Kankou

My response: I'm a cynic who believes that almost everyone are absolute hypocritical jerks in their CNRP player persona as they attack. Basically, jerks are making whiners and vice versa, leading to a vicious circle, and the fact that only few individuals actually contemplate this is quite a problem. I'm in general agreement with TheShammySocialist except on the role of GMs. With GMs now being elected, we do not have as much of a problem as unaccountable GMs who could basically dictate policy when they wish, which was the main reason why GM involvement caused divisiveness. The change of the system has allowed GMs to be more accountable and perhaps more "neutral", and thus it is to my belief that the role of GMs as arbitrators should be strengthened.

If you're not going to help with the solution as a player with a vote, I don't see how you're helping at all.

Go get a CNRP nation, Mogar.

I personally don't care about preplanning in itself, especially given how both the attackers and the defenders have abused it. What I want is for the culture of CNRP to change a bit, be it by preplanning, some new rule, empowering of GMs, or simple consensus. That is my ultimate position, as I have said over the times.

The basic idea is simple: Wars should be a fun experience to both parties, not the usual egoistic cumbstomping that quite a few wars became over the smallest of actions. This means both sides need to sit down and talk about how the war is be done (not necessarily a script as mentioned by TSS). Given CNRP's general dysfunction on that front, we should think about being better RPers instead of mere opposition to the idea of preplanning.

What I wrote in the GM thread: [quote]Furthermore, I would like to add my personal opinion: Preplanning should be closer to information gathering and trying to make the war a fun experience. We see complaints about not being able to war as an infringement of a player's rights. However, that also applies the other way: a player has the right to not be in war if that person does not want to. The preplanning should be about trying to find common ground, rather than of the attacker threatening with a waiver for a complete smackdown or the defender denying and denying. We should think about this in order to make preplanning a better process for CNRP.[/quote] Basically, what preplanning should be (in my eyes) is the codification of what we should be doing when RPing wars. We shouldn't force wars upon players when the defender had not done something worthy of being a casus belli (yes, I know that anything and everything can be a casus belli, but let's assume we restrict this to something like actual hostile actions, not just putting someone on a rogue list), and even if we do, instead of the trying to steamroll while ignoring the defender, people should at least have a discussion on how to make the war the best experience possible. All players should, nominally, have the right to enjoy what they are RPing. The fact that we had to codify such a basic thing into the concept of preplanning tells quite a bit about how problematic CNRP as a whole is. We should act how we should as decent RPers, and I hope that we can bring this about regardless of whether preplanning continues to exist or not.

I concur with both TSS and Sarah on their decision. Just an extra comment: The two main differences between TSS and Markus in their RPs is that while TSS is right next door and stated he is open to discussion on how to get the war rolling, Markus moved a large fleet across the Atlantic (an act in itself which any nominally capable nation should have been able to detect and be suspicious of) and also basically initially said he's throwing discussions out the window. The fact of whether preplanning happened before, during, or after the start of the conflicts is not the issue: rather, how the attacker behaved in the course of actions is what is the main difference.

Anything more concrete than just that? Like, did you two discuss where the troops were at the start of the war, how Georgia managed to sneak that large a fleet from the eyes of the world, etc? If that had been done, I see no reason why Isaac should be able to refuse the war.

Markus: There is no such thing as a effectively dead rule. It's either dead or alive, and as it is it is alive, it's a matter of whether it is enforced. I'm of the opinion that you should stop being a jerk and just talk with Isaac a bit by IRC or PM. Also, strictly my personal opinion: I believe that anyone who refuses to discuss wars before/during a conflict does not deserve to RP at all. If one is not willing to carry out the effort, then they should be like Lynneth and go to their own little RP world. Yawoo: Please give me a post of the official installing into rule, something of the sort like Centurius did about post-nuke rerolling.

Triyun: And if Isaac doesn't want to? I see no reason why he should be forced into a war which is already a comical god mode, especially since Markus has stated he shall be refusing to preplan. Yawoo: Frankly, was that ever an actual rule, or just a one-shot extraordinary thing? I don't recall anything of the sort being done during my time in CNRP (only following the reference of what people say happened).

Doing activities that a [b]normal realistic[/b] country would take as a [i]casus belli[/i] is an unquestionable act of war which revokes a person's right to be at peace. Bringing that constant example is basically a red herring since no one disagrees with such a situation, and furthermore such occasions are becoming less and less. In fact, the most recent conflict (Markus's unprovoked invasion of Brazil) is the exact opposite of the self-evident example you always bring up. What is your thought on that particular conflict?

1. If preplanning died, then SDI coverage for expeditionary forces also died (tied which was broken in favor of abolishment after the deadline). If you really want to start another "tied without extension of deadline" argument, be my guest. Frankly, why people don't bother adding deadlines or clauses for extending the deadline in times of ties is beyond me. 2. As far as I'm concerned, that rule only existed when GMs had absolute power as in the past. I consider that rule dead with the rise of preplanning (whatever that is supposed to be) and the "will of the players" revolution.

I concur with TSS. Furthermore, I would like to add my personal opinion: Preplanning should be closer to information gathering and trying to make the war a fun experience. We see complaints about not being able to war as an infringement of a player's rights. However, that also applies the other way: a player has the right to not be in war if that person does not want to. The preplanning should be about trying to find common ground, rather than of the attacker threatening with a waiver for a complete smackdown or the defender denying and denying. We should think about this in order to make preplanning a better process for CNRP.

