Kankou Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Exactly my point. I don't recall anyone in North America making that many crafts in the first place, and let's not bother with some of the more exotic stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 WOOOO someone is about to get their poop hole kicked in. I love them transports, they make fantastic targets for ASMs. Can your sojer boys swim MO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1339024013' post='2978442'] Read my post, I mean, [i]actually[/i] read what I said. --- On a totally unrelated note, I can say that I personally take offense to when someone makes an assumption that I cannot rule on something because they think I have some apparent slight against them, like in the quote above. This was an issue that came up during my last tenure as GM, where people came to me because they didn't think Triyun or Centurius could not rule for them fairly. We had elections, whatever the outcome may be, some people may not like the results, some might, the fact of the matter remains is the majority of the population of CNRP gave the three individuals a mandate to oversee rulings. There should be now assumed differences unless one of us is directly involved in a conflict, that is where the line is drawn. Past altercations, whether they be OOC or IC, provide no basis of why people should be able to pick and choose GMs because they [i]think[/i] they have a bad rep with them. In the case of graniteknight's accusations against me, in this particular case, do you real think the community would elect a GM if they didn't think (s)he was mature enough to get over some slight tussle, that happened more than two months ago? Seriously, think before you post things like that here, it does this Court no good. [/quote] You know damn well it will continue to happen, regardless of how GMs are chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1339077563' post='2978741'] You know damn well it will continue to happen, regardless of how GMs are chosen. [/quote] Yes, and it's a sad occurrence, that has become more and more prevalent in my time here, when I first started in CNRP, I for one did not see people requesting certain GMs, unless there was a conflict on. I'd hope we'd be able to move on from such petty things, but apparently, that isn't the case. Don't think I'm naive, I was hoping that this new lease on self-policing the mods gave us would shake things up a bit, but as I like to say, I'm a "guarded optimist", meaning I hope for the best, but I also tend to believe the reality will prevail. --- On a totally different note, I am quite aware of what happened during the Normandy Invasion and the like, the fact of the matter is, is not all the follow-up forces for the invasion were RIGHT offshore when the invasion was made. I am simply challenging the fact that the number of transports (like big ships that have been converted to carry troops) would not exist under the common sense rule, to be able to transport five hundred thousand soldiers at once. I'm not talking about LCMs, LCVPs, LCUs, LCIs, or LCwhateverendingletteritis, I'm talking about the kind of seagoing transports invasions need to be able to embark for long journeys. Ergo, from New England down to the Carolinas, while LCUs and LCMs do have the capacity to travel long distances, usually you embark on larger ships, which them disgorge troops onto smaller landing craft. The fact of the matter is, under the auspices of the good old "common sense" rule, the number of transports needed for such an invasion simply does not fit categorically underneath the aforementioned rule. It doesn't matter if it is done from waves FROM the ships, if we are talking using the transports in WAVES FROM NEW ENGLAND, ERGO, the transport would disgorge troops, then race back to New England to pick up more, then [i]that[/i] is fine. Moving maybe a fifth or so of those troops into position for the initial assault and follow-up waves is fine, but then you need to think about having those transports run back to New England to pick up more. Its not like Normandy was in one day, hell, it took the US 2nd Armored Division nearly two weeks to get [i]all[/i] its equipment and personnel on shore and into the fight, for instance, and it was supposed to be a follow up force. Maybe having an initial wave and initial follow ups of one hundred thousand IN TOTAL is fine, five hundred thousand is severely pushing it, moving them all at once to offshore of the Carolinas is just not possible underneath the guise of common sense. Edited June 7, 2012 by TheShammySocialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ok so for example. I have RP'd having enough C-130's to move an entire Corps of combat Paratroopers in one move. Thats 50,000 men. Is that pushing it? or is that fine because I have RP'd HAVING such a large force of transports for [i]just that one Corps.[/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 If you had RPed getting that many planes before the invasion, operation, etc, I don't see a real reason to oppose it short of using some kind of military budget rule, which would be an entirely separate issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Are transport (and refueling) aircraft outside our aircraft limit. Or is Zoot wasting hundreds of aircraft on C-130s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 They fall under auxiliary aircraft, ergo, they are ruled by common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well, luckily I counted them as part of my limit. Now I got little enough an amount to not be hurt by disposing of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1339101937' post='2978897'] They fall under auxiliary aircraft, ergo, they are ruled by common sense. [/quote] Aye, but what is common sense to one, is not to another. Its around 600 C-130's, given that I am in the process of writing a post to give my OTHER paratrooper corps that ammount to move them all in one go, brings me to around 1200 transport aircraft alone to move 100,000 men. If I RP'd that, and did it, ould that be common sense? Hell no because nobody in RL does it, but im gonna do it anyway. Common sense is thrown around like a cheap hooker. Im not having a dig at you or any of the GM's past/present, but that saying needs to be mugged of for something that applies to CNRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I agree, Zoot. Frankly I would like to add in restrictions linking drones and other such aircraft into the IG stats, but I'll only suggest my thoughts if people would give some sort of support for it. We already got too many loopholes with armed drones escaping the IG stats based on them being drones and not manned. Edited June 7, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Why would you want to have six hundred transport planes in the first place, especially if you can't protect them all? Airborne assaults of fifty thousand paratroopers or more haven't happened since the Second World War. The problem lies in dictating how do we give accurate numbers to people, the thing is that there is so much "auxiliary" equipment in the military, how can we apply a number to any of it? That is where the common sense rule comes in, "if you don't have common sense, you seek someone out who does". Its a rule that has its pros and cons, but would you rather us have to put numbers to EVERY piece of military equipment? I