Markus Wilding Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 The problem I have with not extending the multiplier is that without it, you get fleets supported by token cruisers/corvettes/etc. Take the Finnish-Swedish war for example. I sent a force of just three ships (two corvettes and a landing ship) to Gotland in an attempt to distract him. Admittedly, it was a doomed plan from the start but if I had even just one more ship it could have gone slightly differently. If I decided to toss my CN nation's economy down the drain and built up to my naval limits IG, I'd have a battleship supported by two corvettes and two frigates. Even the dumbest of naval admirals will admit that's not proper protection for a battleship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339433911' post='2980820'] Thats not my position at all and no, because CN RP allows me maximum carriers I will. [b]Your ideas always seem to interestingly enough benefit your IC position politically by reducing others ability to project power.[/b] 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. [/quote] Let me ask, is that the agenda of which people are speaking? My hidden agenda I pursue, but which I somehow don't know? First and foremost, people are already projecting power with what they have. Giving them more screens doesn't make it go away, not giving them MORE screens won't do that either. I'm not saying take away carriers or battleships, I'm just against adding even more ships. You can hardly say I'm limiting, when the stance I have is already the status quo. Not to mention, the nation projecting their power on me is not even in need of carriers to do so. If my agenda would be what you claim it is, why would I not work on the person currently projecting power on France? Or reroll out of that influence? Maybe because I don't care as much as you'd like to claim. Instead, I sit here and just write my internal stuff. But sure, I'm pushing an agenda of limiting your influence, just look on how many proposals of rules I throw out to curb your power. What a sore loser I am to actually stay in my country without rerolling or !@#$%*ing at Cent 24/7 for attacking me. Thought police, a hidden agenda... what baseless accusation comes next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339433911' post='2980820']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. [/quote] I personally consider that to be inflation rather than economic growth, something you mentioned in another post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 This is totally off topic but you and I don't believe at all the same thing on that. I know you took credit for creating Yuan Jia, but please stop co-opting my ideas. What I have termed NS inflation is not at all the same concept as IC economic inflation. Its the concept that as the tech level grows of everyone, we should every so often revisit the tech scale and make a decision do we want to push the year to tech ratio around rather than declare it fixed in place so as to be fair to all tiers of players rather than completely penalize the top (as everyone is entitled to their stats, though we've generally agreed to somewhat penalize the top tier). Thats not at all the same though as rising infra, that is not inflation, that people having their nation being more economically productive. Players who are now reaching 8000 infra are entitled to the same stuff us larger players were entitled to back then when that rather than upper teens low twenty thousand infra that is currently the top tier's levels. I do have a problem with ideas like what was proposed in the other thread of now trying to cap carrier tonnage at De Gaulle Class levels. That strikes me as completely unfair to those who just got their first carrier. If you want to have a value judgement on someone's economy other than infra level I would propose the we use the first two sentences from the extended display description: For example: [quote] Neo Triyunica is a large sized, superbly developed, and ancient nation at 1723 days old with citizens primarily of Chinese ethnicity whose religion is Confucianism. Its technology is first rate and its citizens marvel at the astonishing advancements within their nation. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) This is totally off topic but you and I don't believe at all the same thing on that. I know you took credit for creating Yuan Jia, but please stop co-opting my ideas. What I have termed NS inflation is not at all the same concept as IC economic inflation. Its the concept that as the tech level grows of everyone, we should every so often revisit the tech scale and make a decision do we want to push the year to tech ratio around rather than declare it fixed in place so as to be fair to all tiers of players rather than completely penalize the top (as everyone is entitled to their stats, though we've generally agreed to somewhat penalize the top tier). Thats not at all the same though as rising infra, that is not inflation, that people having their nation being more economically productive. Players who are now reaching 8000 infra are entitled to the same stuff us larger players were entitled to back then when that rather than upper teens low twenty thousand infra that is currently the top tier's levels. I do have a problem with ideas like what was proposed in the other thread of now trying to cap carrier tonnage at De Gaulle Class levels. That strikes me as completely unfair to those who just got their first carrier. If you want to have a value judgement on someone's economy other than infra level (you can disregard the ethnicity and religion part obviously) I would propose the we use the first two sentences from the extended display description: For example: [quote] Neo Triyunica is a large sized, superbly developed, and ancient nation at 1723 days old with citizens primarily of Chinese ethnicity whose religion is Confucianism. Its technology is first rate and its citizens marvel at the astonishing advancements within their nation. [/quote] Edited June 11, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339442386' post='2980858']This is totally off topic but you and I don't believe at all the same thing on that. I know you took credit for creating Yuan Jia, but please stop co-opting my ideas.