CNRP - 2 Discussion

[Zoot Zoot]

I just had an idea, and it may get shot down, it may not. But here we go.

 

Lets get rid of the current RP2 system for stats and just adopt Evas 800 point RP40 system with the tech limit between 2009 (bottom end of tech scale), and 2014 (top end of tech scale).

 

Here is my example of a modified points distribution system.
 

Every nation has a basis of 800 points to spend at the start.

30 points per tech year. With no points spent, it is at 2009. It can be raised to 2014.

10 points per industry level. (1 being low industry, 10 being mega high industry)

1 point for 10,000 soldiers.

1 point per 300 artillery pieces/150 APC/ 100 IFV's/ 50 MBT's

1 point per 50 non-stealth aircraft/ 10 stealth aircraft

Navy-wise:

2 point per 1 destroyer

 

1 point per 1 Corvette/Litorral Combat Ship

 

1 point per frigate

3 point per cruiser

5 points per battlecruiser

20 points per carrier

2 point per 3 submarines

Carrier aircraft/seaplanes come with their ships.

 

 

 

 

Points can also be spent on industry. Industry allows a weekly replenishment of lost points in other categories at a rate of the full industrial score in peacetime and half the industrial score in wartime. The following ships need industrial investment over multiple weeks: Destroyers need 2 weeks for recovery, cruisers need 4 weeks, capital ships need 6 weeks. GMs can deny replenishment, if not enough IC time has passed to justify a replenishment.

Unarmed vehicles and armoured vehicles under 15 tons are free. (This is like some MRAP's and Humvee's etc etc.)

 

 

---EDITED TO INCLUDE FRIGATES AND CORVETTES---

Edited September 19, 2014 by Zoot Zoot

[Mogar]

make it 10 points a year and 1999 to 2014

[Captain Enema]

I wouldn't be opposed to the notion though I'd suggest waiting a couple weeks to see how Eva's system shakes out over a little bit of time. So far it seems promising. 

[Mogar]

I would like to see how a few wars play out before switching over to the system as well.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

For a start, I'm against the point system. Next, I'd like to point out that I don't see the point in what you call industry level. One cruiser is the equivalent of 6 destroyers? Reason? Basically, cruisers are worthless crap, because overpriced. Frigates and corvettes have no pricetag. Who in their right mind would take anything but destroyers and subs? So, the balancing job isn't really great either...

[Zoot Zoot]

If im honest, I completely and utterly forgot about Frigates and Corvettes. Ill make a quick ninja edit now.

 

Also, could you elaborate why your against your own system and why you think its unbalanced?

[JEDCJT]

I'll support this, not least because Russia needs a STRONK NAVY!

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I'm against it, because I'm a conservative person that hates equalisation and believes in equal opportunity, and people who mismanage their nations should not be given equal standing. No, I just think that porting a system that was made for a 40s era RP to a 21st century RP is a crap idea, because in the 21st century, fielding a one million army might not actually be easy? Nor having thousands of aircraft? In the 40s, we had at least a good few nations at that level, like Germany, Britain, France, the USSR, the US, Japan, etc. In 2000, we have one nation at that level. and we shouldn't be dozens of nations as strong as not a great ower, but a superpower. The naval system still is totally unbalanced.

 

And I see not how the existing system is broken, that it needs repair.

[Zoot Zoot]

The entire point behind my proposal was to put forward a discussion with a highly viable system. Obviously, the points do need to be tweaked for more balance and to prevent abuse, as does tech and industry points so it makes more sense and it simple and easy to understand.

 

You cannot hate equalisation and then like the idea of equal opportunity. The two don't mix.

 

As for your points on realism, that is a realm that doesn't and has never existed in the RP. We base our fantasy RP on fact (for the most part I say hesitantly), real life technologies, doctrines etc in the thing that ultimately connects the community, which is the military RP which dominates all roleplay on the fantasy boards by a clear majority.

 

If people want a large navy and airforce but a small army because they are an island nation, awesome, this system lets them and it completely removes the browser game element which if im honest, is now largely irrelevent for both RP1 and RP2 based on the proposed changes in RP2.

 

The rules we have in RP1 and 2 for that matter surround the central theme of points/swapping soldiers for planes or soldiers for ships or ships for planes, etc etc. I just think that with a little refinement, this system could be an excellent replacement for RP2's current system, which lets me honest, has had nothing but holes shot through it over its inception.

[xoindotnler]

I'm against it, because I'm a conservative person that hates equalisation and believes in equal opportunity, and people who mismanage their nations should not be given equal standing. 

Here you go. How dare people have fun instead of trying to win the game.

[Lynneth]

I just want a place to RP my fancytech. I don't care about much else.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

First, if you didn't not catch it, my first sentence was sarcasm. That's why the second sentence starts with a "No". <_<

 

Next, this system does nothing to adress CNRP, so CNRP, or if you want to call it CNRP1, will not go off the browser game conversion.

 

Also, you tell me that the sole realm we ever based somewhat on reality is the military. Well, what we are talking here is the military. Realism should have a place here.

 

Lastly, you may say that the current system has come under fire since its inception. For starters, our old community has made refinements to CNRPs system throughout its existence, in order to get a somewhat workable system. That does not mean it is broken beyond repair. It just means there ar ways to make it better. Same applies for the current system, which I don't see people to get all in arms about. Every now and then we have a debate on slight modifications, but noone has yet pointed out great major flaws that make it unworkable.