doubt that, the de-regulation of the community seems to be a current we've had going on. Do you really think you'll ever use those six hundred planes at one time? It's highly doubtful. Edited June 7, 2012 by TheShammySocialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1339103528' post='2978912'] Do you really think you'll ever use those six hundred planes at one time? It's highly doubtful. [/quote] Actually, people do things like that a lot. No offense, but CNRP is pretty gamey when it comes to impossible concentration of military forces, like building a multi-kilometer airfields on very small islands and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1339105322' post='2978929'] Actually, people do things like that a lot. No offense, but CNRP is pretty gamey when it comes to impossible concentration of military forces, like building a multi-kilometer airfields on very small islands and the like. [/quote] I realize that, but I'm making a point of saying it nonetheless. There has been a lot of gameyness in CNRP, and to me, it is rather annoying to watch, although I'm not sure if I've seen someone ever flying six hundred transport aircraft in [i]one[/i] air assault, at [i]one[/i] time. Although, on a personal level, if I was one of my air defense commanders, seeing six hundred transports escorted by an equal number of fighter aircraft, coming at me at once, it'd be a rather awesome dream. Edited June 7, 2012 by TheShammySocialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ive done it before but that's besides the point, they're just for rapid deployment to a forward base. Eitherway, as far as common sense goes, it doesn't, but we do it anyway. I'm down with Kankou on a certain level. The rule has always been, drone or not, if it has offensive weapons, it counts as part of your aircraft count. This needs to be enforced, and if I'm wrong and it isn't a rule, it needs to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1339108601' post='2978970'] The rule has always been, drone or not, if it has offensive weapons, it counts as part of your aircraft count. This needs to be enforced, and if I'm wrong and it isn't a rule, it needs to be. [/quote] Specifically, it was Triyun who said that "lightly" armed drones are not part of IG stats (when deploying quite a few against Peru). Given how airplanes carrying a single bomb would be considered as part of IG stats by most, not sure how that works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1339108601' post='2978970'] Ive done it before but that's besides the point, they're just for rapid deployment to a forward base. Eitherway, as far as common sense goes, it doesn't, but we do it anyway. I'm down with Kankou on a certain level. The rule has always been, drone or not, if it has offensive weapons, it counts as part of your aircraft count. This needs to be enforced, and if I'm wrong and it isn't a rule, it needs to be. [/quote] No that hasn't ever been the rule, we have always allowed lightly armed things like attack helicopters and even gunships to go beyond the ig count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Attack helicopters are not normally asociated with the airforce though, regardless of the IG options. In RL, I would argue that most attack helicopters are part of an Army Aviation Unit, an example would be the USMC or the British Army Air Corps. UCAV's however are primarily used by the airforce. They should be regulated instead of common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1339102776' post='2978905'] thrown around like a cheap hooker. [/quote] Talk more about this, most relevant part of the whole discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1339123122' post='2979169'] Attack helicopters are not normally asociated with the airforce though, regardless of the IG options. In RL, I would argue that most attack helicopters are part of an Army Aviation Unit, an example would be the USMC or the British Army Air Corps. UCAV's however are primarily used by the airforce. They should be regulated instead of common sense. [/quote] So a rl differentiation not at all based on weapons capabilities or other technical specifications should determine how we regulate aircraft? Also the AC-130 is very much part of the USAF and probably better armed than most UCAVs in cnrp. Those that exceed it are already counted as part of the ig air force(F-3 and F-70). The basic point remains, most UCAVs are a lot smaller and less armed than full combat aircraft, due to this they're cheaper to produce in larger quantities and more expendable in case of conflict. If we are even going to restrict them it should be independent from the existing slots given by IG air forces. Edited June 8, 2012 by Centurius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 [img]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9708/reddawn.png[/img] Two spyrolls on PD one to drop leaflets on him whilst probing his air defenses for holes, the other to shut down his internet and only give him propaganda posters. Both will be in the following manner: [img]http://www.cyclelicio.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/red-dawn-2010.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339292359' post='2980047'] [img]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9708/reddawn.png[/img] Two spyrolls on PD one to drop leaflets on him whilst probing his air defenses for holes, the other to shut down his internet and only give him propaganda posters. Both will be in the following manner: [img]http://www.cyclelicio.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/red-dawn-2010.jpg[/img] [/quote] 1-10 Lose 11-100 Win 7 19 One Win, One Loss, guv'nor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Two more rolls please. On these ones I want coastal defense sat int and air field sat int with particular though not exclusive looks for F-22 climate control hangars. Also could you please instruct PD to respond to request about what he has flying as I'm searching IC. This was his response: [quote]Triyun: aight, any active air patrols [12:06am] PresidentDavid: Could be. [12:06am] PresidentDavid: Good luck. [12:06am] PresidentDavid left the chat room. Triyun: I'm trying to get an idea of what shows up on radar/ IRST [12:07am] PresidentDavid: I'm not going to spend 30 minutes with you discussing what I have. [12:07am] Triyun: I just want to know if you ahve active duty air patrols [12:07am] Triyun: I'd know IC [12:08am] Triyun: Otherwise I guess I can assume they're on the ground and the ramifications of that [12:08am] PresidentDavid: Possibly. [12:09am] Triyun|STRONGESTREDARMY: I mean I'd know [12:09am] Triyun|STRONGESTREDARMY: you can be immature about it [12:09am] PresidentDavid: Possibly. [12:09am] Triyun|STRONGESTREDARMY: but its just going to lead to you getting your military demolished and me taking higher casualties <-- typo on my part I mean lower casualties [12:09am] Triyun|STRONGESTREDARMY: There we go [12:09am] PresidentDavid: Possibly.[/quote] Thanks. Edited June 12, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Don't forget to update your spy odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 unchanged [img]http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3328/screenshot20120612at329.png[/img] for convinience sake would you just inform me if you buy more spies and then I'll update it 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.