Extending the Naval Multiplier to Naval Screen Ships

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Mara Lithaen' timestamp='1339167268' post='2979381']
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. Of course, you won't admit I have a point because you're advancing your agenda and dismissing valid facts.

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". Seriously, Kankou, enough. If you've put in the time to get to 5k infra or better and 1k tech or better, leave us this one reward, s'il vous plais.
[/quote]
I'm advancing my agenda of what? For the record, I'm for keeping the current system just like you, though I acknowledge it being flawed. Also, I'm just as much of a carrier capable nation as many, with a reasonable limit for aircraft and troops that exceeds RL France by quite a bit. What do I gain by voting yes or no in this in regards to an agenda I might have? I'd understand if I had no fleet limits or aircraft caps myself, but I do have, if we'd, for example, triple the number of corvettes, France would just too have triple the amount of corvettes. If we'd half it, Id be at half of it. But if we actually look at my nation, you really think France would care, when it doesn't even control its own defense? But please enlight me on my agenda, because I really have no clue what agenda that would be, apart from keeping the current system for reasons of being less inflated and easier to track.

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339167860' post='2979396']
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 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.



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!
[/quote]
1. Europe still has the only two blue-water navies apart from the US. Europe may no longer have many great powers, but it certainly is more representative of an average industrialised nation to use the UK or France or Germany as examples, than to use the US. Are we aiming for a world populated by average nations, or are we flawing standards to be at US levels, just to create a kind of troop inflation, where we just instead of thousands use tens of thousands to do the same with unrealistic concentrations of force?
2. If we say one person has the chinese industry base, is it a legitimate reason to make the same point for all other possible countries? I could as well be Croatia and have 6 supercarriers, although my former industry around Karlovac was as amazing as 1 brewery and one small arms producent. Most countries either have a small professional army with most ressources put into systems to allow for enhanced firepower/survivability/battlefield awareness/etc. or masa armies that are build with a good lot less tech. Most nations do not have said infrastructure ICly, or better said, it would be just completely against common sense. Just as if we all libved in first world economies that do not need a north-south divide to sustain themselves.
3. The US is not the world standard. The US controls vast territory and human ressources that are not representative of your average nation state, neither IRL, nor ICly.
4. Quit accusing me of imposing standards, when actually I only point out unrealism. I mean, is it me or you who creates polls to make people vote so that navies fit their standard in size? We are not voting on wether you get a multiplier (which I'd still vote no), but wether CNRP as a whole (including mid-tier nations) get a multiplier.

[Centurius]

Also before someone starts comparing to individual European countries I'll point out the European Union as a whole has a standing force of almost 1.7 million and just over 2.6 million reserves.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

And the world consists out of EUs? I think it would be more accurate to compare to our AU, which is just as much of a group of nations under a common identity that have more troops than the EU (or RL Africa), more ships and more planes.

[Aiden Ford]

Yall make me feel tiny, I RP with an Army smaller than 120,000 >.>

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Awww, I got a standing military of 100,000. 200,000 in reserves.

[Aiden Ford]

Something to keep in mind. Here in the Modern Era the world is at a sort of unique peace. Military Spending is down by a great deal, Military Sizes have also been slashed. After the Cold War, most Second Tier Powers downsized as much as possible to save money.

[Markus Wilding]

Why does any of this matter.

Let's just extend the multiplier to all screen ships and leave it be. I don't see why we need tonnage limits or whatnot like that.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Aiden Ford' timestamp='1339173441' post='2979441']
Something to keep in mind. Here in the Modern Era the world is at a sort of unique peace. Military Spending is down by a great deal, Military Sizes have also been slashed. After the Cold War, most Second Tier Powers downsized as much as possible to save money.
[/quote]

Which I agree with [i]in Europe.[/i] Go look at industrialized countries like South Korea and Israel which still face real military threats, and you see a quite different story.

[quote]Let's just extend the multiplier to all screen ships and leave it be. I don't see why we need tonnage limits or whatnot like that.[/quote]

This is the original proposal.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339170101' post='2979411']
And the world consists out of EUs? I think it would be more accurate to compare to our AU, which is just as much of a group of nations under a common identity that have more troops than the EU (or RL Africa), more ships and more planes.
[/quote]

In size we have a lot of EUs and many larger.

[Kankou]

[quote name='graniteknight' timestamp='1339159158' post='2979333']
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?
[/quote]
Your assumption is correct.


[quote name='Mara Lithaen' timestamp='1339167268' post='2979381']
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". Seriously, Kankou, enough. If you've put in the time to get to 5k infra or better and 1k tech or better, leave us this one reward, s'il vous plais.
[/quote]
I would also like to not touch the current system.


[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339167860' post='2979396']
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.
[/quote]
But at the same time almost all of us never RP the economic effects of maintaining the large militaries we do have. It's mostly like the countries are able to afford both a standard of living which exceeds that of Luxembourg while still having an amount of militarization which matches what the Soviet Union has been doing. If we're going to go down the economic argument, we would have to also include the effects on the economy.




Assuming we do vote on expanding the multipliers, I would like to suggest changes to the current submarine multiplier rule.
1. Make the quantification higher (multiply the conditions by 1.5 or so)
2. Give diesel submarines and extra boost by adding a x3 multiplier when making diesel subs.

