Aircraft Multiplier

[Triyun]

Per discussions in the thread Melech started that miraculously some how turned into a productive discussion (by the way thanks TBM for setting a fucking awful precedent of Melech in anyway appearing useful), the second part of reform was the agreement on a multiplier system based on what TBM proposed was Infra, Cent wants Tech to compensate upper tier for lowering the tech gap.  As some of you know, personally I think I need to be able to have future generations of Tianxians say this scene:  http://youtu.be/VDfQ5ZF3XeA  :D

 

Anywho the reason for a tech modifier would be its stickier than a infra modifier for nations in war, the reasons for an infra modifier is that all nations would need economies to support big air forces.  Personally I feel there is merit in both.  What I have proposed is unlike the navy modifier which is dual dependent on hitting both marks, each mark infra and tech on the new multiplier counts for .5x.  In other words.  You hit a tech level you get half the multiplier you hit infra you get half a multiplier.  Cent proposes either hitting tech or Infra.  TBMs proposal is entire infra based.

 

Multiplier would look something like this:

 

4000 Tech, 7500 Infra: x 2 Squadrons (if you did the .5s if you reached one but not the other you'd have 1.5x squadrons)

8000 Tech, 14000 Infra: x 3 Squadrons

12000 Tech, 20000 Infra: x4 Squadrons

 

 

 

Now onto some other ideas:

 

Other brain storm ideas I have been mulling over if people are willing to tolerate some degree of complexity but would yield more budget minded militaries with fewer missile spammers and fewer ultra high end air craft are to create multipliers for land attack/ ship missiles (IE ballistic and cruise missiles not attached to a ship or plane IG), you'd also need to attach missile defense missiles to these as well, you might include drones too (regulated under the same under MTCR).  The other is a tiered system of combat aircraft with different levels of cost:

 

Quick brain storm on this (I think this should be a separate vote) would be a high capability fighter i.e. F-22 F-15 1x  Strategic Bomber .5x  F-35 F-16 1.5x  Generation down from your max tech i.e. me fielding the Super Hornet 2x.

 

This would give a wider range of options and if people do want to play down they can, several have expressed concerns of an all Raptor force.

[Centurius]

In general I support a multiplier but I'm not too sure about that last part with giving certain planes a score and such. That could make things a bit too complex which I believe is something the majority of CNRP wants to avoid.

 

I would propose as said a multiplier based on your infra or tech. While there is theoretical merit behind having be just infra or infra and tech the problem is you can lose a few thousand infra in a round of war easily, tech takes a lot longer to destroy thus removes some volatility. Having it be infra or tech both accommodates both those who want to fight a war or in a warfighting alliance and those who are more focused on pure nation building.

 

I am not sure about having 12k tech is the best way of going over the maximum standard as that actually is quite difficult for a pretty large part of CNRP to achieve. What I would suggest is having the tech requirement be half the infra one due to the relative longer time you need to buy tech and if you do it manually the much higher cost. That brings it to the following multipliers.

 

3750 Tech, 7500 Infra x2

7000 Tech, 14000 Infra x3

10000 Tech, 20000 Infra x4

[iamthey]

In general I support a multiplier but I'm not too sure about that last part with giving certain planes a score and such. That could make things a bit too complex which I believe is something the majority of CNRP wants to avoid.

 

I would propose as said a multiplier based on your infra or tech. While there is theoretical merit behind having be just infra or infra and tech the problem is you can lose a few thousand infra in a round of war easily, tech takes a lot longer to destroy thus removes some volatility. Having it be infra or tech both accommodates both those who want to fight a war or in a warfighting alliance and those who are more focused on pure nation building.

 

I am not sure about having 12k tech is the best way of going over the maximum standard as that actually is quite difficult for a pretty large part of CNRP to achieve. What I would suggest is having the tech requirement be half the infra one due to the relative longer time you need to buy tech and if you do it manually the much higher cost. That brings it to the following multipliers.

 

3750 Tech, 7500 Infra x2

7000 Tech, 14000 Infra x3

10000 Tech, 20000 Infra x4

 

This seems like a fair compromise. The more simple the mechanic is the less arguing there will be in the future. One thing I would also suggest we consider is moving away from pure IG navy. Having to hold and pay for a full fleet in peace time is completely silly. We could just as easily screencap our theoretical navies if anyone challenged the veracity of a player's claims (and you can already fudge it given that all anyone can actually see is its total size).

Edited January 16, 2014 by iamthey

[Triyun]

I disagree on the navy thing.  Not all nations are able to maintain navies IRL even island ones (look at the Phillipines).  If you're already getting some advantages given you shouldn't give away the store.  You're a major navy if you hold 1-2 operational carriers, not every small nation needs 5.  I would however be willing to let exchanges of troops for ships and aircraft.

 

As far as losing stuff yes, the tech would be higher but not only is it much harder to gain its also much harder to lose.

 

In regards to the other stuff I don't think simplicity means less arguing, if people do want less missile spam as they say and less stealth aircraft as they say, they should have a choice hat would allow for its reduction fairly.  This offers a way for them to have it.  Of course people can choose not to have it but then there shouldn't be OOC fights on them either.  Simplicity hasn't seemed to yield less argument it seems to yield more complaints of unfairness. 

