Jump to content

Discussion of initial equipment precedent


Lestari

Recommended Posts

So in my infinite sagacity, I've only just discovered that there is a precedent regarding a nation's military equipment at the onset of the nation-- namely, that from the very first day, the nation has all its IG equipment at the very least; at most, it has a fully functioning, state of the art military, at the whims of its creator.

 

I think this is a precedent worth discussing-- since it strikes me as... not a very good one-- and a GM agreed that it was something that could be worth putting up a thread to talk about. Personally, my thoughts: people should have to put in at least some semblance of development RP to have an effective, modern military. I don't think people should need to become military engineers or anything, or get down to the grittiest details of military tech, but if you want, say, radar capabilities, you need to drop at least a couple posts building radar stations of some sort; if you want, say, a Zumwalt-class destroyer, you need to make the effort of posting the production of it. Otherwise, we end up with nations that spawn right off the bat with fully functioning, full blown militaries from their very first day, which they can conveniently tailor to their immediate needs with zero actual RP and no development to back it up. Happen to need a particular missile system? Oh hey, look, it's right here, conjured up out of nowhere.

 

There is an argument to be made in that having a nation start out with a military from the first day enables new nations to avoid getting steamrolled right off the bat. This isn't something I've seen happen often, but if it's indeed a problem, I think a good solution would be a rule stating that nations do start off with some semblance of a military, but are limited to an earlier tech level for anything they don't RP developing, or have their IG numbers capped until developed in RP. I don't particularly like including extra rules rather than simply getting rid of the precedent altogether, but it's an option if people feel it's needed. Let me know what your thoughts are on this precedent-- it could well be that everybody else thinks it's a non-issue, but I reckon it's worth talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a topic worth discussing, I don't think it'd be right to completely hamper nations from defending themselves, but being able to go on the all-out attack right from nation birth, without any worthy roleplay, is a little bit sketchy in its own right. Should someone who took time to develop their militaries to the force that it is, be able to be significantly challenged by someone who just birthed a new nation? Especially in an attack shortly after national conception.

 

In my honest opinion, no.

 

I have my own views on this, and I typically self-police myself, building up at a steady pace as I start to develop. It still might be accelerated, but its nowhere near the buildups I've seen before. I've been guilty on some counts of this, but I do try to police myself to a steady development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given this is not tagged, I say the following:

  • In CNRP, the precedent already says pretty much what dC wants to set up.
  • In CNRP you cannot set precedents, as the RP due to rules, has no principle of legal precedent. Each case is ruled independent of each other, according to the rules and you cannot claim that rulings must be consistent, given lack of precedent. Retarded as it is, such are the rules and you'd have to first abolish the idea of no precedents to set precedents. Otherwise, this needs to be a new rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this is in regard to me, I will give my view.  I don't enjoy the build up part of RP so I really don't do it because its never been required in either.  I als will point out I WAS attacked by he largest nation in the game when I rolled in once.  As for discussions about tech I think you start off by your tech year.  All that said the rule doesn't require any of this.  If it does I think its appropriate to vote on a new rule for future RPs.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone would, or could enact new legislation that required build ups, without a vote on a change/addition of rules.

 

The build up of forces is one of those things that can be tedious, understandably so. That much I do understand.

Edited by TheShammySocialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Given this is not tagged, I say the following:

  • In CNRP there is no such precedent. Rather, nations that are newly created, if the come into an early conflict can be assumed to not be yet fully armed and organised.
  • In CNRP2 there are no precedents.

I'm referring to CNRP2 here, given that's the only RP I'm in and therefore the only one I give a shit about :v

 

That being said, Voodoo stated that there had been a precedent regarding new nations: namely, that they from the very onset, day one, have all their IG numbers in army, air force, and navy. This is the precedent I am arguing against. As I said, I was unaware of it previously, but since a GM has stated it's in place, I was inclined to believe it was indeed, and to argue against it.

 

I think dotCom fostered this discussion to bring about a precedent... not recap the status quo.

 

Edit: Unless I'm taking the intent of this thread the wrong way.

