Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) I don't like the somewhat arbitrary nature of the troop and tank caps. I would like that in order to give a greater diversity between nation strengths and to acknowledge at least somewhat the ig tech of nations we permit the troop counts be equal to (10xtroop efficiency)* tech/2000 and a multiplier be added to tanks equal to tech / 100.That way we can have nations that are a bit more potent without having tech out to like.. 2300. The tech then means something it's just translated into a quantitative representation because none of use know what future tech is like. Right now tech is hardly represented at all with the caps and the caps keep everyone a bit to equal. We are running a co-operative rp now.. if we can trust each other just a little, we can have big-bads and big-goods that can be counter balanced again. I'd like to, for example, rp a big bad for a little bit, but that's hard to do when my force sizes aren't even enough to expand beyond my own borders.In the past we had to worry about big nation abuse, but we are trying to put the era of being jerks towards each other behind us and actually write stories. I want to work with this community and be a bad guy, giving everyone a chance for glory and fun, which should improve things but I can't do it when it's a fair fight because it just takes two of you then to stop me and beat me down. I want to be dog piled and I want the dogpile to be a heck of a fight.I propose that these force pool revisions be allowed and perhaps consideration to.. if a large nation goes jerk mode and starts to misbehave, the caps could be re-applied as a limiter. In essence, let the story writers you trust who have big nations, play their big nations.. give you something to fight or to play with.. and put the abusers of that trust in chains.The equations are perfectly tweak-able for this proposal. Refinement suggestions are welcome. Edited January 4, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 In the past we had to worry about big nation abuse, but we are trying to put the era of being jerks towards each other behind us and actually write stories. I want to work with this community and be a bad guy, giving everyone a chance for glory and fun, which should improve things but I can't do it when it's a fair fight because it just takes two of you then to stop me and beat me down. I want to be dog piled and I want the dogpile to be a heck of a fight. You lost me about right there. I'd utterly and completely oppose this policy based on the above alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) In my terms "fair" is a more approximate reflection of our in game realities. Not an artificial structure that props a few up for no other reason than to give them more arbitrary amounts of influence. To me that's a distortion of fair. I'm a CN purist. I believe we can play a CNRP that is based on CN's core statistics without being utter jerks to each other and find a global balance of power which forces the larger players to play ball. I understand we have had a problem also with people in the past who did not rise and fall with cn trends by avoiding wars, we could keep the limits for players that are abusing ig mechanics to "not take their lumps."I disagree with the trend I've seen where people have wanted to setup artificial supports for nations that are weak IG just to keep them on equal footing, to me that puts us away from actually playing a cn based rp which is not what this forum is technically for.A weak IG nation can be strong. I was at 10k ns when I operated the Dragon Empire and ran it off pure diplomacy and networking. I think we should permit merged states with the full statistical capabilities of their ig nations so long as all players are active to help counter some of the bigger individual players, no that an alliance couldn't pull off the same thing. The point is, if we collaborate, the artificial supports aren't needed and people merely need play to their strengths and use diplomacy.If you are a tech seller IG.. no reason you can't rp selling tech to someone in the rp to make an alliance for protection, for example. In my theory we could use a battle calculator with the same battle functions that cn has to determined battle outcomes and nukes operate just as they do in cn so basically we reflect the game realities without actually being at each other's throats in the game as a simulation of the cn system.I do think we could use a floor level of NS though, like around 25-50k. We know what constitutes NS so people could add either troops, tech, etc, to their nation til they reached 50k ns and document that in their factbook. That way nations aren't totally useless and the big nations aren't totally unbridled.The current system kills all incentive for any kind of drama really after you hit a certain size and capability. All you can do really is sit upon your existing rocks and defend what you got because you're not getting any better. Edited January 4, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yerushalayim Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I've never been in favour of a RP that's based entirely on CN stats. Our nations in RP are not our nations in CN. I see absolutely no reason why our CN nations should have any impact on our RP stats, to begin with. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to rely on stats at all, and people could RP whatever nations they wanted, without being dickweasels to each other. But since CNRPers have shown the need to be said weasels of dick, I suppose we're stuck with stats for the time being. I'm personally in no rush to unduly benefit an even smaller group, just 'cause they want an advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) I don't want an advantage. I want the rp to reflect CN that's what I come HERE for, not a foreign board. If I were still 10K ns, this sentiment would remain true. So your assessment of my character is deeply flawed and shows how biased you are on the matter. We want something different out of the RP, but the RP HERE is meant to be about cn on this forum. I want my CN based rp back. I want to be able to rp my cn nation, not some random mesh of numbers. In fact, I might just start doing that of my own volition. After all, the rules are collaborative. You guys don't even have to recognize I exist if you don't want, but I'm going with my IG stats for now on, if necessary, unilaterally, and anyone who wishes to do so may follow suit. Edited January 4, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysergide Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 We have what you are looking for, it is called CNRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Under lousy management. Oh, and it has caps as well, so not really. Edited January 5, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 gives you far better multipliers, and you'd be the second largest nation involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Doesn't matter if the community is filled with people who do not collaborate or co-operate on story writing. Edited January 5, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Withdrawing this request based on updated information. I've determined it to be unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.