Extending the Naval Multiplier to Naval Screen Ships Vote

[VigilantWatcher]

This is yet another poll, decide if you support extending the submarine multiplier to screen ships (destroyers, frigates, and corvettes)

This poll will be open til Tuesday 19:00 UK Time.

Same rules apply, if you want you can leave comments, but any not relating to the subject or any whining will be ignored and not replied to.

Have a nice day people

Edited June 10, 2012 by Curristan

[Kankou]

For the sake of preventing even further military overspending insanity, I vote no.

[Lynneth]

Nein.

[Markus Wilding]

Like I said in the other thread, I fail to see a reason to not implement this.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1339354846' post='2980317']
Nein.
[/quote]

[Isaac MatthewII]

Do we need more ways for the land huggers to maintain their land by stupid IG related multipliers that aren't necessary?



Edit: Also I am banned in CNRP because I disagreed with Sargun, so anyone needing to contact do so via PM

Edited June 10, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1339357007' post='2980326']
Do we need more ways for the land huggers to maintain their land by stupid IG related multipliers that aren't necessary?



Edit: Also I am banned in CNRP because I disagreed with Sargun, so anyone needing to contact do so via PM
[/quote]

This is good...a player can't be in the channel because they disagreed with a banned player.

[Markus Wilding]

I really fail to see why this is apparently so terrible. All it does is add a few more ships, and it's not like only the biggest and baddest can use the multiplier. Hell, if you're smart you don't even need a crapton of ships...you just need an understanding of weak points on a naval ship and a knowledge of how to use anti-ship weaponry. I don't even have a navy and probably won't be affected by this modifier and I support it.

EDIT: And if you really wanna knock down the so-called "land hoggers", get rid of the preplan rule and assemble a coalition. That's what we had to do before the preplan rule and it worked just fine.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Markus Wilding

[PresidentDavid]

Voting no on this.

EDIT: Curristan why are you the one proposing all of these?

Edited June 10, 2012 by PresidentDavid

[Subtleknifewielder]

Curristan isn't the one proposing it. He's just the one putting it to a vote, in case you haven't been paying attention.

Edit: Null Voting. Don't have a stake in this one--I can see both sides of the issue.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Subtleknifewielder

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1339357588' post='2980328']
I don't even have a navy and probably won't be affected by this modifier and I support it.
[/quote]
By that logic, I don't have more than a Coast Guard (which you seem to have too), yet I say no. As long as a navy is able to attack other players without a navy, we all are affected by it.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1339357588' post='2980328']
I really fail to see why this is apparently so terrible. All it does is add a few more ships, and it's not like only the biggest and baddest can use the multiplier. Hell, if you're smart you don't even need a crapton of ships...you just need an understanding of weak points on a naval ship and a knowledge of how to use anti-ship weaponry. I don't even have a navy and probably won't be affected by this modifier and I support it.
[/quote]
The main problem is that without a limiter on the kinds of ships being built (CNRP is where impossibly armed expensive ships are being built under the name of a destroy, frigate, corvette, etc), allowing even more ships to take to the sea is just being negligent.


[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1339359503' post='2980342']
EDIT: Curristan why are you the one proposing all of these?
[/quote]
He's the one setting up the voting thread as GM. Not a big deal given that all three GMs had already seen the original thread and expressed their opinions, with sufficient discussion having been done by interested parties.

[Centurius]

Ja.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339361256' post='2980355']
By that logic, I don't have more than a Coast Guard (which you seem to have too), yet I say no. As long as a navy is able to attack other players without a navy, we all are affected by it.
[/quote]
So? Ultimately, all that navy can actually do is bombard your coast...and some very dedicated and strong missile and aircraft attacks will take care of those ships. It's all about using your environment and technology to it's best use.

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1339361623' post='2980360']
The main problem is that without a limiter on the kinds of ships being built (CNRP is where impossibly armed expensive ships are being built under the name of a destroy, frigate, corvette, etc), allowing even more ships to take to the sea is just being negligent.
[/quote]
Who freakin' cares about what precisely the tonnage and armament a ship has and if it's realistic or not? This is a game, it's supposed to be fun. If that involves things like super-ships, so be it. Would you rather everyone be limited to WWII-level naval ships instead of having people try to be creative with their designs?

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1339363124' post='2980377']
So? Ultimately, all that navy can actually do is bombard your coast...and some very dedicated and strong missile and aircraft attacks will take care of those ships. It's all about using your environment and technology to it's best use.


