Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Question: Military reserves I've noticed that there are some people stockpiling fighters after changing them for more modern ones and then bringing out the supposed reserves when a conflict is over. Given this instant replacement, I believe we should install some sort of restriction here. With the way things are right now, there is no reason for someone not to produce say 220 squadrons of fighters and putting half of them in reserve, to be brought after losing a war to instant replenish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 We've long allowed reserves, this is not something new and has yet to be abused. I see no reason to add more rules to something not yet broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1342833049' post='3012798'] I wish to get a clarification on the following: Does higher tech mean one automatically develops an advanced form of technology without having RPed it? Triyun contended that people above my tech stat would automatically have access to quantum dot infrared photodetectors (QDIP), a type of IR sensor which is supposed to be the next generation. Frankly, I don't see the logic for this, since I follow a developer mentality in that for tech not used in RL, a nation needs to at least mention the development instead of going "lol I have everything even if I never mentioned it!". In fact, i find the notion of automatic development to be contrary to RPing standards and fairness, since just because a nation has higher tech it should not mean they have everything that is better. [/quote] A more honest accounting of the conversation, I'll let the GMs ask any clarifications they want of my point. Kankou made the claim in her thread the QDIP was 20 times better resolution than the top nations IR scopes. She took that near verbatum from an article written in 2010, you can just put her words into google. My point was that if a nation is at say 2030 tech they've had 20 years of advances in IR scopes and the 20x clarity advantage probably would not be applicable. Here is the full conversation in which she appeared to agree with me till she decided to pick this little fight. [quote]Triyun: btw [12:47am] Triyun: you do know regarding that IR Scope [12:47am] Triyun: I found the article it was from, you know my tech advances with my IG tech level [12:48am] Triyun: so its assumed I've integrated advances just like everyone on that type of equipment [12:48am] Kuko: not really [12:48am] Triyun: Yeah [12:48am] Kuko: I don't follow that logic [12:48am] Kuko: you can have those, yes [12:48am] Triyun: I can have Curri and Voodoo clarify that [12:48am] Kuko: but I don't think of them as automatic [12:48am] Triyun: if you'd like [12:48am] Kuko: if people RP using !@#$%* equipment, I'm going to bite down on that [12:49am] Triyun: again its not really your call, I'm just saying how CN RP works [12:49am] Kuko: let's just say someone uses tech which wouldn't work [12:49am] Kuko: and they specifically say they use that tech [12:49am] Kuko: then I'm not going to let them off the hook [12:50am] Kuko: I think that's clear enough [12:50am] Triyun: to claim you have a 20 times magnification on the current major powers which are up late 2020s early 2030s when the article you got that from says 20 times on current IRL IR scopes, thats [12:50am] Triyun: basically saying nobodies IR scopes have advanced from 2012 [12:50am] Triyun: which isn't the case [12:50am] Kuko: yeah yeah, so what [12:50am] Kuko: if you're telling me to edit, I'm not going to [12:51am] Triyun: Are you claiming that is the case [12:51am] Kuko: for all I care, it could ignorance on part of Quebec [12:51am] Triyun: I'd like clarification [12:51am] Triyun: Its a technical claim, an exact number not a bragging right [12:51am] Kuko: Quebec assumes no one else uses that particular technology [12:51am] Kuko: because it has not been mentioned before [12:52am] Kuko: so, from Quebec's POV, the great powers are using advanced versions of MCT [12:52am] Triyun: I'd just like to know yes or no are you claiming you have 20 times magnification advantage over nations with say maximum tech level, despite the fact the IRL article was written in the present day 20 years earlier than those nations tech levels [12:52am] Triyun: Yes or no [12:53am] Kuko: fiucking no [12:53am] Kuko: this is from Quebec's POV, duh [12:53am] Triyun: so are you claiming it from top of the line 2012 IR scopes? [12:53am] Triyun: Ok so in a technical fight with another nation you won't claim scope superiority in battle posts [12:53am] Triyun: right? [12:53am] Kuko: yes, but then I don't need to [12:54am] Triyun: assuming those nations have a higher tech level or equal [12:54am] Kuko: I'll think of it as equal or slightly behind [12:54am] Kuko: because technology isn't linear [12:54am] Triyun: Ok [12:54am] Kuko: actual RP, it's equal or behind [12:55am] Kuko: IC perspective, QUebec thinks you have advanced versions of MCT (the current top-of-the-line stuff) [12:55am] Triyun: Oh I don't believe it is, my issue was I looked at the article and it was dated 2012 so you can see my confusion with crossing it [12:55am] Triyun: or 2010 actually I think [12:55am] Triyun: but basically present day [12:55am] Kuko: yeah, basically present day [12:55am] Triyun: ok [12:55am] Kuko: it's similar with jet engines [12:55am] Kuko: assuming AD-HEETE is a success [12:56am] Kuko: we're only going to have a 30% increase in fuel efficiency [12:56am] Kuko: it's difficult to go beyond that in teh forseeable future (like say into the mid 2030's) short of some completely new alloy being made [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) My basic point is that assuming you have never heard of QDIP (let's face it, most people use 2006 or something as the cut-off date), there is no reason for what I wrote to be of any problems, since the top-tier nations would not be using QDIP. A