CNRP Reform Discussion

[Centurius]

Disclaimer: This discussion is not going to be limited to current CNRP members alone however if you come in with the intent to derail or troll I am going to report it to higher authorities.

 

---

 

With that said, over the last few weeks there have been several smaller discussions on reforming CNRP. While interesting the custom continents idea really hasn't worked out and there need to be other changes as well.

 

As such I open this discussion so people can discuss what to change about CNRP.

 

Three suggestions I have heard mentioned and thought of myself I will post below.

 

1. Implement bottom strength. Rather than capping the top tiers give weaker nations a certain amount of statistics to properly defend themselves and engage in regional action. This could be tied to the ig averages when it comes to infrastructure or something.

 

2. Diplomatic reset, through some global catastrophic event(war, disaster, economic collapse) numerous states have collapsed and those who still exist isolated themselves from all outside forces. As a result all existing diplomatic ties are broken and none of the treaties/blocs exist any longer. This is essentially a reset that still allows you to RP your nation and keep your history but provides for a fresh start in everything else.

 

3. Longer inactivity periods, as it is the game has evolved beyond 25 days and effectively you can't delete anymore ig. Thus the traditional justification for tying rp inactivity to ig deletion is gone. What I would propose is that we change inactivity to only go in after 2 months. Additionally in special circumstances GMs can grant longer periods of time of inactivity. On the flipside will be that one-liners should no longer count as an 'active' post. A GM would need to certify inactivity and more specifically declare one-liners or similar posts invalid.

 

I'll add more when I think of them.

[Triyun]

I'm in favor of bottom caps and a mild diplomatic reset.  With the centennial of WW I a lot of books have been out on the lead up and how the increasing rigidity of the alliance system locked people into action, this of course tracked with increased bitterness and demonization of each country by the others to the point they couldn't work with others.  I'm open to this but you can't just address one side of that coin.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

1. Definitly something I would support, though it ought to be in the range of where it is mostly just a defensive and regional force. So, for example, this shouldn't include ships (prime source of power projection). I'd consider an adequate bottom floor in this RP to be 250,000 soldiers. Of these, only as many can be made into ships, as people have actual soldiers. Aircraft have pretty much a 300 aircraft bottom already. 250,000 soldiers is not a hell lot, much less a dominant force or one that is invulnerable. But it is something people can work with and which can be effective, if it is used well.

 

2. I'm not going to say much on this, for it's really a thing for existing nations. My nation returned the day before yesterday. I would however ask, that if such an even were to happen, Triyun talk to me, as it might help revise Tianxia-Japan relations, which, at the current time, I feel... are very complicated.

I'm in favor of bottom caps and a mild diplomatic reset.  With the centennial of WW I a lot of books have been out on the lead up and how the increasing rigidity of the alliance system locked people into action, this of course tracked with increased bitterness and demonization of each country by the others to the point they couldn't work with others.  I'm open to this but you can't just address one side of that coin.

I do recommend people to look at the books that have been published due to the centennial. Some are quite informative, not too hard to read and can be quite interesting.

 

3. Up to the point where the one-liners were mentioned, I thought it to be a garbage idea. I'm still not entirely sold. I would suggest the following though: A new nation starts with an inactivity period of 2 weeks. Once a nation has been active long enough to have at least two weeks of time between its first and latest post, their inactivity period adjusts to how long the nation was active between its frst post and last post, up to a maximum limit of 2 months. Extensions should be very very very rare, but ok. These should however not come with locks. What I'd not want to see are nations that DoE and we need to wait two months to get them off the map, because they lost interest immediatly after, and cases of people being locked for months.

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

What if the diplo reset was complemented by putting the world into some kind of "Cold War" state - rather than having existing nations start off neutral to each other, they start with some tensions that would have to be resolved diplomatically. Obviously we can't force people to RP as such, but it could be fun. It's also not a war proper either, so no one getting properly rolled (unless they are dumb).

