The GM's Court

[Centurius]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295966301' post='2600084']
You're still not getting it, and that is the saddest thing. Your numbers for your nation CANNOT come from anywhere else except being DIRECTLY corrolated to your IG numbers. No one here uses RL numbers to base their CNRP numbers off of. Even allowing the flirtration with such a suggestion creates a dangerous precident and a long, slippery slope that will take this game somewhere that completely goes against teh rules it was founded on.

Secondly, I'm tossing this suggestion out there given current events beyond our borders. With the global war now looking like it will impact just about everyone, I'm proposing a freeze on CNRP stats until the war is over. I know we tossed out stat saving a while ago, and I'm not proposing we go back to it. What I'm proposing is people's stats are frozen as they are now, so that it is easier for people to play CNRP during the war. Not having to adjust your stats every day and figure out what you have and don't have will make it easier for people heavilly involved in the war to continue to keep this community active as well. Once the war is over, people would have to RP why their nations are different, but to worry about that during the war itself may put undue stress on people and lead to a rash of locked nations (as we are already seeing), which would stagnate the community and make it less fun for those not in the war.
[/quote]

A lot of people base their citizens off of real life numbers, their cities, etc. A precedent has been set for numbers loosely based on real life statistics.

As for the freeze I could agree to that.

Edit: Perhaps in the interest of rp continuity and the complete destruction that will happen it might be worth bringing back saved stats more longterm.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Centurius

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295966463' post='2600086']
A lot of people base their citizens off of real life numbers, their cities, etc. A precedent has been set for numbers loosely based on real life statistics.

As for the freeze I could agree to that.

Edit: Perhaps in the interest of rp continuity and the complete destruction that will happen it might be worth bringing back saved stats more longterm.
[/quote]

I was referring to military numbers, as I have been the entire time, not civilian numbers. There is no prescident for using RL numbers for your military numbers.

As for the long-term saved stats... *shrugs* It was abused before, nations with like 200infra still prancing around like they were 50k NS. I think a temporary freeze would be best, which would give us time to discuss a potential long-term stat saving measure.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295966301' post='2600084']
You're still not getting it, and that is the saddest thing. Your numbers for your nation CANNOT come from anywhere else except being DIRECTLY corrolated to your IG numbers. No one here uses RL numbers to base their CNRP numbers off of. Even allowing the flirtration with such a suggestion creates a dangerous precident and a long, slippery slope that will take this game somewhere that completely goes against teh rules it was founded on.[/quote]



To be frank, I couldn't be arsed where Kankou gets her numbers from. Because the lot of you (CNRP as a whole, I suppose) refuse to allow a laxation in the standing rule- that all AFV mission types that are not MBTs must not surpass the IG number of Tanks in their summation, compared to the 2x multiplier we were proposing, Cochin will enforce it.

She could say she has the millions of tanks that the fictional UN Spacey has - it doesn't matter, as they'd go over her current limit of AFVs=MBTs. As for the towed artillery you guys also refuse to regulate, Cochin's going to need to know numbers Kankou wishes to field, regardless of where they're from, so he may smite them on the grounds of 'common sense'.

Are you guys seriously implying that had Kankou 'accidentally' proposed a number that just 'happened' to be the same as what RL Korea has, without mentioning that tidbit, that you'd not all be up in arms? That [b]just the fact that she's basing her numbers on RL numbers[/b], opposed to [b]the fact that the numbers are terribly excessive for CNRP[/b], is what's making you indignant? If so, your efforts are sorely misplaced.


[quote]
Secondly, I'm tossing this suggestion out there given current events beyond our borders. With the global war now looking like it will impact just about everyone, I'm proposing a freeze on CNRP stats until the war is over. I know we tossed out stat saving a while ago, and I'm not proposing we go back to it. What I'm proposing is people's stats are frozen as they are now, so that it is easier for people to play CNRP during the war. Not having to adjust your stats every day and figure out what you have and don't have will make it easier for people heavilly involved in the war to continue to keep this community active as well. Once the war is over, people would have to RP why their nations are different, but to worry about that during the war itself may put undue stress on people and lead to a rash of locked nations (as we are already seeing), which would stagnate the community and make it less fun for those not in the war.
[/quote]

I would propose a modification to our current system, but in fairness to Lavo, I'd say a date earlier than today's... but that's just me, naturally.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Executive Minister

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295967266' post='2600108']
To be frank, I couldn't be arsed where Kankou gets her numbers from. Because the lot of you (CNRP as a whole, I suppose) refuse to allow a laxation in the standing rule- that all AFV mission types that are not MBTs must not surpass the IG number of Tanks in their summation, compared to the 2x multiplier we were proposing, Cochin will enforce it.