[Centurius]

It being harder to lose is the reason why it's a more stable standard to build a multiplier around. The simple fact is the money you buy 20k infra for doesn't even come close to what you need for 10k tech and certainly not 12k tech. I am fairly sure people don't so much mind stealth aircraft as the historical advantages we have had on them due to using systems currently in research that only few understand. Under the 2020 cap technology becomes a lot easier to understand so I don't really see people complaining.

[iamthey]

I disagree on the navy thing.  Not all nations are able to maintain navies IRL even island ones (look at the Phillipines).  

 

This doesn't really address the issue. Why should I have to waste a million (or more) per day IG to maintain a useless navy for the purposes of CNRP? This cash could be far more productively funnelled into my warchest. We already eliminate IG requirements for airforce and CM's, the navy requirement is just grossly inefficient and wasteful. 

[Malatose]

I like cent's suggestion.

[Captain Enema]

I like the idea  for infra, but perhaps a refinement is needed. Is there any air force/navy in existence that fields a pure Gen 5 fleet?

 

Perhaps simple ratios could be considered, such as 1 to 2.. 1 gen 5 to 2 gen 4 planes and what not. The hard numbers would definitely need to be discussed, no clue what would be appropriate.

[iKrolm]

Can someone explain what was wrong with the old system? This looks like it makes the strong nations even stronger.

[Centurius]

Can someone explain what was wrong with the old system? This looks like it makes the strong nations even stronger.

The idea was raised because the lower tech gap empowers lower tech nations compared to higher ones. The multiplier would somewhat compensate larger nations while not giving them a better advantage during wars(10 F-22s aren't really much more likely to kill a F-22 than just one is).

[Markus Wilding]

Maybe we should take a step back and remind ourselves of KISS. Both suggestions I've seen so far are a little complex.

[Triyun]

Big nations are taking a hit in the quality gap pretty hard unilaterally, therefore they get a more modest increase in quality gap, if you look for example at the F-15s combat record against 3rd generation fighters and the F-22s record in exercises vs. F-15, 16, and 18s the kill ratios are massively lopsided.  If you accept the premise that there is no objective reason a 6 gen would not enjoy the same advantage over 5 gen planes (I think its a pretty fair historical pattern to deduce) even an X4 multiplier relative would be modest.  Also if you accept the premise that most larger nations have larger interests and tend to have stable relations with their neighbors (I think also a fair point), the likelihood they'd concentrate all this quantity in one location is low, and therefore the advantage would be even further degraded.

 

Edit: Markus the proposals are pretty simple if the value of your nations tech or infra > then the value listed multiply your fighter number by whatever the multiplier is.  That's as simple as you can get.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Triyun

[MostGloriousLeader]

Interesting, multipliers for lower gen aircraft.  I mean it doesn't inherently give advantages to larger nations and at the same time allows a nation options to rp with greater flavor than before.  Hell, you could even say it helps smaller nations because they're gonna be stuck in the 4th gen at the very least and this allows them to have more of them.  Looking at the numbers I went to wikipedia, I know not the greatest of all sources but its quick and this is a rough estimate anyway, to determine the amount of aircraft produced by generation starting with 2nd Gen aircraft, cuz who's really gonna use an Me262?  I only went with fighters and what was actually in service though, not planned to be and didn't make it.  The totals per generation were 39,000 (2nd Gen),  20,309 (3rd Gen),  and 13,143 (4th Gen).  A pretty noticeable drop in numbers every generation so I feel is applicable. 

[Triyun]

The problem with that gen thing is your only measuring fighters, not bombers.  12000 B-52s loaded out with the latest missile packages could destroy an entire military in a few hours from 1000 miles away.

 

My goal was to create a pretty easy to understand guide and give multipliers for each.  I think the mathematics of it are not that hard, certainly its easier than doing troop count or tech level determinations people already do.  Just try it out and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised rather than recoiling at the same arithmetic you already do.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Triyun

[iKrolm]

The idea was raised because the lower tech gap empowers lower tech nations compared to higher ones. The multiplier would somewhat compensate larger nations while not giving them a better advantage during wars(10 F-22s aren't really much more likely to kill a F-22 than just one is).

Ok, I see what you're saying. Personally though, I don't think big nations were too strong under the old tech scale and that they don't need to be compensated. I support a multiplier for using 4th gen instead of 5th gen, but I don't support a multiplier for larger nations.

[Triyun]

It was the implicit bargain for supporting not just the downgrade but tightening of the tech system (i.e. making the lower tier also higher).

[Lynneth]

I'm not sure this is needed, personally.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Interesting, multipliers for lower gen aircraft.  I mean it doesn't inherently give advantages to larger nations and at the same time allows a nation options to rp with greater flavor than before.  Hell, you could even say it helps smaller nations because they're gonna be stuck in the 4th gen at the very least and this allows them to have more of them.  Looking at the numbers I went to wikipedia, I know not the greatest of all sources but its quick and this is a rough estimate anyway, to determine the amount of aircraft produced by generation starting with 2nd Gen aircraft, cuz who's really gonna use an Me262?  I only went with fighters and what was actually in service though, not planned to be and didn't make it.  The totals per generation were 39,000 (2nd Gen),  20,309 (3rd Gen),  and 13,143 (4th Gen).  A pretty noticeable drop in numbers every generation so I feel is applicable. 

