According to the current rules with regard to navy RP, we can only have so many ships as we actually do have in the game. I am of the feeling that with regard to submarines at least this rule has to be modified.

According to present rules



Why cant the same rule be applied with regards to submarines as well?

The question arises because for a nation that has 6 aircraft carriers, it would be realistically absurd only to have 6 submarines! Why not make it into 6 submarine squadrons for a developed nation- around 5-8 submarines per squadron?

I am presenting here a comparison of various submarine forces to show show absurd it would be to restrict submarine numbers by present system.

United States Navy



Russian Navy



Royal Navy



Indian Navy



PLAN



From this comparison of the largest fleets in real life, cant we see that the present system is grossly unrealistic?

If 50 aircrafts can turn into 50 squadrons at modern tech level, why cant a similar change be applicable to submarine forces?

I have to agree here, it also allows for more realistic naval battles.

Fun fact: Modern submarines aren't used for engaging a fleet; They're used to engage convoys and transports and the like, with only light escorts.

It should be noted that the RL USA should count as a few CNRP nations (stats-wise) and not just 1 nation. Because not everyone should be a superpower and aim to be #1 D:.

Maybe 2-3 IC subs per IG submarine, I can see that.

Actually many cnrp nations probably pass the US

For example, the top nations in RP based on their IG stats already count as super powers, like Lavo, Lynneth, V the King, mudd. The tech they RP now is also far beyond anything RL USA has.

So we have a system with multiple superpowers, a more stable system than the present one with single super power and the cold war type with two polarizing super powers.

My suggestion is, make the submarine numbers relative to the other ships that you have, ie, for each Aircraft carrier you get 2 extra subs per the number of subs you already have,ie, you have 5 ACs and 5 Subs you get a total of 15 subs to RP!

Like wise a multiple for cruisers and destroyers, for eg: 1:1

So if IG a nation has 5 carriers, 5 destroyers, 6 cruisers, 6 frigates , 5 subs,

It can RP a total of 5+10+5+6=26 subs.

Also we can devise a system by which lower tech/infra nations which can afford to buy only until Destroyer get to RP diesel submarines according to the above proportion.

Any nation which is in tech level to buy a submarine IG would be able to RP nuclear submarines.

This would level the playing field as well as bring a fair leveling to the play field.

IN short my suggestion,

Carrier : 1:2
Destroyer/ Cruiser : 1:1
If nation does not have submarine IG, all subs RPd must be diesel only.

Or, since Battleships are in RL obsolete, you could substitute all of them for submarines instead.

Since we only base it off of the number of Navy vessels you have, not the type you have, that wouldn't work.


Keep it as is, it prevents over-complicating RPing navies that would probably ensue after this precedent is set.

How would my suggestion not work because of that? What I'm suggesting is that we still keep the numbers, just allow you to substitute certain ships to make up for numbers in other classes of ships.

No one knows what type of ship another nation has. Say someone has 15 ships, you have no clue what ships they have unless they tell you what 15 ships they have. Therefore, you can't substitute certain ships for others.

No, but it's not that hard to figure out what they have, if they have the max number of ships they are capable of supporting.

True, but it's just easier to not try the whole substitution thing anyways since people will just follow the number for RP. For example, the 15 ships again, the person could RP 12 Aircraft Carriers and 3 Destroyers.

Most people still RP fairly clse to what they have IG anyway, class and all. That's what my suggestion was based off of.

We're too tiny to own a proper navy.

They aren't obsolete, it's just that they aren't cost efficient compared to other types of ships. Many RL nations prefer building multiple weaker and smaller yet faster ships than a single stronger and larger, but slower ship.

when was the last time CNRP had ship combat that one side didn't go "LOL I SINK UR SHIPS BEFORE THEY CANZ SINKZ MINEZ CUZ I R GOT MIZZILEZ, AND I CAN DO THAT CUZ I READ UR AREPEE AND KNEW YOU WERE GOINGZ TO MIZZILEZ ME INSTEADZ"

More subs. I like (Maybe about 4 submarine CNRP per submarine IG)

Alright, I'm going to throw this idea out. I do not do this because it's the best idea, or because it's something I'll fight for, but because it's an idea, and it exists, and maybe someone else can turn it into something wonderful.

Graduated Multiplier for navies.

You have brackets based on NS, where, every time you enter the bracket, you can use the multiplier of the bracket. There would only be a few set brackets to make sure multipliers don't get too huge, or too complicated and easy to misinterpret (Like the old Log based tech scale). I'm thinking the best way to do it would be something like this.

0-20,000: No multiplier
20,001-25,000: x2
25,001-35,000: x3
35,001-50,000: x4
50,000-Infinity: x5

That keeps it so no one gets too ridiculous in their navies (I'm going to guess that V the King has the largest navy of anyone in CNRP, and his in game navy is 70, meaning his multiplied would be 350 less than the number of large ships in the Soviet navy during WWII so not all too absurd for one of the most powerful nations in the RP, especially considering the nigh constant war we have). This would also make sure that no one goes insane and gets thousands of ships, but at the same time, you get more realistic numbers. There could, of course, be multiplier brackets higher than the 50,000-infinity cutoff, but it really doesn't seem necessary, because it would just serve to make numbers way too big. Then just add to this the current "The navy is the base number, it is how many ships total, not what kinds of ships" system, and you get a little dash of increased realism.