She could say she has the millions of tanks that the fictional UN Spacey has - it doesn't matter, as they'd go over her current limit of AFVs=MBTs. As for the towed artillery you guys also refuse to regulate, Cochin's going to need to know numbers Kankou wishes to field, regardless of where they're from, so he may smite them on the grounds of 'common sense'.

Are you guys seriously implying that had Kankou 'accidentally' proposed a number that just 'happened' to be the same as what RL Korea has, without mentioning that tidbit, that you'd not all be up in arms? That [b]just the fact that she's basing her numbers on RL numbers[/b], opposed to [b]the fact that the numbers are terribly excessive for CNRP[/b], is what's making you indignant? If so, your efforts are sorely misplaced.[/quote]

I stated earlier that I thought the numbers were excessive and unnecessary. I don't see the need to raise the APC/IFV/arty cap, as I feel it'll just lead to more "lolblitzing" as I said before. I was the one who brought up Kankou's obscenely high numbers from her military thread, so yes, I've been protesting her numbers all along. Using RL numbers was just the icing on the cake for me.


[quote]I would propose a modification to our current system, but in fairness to Lavo, I'd say a date earlier than today's... but that's just me, naturally.
[/quote]

I can agree to that. I'm sure Lavo knows where he was yesterday. I'd say people should back up their claims with a screenshot if possible, but that's just me.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295968294' post='2600133']
I stated earlier that I thought the numbers were excessive and unnecessary. I don't see the need to raise the APC/IFV/arty cap, as I feel it'll just lead to more "lolblitzing" as I said before. I was the one who brought up Kankou's obscenely high numbers from her military thread, so yes, I've been protesting her numbers all along. [b]Using RL numbers was just the icing on the cake for me.[/b]
[/quote]

Might I question why? Whether or not she chooses to model her military after the millions strong Chinese Armed forces, or directly off of her CN numbers, they'd both end up being the same due to present rules.

When I thought that AFV numbers were based on the 'common sensical' rule, I modeled my IFV and APC counts off of American Orders of battle, trying to be proportional to my infantry counts. I fail to see what all the hulabaloo is over Kankou doing the same for Korea if it'll get nixed by the rules anyways. And that's discarding my belief that she did that just to show why regulation is important- but I digress.

[quote]
I can agree to that. I'm sure Lavo knows where he was yesterday. I'd say people should back up their claims with a screenshot if possible, but that's just me.
[/quote]

While I took screenshots of my nation before the war- not in anticipation of the magnitude this CN war would have, or the onset of old saved stats mechanics - but for nostalgic purposes, can't everyone just look at their 30-day charts and select the day we arbitrarily choose to be saved stats day?

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295968711' post='2600146']
Might I question why? Whether or not she chooses to model her military after the millions strong Chinese Armed forces, or directly off of her CN numbers, they'd both end up being the same due to present rules.

When I thought that AFV numbers were based on the 'common sensical' rule, I modeled my IFV and APC counts off of American Orders of battle, trying to be proportional to my infantry counts. I fail to see what all the hulabaloo is over Kankou doing the same for Korea if it'll get nixed by the rules anyways. And that's discarding my belief that she did that just to show why regulation is important- but I digress.[/quote]

From my understanding, with the RL stats thing, she wanted the ACTUAL RL numbers for those areas, having no connection to her IG nation whatsoever. That's why I torched the idea. I feel that everything should have SOME connection to your IG nation and its numbers, because otherwise it isn't CNRP, it's just RP.

[quote]While I took screenshots of my nation before the war- not in anticipation of the magnitude this CN war would have, or the onset of old saved stats mechanics - but for nostalgic purposes, can't everyone just look at their 30-day charts and select the day we arbitrarily choose to be saved stats day?
[/quote]

The 30 day charts just give NS, don't they? Not infra and tech?

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295969786' post='2600172']
From my understanding, with the RL stats thing, she wanted the ACTUAL RL numbers for those areas, having no connection to her IG nation whatsoever. That's why I torched the idea. I feel that everything should have SOME connection to your IG nation and its numbers, because otherwise it isn't CNRP, it's just RP.
[/quote]

Alright. I'll clarify something that Cochin probably failed to convey in an appropriate manner, and I'll do it slowly so everyone can understand -

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295874142' post='2596457']
Please provide the numbers of various ground equipment you plan to RP as 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, 0.5 Japan's worth [b]and your current max IG tank count.[/b]
Also provide the numbers of various ground equipment you plan to RP as 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, 1 Japan, 1 Shenyan Military Region, 1 Beijing Military Region, 1 Russian Siberian Military District and 1 Russian Far Eastern Military District'w worth and your estimated [b]max IG tank count at that point of time.[/b]

Provide the detailed list of numbers you plan to RP in both contingencies and the GMs would discuss it and pronounce a ruling.