[Lord Zephyr]

No, we don't need more navy. I think the current naval system is fine.

[TheShammySocialist]

If we are going with the "screen multiplier" proposal, there [i]should[/i] be weight limits on how [i]big[/i] the ships can nominally be.

Triyun and I had this discussion in a private query a few nights ago over the size of frigates, and where it became a destroyer, his newest frigate weighs in at 8,000 Tons, the Germans are currently constructing a frigate-classed vessel at 7,200 tons.

If we don't impose some sort of weight limit or whatnot on screen vessels if the multiplier goes through, we're potentially looking at abuses here. I'm looking at the long term here, frankly Triyun's newest frigate pushes the envelope, but in my opinion, it does not break it. Going past it, though, steams into murky waters.

That's my opinion looking at this entire situation. I have been for screen multipliers to reflect real life navy sizes, but if we impose such things, there needs to be some fine print on it.

[Kankou]

[quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1339185047' post='2979528']
If we don't impose some sort of weight limit or whatnot on screen vessels if the multiplier goes through, we're potentially looking at abuses here.[/quote]
Potential? It is already being abused. That's why Triyun had initially thought of the tonnage system almost two years ago.

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1339185160' post='2979530']
Potential? It is already being abused. That's why Triyun had initially thought of the tonnage system almost two years ago.
[/quote]

Which is why this rule would close such a loophole if a tonnage disclaimer were attached to it, don't think I haven't seen some of the designs that have been glorified in #cnrp. Along with extending more realism to the current system.

Edited June 8, 2012 by TheShammySocialist

[Californian]

[quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1339185408' post='2979534']
Which is why this rule would close such a loophole if a tonnage disclaimer were attached to it, don't think I haven't seen some of the designs that have been glorified in #cnrp. Along with extending more realism to the current system.
[/quote]

Because we [i]definitely[/i] need more realism in our CNRP. WAKE UP SHEEPLE.

[Triyun]

[quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1339185047' post='2979528']
If we are going with the "screen multiplier" proposal, there [i]should[/i] be weight limits on how [i]big[/i] the ships can nominally be.

Triyun and I had this discussion in a private query a few nights ago over the size of frigates, and where it became a destroyer, his newest frigate weighs in at 8,000 Tons, the Germans are currently constructing a frigate-classed vessel at 7,200 tons.

If we don't impose some sort of weight limit or whatnot on screen vessels if the multiplier goes through, we're potentially looking at abuses here. I'm looking at the long term here, frankly Triyun's newest frigate pushes the envelope, but in my opinion, it does not break it. Going past it, though, steams into murky waters.

That's my opinion looking at this entire situation. I have been for screen multipliers to reflect real life navy sizes, but if we impose such things, there needs to be some fine print on it.
[/quote]

I think from our conversations you'd also agree that you need to pack a hell of a lot less onto individual ships if you can distribute a missile, submarine, and air defense system across a larger array of platforms. I would hope the tonnage would go down then, even if larger navies still had bigger classes of the same type of ship (note the US top line destroyers are significantly larger than the Soviet ones).

[Kankou]

Something which might be relevant: [url="http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/"]Warship costs[/url]

[PresidentDavid]

Or we could just go off of our ingame navies.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1339336773' post='2980229']
Or we could just go off of our ingame navies.
[/quote]
NO. Just no.

[Yawoo]

Edit: nvm.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Yawoo

[VigilantWatcher]

I am fine with it.

[Californian]

opposed. We are fine with current naval numbers, which includes the sub multiplier.

[Voodoo Nova]

Do I think we need it? Not really. Would it allow for more flexibility in how forces are constructed? Yes, it would. I can go either way on this one.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339337656' post='2980232']
NO. Just no.
[/quote]
Yes, just yes.

[Zarfef]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine

^Before anyone goes completely crazy however, I would like to note that it takes a fair amount of time to build a ship. Those suckers there for instance, cost 2.4 billion a pop, only 9 have been built since production started 10 years ago and 5 are currently under construction. Even if we complete those 5 this year, that's only around 1 submarine a year. Similiarly with Aegis Cruisers, only 2 ships a year were built between 1984 and 1994. A Nimitz Class Super-carrier takes around 3 years to complete. Mind you, those numbers are 'on average' - the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier CVN-78 was started in the spring of 2007, it is 'planned' on being finished sometime in 2015, or roughly 8 years to complete the thing. I'm seeing a lot of this since this thing came into effect:

[quote]15 Victory class Corvettes
5 Truth class Landing ships
5 Apocalypse class Battleships
5 Ascendant class Cruiser's
12 Infinity Class Frigates
12 Zealot class Destroyers
8 Silence class submarines
4 Obsidian class
4 Paragon class Carriers[/quote]

^Haven is replacing it's entire navy?! Estimated cost? Somewhere between 150-200 billion dollars. Time for completion? Who knows, but I'd say somewhere around 15-25 years. Good news is that that gives quite a while to replace it all, roughly 13 billion a year only. Not half bad on a payment program. However, insta-navy is likely impossible. That stated, the massive drive around the globe for new navies should really provide a lot of opportunities, I need my ports back because Edean smells a ton of money to be made around the globe.