On the Future of CNRP

[Otto Verteidiger]

That's probably because I had an in-game trade with Procinctia and I played it up as such.

Generalissimo... now there's another interesting RPer I miss. Interestingly enough Transvaal had some previous in-game conflict with Procinctia as well when Generalissimo was a member of SWF or LSF or some other lulz-commie alliance and I was wearing my jackboots in Nordreich. We fought a war together, ended somewhat of a stalemate but then a few months later our nations ended up patching up our differences. When I switched to Orange, Procinctia was my first Orange trade.

Regardless of why, it caused rocky relations for a long time, until we realized a deep passion against Communism.

I know, I miss Generalissimo as well. He was loads of fun... I asked a guy IG that was in his 3 man alliance, he said Generalissimo just got way too busy IRL and wasn't able to keep up with CN and CNRP. Sad, but that means he might return one day.

Interesting story behind you and Procinctia as well.

Hm, perhaps CNRP would be a much better place if it followed these?

Probably, it'd also cut down on headache of figuring out damaged that is realistic to the battle and what is acceptable to the enemy. *shrug*

[Mirreille]

also gang $%&@ sucks. CNRP will die fast if this continues. It's already killed the Alliance/IG part of the game, lets keep it from destroying RP

It's the damn treaty web, all over again. You all have too many treaties! Actually that South American/Asian war had some decent potential but I don't think it realised it.

Deciding who will win the war BEFORE you fight it?? Now that is something new...

[Subtleknifewielder]

It's the damn treaty web, all over again. You all have too many treaties! Actually that South American/Asian war had some decent potential but I don't think it realised it.

Deciding who will win the war BEFORE you fight it?? Now that is something new...

Believe it or not, the most successful RP wars were generally agreed-on beforehand.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Subtleknifewielder

[Otto Verteidiger]

Deciding who will win the war BEFORE you fight it?? Now that is something new...

Not really, the Procinctian wars were over a year ago :lol:

[JerreyRough]

Two forums. As long as one forum is still this forum (but there), then that would be best.

Hopefully all us smaller peoplez will survive the giant empires appearing... And that the giant empries don't stop people from joining in and making a nation that they want (aka an empire won't like their Government/Culture and kill the new nation).

Its the only thing I've seen that could possibly kill CNRP: empires. Just like in games where you can ally, if too many ally one-another then the game isn't fun anymore.

[Fenrir69]

I vote two forums!

TWO FORUMS!

[Triyun]

not to mention wars are completely unreasonable entirely. Fact is, the only proper way to rp a battle is rp what your armies do, and then your opponent Rp 's the damage and their response

Trouble is, you can't expect your opponent to be reasonable when it comes to damage, and you know perfectly well that during the fighting you'll be equally unreasonable. Its come to the point where wars go like this:

Person 1: "I use X to do massive slaughter *****'s troops"

Person 2: "Unfortunately for *******'s weapon, my troops were protected and continued to epic massacre *****'s ground force with X"

Person 1: "hay now i used X u dun have nothing left"

Person 2: "Yus I do"

Person 1: "No u dont"

Thread dies here

also gang $%&@ sucks. CNRP will die fast if this continues. It's already killed the Alliance/IG part of the game, lets keep it from destroying RP

One simple solution here is to not assume in one post you've totally degraded your enemies war fighting capability. Its possible from sustained attacks to knock out someone quickly, but you should be prepared for counters. One thing that annoys me is if someone says they kill everything you have on the opening post into the war or they assume that because they have RPed development of a combat system it automatically defeats yours even if you have roughly the same development levels in game. If someone at 2000 tech is RPing F-15s (which would be realistic to have at that level) and the other is RPing F-22s. One should assume that the F-15s are heavily upgraded and while on paper weaker planes could compete with the F-22s to some extent. Especially if say one of them has a foreign airbase which increases combat effectiveness of planes.

[Stormcrow]

This thread has not been forgotten. It has been and is continuing to be read and considered. Please don't fear that change is not coming; but I've been wanting to insure that the change was community endorsed; community approved. I think the overwhelming support that has been seen for the Two Forums issue has been sucessfully approved...The possibility of an OOC sub-forum looks like a distinct possiblity as well.

We are confering on this issue. If anyone has the eloquence to sum up the best arguments and ideas of both this thread and the best resolutions made in the OOC thread, I want to hear it.

Stormcrow out.

[KingEsus]

...

I always thought the Global Politics forum was more for in-game global discussion and not RP stuff. Nat/War I used to post in but gave up around a year or so ago due to no traffic.

Instead of deleting any forums, perhaps the Alliance and Global forums need to be put in an IN-GAME DISCUSSION FORUM section while the News, Sports, and Nat/War could go in an RP DISCUSSION FORUM section? That would be my only suggestion for change.

I pretty much agree with Botha, but why not rename 'News' as 'CNRP' with the explanation text making it clear it is entirely separate to the 'in game' CN. Then rename the others as required.

[King Kevz]

I pretty much agree with Botha, but why not rename 'News' as 'CNRP' with the explanation text making it clear it is entirely separate to the 'in game' CN. Then rename the others as required.

That isn't really applicable seeing as not all people who post in News are posting as part of the CNRP and alliances can post news reports here on the IG stuff if they wish as can individual players.

[Vasili Markov]

I pretty much agree with Botha, but why not rename 'News' as 'CNRP' with the explanation text making it clear it is entirely separate to the 'in game' CN. Then rename the others as required.

I think that this is a good idea.

CNRP has grown enough now to need its own subforum.

[Ezequiel]

How did 136 people vote... There isn't even that many in RP!

[Sumeragi]

How did 136 people vote... There isn't even that many in RP!