Please do know that [u][b]if those numbers do not tally up to common sense standards of CNRP and/or RL, we would be requiring you to RP reduced number of equipments.[/b][/u]
[/quote]

The present rule is that the summation of all AFVs (Armored Fighting Vehicles) that are not MBTs (Main Battle Tanks) must be less than or equal to the [b]max IG tank count at that point in time.[/b] Now, since everyone has refused to include towed artillery in, or make a new regulation regarding this [b]max IG tank count[/b], Cochin is going to have to make a decision based on what Kankou plans to RP in any contingency, including the future. Preferably he'll do so, with respect to Kankou's [b]max IG tank count at that point of time.

Nowhere [/b]did Cochin convey in any way that he would ignore the important [b]max IG count at that point of time[/b]. I continue to fail to see why Cochin's abilities or qualifications to be a GM would be brought up in this procedure. Cochin is attempting to manage this request of Kankou's with all regards to the CN-aspect of CNRP (again, the [b]max IG count at that point of time[/b] that he requested from Kankou), while also respecting the community's apparent demand for there to be no limit to Towed Artilleries for some inexplicable reason.

[u][b]You have all stated your desire to have artillery and similar equipment fall under this arbitrary 'common sense' standard, Cochin is merely applying this desire in his ruling.[/b][/u][b] I fail to see how this is a monstrous application of game management.[/b]

[quote]
The 30 day charts just give NS, don't they? Not infra and tech?
[/quote]

You are correct. It'll have to be screencaps for all, or else, no freeze.

[king of cochin]

First of all Kankou has explicitly said that she is only taking the numbers for ground equipment apart from tanks. As things stand we do not have any IG basis of calculation for many military equipments like APCs, IFVs, Humvees, Trucks, Helicopters etc apart from the common sense rule. So how is basing the numbers of these equipment from RL such a grave violation?

I once again stress the fact that at no point has Kankou said she would be taking the tank or assault soldiers' numbers from any RL corollary. You may also read my post asking her for her IG max tanks.

@Pravus Ingruo : What IG corollary do you use to derive the numbers of your Air Force transport aircrafts, AWACS, Aerial tankers, trucks, humvees, coast guard vessels etc?

Our efforts has so far been precisely to avoid a slippery slope situation.

As regards the freeze, I find that agreeable. Dated screenshots ought to suffice, but only as a temporary basis. Perhaps we GMs ought to make sure, but every nation saving stats temporarily would have to reflect loss of stats in around one or two weeks after the termination of their last conflict.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295971031' post='2600210']
[u][b]You have all stated your desire to have artillery and similar equipment fall under this arbitrary 'common sense' standard, Cochin is merely applying this desire in his ruling.[/b][/u][b] I fail to see how this is a monstrous application of game management.[/b][/quote]

Actually, I have always included artillery and MLRS units with my APCs and IFVs as "must be equal to or lesser than your number of MBTs". I have my Army set-ups to prove it. So please don't go lumping me in with everyone else when I have been one of the biggest proponents of the rule as it is and maintaining it.


[quote]You are correct. It'll have to be screencaps for all, or else, no freeze.
[/quote]

You'll have mine after I get home from work.

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295971060' post='2600211']
First of all Kankou has explicitly said that she is only taking the numbers for ground equipment apart from tanks. As things stand we do not have any IG basis of calculation for many military equipments like APCs, IFVs, Humvees, Trucks, Helicopters etc apart from the common sense rule. So how is basing the numbers of these equipment from RL such a grave violation?[/quote]

Incorrect. APC and IFVs are currently a part of the "must be equal to or lesser than your MBTs" rule.

[quote]@Pravus Ingruo : What IG corollary do you use to derive the numbers of your Air Force transport aircrafts, AWACS, Aerial tankers, trucks, humvees, coast guard vessels etc?[/quote]

Air Force transport aircrafts is one wing each (one heavy, one light), which would equate to approximately 1/4-1/3 of my IG Air Force. AWACs numbers are equal to my AC-130 numbers (in this case, 3 squadrons), and my AC-130s are taken out of my total Air Force total. Tankers are also equal to AC-130s. Trucks and Humvees are what is needed to transport troops, outside of APCs and IFVs. Small Coast Guard ships are apporximately double my navy size. So yes, there is an IG collary to each.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295971618' post='2600227']
Incorrect. APC and IFVs are currently a part of the "must be equal to or lesser than your MBTs" rule.
[/quote]

Again as I said earlier whatever numbers she state ultimately it would have to conform to the existing rule. I guess that issue is closed?

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295971618' post='2600227']
Air Force transport aircrafts is one wing each (one heavy, one light), which would equate to approximately 1/4-1/3 of my IG Air Force. AWACs numbers are equal to my AC-130 numbers (in this case, 3 squadrons), and my AC-130s are taken out of my total Air Force total. Tankers are also equal to AC-130s. Trucks and Humvees are what is needed to transport troops, outside of APCs and IFVs. Small Coast Guard ships are apporximately double my navy size. So yes, there is an IG collary to each.
[/quote]

Good for you. Unless you are expecting rest of the community to follow the same calculations as you are using, we can all agree that people have various means of coming up with numbers of their auxiliary equipment. The common sense rule and the existing CNRP regulations would still be applied to them.

