[Justinian the Mighty]

I’m getting tired with the flow of CNRP politics. I play CNRP mostly because I wanted make up scenarios that take place in my country’s borders, and have those play out while interacting with other people on the CN forums. Between my first rp post in Jan 07 and March 08 I was in 2 wars. Once was with the URPR supporting a terrorist coup in my capital, and another was defending Generalissimo from the RoW. They were fun because there was nothing on the line, and we already had a general outline of how the wars would go.

Anyway There was talk a while back about stopping all the unplanned wars and going to a new direction, and organizing wars before they happen. Almost everyone said this would completely cut out the ooc bickering and supported the concept. I personally like the idea, that way every time I log on the forums, I don’t have to worry “who’s going to invade me today?” It’s nerve-wracking, especially since I want to try to a more personal character development rp style.

Since my classes start on Monday, and since I don’t have the time or patients to rp something that’s going to be entirely unknown to me I want to tell everyone in CNRP that I will no longer take part in any unplanned wars. I’ll still fight wars with anyone who wants to fight me, but I’ll require a pm with and a few planning sessions with anyone who wants a war before we start. I’ll also need a valid cb, or if you don’t have one, you can suggest to me what I could do to give you one and vice versa.

If I wanted drama and constant animosity toward other players, I could just read the Alliance Politics forums, but I don’t. I just want to have a good time and think of everyone here as a friend. Hopefully others will fallow this example, so that maybe the CNRP forums will be free of the vicious ooc arguments, that plague the Alliance Politics subfourms.

[Sargun]

Another player sees the light of pre-planned wars.

[Centurius]

A noble cause I completely support as such I second your stance. I will not recognize unplanned wars.

[Lynneth]

After some thinking, I decided to jump on the bandwagon.
From now on, I won't recognise unplanned wars against me, and I will plan all wars I wage against others with them.

[Francesco Pagano]

Welcome to the club

This post has been edited by Junio Borghese: 23 August 2009 - 07:22 AM

[Markus Wilding]

Junio Borghese, on Aug 23 2009, 08:27 AM, said:

Welcome to the club

You're in Botha Mode, you don't count.

[Pravus Ingruo]

Most people don't recognize a war if it isn't pre-planned. I'm one of them and the only reason I let Raritan get away with it is because he's leaving anyways and he's been a friend.

[Cody Seb]

I agree.

[Acca Dacca]

Noted. It seems the that those who play for a story and not for an ego boost of painting the entire world thier color have joined in on this. I like stories, and I like to war. I planned one out with Mr. Sargun and because a civil war lasts more than a year, usually, it is slowly going on and on through out the months. Also, mine and Mr. Sargun's lack of time to concentrate on just that one story adds to the time difference.

Either way, a planned war will come out with a planned story and better results. It also gives the players time to respond, react, and post. I'm joining the bandwagon.

[Elrich von Richt]

I'm bandwagoning this for key reasons.

In my opinion, i've learned from experience the difference between the planned and non-planned wars. Usually, non-planned just end up in a terrible state because it ends up not giving the other nation any time to post because the other side is usually so determined to end it before they even get a chance.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

While this does sound like a very good idea, I have a problem with it. While you're in the pre-war planning phase, how willing are you going to be to say that "Yeah, I will lose this war." I foresee that here, people are going to make up loads of rediculous reasons why it would be impossible to invade and occupy their country, and the whole thing will just devolve into a giant argument with both sides unwilling to admit defeat (much like our wars are now ). Also everytime a new person decides to join in the war, do all the players need to go back to the discussion and decide if the new addition will defeat the other person or will it not make a difference?

This post has been edited by KaiserMelech Mikhail: 23 August 2009 - 10:19 AM

[Drakedeath]

KaiserMelech Mikhail, on Aug 23 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

While this does sound like a very good idea, I have a problem with it. While you're in the pre-war planning phase, how willing are you going to be to say that "Yeah, I will lose this war." I foresee that here, people are going to make up loads of rediculous reasons why it would be impossible to invade and occupy their country, and the whole thing will just devolve into a giant argument with both sides unwilling to admit defeat (much like our wars are now ). Also everytime a new person decides to join in the war, do all the players need to go back to the discussion and decide if the new addition will defeat the other person or will it not make a difference?

This is the whole reason I'm against this. You'd lose the OOC bickering of getting attacked, but you'd get headaches of everyone wanting to be the winner, even if their side is outgunned, out-teched, and outnumbered.

[JerreyRough]

KaiserMelech Mikhail, on Aug 23 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

While this does sound like a very good idea, I have a problem with it. While you're in the pre-war planning phase, how willing are you going to be to say that "Yeah, I will lose this war." I foresee that here, people are going to make up loads of rediculous reasons why it would be impossible to invade and occupy their country, and the whole thing will just devolve into a giant argument with both sides unwilling to admit defeat (much like our wars are now ). Also everytime a new person decides to join in the war, do all the players need to go back to the discussion and decide if the new addition will defeat the other person or will it not make a difference?

Drakedeath, on Aug 23 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

This is the whole reason I'm against this. You'd lose the OOC bickering of getting attacked, but you'd get headaches of everyone wanting to be the winner, even if their side is outgunned, out-teched, and outnumbered.

Pre-planned wars can be anything; from two people agreeing that they will go to war to deciding who will "loose". Believe it or not, there are people that will go for the loose option, just because it can be fun to continue the fight until the end. And it can be useful for a re-roll or government change.

I personally like the agreement of a war OOC-wise, and to have it planned & actually take time to get ready to deploy.

