Zoot Zoot Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) You guys know the drill, it runs for three days. So 8pm GMT on the 26th of July 2012 this poll and discussion closes and the GM team will make a decision based on the poll, or we may postone a ruling in favour of further discussion. Edited July 23, 2012 by Zoot Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) I'll just add these as suggestions: - Naval fleets require at least three~five warships for SDI coverage (no use of single ships for SDI coverage) - Multinational military groups (armies, fleets) will only have the SDI coverage of one player, regardless of how many actual SDI-capable players are in that certain group (obviously separate groups get separate SDI coverage) Edited July 23, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Its simple. Nukes do a lot of damage and no one wants to see how armies and quite possibly whole rp's wiped out in one post so if they have a SDI they want to use it to protect themselves and their rp. I say let them regardless of where they are. Its far too easy to have one person's highly detailed and well written RP wiped out by one sentence where someone launches a nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 An SDI is typically a heavy mass stationary installation unless put on a capitol ship. It makes no sense it should be mobile at all except.. MAYBE on a navy. Thus it could logically cover a protectorate if RP'd to be installed there and it could cover a navy if rp'd to install there, but to say you're just going to hand someone with who knows how much tech and have them operate it.. is illogical. Beyond the SDI we may want to address the ranges of SDI which, IMHO, should not cover more than your sphere of influence as SDIs shouldn't cover the world over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'll say this: No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1343072231' post='3013722'] An SDI is typically a heavy mass stationary installation unless put on a capitol ship. It makes no sense it should be mobile at all except.. MAYBE on a navy. Thus it could logically cover a protectorate if RP'd to be installed there and it could cover a navy if rp'd to install there, but to say you're just going to hand someone with who knows how much tech and have them operate it.. is illogical. Beyond the SDI we may want to address the ranges of SDI which, IMHO, should not cover more than your sphere of influence as SDIs shouldn't cover the world over. [/quote] A SDI does not need to be a heavy mass stationary installation it has never had to be one of those, it could simply be a series of anti-missile defense trucks which you would use to shoot down an incoming nuclear missile before it reaches its target or it could be a security checkpoint that halts a terrorist nuclear suicide bomber. Quite simply people are more willing to try and halt attempts to stop nuclear attacks than they are to to use real RP rather than nukes. I say ban nuclear weapons/devices in total as they leave little chance for good RP without actual effort put in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) You know, that may actually be a better idea. Hadn't considered totally axing nukes. Also, Anti Missile defense trucks I've known to be effective against theater missiles, but I've never heard of them being effective against strategic weapons at orbital altitudes. I've heard of stationary missile platforms with complex weapons hardware doing it and navy vessels doing it, but not a fully mobile light ground unit. Edited July 23, 2012 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Give me one good reason other than "they're bad RP" to support removing nukes entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 No more sdi rolls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nuclear weapons and devices are highly destructive and when used always result in a high loss of life and can leave many long lasting effects on the land and people left behind. As mentioned it is easy to ruin a well written and worked out RP with a simple one liner about launching a nuclear weapon thus destroying something good with little to no effort. Nuclear weapons are also costly and take some time to build and even the deployment of said weapons would take some time neither of which are usually included in people's posts. There are a few reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 The suggestion of removing nuclear weapons from CNRP completely is simple laughable. I would support greater and much more realistic consequences to the use of nuclear weapons but I'm unilaterally opposed to outright banning them OOCly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's also costly to raise up and train a top-notch army, air force and navy - should we ban T-90s, F-35s and Kirov-classes as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 They're the bane of every good war. No matter who uses them, either the user or the target ends up moaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I still fail to see how that's a reason to ban them outright. And moaning/whining is a part of life, if you can't accept things not always going your way, then this isn't the place for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1343071922' post='3013718'] Its simple. Nukes do a lot of damage and no one wants to see how armies and quite possibly whole rp's wiped out in one post so if they have a SDI they want to use it to protect themselves and their rp. I say let them regardless of where they are. Its far too easy to have one person's highly detailed and well written RP wiped out by one sentence where someone launches a nuke. [/quote]So we're going to restrict what a person can do on their own turf? No nuking the invaders? 