[Centurius]

What has recently become obvious but should not be there, a loophole around the soldier guidelines, where following ig mechanics you can instantly rebuy them. To solve this I come with the following 2 proposals which will count for all nations involved in a war.

Proposal 1:

At this moment the ig amount of civilians gets only used by some while it is one of the few statistics we have as such I propose the following way of using it.

Every nation who loses soldiers can have them back in a rate of 1% of your ig population per rl day with a maximum of the Maximum amount of Soldiers In-Game*10

To do this nations can use the following formula

Quote

Soldier Regrowth = 0.01*IG Population

For example with my own nation:

I am currently in a war and make heavy losses to decide the amount of soldiers I can draft I make the following calculation:

0.01*80744=807.44 So I can retrain 807 soldiers on that day.

Now there is another issue, deciding the efficiency of the new 'soldiers'

Proposal 2:

Obviously soldiers retrained in such a fast rate will not be able to even the more trained soldier to calculate the efficiency of the new 'soldiers' we take the following formula.

Quote

Militia Efficiency: 0.1+(0.03*Amount of Barracks IG)+(0.05*Amount of Guerilla Camps IG)

This takes another IG statistic in account where the more expensive improvement also has a greater effect with this formula the maximum one nation can ever hope to achieve is .5 of the base efficiency of your soldiers. The .1 has been added to give smaller nations a chance to even the bigger ones who most likeley will have 5 barracks.

To again take a practical example my nation.

I have 5 Barracks with no Guerilla Camps at all as such the efficiency of my new men will be.

0.1+(0.03*5)+(0.05*0)=0.1+0.15=0.25 Meaning I will need 4 new soldiers to equal one of my own.

And this was my proposal to fix the issue

[king of cochin]

This proposal seems quite sensible.

[King Kevz]

Nice idea but it throws in another factor/problem and complicates the RP that little bit more. Therefore I am against this idea. Whilst the current system isn't great its simple enough to work.

Also if you put this system into practise then we need one for rebuilding tanks, aircraft and naval vessels etc and depending on the type of aircraft or vehicle it could take longer or shorter a time to build and this would cause more problems.

[Centurius]

King Kevz, on Sep 28 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

Nice idea but it throws in another factor/problem and complicates the RP that little bit more. Therefore I am against this idea. Whilst the current system isn't great its simple enough to work.

Also if you put this system into practise then we need one for rebuilding tanks, aircraft and naval vessels etc and depending on the type of aircraft or vehicle it could take longer or shorter a time to build and this would cause more problems.

Actually Aircraft, ships, etc. should be a big no for rebuilding them. As with CNRP wars they never take long enough to finish many of them.

[King Kevz]

Centurius, on Sep 28 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Actually Aircraft, ships, etc. should be a big no for rebuilding them. As with CNRP wars they never take long enough to finish many of them.

I agree but people still seem to ignore losses after a war. In fact losses are instantly replaced due to one of our other rules. RP soldiers = IG soldiers thus by that rule the only way you suffer losses is if you lose them IG though that is a stupid rule if it acts like that.

[JerreyRough]

For the community that needs to be kept stats for wars, then yes to the first. The second one...I'm not so sure.

'Course, if there was any other way around this without giving us another forumula, then I would go for that one immedietly.

[Sargun]

I like the first one a bit better.

As for tanks/aircraft/navies.. every seven in-character days (that are RP'd, so if you both don't RP for three days you'll have to wait three more), your tanks and aircraft are rebuilt. Navies take a month, whether or not you RP it.

Since most people use 1m=1y, that's a year of in-character waiting which is still significantly less than real life but long enough to have it matter.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

However, I think that if you're losing the war, your regrowth rate should be slower since your losing a bunch of territory, and therefore people.

[Centurius]

KaiserMelech Mikhail, on Sep 28 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

However, I think that if you're losing the war, your regrowth rate should be slower since your losing a bunch of territory, and therefore people.

While this is true a defensive nation also tends to have a higher morale and as such more man to draft.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Centurius, on Sep 28 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

While this is true a defensive nation also tends to have a higher morale and as such more man to draft.

In other words, you're saying that because it's their nation being invaded, they'll be more motivated to sign up?

[Centurius]

Subtleknifewielder, on Sep 28 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

In other words, you're saying that because it's their nation being invaded, they'll be more motivated to sign up?

Actually yeah just the rate that compromises the loss of people

[Subtleknifewielder]

Centurius, on Sep 28 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

Actually yeah just the rate that compromises the loss of people

I understand...the motivation factor compensates for the loss of territory to be recruited from, keeping the formula even.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

That sounds about right. There should be a threashold though. Maybe once half the land is conquered, the rate starts to go down.

[Otto Verteidiger]

All this just kinda seems to complicate RPing more and more

[iamthey]

Eh; I'll be honest I don't like the proposal. The present "abuses" of the soldier system, are not abuses, but in fact reflect an accurate reality of how the real world works. If there is indeed a total state of emergency and insurrection/ invasion; most nations would do anything necessary to survive, general suspending economic activity to utilize able bodied workers as soldiers. I don't see why the population cannot be quickly conscripted or malitiatised in the event that you are indeed fighting a defensive war. At the scale of one month=one year a day = about 12 days a reasonable amount of time to quickly arm a makeshift force.

Moreover this present "loophole" serves to balance the game in several ways. First of all it balances the game for those who are not well connected, and don't have a clique to defend them. Two it balances the game for those who are just outnumbered presenting a way to slow and ultimately fight a longterm guerrilla war against the superior invasion forces. Three it helps balance the game for large defending states, as small states don't really need a large force to defend (larger man power can be converted into militia over time).