[Markus Wilding]

Drakedeath, on Aug 23 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

This is the whole reason I'm against this. You'd lose the OOC bickering of getting attacked, but you'd get headaches of everyone wanting to be the winner, even if their side is outgunned, out-teched, and outnumbered.

Look at me. I knew I sighed Yacrania's deathkneel the moment I started moilizing my troops to Slavorussia's border. Hell, I openly admit that there's no way I can win! It's impossible to think that I can keep Slavorussian on hold for even one minute. Sure, I'm kind of pushing them back onw, but overall he's got men coming right towards my soldiers ready to blast me to hell and back.

And don't get me started once Bavaria (or Austria, whichever he calls himself now) and Molakia get involved. It'll be a bloodbath.

[Acca Dacca]

Drakedeath, on Aug 23 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

This is the whole reason I'm against this. You'd lose the OOC bickering of getting attacked, but you'd get headaches of everyone wanting to be the winner, even if their side is outgunned, out-teched, and outnumbered.

If they cant agree who will lose, then I guess its not planned then.

Losing isnt the end of the world. Most people recognize this. However, those that don't are subject to not being allowed to do war with others if they find that they are just to damn good at war for the rest of the community.

[Sitethief]

While I understand the reasoning behind this, and while I will respect this of other people choose to not RP unplanned wars. It does take some of the spontaneity and unpredictability away from RP'ing. I think its more a matter of bad RP'ing then no planning.
A good RP'er can plan along a spontaneous RP making it fun, while a bad RP'er won't make a planned war any more fun.

But I've seen before that I'm a voice in the dessert in this matter.

[Centurius]

Drakedeath, on Aug 23 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

This is the whole reason I'm against this. You'd lose the OOC bickering of getting attacked, but you'd get headaches of everyone wanting to be the winner, even if their side is outgunned, out-teched, and outnumbered.

Being outgunned, teched and numbered isn't an instant lose, take Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more. The USA & Allies were superior on all areas but we all know how the first end and the last 2 are going to end.

[BaronUberstein]

Centurius, on Aug 23 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

Being outgunned, teched and numbered isn't an instant lose, take Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more. The USA & Allies were superior on all areas but we all know how the first end and the last 2 are going to end.

Vietnam was because the Ruskies kept supplying them and we let politicians run the war. If we had simply bombed their ports from the BEGINNING we could have won, because they wouldn't have gotten any more supplies in.

[Centurius]

BaronUberstein, on Aug 23 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

Vietnam was because the Ruskies kept supplying them and we let politicians run the war. If we had simply bombed their ports from the BEGINNING we could have won, because they wouldn't have gotten any more supplies in.

Those same politicians would be active in RP, thats the problem here people do not consider the effects of war on their homeland, no nation is one without any kind of resistance.

[Lynneth]

JerreyRough, on Aug 23 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

Pre-planned wars can be anything; from two people agreeing that they will go to war to deciding who will "loose". Believe it or not, there are people that will go for the loose option, just because it can be fun to continue the fight until the end. And it can be useful for a re-roll or government change.

I personally like the agreement of a war OOC-wise, and to have it planned & actually take time to get ready to deploy.

I've taken the "lose" option more than once, even if it didn't necessarily mean "lose my country". In the recent war against me I surrendered, and back when I attacked Martens as Saboria, I made a coup de'tat, deposing of my old leader and putting Leclerc into office. Sure, it amounted to a white peace, though I lost several hundred thousand soldiers and my entire navy, all of which I needed to rebuild. lol.

N Reeki, on Aug 23 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

Look at me. I knew I sighed Yacrania's deathkneel the moment I started moilizing my troops to Slavorussia's border. Hell, I openly admit that there's no way I can win! It's impossible to think that I can keep Slavorussian on hold for even one minute. Sure, I'm kind of pushing them back onw, but overall he's got men coming right towards my soldiers ready to blast me to hell and back.

And don't get me started once Bavaria (or Austria, whichever he calls himself now) and Molakia get involved. It'll be a bloodbath.

I'm unlikely to get involved, other than sending a division or two, and even those would take a lot of time, as I doubt slightly anyone but BR woulc let me through.
I'm surrounded by the EU, after all.

Acca Dacca, on Aug 23 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

If they cant agree who will lose, then I guess its not planned then.

Losing isnt the end of the world. Most people recognize this. However, those that don't are subject to not being allowed to do war with others if they find that they are just to damn good at war for the rest of the community.

This. Except the last sentence, because I can't make sense of it.

Sitethief, on Aug 23 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

While I understand the reasoning behind this, and while I will respect this of other people choose to not RP unplanned wars. It does take some of the spontaneity and unpredictability away from RP'ing. I think its more a matter of bad RP'ing then no planning.
A good RP'er can plan along a spontaneous RP making it fun, while a bad RP'er won't make a planned war any more fun.

But I've seen before that I'm a voice in the dessert in this matter.

To be honest, I'm a simmer by heart. I love building my stuff, watching it grow and reach its peak, if there is a peak to be reached.
That's the main reason why I don't want unannounced wars against me anymore, even if I could beat many single nations (but few blocs) here in CNRP. I wanna sim!

Centurius, on Aug 23 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

Being outgunned, teched and numbered isn't an instant lose, take Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more. The USA & Allies were superior on all areas but we all know how the first end and the last 2 are going to end.

BaronUberstein, on Aug 23 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

Vietnam was because the Ruskies kept supplying them and we let politicians run the war. If we had simply bombed their ports from the BEGINNING we could have won, because they wouldn't have gotten any more supplies in.

Please don't turn this into an argument who could've won by doing it different in Vietnam. Take it to the watercooler.