closer clarification of what Triyun was talking about was that without needing to write a single word, the top-tier nations automatically have QDIP, which in my view is unacceptable. It is one thing to assume top-tier nations can have the theoretical 6th-generation fighter, but it is another thing for a specific technology to be given to all nations who have not bothered to do the research for developing the technology. Lastly, I find that nations claiming to have had QDIP NO after someone of a lesser technology to be the first to use them to be beneath the standard of RPing, given it is no better than copying and pasting, which is something to be avoided. Most important part of the above logs: [quote][12:47am] Triyun: I found the article it was from, you know my tech advances with my IG tech level [12:48am] Triyun: so its assumed I've integrated advances just like everyone on that type of equipment [12:48am] Triyun: I can have Curri and Voodoo clarify that [12:48am] Kuko: but I don't think of them as automatic[/quote] As it turns out, one of the two GMs mentioned also agrees that automatic development of technology is in bad taste and should be avoided, if not banned. Edited July 23, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Again you're misrepresenting what others said. I think that you need to break the disrespectful habit of assuming that you know what others are saying about better than they do. My point which is very simple is that the QDIP is a technology which in the article you used for development was 20x better than the best scope available in 2010. And that those who build even F-22s and F-35s in 2030 would be assumed to have some degrees of improvement. When I checked with them last thats the rule. I can check with them again and get clarification. I also don't believe that overly detailed specific systems are necessary for some degree of improvement, I'm fine with someone saying they have an upgraded F-22 avionics if thats what they have. They don't need to cite a specific possible project each time unless its totally out there. If thats changed I'd like to know because thats always been the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Some development does not equal automatic use of a new technology. What you mean is that the advancement of mercury cadmium telluride (the current top-of-the-line IR sensor method, mentioned in the logs you posted) is obviously inherent with higher technology. However, higher tech does not automatically mean you have access to QDIP, which is of a different material and still currently a theoretical advancement. I think even you would be able to understand that. Edited July 23, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Can you supply me with a quote where I say they are either the same material or anyone would have automatic access to any one exact technology or showed I did not realize they were the different materials? My objection is that you claimed 20 x on everyone. That includes more advanced nations than 2010 when the 20x figure was cited, and it includes nations that have RPed improvements in their IR scopes. I wanted a clarification on those points. What you told me then makes sense. What you're saying now is putting words in others mouths when we have the conversation for everyone to read here. Its pretty obvious the distinction I'm making. Maybe you need to reread it so you don't put words into people's mouths, or we should wait for the GMs to clarify their views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote][12:51am] Kuko: Quebec assumes no one else uses that particular technology [12:51am] Kuko: because it has not been mentioned before [12:52am] Kuko: so, from Quebec's POV, the great powers are using advanced versions of MCT[/quote] Is that not clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Lithaen Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Requesting two spyrolls: [img]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/687/tbmsr.png[/img] I'd like two rolls for having my spotters (pre-emplaced in a previous post anyway, but let's roll..) give accurate coordinates on TBM's ships and tank destroyers/infantry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Dunno why you'd need spy rolls for my ships, it ought to be extremely obvious where they are due to all the explosions. As for the tanks no rolls are needed as they are tanks, not quiet at all. Unless you are claiming you infiltrated spotters elsewhere into the SUSA, but then you'd need to show some rp for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Lithaen Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Ah, nix the previous. I haven't, was merely wondering if I'd need them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112323&view=findpost&p=3013499 You guys may want to find a way to remind Triyun he is not a GM nor an interpreter of rules and to properly document claims. Also, I thought we had rules about controlling way more land than your SOI and also claiming to have SDI outside of your core areas without document RP to set one up? If so you might want to refresh him on those also. However, after this post, it's my concern no longer. Edited July 23, 2012 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 SoI: It's been only initial establishment. Given CNRP's hatred of rules, SoI has lost any influence (although I do have some ideas for it.....) SDI: Ever since February/March of last year, SDI has been expanded to protectorates. Sorry, but really, just because you didn't get the memo doesn't mean the rest of us didn't. See you around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343035625' post='3013540'] SoI: It's been only initial establishment. Given CNRP's hatred of rules, SoI has lost any influence (although I do have some ideas for it.....) SDI: Ever since February/March of last year, SDI has been expanded to protectorates. Sorry, but