Jump to content

Generalissimo Versus Military Multipliers


Generalissimo
 Share

military multipliers - a question  

28 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1309099766' post='2741884']
Really, how?
[/quote]

Well for one the realism factor, having 100,000 soldiers over a country like the UFE would make true defense very difficult as you'd be spread out awfully thin, likewise the ig ratio is messed up where the amount of tanks can be equal to 10% of the soldier count. Something hardly ever seen in real life.

The multipliers as they treat everyone evenly have no downsides but at the same time allow more freedom in story-writing, development of armed forces and simply are more realistic when looking at the real life scenario's.

Edited by Centurius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's mainly the fact that if you have a country as large as many we have, and can only defend them with the 50,000 soldiers you have IG, it seems like a logistical impossibility, and just plain silly.

Edited by KaiserMelech Mikhail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1309100058' post='2741890']I think it's mainly the fact that if you have a country as large as many we have, and can only defend them with the 50,000 soldiers you have IG, it seems like a logistical impossibility, and just plain silly.[/quote] Maybe people should play smaller nations ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1309100163' post='2741892']
But CNRP is kind of supposed to be a reflection of your CyberNations nation. . .
[/quote]
It already is. The ratio of soldiers can be the same (except for the fact that I use a x2 multiplier instead of x10), and the larger armies, although stupidly large in most nations, just makes the game seem a little more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1309100285' post='2741894']
Maybe people should play smaller nations ^_^
[/quote]
I'm cool with that. :awesome:

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1309100532' post='2741897']
It's more math. More math! How does that make things easier?
[/quote]
Sticking a 0 on the end of you IG troop numbers really isn't math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Botha is one member in CN RP and not a current one. Citing him as law is worthless.

I vote keep multipliers there is more realism. I actually wouldn't mind adding some so nations could build up even more for global world wars!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1309101647' post='2741908']I vote keep multipliers there is more realism.[/quote]CNRP is already unrealistic, what's one more concession?

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1309101647' post='2741908']I actually wouldn't mind adding some so nations could build up even more for global world wars![/quote]You use realisim and global world wars in the same post, yet realistically there hasn't been a world war in the atomic age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted to keep them, mainly because A: without them, wars would be incredibly boring since a well-placed strike could annihilate an entire army and B: It gives smaller nations even LESS room to maneuver. Imagine going up against Pravus with about five thousand soldiers instead of fifty thousand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1309102307' post='2741913']I voted to keep them, mainly because A: without them, wars would be incredibly boring since a well-placed strike could annihilate an entire army and B: It gives smaller nations even LESS room to maneuver. Imagine going up against Pravus with about five thousand soldiers instead of fifty thousand.
[/quote]I disagree, believing removing military multipliers gives smaller nations more room to maneuver
Remember that bigger nations have better technology, giving them more troops give them [b]*even more*[/b] of an advantage

I could be wrong

Do 1,000 have a better chance against 10,000 - then 10,000 have against 100,000?
Is one WW2 Sherman against ten modern Abrams better off then ten WW2 Shermans against one hundred modern Abrams?

Edited by Generalissimo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just would like to ask the question, what would playing strictly by our IG numbers change or improve about the game? We have smaller armies, people will still be just as militarized and I doubt that the RP would change all that differently. In fact I think it would make the game less realistic as people with large swaths of territory will still say their people are content and rebellions are crushed by small amounts of extremely trained men and women. I'd just like to know, what advantages and positive effects do you see happening if this would be implemented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hardly consider Botha the man most responsible. I consider him one person who did RP early, but there were plenty of others. I think though that to say he's most responsible is unfair to the rest of CN RP. Botha basically sat in a hermit kingdom for 4 years while the rest of the community grew and evolved CN RP.

In regards to the argument about not being a world war since the atomic age, that is a choice of story. War livens up story for people and they can choose to participate in it. They can also choose what form of government they want even if its not realistic. There is a difference between material realism and character realism. Generally this community has been in favor of the former but not the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1309102589' post='2741917']
Do 1,000 have a better chance against 10,000 - then 10,000 have against 100,000?
[/quote]
Of course, if those 10k soldiers have the proper artillery and armored support and if their tactics favor defense instead of offense.
[quote]
Is one WW2 Sherman against ten modern Abrams better off then ten WW2 Shermans against one hundred modern Abrams?
[/quote]
Same as above, replacing "armored" with infantry support. As an alternative point, if someone is using Shermans against Abrams, there's probably a bigger problem. The lowest tech you could be using Shermans at would be 2 tech, and if someone has only 2 tech, then they have a serious problem going up against someone with a minimum of 100 tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1309101647' post='2741908']
I actually wouldn't mind adding some so nations could build up even more for global world wars!
[/quote]
Never going to happen. All the really big nations of the world are for some reason, despite often opposite political, economic, and religious identities, all allied to one another. The only world wars we have are one big nation attacking one medium or small nation, with a bunch of tiny nations jumping in so that they can put a W on their war record that everyone knows they don't deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 10x military multiplier makes sense for nations spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles, as do population multipliers. I use multipliers and Botha didn't, and we still managed to RP for years and never had issues. I can understand his reasons for not doing so, but it is more realistic to use multipliers.

Edited by Vedran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1309103024' post='2741923']I hardly consider Botha the man most responsible. I consider him one person who did RP early, but there were plenty of others. I think though that to say he's most responsible is unfair to the rest of CN RP. Botha basically sat in a hermit kingdom for 4 years while the rest of the community grew and evolved CN RP.[/quote][i]Scramble for Africa[/i] is the tread that kick started CNRP, before that it was entirely freeform.
Botha was responsible for [i]Scramble for Africa[/i].
There were other factors, but having been against the world map, I still blame Botha.

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1309103024' post='2741923']. . .There is a difference between material realism and character realism. Generally this community has been in favor of the former but not the latter.[/quote] That’s actually a great point.
Character and material realism are completely different; CNRP really likes unrealistic characters even in a quasi-realistic setting.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...