If Halliwell was thinking he would be meeting an elderly gentleman, he couldn't be more wrong. A petite girl would come out to greet him. "Welcome, Mr. Halliwell. I hope your visit to the Greater Quebec Republic shall be as fruitful as you wish it to be." She would take him to her office, explaining along the way her temporary position as representative of the government of Quebec on the Montreal public security committee. "Montreal is the center of Quebec, and currently the commercial capital of what was formerly Canada. Such a city requires more care than usual." Soon they would arrive in a stoically furnished office which had a great view of the city. "I believe that the use of the Saint Lawrence Seaway is on our agenda for this meeting. Aside from this, potential topics would be electricity issues, potential defense obligations, and general economic relations. Would this be correct?"

Mostly IEDs, but in principle it would be very difficult for any tank to function fully when hit by an artillery shell.

[quote]I don't like the tech scale at all. You know who gets an advantage? Anybody over 999 tech. Once anybody hits 1980 tech, they'll start using the M1 Abrams. You know why? Because it's the best tank in the entire world. Not a single M1 Abrams tank has been lost to enemy fire in it's history. Anyone in the first tier is going to get annihilated by anyone in the second tier and above simply because the M1 Abrams is so vastly superior to anything they can field.[/quote] Allow me to quote [i] GAO/NSIAD-92-94, "Operation Desert Storm: Early performance assessment of Bradleys and Abrams"[/i] "According to the Army’s Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, 23 Abrams tanks were destroyed or damaged in the Persian Gulf area. Of the nine Abrams destroyed, seven were due to friendly fire, and two were intentionally destroyed to prevent capture after they became disabled. Other Abrams tanks were damaged by enemy fire, land mines, on-board fires, or to prevent capture after they became disabled." I don't think the above shows that the MI Abrams is as invincible as you portray it. [quote]I don't quite understand the tech tier moves.[/quote] Basically, if you want to use higer tech, you have to reduce number, and you're allowed to have higher numbers for lesser tech. This can be a good baseline for giving stuff to other nations or merge scenarios. [quote]I don't see why troop replenish rates really need to be modified.[/quote] No more instant peacetime replenishing [quote]Why do military sats need to be limited? They're satellites, not cruise missiles.[/quote] It's connected to prevent all the missile spams that we see to take down satellites (See the German-Korean War, Germanic War). [quote]I thought all of this nuke stuff we already had rules laid down for. Why are we revising what we already have?[/quote] Current system: - You can indefinitely nuke unless we cap it. - You can basically give your entire stockpile to some non-state actor to avoid being traced. - You can basically use legacy weapons to say it wasn't you. - You can use uranium from a difference source to escape responsibility. The proposal aims to make the cost of nuclear weapons higher. [quote]Again with WMDs, I thought all of this was clearly laid out already.[/quote] Endless replenishing and no definite number as to death (possibily causing all sorts of arguments). [quote]I really don't see why we need a modifier for troops in bunkers. It seems a bit silly to me.[/quote] See Korean War. [quote]Why do we need a wonder to do this air defense stuff? Why can I just toss mobile SAMs around and slap radar units by them?[/quote] The wonder is for the Soviet-level full-coverage integrated defense. Obviously you can have basic stuff. [quote]What's the point of this "open/closed society" stuff? [/quote] To give some purpose to all those nations that are highly militaristic, impossible to penetrate because of ideology, totally autarkic, etc.

[quote]There is absolutely no weapon in the Vietnam era tech tier that can damage an Abrams well enough to put it out of commission.[/quote] Artillery shells.

Satellites isn't broken?

Indeed, interesting proposal. I wonder what others think of it.

And that leads to..... IG tech being irrelevant?

Yawoo, not sure what you're suggestion. Basically have everyone be the same tech? Mara, stop making me laugh. Not even Russia would have the coverage you gave for the Northern Imperium, and that says something about how absurd every bit of your RP was.

Tech scale: We're open to ideas. Bioweapons: It's 5,000 per IG CM. Unless you're saying we should be allowed to kill up to 50 million, which is slightly overpowering to say the least. Air Defense: It's more concerned with trying to make the defense part of the air war a bit "realistic". So far most of the slamming was against the offense while defense almost always got a free pass. Posting: It's Triyun who posted this

An argument that was brought up against that was something like "it would make people less inclined to continue". It's partly why the replenishing rate was increased to 25% from the original 5%.

6th gen is SUPPOSED to be at 2025. When was the last time any military did something like that on time? With the new scale, the most people can do is have some beefed up F-22, which by itself is very easy to fight against if you know how to do it, and this applies to even 4th gen fighters. No matter how CNRP might portray it, in reality all air forces work in cooperation with various assets, and those are not as affected by being set back a few years as fighters might seem.

For discussions: New Tech Scale: Basically scaling back the inflated military technology of Lynneth's scale. I warned about this when there was the poll on a new tech scale, and almost everything (starting from stupidly high-tech godmode fighters to people like Mara spamming S-300s) has happened. We need to finally fix this. Tech Tier Moves: Linked to the tech scale, allows more diversity. Troop replenishing rate: Cutting down on the instant peacetime replenishing Satellites: Cutting down on all the crowded orbital space. Missile Numbers: Cutting down on the missile lovers Ragenuking: Do we really need to discuss here? Nuclear Weapons: The changes are 1) Replenishing is now limited to a maximum of 125, 2) You can't give nukes to some non-state organization and get away with it, 3) You can't back out by making nukes from alternative sources WMDs: Basically capping and ceiling some of the WMD use. Bunkers: Cutting down on the bunker lovers (example: Kankou) Air Defense: Cutting down on the insanely powerful AA defenses (example: Mara) Open/Closed Society: Gives both an advantage and disadvatnage to being some hypermilitarized closed bat-insane DPRK equivalent (example: Do I need one here?)