Extending the Naval Multiplier to Naval Screen Ships

[Triyun]

I would like to propose extending the sub multiplier to destroyers, frigates, and corvettes as naval escorts. Cruisers, Battleships, Landing Ships, and Carriers would remain uneffected. This would allow for a better representation of naval forces in line with IRL ship building patterns. Discuss.

[Yawoo]

I'd support it.

[Markus Wilding]

I don't see why not.

[Subtleknifewielder]

It's sound reasoning, I'll say that much. But since I don't have a navy, my opinion probably isn't going to hold a lot of weight one way or the other.

[Kankou]

I oppose. Simply put, most of us have outrageous navies when compared to RL, so trying to expand things further just takes us into the realm of NS.

I'm for REDUCING the submarine multiplier.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1339107799' post='2978962']
It's sound reasoning, I'll say that much. But since I don't have a navy, my opinion probably isn't going to hold a lot of weight one way or the other.
[/quote]
Given people without navies still can be affected by them, it doesn't mean their opinions are invalid.

Also, I wonder if it'll be a multiplier like with aircraft, that is general or one like submarines based on infra. And of what magnitude. Generally though, I'm sceptical of this.

[Kankou]

An idea which I'm digging from the grave: Each IG ship represents the amount of tonnage you can use for your navy. This happens to be Triyun's idea, btw.

[Zoot Zoot]

I support this.

[Lynneth]

I oppose this, and support Kankou's idea with tonnage.

[iKrolm]

Would Triyun's suggestion be exact same multiplier numbers, or modified?

I object to Kankou's system because there's too much variability and technical knowledge required to design by (and evaluate) flat tonnage. It it could be modified with less math, I'd reconsider though.

[Northern Empire]

what we should be able to do is to place our navies on blockade and then have a 20% chance of blockading one resource the defending nation is trading, it would not be the natural resouces but the traded ones, perhaps a 15% chnace on two, and a 5% chance on three, this stays in place until the blockade is broken. and taxes must be collected before the trades return.add an offensive naval attack to specifically break the blockade, if successful then the trades return immediatetly
Just an idea,

[Kankou]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1339122258' post='2979154']Would Triyun's suggestion be exact same multiplier numbers, or modified?[/quote]
Come again?

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1339122258' post='2979154']I object to Kankou's system because there's too much variability and technical knowledge required to design by (and evaluate) flat tonnage.[/quote]
It's barely different from the current situation, where people are able to build massive ships which have IRBMs installed in them just based on pure numbers.


[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1339122258' post='2979154']It it could be modified with less math, I'd reconsider though.[/quote]
Hmmm.... a very simple two-tier system I thought of:

1. No ships other than carriers can extend the tonnage of the largest actual ship of such class which existed.
2. Aircraft Carriers are capped at the [i]Charles de Gaulle[/i], although they can be expanded by combining IG carriers.

[Triyun]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1339122258' post='2979154']
Would Triyun's suggestion be exact same multiplier numbers, or modified?

I object to Kankou's system because there's too much variability and technical knowledge required to design by (and evaluate) flat tonnage. It it could be modified with less math, I'd reconsider though.
[/quote]

For the sake of simplicty exact same.

[Mara Lithaen]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1339123144' post='2979170']
2. Aircraft Carriers are capped at the [i]Charles de Gaulle[/i], although they can be expanded by combining IG carriers.
[/quote]

ROFL. No.

I'm all for leaving navies precisely no more and no less than exactly the way they are.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Mara%20Lithaen' timestamp='1339126393' post='2979199']
ROFL. No.

I'm all for leaving navies precisely no more and no less than exactly the way they are.
[/quote]
That's what I agree with. But if Triyun insist on making naval composition as similar as possible to RL, then I say let's reduce the carriers.

[Triyun]

IRL isn't comparable as far as levels of militarization, you've got no real scale to compare CN RP developed to IRL developed. Nor in strategic terms can you say navies in CN RP are a public good the way the US Navy is IRL. Therefore I think you'd be hardpressed to make the argument that CN RP nations don't have a lot more compelling logic to build carriers, in fact I think larger nations would have compelling logic to build up their navies to the size of the US Navy in the 1980s. This is strictly about the composition of fleets based on what we have available in CN RP, which is defined by what is available in game. ITs not a discussion on whether or not you can take away what is available IG.

[Kankou]

As someone who's always looking to lower the insane military sizes of CNRP, I think you would know my position clearly.

[Mara Lithaen]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1339127059' post='2979205']
As someone who's always looking to lower the insane military sizes of CNRP, I think you would know my position clearly.
[/quote]

There really isn't a need for it. The fact is, most of us have armies far smaller than a LOT of IRL countries. Air Force-wise, we've all got China/USA equivalents, but otherwise...?

[Executive Minister]

Naw. Subs are enough. Surface combatant numbers are good enough as they are thank yous

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Mara Lithaen' timestamp='1339127997' post='2979214']
There really isn't a need for it. The fact is, most of us have armies far smaller than a LOT of IRL countries. Air Force-wise, we've all got China/USA equivalents, but otherwise...?
[/quote]
Army wise, we are at rather normal army sizes[sup]1[/sup], airforce-wise, we are all at great power status (Most of us have over 600 combat aircraft, which is about as much as the RAF and Armée de l'air combined) and a navy that is rather heavy in carriers. Whoever gets to 5000 infra and 1000 land can get up to 6 carriers, which normally are supercarriers (compared to the only blue-water navies IRL, that is half the USN, 3 times Royal Navy and Marine nationale combined in terms of carriers, not to even say that apart from the USN noone has supercarriers). Heavily militarised world or not, we RP with militaries that are only matched by the US in terms of navy and airforce and that altough I hardly think our economies would allow for that in common sense. Of course, we don't have economies now, but we do not need to stretch the suspension of disbelief with even more ships.