[Zoot Zoot]

I just don't see or understand your utter and complete rejection of what is blatantly a far superior system which cannot be argued with, it sets down hard replenishment rules, reasonable tech brackets, allows 100% customization of military assets.

 

Yes, the point allocations in my example are rough and DO need tweaking, but first drafts usually do. You have yet to provide a legitimate and justified set of reasons as to why this system, if refined, could not/should not, be applied to RP2.

 

Its not a discussion if you are just saying 'no'.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Zoot Zoot

[Centurius]

Sounds like someone making a problem where there is none.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I just don't see or understand your utter and complete rejection of what is blatantly a far superior system which cannot be argued with, it sets down hard replenishment rules, reasonable tech brackets, allows 100% customization of military assets.

 

Yes, the point allocations in my example are rough and DO need tweaking, but first drafts usually do. You have yet to provide a legitimate and justified set of reasons as to why this system, if refined, could not/should not, be applied to RP2.

 

Its not a discussion if you are just saying 'no'.

Superior for what? Has any of the fancy replenisment stuff yet worked? Are our current tech brackets unreasonable? Does the customisation require full-on throwing out an existing system, instead of tweaking the existing one, if it is such an issue?

 

Sounds like someone making a problem where there is none.

This, pretty much.

[Yerushalayim]

Zoot, the issue they have is that the current system works well for them. They remain, in large part, the top dogs of CNRP2 in terms of military abilities. Any swap to a points based system results in a net lose of position for them, as everything is shifted over to a more even footing. Thus you run into a "It doesn't matter what the issues are, this system works for ME, so I want to keep it!" mentality. You're going to waste your time slamming your head into their brick wall if you try to convince them otherwise. I'd suggest focusing on people who have less stake in the status quo.

[Hereno]

I'm in complete agreement with Zoot. No, the points ratios aren't perfect, but what is ever perfect? We can work on fixing them and collectively acknowledge that the system used in the other RP is far superior. It's more fun, more fair, and allows for much more interesting and dynamic relationships between states. It self-limits expansion, while still allowing for some persons to have more land and/or project more power than others, based on a highly customizable military system for each individual nation's needs. This isn't theory, it's right in front of you: the experiment has been done and the system is in the process of proving itself right now. Considering nothing actually changes until it does, I'm wholly in favor of sitting and banging out a workable translation of the points system into CNRP2 to be adopted.

[Centurius]

In CNRP40 the points system is at Alpha at best, it works in theory but it has not had a single field test yet. Only after several military engagements can a conclusion actually be made whether it works or not.

[PresidentDavid]

I really like the simplicity of the points system and I think it could work well in CNRP2. It might be better if we wait to see how it works out, but I think we should consider it without a doubt. I'm happy you started this discussion Zoot.

[jesbro]

I can agree with giving this new system a try. The true fact is that we will never really know how good or bad it really is until we try to actually use it.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I favor the idea of a points based balancing system, but one that is at least somewhat based on our cn statistics. I joined this RP because it helped keep a balance between giving a few people too much power to simply over-run the world, but I also joined it because it was a balance that also kept the nature of our cnrp nations somewhat represented so that the world was not perfectly flat as it SHOULD NOT BE. If we continue to call this CNRP of any form, it needs to remain at least somewhat rooted in our cn nations. It is possible to rp a small state well, it is possible to rp a large state well. I have done both. I'm finally getting a fairly sizable state and I would like the joy of playing the latter for once.

 

If we further and further denature the elements of our states then are we really playing out our cn states at all or just some random nations that have no real importance other than that they exist in our heads?

 

If everyone has exactly the same points basis and has exactly the same nation effectively just with different specialties, there is no real more point in playing any further. I don't feel our rpers need to be nannied. Where is the joy and pride you have in your cn nations to represent them accurately?

 

I suppose it could still be CNRP.. cloned.. nation.. roleplay.

 

A suggestion to balance this a little better and prevent cloned nation role play might be to give 1 point for every 200 tech, infra, or land. (Holy crap land would actually be good for something.) Something like that as a modification and the balancing can be tweaked, but 800 could be a good base.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Hereno]

I favor the idea of me having an advantage over everyone else, as it should be, but I'm going to pretend it's because of loyalty to the idea of "CNRP".

Does anybody have any objections that aren't based in their own self-interest of relegating the majority of the people here to vassal status based on when they signed up for a shitty browser game?

Of course not. Because it makes zero sense to play a game where some people purposefully and eternally can never come out on top. I await the larger nations voluntarily giving up their stats to show how fun RP can be, and how this is actually a legitimate position to be holding.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

What are the rules on mergers?

[Peter Ilyich]

Yeru had a good point back on page 1. The people saying no are mostly top dogs in the game. Therefore, any change in the point system will completely change that. They do not care what's good for the community, but what is good for them.

However, as much as I like the point system, there are IC issues. Like, if you change the system and the #1 nation becomes one of the worst just because of the OOC change in points, the person would have to RP a reason there nation suddenly got so weak.

[Centurius]

Does anybody have any objections that aren't based in their own self-interest of relegating the majority of the people here to vassal status based on when they signed up for a !@#$%* browser game?

Of course not. Because it makes zero sense to play a game where some people purposefully and eternally can never come out on top. I await the larger nations voluntarily giving up their stats to show how fun RP can be, and how this is actually a legitimate position to be holding.

Because nations are never truly equal?

 

The game itself already puts in place barriers to hation growth as you go larger and the caps in place prevent excessive numbers. The way the caps are now anyone who plays the game for a year can reach the highest stats.