existing problem, nor is it a way of actually keeping people from having de facto merges with more than 800 points if they wanted.

[Voodoo Nova]

When a merge between two nations occurs, each person has to RP the 800 points on their own, so that the situation of a single person RPing with more than their 800. Should any player in a merged nation go inactive, the points from that person are gone. This prevents several people merging and leaving the nation with more than their 800 after the other players go inactive/leave.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Voodoo Nova

[Centurius]

I honestly don't see how a merged nation is any different then a MDAP bloc or something.

 

Just have every player get 800 points but they need to rp their own forces, post within the activity limits(we don't actually have rules on inactivity I think. Might want to make a discussion for that too.) and each player has to set aside a certain number of points for technology and industry so tech and industry points can't be used by someone else. At that point it's the same as having two nations, just on the map they have the same colour and they play as one IC.

[Lynneth]

I would, if anything, prefer Yeru's interpretation - all [b]nations[/b] have 800 points, no matter how many players are inside.

 

An alternative I could feasibly think of would be that each 'merged' player adds only half/a fourth/etc of their 800 points. So a 2-player nation would have 1200, 3 would have 1400, etc.

[Centurius]

I'm still not sure what the argument is that having 800 points per player in a merged nation is any more abusive than having multiple nations with 800 points each banding together.

[Voodoo Nova]

I would, if anything, prefer Yeru's interpretation - all nations have 800 points, no matter how many players are inside.

 

An alternative I could feasibly think of would be that each 'merged' player adds only half/a fourth/etc of their 800 points. So a 2-player nation would have 1200, 3 would have 1400, etc.

 

This could work for two people who RP together as one (i.e, Cent and I in Russia), without putting in the RP effort of merging two nations. (In this case, it'd be 1200 + 800 if Russia and someone merges).

 

Another way to think about it is like this: American Enclave and CSA want to merge. They either can have one nation with 1600 points or they can ICly make everything like they were merged, except on the map they are two different "countries". OOCly, there is no difference between those setups, so all the "800 per nation" rule does is make it so no one will merge into one nation ICly. It doesn't prevent the "Everything, but on the map" workaround that you'll see as a result.

[Yerushalayim]

I'm still not sure what the argument is that having 800 points per player in a merged nation is any more abusive than having multiple nations with 800 points each banding together.

Allied nations are just that, allied nations. Their economies are separate, their territories are separate, their leadership is separate. They are treated differently on the world stage than a single massive superpower is.

 

As for the "but we'll each control our own points!" argument, that's not really a factor. Any merger that's going to last for more than a few days will be a merger with enough communication for basic OOC coordination, therefore providing full access to all forces for both players.

 

Additionally, you should not be looking to merge just to gain access to more points. There are plenty of valid reasons to merge (e.g.: you don't want to have to run a military, you want to RP a story within a friend's nation, etc), and none of them include "I want this nation to have more points".

[Voodoo Nova]

With 800 points per nation, when a merger happens then the IC becomes "New merged nation economies tanks, falling into depression" and "We have double the territory to defend, but we need to cut half the military". Some countries merge for the extra power, strength and diplomatic positioning that it provides and all of it can still tell a great story. If two merged nations tell a great story for a merged nation, I see no issue with each person having 800 points apiece.

[Centurius]

Allied nations are just that, allied nations. Their economies are separate, their territories are separate, their leadership is separate. They are treated differently on the world stage than a single massive superpower is.

 

As for the "but we'll each control our own points!" argument, that's not really a factor. Any merger that's going to last for more than a few days will be a merger with enough communication for basic OOC coordination, therefore providing full access to all forces for both players.

 

Additionally, you should not be looking to merge just to gain access to more points. There are plenty of valid reasons to merge (e.g.: you don't want to have to run a military, you want to RP a story within a friend's nation, etc), and none of them include "I want this nation to have more points".

That's the thing though; the European Union has a fully integrated economy and political institution with even supranational leadership and a rapidly increasing amount of military cooperation. NATO has such a high level of military coordination it might as well be a singular armed force. The EU has seats at most major organizations and NATO is perhaps the most feared bloc in the world. That's what allied nations can achieve and blocs that contain full MDAP clauses with common markets and even a supranational government are not without precedent in RP's.