really, just because you didn't get the memo doesn't mean the rest of us didn't. See you around. [/quote] 7 people, a minority of players, accepted that rule. The rules happened to benefit those specific players. Most retarded rule in existence without any rp basis on it. I'm not going to bother challenging it though because it suits the powers that be it will not change. You guys can have your corrupted clique-serving sand box. Tyranny of the majority. The new rules favor far flung empires well beyond the CN derived nation's ability to support. This should be called "RP of another color" not cnrp. It's an insult to CN. I'm out. I'll let you continue to operate this mockery of logic and creativity without any request for improvement because I have no faith in it to change any longer. Without impartial administration of the rules, instead of a purely majority rules approach, this place will be as sold out as the U.S. Congress to special interest. Those who have made the rules have not made them with the health of the world or others in mind, but their own self-serving interest and are the chief of meta-gamers. Until this is resolved. This community will be the worst place for anyone to rp that is not clique members or friends of them, especially new players. Those who have been elected to administer the rules have been elected to enforce them, not to question what is fair or what is not. So welcome CNRP, welcome back.. to stagnant irrelevance and decay. Edited July 23, 2012 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I can buy protectorates and navies, because I remember shaking my head when they got hammered through for obvious reasons, but expeditionary forces? Since when have we been able to gift others that don't have SDIs with coverage? I thought not being able to gift was the only rule tagged to out of own territory SDIs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Haven't you figured it out? The interpretation changes as needed EM. Triyun just prods the appropriate dually elected representative of the "majority" known as the truly irrelevent GM with a stick. Claims knowledge of all wars for the past several months and they listen to him. Then if that doesn't works, he slides a 7 vote instant rule into the mix. Points it out and says, "See? It's a rule! No poll, we slid it in with just 7 votes! A clear majority!" PS. I never agreed to that rule, but wasn't around at the time.. and I get the impression the way it is being abused now.. if people were sane, it'd be very unpopular. Edited July 23, 2012 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 You really don't know how things work. All right Mael, how about you put up a thread for discussion, and we talk things out and then do a vote? That's who we passed/failed several proposals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Why don't you do it? I don't have the time to waste on this garbage. I'm going to go play something else.. at least a programmed game doesn't abruptly change the rules without warning to suit the needs of a few, sliding it in with minority votes. Edited July 23, 2012 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1343040589' post='3013556'] I can buy protectorates and navies, because I remember shaking my head when they got hammered through for obvious reasons, but expeditionary forces? Since when have we been able to gift others that don't have SDIs with coverage? I thought not being able to gift was the only rule tagged to out of own territory SDIs [/quote] Can you clarify who gifted an SDI to whom? Last I checked only Tianxian crusaders were at the Fortress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Why should we do all the work when you are the one complaining? Like I said on IRC, make a thread or post in the GM's court with a good argument, and me and the other GM's will have a look and then read the counter arguments and then make a ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Because I've wasted my time on this before. If this community wants to improve it will, if it won't.. it won't! Do I have to lead the kiddies by the hand? Anyhow, I am leaving before my contempt for this discussion gets any greater. Edited July 23, 2012 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1343041364' post='3013567'] Because I've wasted my time on this before. If this community wants to improve it will, if it won't.. it won't! Do I have to lead the kiddies by the hand? [/quote] If its a waste of time, why are you still whining about it? I have told you how to go about doing this, now either do that and theres a chance it could change, or just leave, like you said you were going to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1343041264' post='3013564'] Can you clarify who gifted an SDI to whom? Last I checked only Tianxian crusaders were at the Fortress. [/quote] Not saying anyone did in this case, but its one of the eventualities opened up when you say Exped forces have access to them. Another one is allowing people like you (SDI owners) to say people like Sarah (non-SDI owners) are 'covered' by an SDI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 In their case they are so intertwined it's hard to tell where Triyun starts at times and where Sarah ends. I think it is safe to assume that they are jointly rping the expedition with Sarah taking more of a lead role in the events that are transpiring. At least that was the impression I had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) As I recall from previous mergers it was ruled 1 SDI roll, whether its the case one person lacks on and one person has onee or two (or more) members have them. Further there were 10, 000 of my men at the base and the Indian Ocean Fleet there. Either way its no excuse for the spectacle we've been having. Edit: Yeah TBM she's RPing the leader. Edited July 23, 2012 by Triyun 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.