No no, I don't want to bring about a precedent. I want to remove the precedent that is (evidently) currently in place, so that nations have only the military they have developed. Things that stand to reason don't have to necessarily be RPed-- you don't have to constantly post 'a new recruitment drive has bumped our soldier count up to x!', you just eventually have the number of troops you can have IG-- but things like a full navy, complete with carriers? A sophisticated air force with powerful EW capabilities and advanced UAVs? Top-of-the-line missile systems? Radar stations? These things should not just spring out of nowhere once you roll your nation. They need to be RPed out.

 

Triyun: In all honesty, I didn't know about this rule until the whole thing with Tianxia spawning a full-fledged modern military two days after its creation. Granted, I obviously benefit greatly if this change is made, but I would have advocated for it anyway, because I really think it's an oversight of massive proportions to simply let newborn nations roll in with a fully developed military from day one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm referring to CNRP2 here, given that's the only RP I'm in and therefore the only one I give a !@#$ about :v

 

That being said, Voodoo stated that there had been a precedent regarding new nations: namely, that they from the very onset, day one, have all their IG numbers in army, air force, and navy. This is the precedent I am arguing against. As I said, I was unaware of it previously, but since a GM has stated it's in place, I was inclined to believe it was indeed, and to argue against it.

 

No no, I don't want to bring about a precedent. I want to remove the precedent that is (evidently) currently in place, so that nations have only the military they have developed. Things that stand to reason don't have to necessarily be RPed-- you don't have to constantly post 'a new recruitment drive has bumped our soldier count up to x!', you just eventually have the number of troops you can have IG-- but things like a full navy, complete with carriers? A sophisticated air force with powerful EW capabilities and advanced UAVs? Top-of-the-line missile systems? Radar stations? These things should not just spring out of nowhere once you roll your nation. They need to be RPed out.

 

Triyun: In all honesty, I didn't know about this rule until the whole thing with Tianxia spawning a full-fledged modern military two days after its creation. Granted, I obviously benefit greatly if this change is made, but I would have advocated for it anyway, because I really think it's an oversight of massive proportions to simply let newborn nations roll in with a fully developed military from day one.

Precedents have, by the rules, no legal bearing. Voodoo could rule whatever tomorrow and not care about what people, including he himself, ruled anytime before. So, your efforts, whether they are to set or remove precedent are utterly pointless, as long as legal precedent has no meaning, according to the rules.

 

The role of the GM is to not create a body of precedents

Make this sentence go away, and your struggle actually would mean something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your condescending attitude is the dagger to my heart, Evangeline.

But hey, if there's no such precedent, nobody'll be more pleased than me. I was told there was-- hence, this thread. But if a GM can confirm that what I was told is not indeed the case, then that's all the better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1, well Eva's a noob.   You were always able to roll in and fight with your IG stats.  That's been done a bunch of times.  Remember Papua?

You can claim your full ingame stats from get-go, but you can't just settle in on day one and march to war on day two with first-class Tianxia military. You get the numbers you are entitled to, with basic stuff and training. Latest precedent is the ruling on IAT in the conflict over Germany, where the offical ruling stated:

Although players are not entirely barred from having large militaries from day one, a player, if wanting to assume to have a significantly capable and advanced force, should be taking time to develop such a force. There is no set time period, but an opponent could argue a realistic case in this Court against outlandish capabilities of one's military existing early during a nation's creation.

Naturally, quite a bit would be dependent on circumstances, but such is the situation as I see it and how I (as part of the overall GM team) would rule on it.

 

I don't think I need to explain to you the difference of getting your stats and getting the advantages that come from your long-time development of a military force. I would assume, you know as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having EW isn't being first class.  If I have the stuff in game, which is primarily what I'm using I fail to see the issue.  If your asking me is my army as elite in CN RP 2 as 1 no.  But at the same time, it can do tasks, which is what it did.  You can't say for instance, 'you can't have first class stuff' but you can have stuff available to a nation with say in my case a large navy at 2014 tech, tech wise its a contradiction in terms that I simply don't see.  If you pay two slots for fighters, you can get an F-22.  If you have a carrier you can have a nimitz.  Those are fist class weapons.  And thus far they've been doing what they've been designed for without being terribly 'elite'.  However, basic training I do argue does include knowing normal tactics and strategy and having equipment you get t have IG.  No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having EW isn't being first class.  If I have the stuff in game, which is primarily what I'm using I fail to see the issue.  If your asking me is my army as elite in CN RP 2 as 1 no.  But at the same time, it can do tasks, which is what it did.  You can't say for instance, 'you can't have first class stuff' but you can have stuff available to a nation with say in my case a large navy at 2014 tech, tech wise its a contradiction in terms that I simply don't see.  If you pay two slots for fighters, you can get an F-22.  If you have a carrier you can have a nimitz.  Those are fist class weapons.  And thus far they've been doing what they've been designed for without being terribly 'elite'.  However, basic training I do argue does include knowing normal tactics and strategy and having equipment you get t have IG.  No?