 

Allied nations can have that level of communication too and usually when they go to war they fight in perfect sync.

 

No one is saying merge to get more points, that would be if the suggestion was to give a 2 person merge 2000 points rather than 1600 for example or letting them use industry and technology from one participant in the merge. What is argued is that participants in a merge should not be placed in a disadvantageous position compared to two nations who border each other and have a high degree of allied cooperation.

[Mogar]

then start off as two nations and merge, put in the effort and stop being lazy about it.

[Voodoo Nova]

then start off as two nations and merge, put in the effort and stop being lazy about it.

 

No one is suggesting otherwise.

[Centurius]

then start off as two nations and merge, put in the effort and stop being lazy about it.

That might very well be the plan but this is a rule discussion to cover all mergers, including the ones that are the result of IC action.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

What's the issue with mergers?Sure, they would be more powerful than any single-player nation, but what do you want? Any coalition is stronger than a single-player nation. If all players are equal, then it is the side with more players that is stronger. Mergers don't change that. If you are arguing that. If you want to argue that a nation has common politics, an integrated economy, and such, well, for starters, apart from points economy is flavour RP, and every decent bloc at least has some sort of political arrangements on how to pull on issues together. If the common nation manages to get the internal support to press an issue together, then a bloc in the same place could achieve the same. And if a bloc in CNRP or CNRP2 (like TSI, the AL or the Eastern Bloc) manages to work out a common statement that expresses opinions of the bloc and may threaten action as a bloc, if you want to then go and tell me "but they are all seperate states and I won't get kicked around by the military equivalent of a massive superpower", then feel free to ignore the facts that blocs are massive amounts of firepower that can act in unison. And it is up to the bloc or merged nation to coordinate these efforts, which can go right for blocs, but can also go wrong for nations (just look at how the Pure Lands trashed up United Russia).

 

I see the prohibition of mergers as a short-sighted scaremongering, given that it penalises people from making national RP together and whoever just wants to throw their weight around together can already do so via military alliances.

[Captain Enema]

So long as there is a progression to the rp that justifies a merger. There needs to be a credible body of rp that explains why to countries are merging.

A few suggestions include but are not limited to..

* meetings

* small scale conflicts rped out privately

* Major conflicts in support of each other

* character rp between national leaders

* major sporting events hosted and attended by both countries for the purposes of fostering unity. 

 

A random merge without supporting rp should be squished. Make them go do some rp and I don't mean we should be doing word counts either. Just use your common sense and get it done. 

 

but what must absolutely happen:

 

 * the integration of the two nations must take place.

 

As for the points, I think we have two viable poll options so far.  One for 800 points and the other for 800 per rper.

 

Either way, what needs to be remembered, the point system makes us all equal. The necessity of me rping my own forces due to my ingame stats doesn't seem to be there anymore. Might want to think about this just a little bit more and ponder the greater implications of it. 

[Centurius]

So long as there is a progression to the rp that justifies a merger. There needs to be a credible body of rp that explains why to countries are merging.

A few suggestions include but are not limited to..

* meetings

* small scale conflicts rped out privately

* Major conflicts in support of each other

* character rp between national leaders

* major sporting events hosted and attended by both countries for the purposes of fostering unity. 

 

A random merge without supporting rp should be squished. Make them go do some rp and I don't mean we should be doing word counts either. Just use your common sense and get it done. 

 

but what must absolutely happen:

 

 * the integration of the two nations must take place.

 

As for the points, I think we have two viable poll options so far.  One for 800 points and the other for 800 per rper.

 

Either way, what needs to be remembered, the point system makes us all equal. The necessity of me rping my own forces due to my ingame stats doesn't seem to be there anymore. Might want to think about this just a little bit more and ponder the greater implications of it. 

I think it's pretty well established that due to your assigned points you need to rp your own stats because if that rule is gone there is nothing keeping someone from rp'ing the military actions of his allies.

[Captain Enema]

Indeed, which is why I say this in reference to a merged nation, not allies. Though, maybe its a zoot point, nonsensical, I'll think on it more or possibly forget about by lunch time.