In CNRP, that is.

We chased out a lot of people from RPing.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I strongly agree for the need of IC/OOC separate forum with a topic generate for each as necessary per thread.

Example: IC War in George/OOC War in Georgia.

[Mirreille]

How did 136 people vote... There isn't even that many in RP!

There are probably a fair number of people who just lurk on the RP forums and don't post. There's nothing to say they aren't allowed to vote and there you have it.

[Generalissimo]

I like the idea of a CNRP forum, but why not keep a traditional Cybernations News Forum? Remember back in the old days when the minimum requirement for news threads was in character posts that did not have to necessarily follow any sort of continuity?

Keep a news forum, but create a CNRP forum.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Generalissimo

[Vasili Markov]

I have an idea for a system that will reduce the amount of confusion about minor rules.

1: The game is divided into turns (one day in length would be the ideal turn duration for me, but shorter durations can be used depending on the situation) and every player posts one and only one action per turn.

2: At the end of each turn the gamemaster looks at each action and decides their consequences and posts the results in the thread.

Simplified Example:

Player 1: I move my navy at best speed to examplestan's port, I am at alert level 1.

Player 2: I launch my fighter bombers to intercept Player 1's Fleet, My fighter bombers have my new anti ship missile.

Gamemaster: RESULTS; Player 1's navy travels 100 nm towards examplestan and is attacked by fighter bombers from Player 2, In the battle Player 1 loses 1 destroyer and 5 fighters and has his carrier damaged, it can now only travel at half speed until it gets to port. Player 2 loses 15 fighter bombers and has a further 10 damaged due to heavy flak. 2 pilots survive and eject over the battle.

This system will take a little longer to play but it will have the advantage of keeping everyone moving at the same speed in action intense roleplay scenes like personal combat and wars, it will also prevent confusion about whether a move is out of turn and it will prevent godmoding because the GM decides the consequences of all the actions, the players only provide the data of what they can potentially do because of their action and their move. Obviously if a thread is made up of only social interactions then this system will not be needed and the scene can progress at the pace decided by the players.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Vasili Markov

[Sargun II]

1: The game is divided into turns (one day in length would be the ideal turn duration for me, but shorter durations can be used depending on the situation) and every player posts one and only one action per turn.

2: At the end of each turn the gamemaster looks at each action and decides their consequences and posts the results in the thread.

-snip-

This system will take a little longer to play but it will have the advantage of keeping everyone moving at the same speed in action intense roleplay scenes like personal combat and wars, it will also prevent confusion about whether a move is out of turn and it will prevent godmoding because the GM decides the consequences of all the actions, the players only provide the data of what they can potentially do because of their action and their move. Obviously if a thread is made up of only social interactions then this system will not be needed and the scene can progress at the pace decided by the players.

This is a great idea, although the only one action per turn could be very restricting. When someone's doing a major invasion, 1 day per turn could result in a magnificently slow invasion and consequently could make it easier for the defender to set up. (For example, if I invaded Gebiv and I only did my navy [which I don't have anymore, it's hypothetical], they could reinforce the ground this turn, and the next, and then RP the counter because my aircraft is on par with theirs. that gives them a huge land defense advantage while our air forces are practically equal, making it harder for the invasion)

Perhaps one land action, one sea and one air per turn, and each turn's length is decided by the gamemasters as it start?

[Vasili Markov]

Fair enough, thanks for your input.

1 air, land & sea action would work a lot better.

And variable turn length would help.

But I fail to see how slower turn lengths would help the defender set up, they would be under the 1 air/sea/land move per turn as well so the best I could anticipate is if the player is paying attention and has suitable assets to detect an invasion is the following:

Defending player: Air; All fighters are scrambled, Land: The military is set defcon 1 and all AA and fixed defences are manned, Sea; the Navy leaves the harbour to intercept the invasion fleet.

A surprise bonus turn could be awarded to a particularly well thought out and well written invasion plan that takes into account how they avoid being detected would allow for surprise attacks. (Reward well thought out, literate and realistic invasions with a bonus attack)

The defending player would only be allowed to state what detection measures were active at the time and this would have to be evidenced by a link to a post that is time stamped before the invasion post. (Simulate the effect of well thought out defences, A radar grid and a SOSUS system as well as other sensors will be an attractive investment to a nation wishing to avoid being "mugged")

Edited February 5, 2009 by Vasili Markov

[JerreyRough]

As long as that's PvP, and not in something like in the Atlantis RP (something will attack them ), I'm fine with it.

[Sargun II]

But I fail to see how slower turn lengths would help the defender set up, they would be under the 1 air/sea/land move per turn as well so the best I could anticipate is if the player is paying attention and has suitable assets to detect an invasion is the following:

I didn't mean slower turn lengths by themselves. With only one action per turn + 1 day per turn, one person could hypothetically buff up their land defenses while the invaders would need to see to it that they spread their actions out by land, air, and sea. While air domination is critical for a win, land domination is needed for one, period.

With one air/sea/land move, both the invader and the defender are on equal footing.

[King Kevz]

No offense intended but I like CNRP as it is. We have enough rules for everyone to have fun start throwing out extras and its not going to be so fun anymore.

Also as Sargun said one turn a day is quite lame and restricting.

If I was to say launch a multiple invasion by sea and want to hit two beaches and engage their navy thats three turns needed for three days...

[Tahsir]

Is this ever going to be done?

Its been 60% -70% in favor of two forums since this thread was created. Even the US senate passes legislation faster

[Shadowsage]

NOTHING beats the US senate in terms of sloth.

[Mirreille]

NOTHING beats the US senate in terms of sloth.

I once returned a library book 13 years overdue.