I also think this would add too much complexity to the game, and is unnecessary as this is just a text based RP. (Give me a break) Introducing all these silly formulas; and rules based on numerical constants is really just unnecessary. If your single opponent is defending using this "loophole" just deal with it. Use your superior forces, and invade; in the real world war goes beyond simple superiority in numbers, you don't just have to over power them in the conventional war, you also have to fight a counter insurgency in the occupation. Just because no one has ever actually rped a real war doesn't mean anyone should be restricted from doing so now.

Finally the "loophole" reflects IG; you can instantly purchase soldiers in whatever amount or time period you wish; the same should hold true in RP. The soldier rule is there to put a cap on the soldiers you can control at one time; not to limit the overall or total amount of soldiers you can have in a conflict. That being said I think this recent movement to change the rule is more reflective of the fact that you are having to fight a truly rp'd war utilizing non-conventional tactics than less that you think it is a true abuse. No one brought this up be for when uberstine was planning to utilize Guerrilla tactics in the aftermath of nordland's invasion.

This post has been edited by iamthey: 28 September 2009 - 02:30 PM

[Voodoo Nova]

This isn't really needed because in real life, you do have civilian guerrilla forces. Look throughout history and there will always be a civilian group of militants fighting unconventional warfare.

[Executive Minister]

I agree with Iamthey. Doing research for my DoE about ERP Afghanistan, I came across an extremely interesting, yet macabre article on why Afghanistan is able to wage prolonged wars against foreign superpowers.

This

Quote

To understand why the U.S. and NATO—after eight years of hard fighting—face mounting losses in Afghanistan, we must look beyond the battlefield.

How can a politically divided population of today 33 million provide enough fighters to resist the NATO countries, which have a combined population of nearly one billion? How can the Afghans challenge such military behemoths? Or, to put it differently, why do Russia and NATO win easily against mini-powers such as Georgia or Serbia, but find it hard to defeat mini-powers such as Chechnya or Afghanistan? What do the Afghans have that both the other mini-powers and the big powers are lacking? The answer is in the dynamics of a rapidly growing population.

Decade after decade, the women of Afghanistan have been averaging three to four sons each. This means even if an Afghan family loses two or more boys on the battlefield—"disposable sons"—it still has one or two male offsprings at home to carry the family into the next generation. Russian soldiers in 1979, however, were likely to be only sons. Statistically, that is also true for American soldiers in 2009, and is true as well for the soldiers of Serbia and Georgia that have quickly shrinking and ageing populations.

Nearly half a million [Afghan men] reach military age every year. Close to 300,000 of them may be tempted by Taliban tales of victory or heroic death. When it comes to high-tech weapons, ISAF has the advantage. But when it comes to "disposable sons"—the ultimate weapon of war—the ratio between Afghanistan and NATO/ISAF is four million to zero in favor of Afghanistan.

Fascinating, but I don't think this applies to anyone's CNRP nations... unless...


THIS JUST IN, NoN BIRTH RATES AT AN ALL TIME HIGH!

[JerreyRough]

Executive Minister, on Sep 28 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

THIS JUST IN, NoN BIRTH RATES AT AN ALL TIME HIGH!

OOC reason enough

I'll be having a similar thing to that, except different; birth rates will be high because people will get rewarded for the larger family (free stuff, like money or heath care), and the reason for this is to get the population larger (since there are only about 200,000-300,000 Diberians left). And when the population is in the millions again, the reward is removed.

I think that IG soldier amount can account for guerilla forces; you will not have an offensive force if you are forced to have guerilla forces.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

Looking at this proposal I see a very good attempt to make soldier redistribution possible for armies that lose soldiers and take us out of the "Risk" mentality of lobbing vast armies at enemy territory in the attempt to capture territory. Therefore, the first formula makes a great deal of sense, if you lose 'x' amount of troops, you can rebuild 'x' amount of troops somewhere in your home territory and eventually replenish your forces. However I would say that the second formula is unneeded because, then once those troops see battle an entirely new formula would be created to fight that battle. Think of it like Age of Empires, you have a Pop Cap, right? This is the equivalent of you IG troop amount, so you can't go beyond that, but you can reach up to it again. So you build troops, well you have to build your troops in your barracks back home, but when they come out, a 'clubman' that was just recruited, is just as strong as an enemy 'clubman' that was fighting for a few hours. Also if you want to go with this analogy. Think of tech as research at a blacksmith or something, so my freshly recruited 'clubman' is already stronger due to research and upgrades.

However, the overall problem I have with this, is the general way that wars are conducted. Many of us use a 1M = 1Y RP Time Scale, but most CNRP wars are fought and finished in at maximum two weeks time, again I said most. Due to this, I believe that this formula may never come into effect because wars are fought far too quickly. Though that is subject to change, I would love to see a very well RPed out conventional war, but this is still a game, so as to making this as realistic as possible. I'm sorry guys, we threw out realism a long long time ago, maybe not everyone, but a great deal of CNRP is romanticized writing, not that that's a bad thing, but it is almost near impossible to bring this to realistic politics, realistic war and so on.

I am interested to see, when the DE/America war picks up if people will try to implement that and its successes.

[King Kevz]

To be honest all you need to have wars work out properlly is for people to accept their losses and not expect them to have them rebuilt straight way. A little of that hard to get common sense. Take me for example im going to war with the DE with almost 75% of my airforce destroyed.