Think of all the Zeros I could get to steer them into ships.

[Centurius]

Think of all the Zeros I could get to steer them into ships.

You just had to give her all of Japan Triyun :P

[Lestari]

I'm not sure this is needed, personally.

Agreed. I didn't feel the tech scale reform was necessary and I don't feel this is any more so.

[TheShammySocialist]

Personally, I am on the fence about an aircraft multiplier, I can certainly see the merits this proposition has, including the lower-gen multiplier, which makes sense to a point.

 

Triyun mentioned earlier in the thread that if you don't want to use ships, you could exchange them for ships or army troops. That is something that I'd like to see a little more discussion on as well, I think that idea has its merits. And being able to substitute ships for other classes (typically down, not up), wouldn't be a bad thing to explore.

 

I'm willing to give this proposal a shot on a trial basis at least.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I'm neutral on this, just as much as I'm neutral on the tech rescaling.

 

Ship substitution is a double-edged sword in my humble opinion. Not just because it is a tad bit intransparent (it already is now), but also, what is a higher class?

 

A battleship technically is larger, more costly and more powerful than a destroyer of the same age. This much is rather clear. However, every nation that has the financial ability ingame to keep a token navy around, will rather soon get battleships and only later get destroyers, as ingame destroyers are much higher ranked and actually more powerful. So, could I substitute my 60,000 ton battleship for like 10 6,000 ton destroyers as a reasonable deal, or do I get two battleships for one destroyer, because ingame-strength-wise, I think destroyers are 11, battleships are 5.

 

I used tonnages for comparison, because it's one of the more useful (though still not perfect) ways of comparing ships, however, this would also require some fixed tonnages for ship classes, which currently is handled via common sense, because IRL too it is handled this way (The Zumwalt-class destroyer displaces a higher tonnage than the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, WWII heavy cruisers and comes close to WWI battleships. It outclasses pretty much everything that pre-dates the dreadnought and late pre-dreadnoughts).

 

I do not feel this RP is really ready for such drastic measures as ship substitution, but if someone knows a decent system.

[Triyun]

For the multiplier I'll put that to a vote tomorrow I encourage people to give  it a try it can always be repealed, why don't we do a exercise on ship substitution and aircraft substitution.  I think of course if someone doesn't want to bother with substitution numbers they should be fine.  But for example as we go to 2022 my battleships remaining largely unchanged, its still IRL ridiculous to make a battleship size surface combatent but if given no choice I'm going to update the tech appropriately, I'm sure Shammy thinks the same thing.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

For the multiplier I'll put that to a vote tomorrow I encourage people to give  it a try it can always be repealed, why don't we do a exercise on ship substitution and aircraft substitution.  I think of course if someone doesn't want to bother with substitution numbers they should be fine.  But for example as we go to 2022 my battleships remaining largely unchanged, its still IRL ridiculous to make a battleship size surface combatent but if given no choice I'm going to update the tech appropriately, I'm sure Shammy thinks the same thing.

Battleships are a timeless classic!

[Triyun]

Alright Shammy and I have been talking about his on IRC.

 

On the normal multiplier is there anymore input before a poll goes up with an either or system?  And would this be acceptable to people supporting either one.

 

On the other multipliers Shammy and I'd like to propose the following, emphasizing this is purely an optional modifier to allow people to customize their militaries to a fair extent.

 

1)  Fighter Generation multipliers and substitution modifiers can only be in effect for existing IRL designs.  In other words you can't design a custom 4th generation fighter thats almost a 5 gen for a aircraft.  Nor can you create a custom 'destroyer' (I use destroyer in the Japanese sense of the word) for substituting a division.

 

2)  A player may substitute and single aircraft slot for two of a generation behind their current tech level.  A helpful guide to fighter aircraft generations may be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_generations#Jet-powered_fighters   Strategic bombers shall not be included in this modifier.

 

E.G. I having max tech can take 2 Squadrons of Super Hornets for 1 squadron of 5 Gen fighters.  Sarah with a small nation can take two squadrons of F-4 Phantoms for giving up 1 Squadron of F-15s.

 

As far as upgrading these, there is only a finite you can upgrade proportional to IRL with foreign assistance.  So while sensors can be upgraded you can't make full stealth hornets or put turbofan engines on the F-4, two of the key advantages of the gen up.

 

3)  A player may exchange soldiers for aircraft for ships with the following conversions.

 

15, 000 soldiers = 10, 000 tonnes of naval ships = 5 Squadrons of Aircraft of the current generation

 

Players who choose not to participate would not at all be effected as they still have the same force levels as everyone else.

 

Further as a great sacrifice I will personally help anyone who needs advise who wishes to take advantage of both systems but wishes to avoid the complexity.