Who freakin' cares about what precisely the tonnage and armament a ship has and if it's realistic or not? This is a game, it's supposed to be fun. If that involves things like super-ships, so be it. Would you rather everyone be limited to WWII-level naval ships instead of having people try to be creative with their designs?
[/quote]
1. Given we got railgun main batteries on some ships, they can fire quite a bit inland. Missiles are also not just a few kilometers, but there are missiles for rather deep strikes. Not even to mention aircraft. A navy can do much more than just coastal bombardement. To think that is all it can do is pure ignorance. From hunting down enemy merchant shipping to denying enemy reinforcements to go by sea or air over the naval blockade, there is much more. Maybe it is not Georgias problem, but consider a country like Avalon. I wonder how IAT would fare without a navy or if the theoretical enemy would have naval superiority.

2. Would you also say that if I built a 3km long carrier, able to handle strategic bombers and airlifters without catapult? You don't have to use WWII ships, but some reason would be nice.

[Yawoo]

In here supporting this idea.

[xoindotnler]

For the love of el presidentes bathtub $%&@ no.

Edited June 10, 2012 by xoindotnler

[Triyun]

If you choose to have a country by the sea there are benefits and trade offs Eva.

As far as I am aware there is no ship approaching 3 kilometers in size. I think the GMs would be well served if someone ever built a 3 kilo long ship to get rid of it. If the GMs refused to get rid of a 3 km long ship. The one area where I agree we have too little guidance is on battleships, because as has been said in the past, battleships in modern times aren't practical. One of the ill effects imo of limiting screens is it incentivizes bigger battleships to assume a role in fleet defense. I would say if this screen thing is passed, the reasoning for Shadowsage sized battleships (what limited of it there was) goes away.

Also why would you build a strategic bomber carrier anyways, isn't the definition of a strategic bomber these days that it is intercontinental anyway.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Triyun

[TheShammySocialist]

I believe that if this passes, there needs to be some serious community-wide discussion on tonnage rates on how we classify ships, especially if we have expanded numbers. I know that this increases regulations, but I believe that it is in the best interest of community in case people get... I'm looking for a polite phrase here... [i]carried away[/i] (maybe?) with ship designs with this new regulation, as some people have with other ship designs since last autumn.

Just food for thought, on a another note, I'm abstaining on this one.

Edited June 10, 2012 by TheShammySocialist

[Kankou]

I believe such a discussion is necessary regardless of the result of this vote.

[JEDCJT]

TIE BREAKER

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='JEDCJT' timestamp='1339386373' post='2980569']
TIE BREAKER
[/quote]

TIE uh returner? remaker? I don't know but voted yes for it to be a tie again.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339366028' post='2980390']
If you choose to have a country by the sea there are benefits and trade offs Eva.
[/quote]
Landlocked is the way to go. Join us Eva, join us!

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339366028' post='2980390']
If you choose to have a country by the sea there are benefits and trade offs Eva.

As far as I am aware there is no ship approaching 3 kilometers in size. I think the GMs would be well served if someone ever built a 3 kilo long ship to get rid of it. If the GMs refused to get rid of a 3 km long ship. The one area where I agree we have too little guidance is on battleships, because as has been said in the past, battleships in modern times aren't practical. One of the ill effects imo of limiting screens is it incentivizes bigger battleships to assume a role in fleet defense. I would say if this screen thing is passed, the reasoning for Shadowsage sized battleships (what limited of it there was) goes away.

Also why would you build a strategic bomber carrier anyways, isn't the definition of a strategic bomber these days that it is intercontinental anyway.
[/quote]
1. Of course I'm exposed if I'm near the sea and could just RP further inland, but that does not really say much. I could also say, if you'd just not RP your full carrier count, you'd have a more realistic carrier:screen ratio. And even if I'm landlocked, naval power can indirectly affect me.
2. I wasn't the one to ask for reason to be thrown out the window. The carrier is just an example of a retarded design. But good that you share my opinion that such stupid designs should be banned. Please tell Markus too, so he doesn't just declare it creative freedom.

[Triyun]

Thats not my position at all and no, because CN RP allows me maximum carriers I will. Your ideas always seem to interestingly enough benefit your IC position politically by reducing others ability to project power. Some of us fundamentally disagree with this. I do think that battleships are creative designs now, I don't think a battleship sized vessel is worth its cost in guided missile screen ships IRL though. In CN RP you make due with what you have. You cap aircraft, people pack more into a single aircraft rather than buy multiple. You cap fleet size people pack more into a single vessel. CN RP creates limits on the quantitative side of the ledger, therefore people are going to move more towards the qualitative side. It is the logical thing to do. The fact also is is that this is no longer 2008 where nations over 50k were a rarity, today 50k is low-mid tier, there are many more large and developed countries and countries which can and will choose to support these capabilities. This also means that power is going to be projected more globally unless a player chooses not to. Rather than try and build up fortress sim cities, you need to adapt to the new reality whether this passes or not.