Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Only if it would be proper territory. Not for white space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 On benefits: I think I remember someone saying this [quote]But you overlook the obvious. Geography. You knock someone off your immediate border and force them to attack you from a much further position. Thats a major advantage for you. Further you knock them into different alliance configurations when they reroll at least as far as regional organizations go. That generally affords you more flexibility the further back they are. It still adds up to a political and military advantage. I could go on about how your logic is wrong, but something tells me you'd continue to disagree for your own reasons.[/quote] Now who was it..... Ah, it was [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113193&st=60#entry3032768"]Triyun[/url]. I'm pretty sure that land by itself has a great benefit, something that should be obtained at a cost. Given that the cost is next to none in CNRP, it really should be that we should make the cost higher of keeping the land. Simple logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1349650029' post='3038395'] On benefits: I think I remember someone saying this Now who was it..... Ah, it was [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113193&st=60#entry3032768"]Triyun[/url]. I'm pretty sure that land by itself has a great benefit, something that should be obtained at a cost. Given that the cost is next to none in CNRP, it really should be that we should make the cost higher of keeping the land. Simple logic. [/quote] There always is a cost to taking land, you spread your forces thinner to defend it. The fact people do not act on this doesn't mean there isn't a cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Given that aside from specific armies, it is the usual case that military forces can appear suddenly and conveniently in specific locations, I don't really see the "force thinning" factor. Also, there is the issue of instant peacetime replenishing, which in itself is something that is a contributing problem to the notion of low cost. Edited October 8, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1349637980' post='3038274'] I have a proposal, as the largest holder of protectorates as an individual nation, I would like to make a proposal to all nations. That is that we give up protectorates entirely. Outlaw them. If you want to hold territory make it a colony, and if others oppose you on that they should make a colony. Then people can make nations wherever they want, if people think people are getting too big they can fight wars to prevent colony taking etc. The end result is hopefully that land becomes more precious, and everyone tries there best to actually defend and enforces their claims, as well as hopefully a few people making honest to goodness claims at old style colonial Empires (note I don't need to ) Anyways thoughts? [/quote] I'd rather not implement this. I hold several protectorates and am always willing to give them away for new nations [i]except[/i] to someone rerolling from a lolnuking. I also ask the following rules: 1) Your government should be composed of a mostly native population (not Americans/Germans/Mexicans/whoever because they don't live there right now). 2) Your government cannot start as genocidal or racist (because the Selenarctos would not help create such a government). 3) Your government cannot sell or give away the land I give you (because that's silly). Nothing major there, but removing proctorates would take away these terms from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Seems you are slowly becoming a puppet of my own views Triyun, I congradulate you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 The posts you are comparing are apples an oranges, one is talking about the specifics of how a individual player's decision making process and another is talking about imposing actual penalties with no rewards on what chooses to do Kankou and Eva. If you're going to attempt to twist others words stop being so blatant about this. What is disgusting is that we've evolved to the point where nobody can propose anything without you two making it a thinly veiled about your own historical victimhood complexes. On your proposal then, if you are unable to discuss compromise rather than complain, flat out no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) I'll just say this: You should really look at what you say before accusing people. The current system as it is is a no-cost all-benefit system. Is adding a cos to such a system really being "imposing actual penalties with no rewards" when the awards already exist? Edited October 8, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1349711015' post='3038598'] I'll just say this: You should really look at what you say before accusing people. The current system as it is is a no-cost all-benefit system. Is adding a cos to such a system really being "imposing actual penalties with no rewards" when the awards already exist? [/quote] Cost-benefit is an IC problem. People expand because no one opposes their moves. The economic costs are unknown because no one in CNRP has a PhD in economics and understands how every little move would help/hurt an economy (resulting in no economy for CNRP). The civil costs are not applicable because people control how their citizens respond to certain actions (RP quality dictates this one more often than not). Diplomatic costs rely upon IC nations to act for or against moves and actions of other nations. If you want costs for diplomatic or military moves, then make the moves ICly. Write out an economy and a relatively realistic civil response to various actions your government takes if you want to roleplay the costs and benefits. Most of these issues are a result of a lack of IC action. The rest are related to roleplay quality and lack of knowledge (in the case of an economy) on the topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I can argue the opposite: Given the very fast and completely unrealistic integration that happens in annexed territories, it's the one with the land that needs to do IC to show how they achieve integration over a long period of time, which should take decades (at least ten RL months). The fact is the entire "do IC" argument is one-sided in that those using that argument are not truly doing that themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 You know whats also not realistic, an asian girl with red eyes who doesn't age because she got some super soldier serum, whose somehow supported in luxury pent houses and worshipped by a bunch of supposedly rational super scientists. You still do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 There is such a character? I would like to meet that character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Well I figure so long as you represent what you seem to think I said as fact, rather than what I actually said and lecture me on what I said, I might as well as yell you what your main character is too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'm fine with not having anymore protectorates, to facilitate this I will refrain from claiming them in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 I blame communism for the bad posting ITT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 The usual asinine Issac commentary, and Triyun/Kankou bickering aside, I would like some clarification on Triyun's proposal. 1. If I understand this correctly, all protectorate lands will lose their current status and turn into white space. 2. With the assumption that number one is correct, what prevents nations from simply claiming large swaths of land that is immediately adjacent to their own nation thereby preventing any sort of colonization attempts and instead continuing to keep the land as a de facto protectorate as it most likely stands currently. 3. What ecourages and/or discourages players from putting their nation's security in peril via colonization efforts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 [quote]3. What ecourages and/or discourages players from putting their nation's security in peril via colonization efforts? [/quote] Nukes and war, lots of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1349923047' post='3039719'] Nukes and war, lots of war. [/quote] Sure, certainly military conflicts are the most glaring example, but I think this also presents a problem which I outlined in #2, where nations will simply claim the land that is closest to them (most likely, already under their protection under the current system) and thus we truly have no example of a colony, but rather expanded empires. If that is the goal, that's fine, but if the goal is simply to hold colonies then there has to be something that restricts expansion, or otherwise penalizes players from expanding forth into territory directly connected to their own borders. I think this idea has merit, but there has to be some more discussion in order to hammer out the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Well I don't know, we already have people being against any sort of costs being added to expanding. How do you propose to get over such opposition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Like any proposal there has to be give and take, compromise. If we add restrictions, then there should also be benefits. Now, as to how that is worked out I don't currently have any ideas, so I would welcome more discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Exactly Yawoo. This seems more an axe to grind from certain people. Like can anyone argue today that there is a shortage of land atm, why would people care then how big others are without shortage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Of course Triyun, only those with axes to grind in the first place would continuously complain about axes and also throw around accusations when there are none to be thrown around. One idea is being able to replenish faster, but we would need to make some standard of replenishing. Basically, having more land than one is "allowed" to (be it based on SoI, Infrastructre, etc) will given an additional boost to replenishing (sort of like how you can get foreign manpower in occupying/annexed territories in HoI). We will have to implement a set standard for replenishing before than, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 I'm hesitant to support anything related to replinishment rates as a boon to expanded colonial territories, because I don't believe we need additional supervision/rules on the current 'keep it resonable' replinishment rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 So far peacetime replenishing has not been reasonable, given it is instant as compared to wartime replenishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Well, that is of course your opinion, and I tend to disagree with it because I haven't see any huge issues showing where such regenerations have caused problems. Edit: spelling Edited October 12, 2012 by Yawoo 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.