As discussed privately in detail, my opinion is that if the rules say you can have it, due to duh, stats, ok. But things that clearly are not part of standard entitlements and which are more linked to what people prepared over weeks are not conferred upon you on day 1, like say, stating your troops are more well-trained, overly extensive redundancy measures for communications, radar or other stuff... and these also cannot just be one-post inherited from a nation, but need to be actively set up (the precedent I quoted was especially on IAT getting the Eastern half of Greater Germany, when war was pretty much about to kick off).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would support more extensive effort being put into nation's militaries, since it's a joke that some people believe IG stats are all that matter.

"B-but... I shouldn't be supposed to look through tons of data just to know what stuff is best to use. I-I mean, I got a life beyond CNRP, which prevents me from putting in basic efforts to learn about military matters. C-c-certainly, if we just take IG numbers and come up with a tech efficiency force multiplier, as well as maybe a multiplier for force concentrations, just so basic tactics are covered, surely noone would have to undergo such crueling yet pointless studies of military matters. Don't you think so too?"

 

It's a bit of a joke you comment on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"B-but... I shouldn't be supposed to look through tons of data just to know what stuff is best to use. I-I mean, I got a life beyond CNRP, which prevents me from putting in basic efforts to learn about military matters. C-c-certainly, if we just take IG numbers and come up with a tech efficiency force multiplier, as well as maybe a multiplier for force concentrations, just so basic tactics are covered, surely noone would have to undergo such crueling yet pointless studies of military matters. Don't you think so too?"

 

It's a bit of a joke you comment on the matter.

Except for the fact I was referring to the fact nations sprout into existence with larger militaries than 95% of actual nations IRL, but feel free to hurl any other insults and sarcastic comments at me instead of actually discussing the matter at hand that you even apparently agree with me on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now there's nothing in the rules to indicate that people have to build up. It's shoddy RP to appear out of nowhere with a fully functional and max-tech military, but nothing says it can't happen.

 

I've always been of the opinion that nations should start off with the basics. They have forces that can defend them, a reasonable amount of defenses (e.g.: artillery positions, patrols, etc), but nothing really fancy. If you want elite troops, or bunker networks, or anything that's not directly covered by IG-> IC conversions, RP for it.

 

Not everyone likes doing the RP that's involved in building up from scratch, and we shouldn't require that sort of play just to avoid being rolled. On the flip side, if someone does go above and beyond to get their fancy (but legal) toys, then they should definitely have those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fixed that for you.

Stop.

 

Jesus fucking christ, it's a simple question about fucking RP mechanics. Why does everything here have to turn into a fucking shit-slinging derpfest? CNRP has been on a steady nosedive since this entire CNRP2 business got kicked up and it's because of shit like this-- people who just can't stop having a go at each other, or people who go way too fucking far to try and get a rise out of people. It's fucking ridiculous, childish nonsense.

Edited by dotCom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop.
 
Jesus !@#$@#$ christ, it's a simple question about !@#$@#$ RP mechanics. Why does everything here have to turn into a !@#$@#$ !@#$-slinging derpfest? CNRP has been on a steady nosedive since this entire CNRP2 business got kicked up and it's because of !@#$ like this-- people who just can't stop having a go at each other, or people who go way too !@#$@#$ far to try and get a rise out of people. It's !@#$@#$ ridiculous, childish nonsense.


preach

---

as for the subject at hand, i agree that sort of popping into existence and having a full military at perfect strength is a bit silly

it's never been required in the rules but i've always rped my new states as... well, new states, with issues and goals similar to those of new states. this would include military, although i can understand how someone who just rolled in would be averse to rolling in and being at risk from the get-go from the powers who already exist, have diplomatic ties, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...