Not included in this is the massive amount of missiles that seems to be existent or the amount of tanks. Of course, the Soviets and Chinese bested our numbers, but that was Soviets and Chinese we are talking about. Not our average middle-sized nation that runs on economies that resembles mercantilism.

[sup]1[/sup]Did you compare with the US army and the PLA, or how are most militaries IRL larger? Given your troop count is your standing military and it seemingly is possible to replace the fallen after a while with recruits, not to mention the equipment most are using, I'd say, the armies are right, if not also oversized.

[iamthey]

I like this idea. The tonnage idea would also be interesting, but I can understand why people wouldn't want to go with it.

Edited June 8, 2012 by iamthey

[Centurius]

Tonnage is probably too complicated for most, I like this idea.

[AironthFlamewing]

Tonnage for me would be complex...(not too hard to understand) but just that it's explained really poorly here, When I hear tonnage I think Washington Naval Treaty so, is my assumption wrong?

[Mara Lithaen]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339149705' post='2979297']
Army wise, we are at rather normal army sizes[sup]1[/sup], airforce-wise, we are all at great power status (Most of us have over 600 combat aircraft, which is about as much as the RAF and Armée de l'air combined) and a navy that is rather heavy in carriers. Whoever gets to 5000 infra and 1000 land can get up to 6 carriers, which normally are supercarriers (compared to the only blue-water navies IRL, that is half the USN, 3 times Royal Navy and Marine nationale combined in terms of carriers, not to even say that apart from the USN noone has supercarriers). Heavily militarised world or not, we RP with militaries that are only matched by the US in terms of navy and airforce and that altough I hardly think our economies would allow for that in common sense. Of course, we don't have economies now, but we do not need to stretch the suspension of disbelief with even more ships.

Not included in this is the massive amount of missiles that seems to be existent or the amount of tanks. Of course, the Soviets and Chinese bested our numbers, but that was Soviets and Chinese we are talking about. Not our average middle-sized nation that runs on economies that resembles mercantilism.

[sup]1[/sup]Did you compare with the US army and the PLA, or how are most militaries IRL larger? Given your troop count is your standing military and it seemingly is possible to replace the fallen after a while with recruits, not to mention the equipment most are using, I'd say, the armies are right, if not also oversized.
[/quote]

I was comparing us with the British Army, the Indian Army, the Pakistani army, the Soviet and Russian Armies, the ruddy North Korean army... I could list more. Seriously. We're either undersized or normal, depending on who you use as a reference.

Additionally, I - again - think we just need to leave ships the way they stand. Tonnage is too complex for most and tbh, is unnecessary. Keep it to the "1 ship ig=1 ship ic, class it however you like according to your tech level".
edit: wow, I thought she was Kanker.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Mara Lithaen

[Triyun]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339149705' post='2979297']
Army wise, we are at rather normal army sizes[sup]1[/sup], airforce-wise, we are all at great power status (Most of us have over 600 combat aircraft, which is about as much as the RAF and Armée de l'air combined) and a navy that is rather heavy in carriers. Whoever gets to 5000 infra and 1000 land can get up to 6 carriers, which normally are supercarriers (compared to the only blue-water navies IRL, that is half the USN, 3 times Royal Navy and Marine nationale combined in terms of carriers, not to even say that apart from the USN noone has supercarriers). Heavily militarised world or not, we RP with militaries that are only matched by the US in terms of navy and airforce and that altough I hardly think our economies would allow for that in common sense. Of course, we don't have economies now, but we do not need to stretch the suspension of disbelief with even more ships.[/quote]

Quit being so Euro centric. Europe is no longer a great military power by any measure. If you look at the Asian Air and Sea building powers you'll see a situation which is significantly different. Thats not to say many are approaching American levels, but it is quite large. Further I would say procurement upticks are what is indicitive of a multipolar world order, rather than in Europe where its remaining quite unipolar.

Further our air forces are actually smaller than the US ones by a significant margin when you account for the Navy and Marine air forces as well as the Air Force proper. You may not have the economic infrastructure to support that, but some of us easily do. My point is if you use the sub multiplier you keep things at a level which balances game wise and also gives some of us that ability.

[quote]
Not included in this is the massive amount of missiles that seems to be existent or the amount of tanks. Of course, the Soviets and Chinese bested our numbers, but that was Soviets and Chinese we are talking about. Not our average middle-sized nation that runs on economies that resembles mercantilism.[/quote]

Quit imposing your model and size on others. Some of us are State Capitalist with control of much of the Soviet and Chinese economic base!

In my judgement I don't think the size argument is worth that much against. The top tier Lyn and I have American size economies, if not in my judgement significantly larger than the US economy as it exists now (now I do think Lyn should be having much more land (on Earth) to do that, but thats a different issue). The idea that you can't get into the 15-20 Trillion GDP range in CN RP isn't something ever codified its just arbitrarily assumed. However, if you have the stats you have the stats. When this was discussed several years back, nobody was over 100k NS. Now several are. To me thats economic growth in CN RP, a rise in naval numbers IC would not be wholly inappropriate.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Triyun