[/quote] Not sure what you mean here. [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339442386' post='2980858']-Inflation stuff-[/quote] You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339442386' post='2980858']I do have a problem with ideas like what was proposed in the other thread of now trying to cap carrier tonnage at De Gaulle Class levels. That strikes me as completely unfair to those who just got their first carrier. [/quote] I'm not quite sure why you consider it unfair for new players specifically when we're restricting all carriers. Furthermore, given my historical opposition to the massive navy sizes, the suggestion was nothing new. Of course, you're free to oppose the suggestion, but deeming it unfair to someone is clearly not applicable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Tie broken, unbroken, and re-broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I voted yes since I never really liked how you have more or less a 1:1 ratio for every ship, I've never seen a navy with five carriers and five destroyers. Obviously most navies have more screens than capital ships and I enjoy the realism more even though I don't have a navy and probably won't get one for a while. I also feel that the major powers with large navies always get together and roll smaller nations so adding more ships doesn't really do anything other than add to more overkill, kind of like shooting a guy in the head five times after you've already shot him dead once. At the very least I hope with more ships I'll see more naval casualties as most of the naval battles I've seen are beyond idiotic involving hundreds of anti-ship missiles and only losing a couple lower tier ships since most people don't want to lose their precious carriers and battleships which is honestly the biggest target out there. In all honesty I don't care either way if this passes or not but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) [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] Honestly I think this multiplier will make very little difference in the grand scheme of things. Few people here actually know enough about naval strategy and tactics to effectively make use of their navies as they are- so adding more ships will just increase the quantities people throw at each other, nothing more (like growing magnitudes of missile spam which are largely irrelevant anyway as 500 missiles and 800 are roughly treated the same). Beyond that triyun makes a pretty good point, the IG amounts are way off ratio wise. Having 6 carriers and 8 destroyers makes zero sense so a change like this corrects for the imbalances introduced by admin in creating the navy system. There are many tangible reasons why a minor adjustment like this make sense and what you offer in rebuttal are merely hypothetical scare scenarios that have yet to materialize in any real sense. If you think there are egregious violations of common ship-type parameters already occurring, then lets name them and see if there is a consensus to support your position. Otherwise all I see are vague allegations and more premature/unnecessary calls for sweeping change. If you think we are actually capable of creating a perfectly consistent, thought out and closed system of rules you are living in a fantasy world, because this is CNRP >_<. The current rules as they stand are wide open for abuse, but they do function nonetheless. If what you are saying becomes a real problem then at that point rules can be adjusted to provide a balance. Any other course is just opening the door to endless reforms which may prove to be just as detrimental to the game as the present state of affairs. If anything what the game needs is fewer rules and more willingness on the part of the community to simply take action against behavior that violates the essence of game and the collective project it represents. Edited June 12, 2012 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Time is up, methinks. Now I guess I can take my corvettes by three, hmmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantWatcher Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Well, the vote is over. [b]Final results are:[/b] Yes (16 votes [55.17%] No (13 votes [44.83%] So the motion to extend the Submarine Multiplier to Screen Ships (Destroyers, Frigates, and Corvettes) has passed. Thank you all for voting and expressing your opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1339435006' post='2980824'] The problem I have with not extending the multiplier is that without it, you get fleets supported by token cruisers/corvettes/etc. Take the Finnish-Swedish war for example. I sent a force of just three ships (two corvettes and a landing ship) to Gotland in an attempt to distract him. Admittedly, it was a doomed plan from the start but if I had even just one more ship it could have gone slightly differently. If I decided to toss my CN nation's economy down the drain and built up to my naval limits IG, I'd have a battleship supported by two corvettes and two frigates. Even the dumbest of naval admirals will admit that's not proper protection for a battleship. [/quote] Ye-, no, it would not have gone different, even if you had had ten or fifteen more ships or not. Trust me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Thus the "could have" indicating it was either possible or impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1339533536' post='2981658'] Ye-, no, it would not have gone different, even if you had had ten or fifteen more ships or not. Trust me. [/quote] That plan of his lost all chance of success since the development of the anti-ship missile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 This is a retarded rule. I blame Yawoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 So its a 5X multiplier on ALL warships in the highest tier? Thats categorically insane. /me gets to work on the macross missile massacre apocalypse fleet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1339550091' post='2981823'] /me gets to work on the macross missile massacre apocalypse fleet [/quote] You're not Lavo, EM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1339550091' post='2981823'] So its a 5X multiplier on ALL warships in the highest tier? Thats categorically insane. /me gets to work on the macross missile massacre apocalypse fleet [/quote] Not Amphibious ships, battleships, carriers, and cruisers. Edited June 13, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Lithaen Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Why on earth are people still voting? The issue's been decided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 what exactly is the multiplier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1339573994' post='2982010'] what exactly is the multiplier [/quote] It's in the map thread. The one for submarines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1339550091' post='2981823'] So its a 5X multiplier on ALL warships in the highest tier? Thats categorically insane. /me gets to work on the macross missile massacre apocalypse fleet [/quote] [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339551356' post='2981830'] Not Amphibious ships, battleships, carriers, and cruisers. [/quote]Yeah, the multiplier is for screen ships, I believe is the term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1339607795' post='2982109'] Yeah, the multiplier is for screen ships, I believe is the term? [/quote] Correct-a-mundo. 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.