[Fizzydog]

I always thought air transport and any unarmed support vehicles/coast guard ships are KISS? Why is CNRP so based on numbers?

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1295990728' post='2600916']
I always thought air transport and any unarmed support vehicles/coast guard ships are KISS? Why is CNRP so based on numbers?
[/quote]

AFAIK, it is based on KISS.

[Sargun II]

Eh, I decided it wasn't worth it. Just gonna go on the record as being against screenshots because we don't know when the war will end, and some people might get out before others, etc., and I'd like more discussion before anything happens. A lot more.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Sargun

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1296002384' post='2601351']
Eh, I decided it wasn't worth it. Just gonna go on the record as being against screenshots because we don't know when the war will end, and some people might get out before others, etc., and I'd like more discussion before anything happens. A lot more.
[/quote]

Also against saved stats: how long afterward the war's over do screenshots continue to work? Until you've recovered to your former NS? That could be a year or more for the larger nations. A week or a month? Simpler to RP the damage now than to deal with screenshots.

Edited January 26, 2011 by iKrolm

[Kankou]

I've taken out general WAVs and the DPRK APCs. Towed artillery and AA guns are not calculated.



Current (5,500 tanks)

IFV/APC: 2,700
SPA: 10,000


Future (9,600 tanks)

IFV/APC: 9,000
SPA: 12,500


Seriously, let's just double the IG tank numbers for IFV/APC/SPA and get this over with. Simplest solution.





Saved stats: Opposed in any form (except short term for RP wars), based on principle. Why the sudden change after all the "we must follow IG stats" fuss?

[king of cochin]

With more arguments against saved stats, we may need further discussions on whether to or not to bring in saved stats as a temporary measure.

[HHAYD]

The only time I see saved stats as okay is if the RPer is under P/E-ZI sentence.

[Kevin Kingswell]

As far as I know saved stats are still banned from the last ruling during the last great war. If people are attacked ingame then they have to RP the consequences in RP as well. Simple as that.

[Executive Minister]

My understanding is that this proposition was made due to the magnitude of this CN war... perhaps bringing back saved stats for the interim IS a knee-jerk reaction... but again, should the community's majority support it, I'll make it so.

For the record, strike my support for this down.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1296048618' post='2602626']
My understanding is that this proposition was made due to the magnitude of this CN war... perhaps bringing back saved stats for the interim IS a knee-jerk reaction... but again, should the community's majority support it, I'll make it so.

For the record, strike my support for this down.
[/quote]

Bah magnitude... The last war was also quite large and people took heavy damage but they had to rp their slow rebuilding and so people have to here. Again no saved stats at all.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1296048853' post='2602630']
Bah magnitude... The last war was also quite large and people took heavy damage but they had to rp their slow rebuilding and so people have to here. Again no saved stats at all.
[/quote]

The thing is though, considering the magnitude not everyone has time to rp their damages during the war, saving stats until their conflicts end however gives them time to rp it later.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1296049162' post='2602633']
The thing is though, considering the magnitude not everyone has time to rp their damages during the war, saving stats until their conflicts end however gives them time to rp it later.
[/quote]

What? Your statement makes no sense if people save stats then they won't need to rebuild will they?

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1296049328' post='2602636']
What? Your statement makes no sense if people save stats then they won't need to rebuild will they?
[/quote]

Picture this, from an IC perspective.

Suddenly, nations across the globe, for example, Rebel Army, inexplicably whittle themselves down to less than half strength. Is this a sign of some post apocalyptic event of some sorts? Nay, because no one will ever accept that alien invasion RP event i've been pushing for my entire time on the boards

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1296049495' post='2602641']
Picture this, from an IC perspective.

Suddenly, nations across the globe, for example, Rebel Army, inexplicably whittle themselves down to less than half strength. Is this a sign of some post apocalyptic event of some sorts? Nay, because no one will ever accept that alien invasion RP event i've been pushing for my entire time on the boards
[/quote]

It happened in the last war so why is it changing for this one. I admit I may be biased in this regard due to the fact in the last war when I was with NpO I went from a decent sized nation to ZI and had to rebuild everything ingame and in the RP and just don't like the fact that others will be getting off scot free.

Also if we are going to ignore CN wars then will people stop complaining when people say you are taking CN out of CNRP for other things.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1296049328' post='2602636']
What? Your statement makes no sense if people save stats then they won't need to rebuild will they?
[/quote]

That's why it's a temporary measure. Just long enough for people to be able to prperly rp the destruction.