[Centurius]

We could have the UN from the start with political issues that cause tension and it seems likely political disputes and tension would rise in general pretty fast as it has always done.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Centurius

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

While I do support #2 and #3, I don't see a need for #1.  The fact of the matter is that none of the people who join CNRP are properly weak IG.  If we have a whole bunch of 5K NS nations joining CNRP, then I would be more apt to rethink this position.  The problem is that people who are weak in CNRP are either too stubborn to form any alliances (or burned bridges long ago and nobody wants to play with them) or ignorant of how fighting works so that they can't properly use their strengths.  There are a few policies that should be put in place, both voluntary and rule-based, that would help this situation.  While avoiding the term technobabble, I think wars should be fought on a much more simplistic level, with all acronyms being sure to be spelled out at least once and concepts being described in laymen terms.  Additionally, I think that rules should be redone that allow technology transfers in an easier and more realistic fashion.

Edited October 22, 2014 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[Triyun]

Sarah's not that big right now.  Have some god damn filial piety Melech.

 

I disagree with technology transfers, I think it'd have the opposite effect, because I think it lets people who don't understand what they are doing try and spam things which doesn't lead to more equity but more OOC and more rogue states and not in a fun way.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Sarah's not that big right now.  Have some god damn filial piety Melech.

Fine, sarah can have people. However, I'm not a real fan of Eva's number of 250,000 people. That's a number reached only by RL big nations or ones that draft everyone from 18-45. Let's start with a more realistic one like 100,000. That is enough to defend your borders against regional neighbors.
 

I disagree with technology transfers, I think it'd have the opposite effect, because I think it lets people who don't understand what they are doing try and spam things which doesn't lead to more equity but more OOC and more rogue states and not in a fun way.

That is why we need to RP this out realistically. Basically, you have a "training period" between selling them weapons and when they can field them. It gives you not only RP legitimacy, but also allows you to OOC tell the other person how they can use this stuff. Edited October 22, 2014 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[Centurius]

Fine, sarah can have people. However, I'm not a real fan of Eva's number of 250,000 people. That's a number reached only by RL big nations or ones that draft everyone from 18-45. Let's start with a more realistic one like 100,000. That is enough to defend your borders against regional neighbors.
 
That is why we need to RP this out realistically. Basically, you have a "training period" between selling them weapons and when they can field them. It gives you not only RP legitimacy, but also allows you to OOC tell the other person how they can use this stuff.

In the current rl politics yes but considering wars are a lot more regular in CNRP than in rl we should probably take a look at WW2 numbers to get an indication and at that point things become different. For reference: http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/world-wide-military.html

[Generalissimo]

 The fact of the matter is that none of the people who join CNRP are properly weak IG.

Except for me.

I do sometimes enjoy a CNRP where I can things like ships and planes :laugh:

 

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

In the current rl politics yes but considering wars are a lot more regular in CNRP than in rl we should probably take a look at WW2 numbers to get an indication and at that point things become different. For reference: http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/world-wide-military.html

Frankly, I think it should be based on the nation you RP more than anything else. If you have a nation that is 1000 square miles and has a million people in it, you're not going to field 100,000 soldiers. If you RP half of Africa, yeah, you can get 250,000 guys as a minimum. 
 

Except for me.
I do sometimes enjoy a CNRP where I can things like ships and planes :laugh:

Generalissimo can into space.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

What if we give people below, say, 15k NS the option of just doubling or tripling their force count, but they are moved back on the tech scale by 10-20 years? This way, people who don't see themselves threatened don't need to dear, people who need to go DPRK can go DPRK. Complete with crap tech and all.

 

Now for real, what you'd want is that smaller people matter, if they band together. And for this, I'll use the number of 3-4 people as benchmark. If you give every person of them 250k soldiers, with 3-4, this becomes 750,000-1,000,000. This is about equal to a person like Horo, MGL or me. And then not even, because we posess a tech advantage. If you give everyone about 100k soldiers, you'll be able to get 3-4 people and they're just screwed. I mean, then you could get a dozen people and they'd still be cannon fodder for a nation like Triyun, as they can't even get to half his soldier count. Not to mention matters like tech and coordination.