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='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1343074240' post='3013741'] I still fail to see how that's a reason to ban them outright. And moaning/whining is a part of life, if you can't accept things not always going your way, then this isn't the place for you. [/quote] Perhaps people don't want to deal with jerks who will moan at the drop of a dime even when their own victory is assured? It's not about whose way matters it's about the incessant annoyance of having to deal with people whom cannot be made happy. I can give someone their way here and they'll still gripe about how it is being given to them. Edited July 23, 2012 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1343074034' post='3013737'] It's also costly to raise up and train a top-notch army, air force and navy - should we ban T-90s, F-35s and Kirov-classes as well? [/quote]The cost doesn't even come close to equaling the devastation a single nuke can cause, even a 'tactical' one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm going to say that it depends on the type of system. If it requires anti-missile missiles launched from the ground, I would say that it would not cover protectorates and expeditionary forces unless you RP specifically putting them there. If it is more of a Star Wars type of system that relies on satellites, then I would say that it should cover all your holdings. However, this brings in the question of what you do with nuclear bombs dropped from bomber aircraft. If you have complete air superiority and drop a nuclear bomb on a city just like the end of WWII, then I find it hard using an SDI on that. Since all nukes in CN are in the form of nuclear missiles, it makes sense that all nukes can be stopped by the SDI, but that is not always the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I don't think it's necessary to RP setting up SDI's in your lands, protectorates, or fleets. By asking players to do that we're setting on the road towards having to RP out every improvement or wonder we may have in order to make their use which will really just add a layer of trivial fluff in peoples news threads. Certain wonders should have to be RP'd out to an extent (Moon/Mars wonders for example) but others should just fall into common sense. We shouldn't have to RP out ever intricate detail of our IG developments to gain their use people...but if that's the road we want to take then so be it I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1343087149' post='3013862'] We shouldn't have to RP out ever intricate detail of our IG developments to gain their use people...but if that's the road we want to take then so be it I guess. [/quote] I already take that road. I'm more a follower of the CNrp concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'd say that while exped forces can have sdi coverage given to them by TEL or TELAR Systems in RL , allowing them to be used at the same OOC success rate as an sdi shot from friendly territory is faulty. Nukes and sdi effectiveness is not determined by rp like other attacks, its determined by a roll. That success/fail rate would not take into consideration the inherent difficulty of defending yourself in hostile territory. Furthermore, if an RPer is willing to ruin parts or the whole of his nation in order to deny his enemy a clean victory, I say kudos to him or her. There is far too much keeling over and whining, and not enough fighting. The reason we have these back to back campaigns of rapid dominance and conquest is because of victims' inherent lack of backbone. If every target forces his attackers to pay for every mile with pixel blood, things would be different (not just nuking, this post is long past rant mode). Quit being enablers for the very problems you people continue to whine about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 You forgot about the part where those that do have the backbone are considered cruel murderers and thus one needs to use godmoding like tungsten rods from nowhere to defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I think there ought to be some rp for protectorates and Expeditionary forces, but not sure what I think about the technological limitations of various systems. Could their be some sort of restriction put into place on the effectiveness of SDI rolls in protectorates and expeditionary forces given the technology involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343101127' post='3014096'] You forgot about the part where those that do have the backbone are considered cruel murderers and thus one needs to use godmoding like tungsten rods from nowhere to defeat. [/quote] I don't know. All i'm saying is that it is a laughable claim to say defense is trumped up against offense in CNRP . I'll also hazard the claim that so long as the same or new individuals continue to be passive enablers or the easy kills they've been in the past, those more 'intrepid' rpers out there will continue to see war as being a cheap, easy source of fun, entertainment and beneficial rp again and again. If you whiners don't start shaping up, asking for help, trying to learn or even exhibiting the desire to fight for your right to RP, you wont get help, people wont stick out their necks to help you and you won't deserve it even if you get it. Edited July 24, 2012 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1343102117' post='3014110'] I don't know. All i'm saying is that it is a laughable claim to say defense is trumped up against offense in CNRP . I'll also hazard the claim that so long as the same or new individuals continue to be passive enablers or the easy kills they've been in the past, those more 'intrepid' rpers out there will continue to see war as being a cheap, easy source of fun, entertainment and beneficial rp again and again. If you whiners don't start shaping up, asking for help, trying to learn or even exhibiting the desire to fight for your right to RP, you wont get help, people wont stick out their necks to help you and you won't deserve it even if you get it. [/quote] I took nothing away from the moralistic babbling of value. Do you have anything in specific for placing some reasonable limitations on SDI roles in protectorates or Expeditionary Forces or not? I think Triyun asked for one role for his forces in the Antartica, that seems like a good starting point for haggling out the specifics. 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.