Once again, this isn't me oretending I'm all knowing, and think this is the best, most fool proof plan. It's just a thought.

I agree. And not just because I'm top bracket.

I see reason in ITDA's proposal.

If you don't RP moar ships, would the be more powerful (or better lead or whatever) according to the multiplier or would they be as strong as the multiplied counterparts?

NS can be inflated by land or cruise missiles or even tanks. It doesn't represent how strong your nation is and is generally not the best tool to find how strong or efficient you are.

The idea is interesting, but I don't like how it is making the "superpowers" stronger in RP without doing much other than just be large IG.

There is a problem though. RPers can inflate their NS by purposely expanding their IG military. That bracket should be based on infra and maybe tech.

Yah, I can see a change to Infrastructure based brackets. Something like this:

0-4,000: No multiplier
4,001-5,000: x2
5,001-6,000: x3
6,001-7,500: x4
7,501-Infinity: x5

And maybe even toss in a tech requirement for new brackets too, something like this:


0-4,000 Infra, 0-500 tech: No multiplier
4,001-5,000 Infra, 501-1,000 tech: x2
5,001-6,000 Infra, 1,001-2,000 tech: x3
6,001-7,500 Infra, 2,001-3,500: x4
7,501-Infinity Infra, 3,501-Infinity: x5

That would probably be a bit more fair than total NS.

As for Voodoo's concern, I've got nothing, it's the same issue that would dog any multiplier put in place, and it's a good point. I guess it would have to be up to everyone else to decide if the trade off is worthwhile

ITDA, as regards your new proposal, in the infra/tech requirements, is that an OR condition or an AND condition?

AND would be better, imo. I dunno though which is the more effective one for weaker nations. :V

If it is OR condition I would have x5 multiplier!!!

I would say "and", but it doesn't really matter. Like I said in my first post suggesting it, I'm just tossing the idea around because I think it could have merit, or at least be used to make something that we can agree on.

(Also, I'd say that the two may not be necessary together, because it all seems pretty likely that a nation that meats the infra parameter will meat the tech parameter, and vice versa or at least be darn close to it)

Actually, i'm in two different brackets--a higher bracket for infra, actually. But in any case I like you proposal...it makes sense.

If you made it AND, I'd be in the x3 bracket.

What about tech sellers? It wouldn't really be that fair to them.

Useless rant I typed for reasons unknown. Rant: although people need to learn that they're only stats and shouldn't affect their RP's by much.

Well, most people aren't selling tech after they pass 4000 infra, and if you were selling tech, and you never have more than 50, you already couldn't sustain a navy, so it seems like a non-issue.

I like the infrastructure and technology combination, the goals aren't too hard to reach but still keeps a certain border to not make people overpowered. I vote in favor.

Me too. It sounds like a sound proposal.

And not to mention, 325 ships for me!

Really? What're your tech and infra levels.

What kind of ships? Wood battle ships with sails and maybe oars?

CNRP is allegedly based on CyberNations, as such ratios of military strength should always be at a 1:1 ratio
Players with high nation strength already have enough of an advantage without giving them additional 'free' ships.

So a player with 16,000 infra with 10,000 tech should have the same amount of ships as a nation with 6,000 infra and 1,000 tech since ships are capped IG? Besides, it's harder to evenly calculate what is the strength of each ship that is being used and use the strength data to calculate how much ships that player should have if he/she is going to use those. How do you calculate how much strength a USS Iowa has compared to HMS Illustrious without being called out for bias?

If they didn't by the ships in game, yes.
If you want ships for CNRP buy ships in game.

Isn't there a cap for how much ships you can have IG?

Otto Verteidiger and I played a mutually agreed naval role-play and it was the most fun I ever had in this forum, it’s a darn pity we won't have an opportunity for a repeat performance in the next two years.

A cap based on your infra. The more infrasturcture (and naval improvements) you have, the more ships you can support. For example...

A person with 10,000 infra should be able to support 2 aircraft carriers with just the minimal improvements necessary, as the infra requirement for one is 5000.


If you want to blame anyone, blame Admin for bringing navies into the game...

JK, but I did want to make the point that your battles were not based on anything having to do with stats, as they happened long before navies were introduced to the game.

Just to point this out the purpose of the modifiers isn't to give everyone a navy on par with the US. The United States is in no way the standard for military size, defense spending, and naval size; its a military hegemon. What we have now I think is fine, if you want to increase it a little bit ok, but I don't think anyone should have a navy the size of the US's.

Trust me, even with these multipliers, no one is getting a navy that size...

Just going to say it here that I will only be recognizing IG numbers for naval vessels apart from in regards to non IG listed ships and landing vessels/civilian ships. That is all.

I have ~4k tech and ~10k Infra.



Nope. Fully armored, powerful, huge, and shiny.

Wow, you have lots of infraz and tech...can I have some?

As for shiny...wouldn't that defeat the purpose of stealth?

With multipliers, we can easily reach 280 naval vessels.

Currently, I can have a maximum of 68 ships.
340 after *5 multiplier. That's 60 ships bigger than the US Navy. Note that this is only battle-worthy ships.
China has: 58 submarines; 77 principal surface combatants; 84 amphibious warfare ships

Of course, those numbers don't take into account that landing ships aren't used in naval battles...