 

On the tech sharing. If you don't just sell systems, but care that the one you give it to performs decently with it, you do give them information on it as well.

[Voodoo Nova]

I would say with a minimum-force floor, we reduce the multipliers as well. This would still give bigger nations more, but not so far an advantage that it takes the entire RP to fight against them.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I would say with a minimum-force floor, we reduce the multipliers as well. This would still give bigger nations more, but not so far an advantage that it takes the entire RP to fight against them.

In what shape or form would such a change happen? Because there's only one way it needs the entire RP to fight you (given equal skill across the board), would be if you have a nation the size of Triyun's or Lynneth's, with 3 million and more soldiers. Then there are a group of nations inbetween 700,000 and 1.2 million soldiers, which minimum nations should be able to tackle in groups of 3-4, defensively.

[MostGloriousLeader]

I would say with a minimum-force floor, we reduce the multipliers as well. This would still give bigger nations more, but not so far an advantage that it takes the entire RP to fight against them.

But obama promised me my multipliers if I voted for him!

I dunno, I'm definitely in favor of giving out a decent bottom cap for smaller nations but I think multipliers are alright as they are.  Then again I benefit from them so...  :P

 

Not sure how #2 would work out or be implemented overall but in all honesty I don't really have many ties considering there aren't that many nations to be tied with right now.

 

As for #3 I don't really care too much either way.  The inactivity period has always been debated but I'm ok with the current system.  I'd probably be fine with whatever new system comes up as well.

[MostGloriousLeader]

Actually, I have an idea for #2.  All the world leaders should gather for some party and we all accidentally grope each other resulting in either severed relations or full blown  war.  :P

Edited October 22, 2014 by MostGloriousLeader

[Triyun]

You act like this hasn't actually happened in CN RP before.  Anyone else remember Shammy's Southern Cross Party?

[MostGloriousLeader]

I don't remember getting that invitation.  Man, just like highschool... :(

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

I would say with a minimum-force floor, we reduce the multipliers as well. This would still give bigger nations more, but not so far an advantage that it takes the entire RP to fight against them.

The whole point of the multipliers was to make a more realistic capitol ship/support ship ratio when RPing navies. I'm fine with it being decreased. 
 

You act like this hasn't actually happened in CN RP before.  Anyone else remember Shammy's Southern Cross Party?

I remember kicking Kankou's guy in the testicles there.

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

Maybe it would be worth bumping up the stats for smaller nations, yeah. Everyone wants a chance to be relevant, and we should give them one. Lowering the troop/tech floor could help. We'll somehow have to sort out the disparity between high and low NS nations, though.

[MostGloriousLeader]

Maybe it would be worth bumping up the stats for smaller nations, yeah. Everyone wants a chance to be relevant, and we should give them one. Lowering the troop/tech floor could help. We'll somehow have to sort out the disparity between high and low NS nations, though.

 

But its trickle down NS.  NS from the bigger nations will trickle down into the hands of the smaller players.  In the form of massive amounts of cruise missiles.  Reaganomics baby.

Edited October 22, 2014 by MostGloriousLeader

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

But its trickle down NS.  NS from the bigger nations will trickle down into the hands of the smaller players.  In the form of massive amounts of cruise missiles.  Reaganomics baby.

Yeah yeah, get out :P

[Triyun]

 

But its trickle down NS.  NS from the bigger nations will trickle down into the hands of the smaller players.  In the form of massive amounts of cruise missiles.  Reaganomics baby.

 

 

Yeah yeah, get out :P

 

Shut up Horo, this is literally the best argument I've ever read.  DOUBLE MY MULTIPLIERZ!

[Greywall]

But the real question is...do I have to wear pants? because the other thread said I don't

 

 

Could start out everyone having stats off of a 50k ns nation. would level the playing field for smaller nations a bit. 

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

This isn't about leveling the field, it's about making things suck slightly less for smaller nations.