Insurgency Rules Proposal

[Markus Wilding]

Other wars and allies doesn't make any sense.  Not all nations are created equal.  We had exactly 0 resources devoted to fighting he Bulgarian Front in WW II and nor would they take much but the US was a war with them.  Versus the Italian Front and the French front(s) all had resources devoted against on powers.  Its poorly concieved.  So is allies.  Allies have different utility and can be a strain or a burden.  The War in Libya showed how the US had to divert resources to supply the Europeans who were unable to sustain their own operations.   The atrocities by the Republic of Vietnam only undermined the legitimacy of the war effort in the US during Vietnam.  Giving all a quantifiable flat number thereby makes zero sense.  Nor should it even be based on stats as we know people RP their nations to a variety of competencies and in compliance with different moral values which cannot be measured in a DOW or a MDP.  Nor should one get penalized for declaring if that front is no an active one.

I mostly chose the bonuses and maluses because I felt both sides should have an equal chance - should you be invaded for example and have to go into an insurgency you would have a resource pool several times larger than what mine would be. But for the occupier, all they have to work with is a base 500 points.

 

Lynneth and I are literally the only ones who have been working on this. Just the two of us, nobody else has given input as to how we figure out what numbers to use. I encourage anyone who reads this and disagrees with our proposal to offer an alternative, because I'm more than willing to find an easier one that's fair for both sides.

 

Can't this just be a creative writing forum?

 

I wish it could be.

[Beauty]

Is this you guys way of inviting me back?

 

You could just contact me, you know?

[Captain Enema]

Is this you guys way of inviting me back?

 

You could just contact me, you know?

 

Please, do be a stranger.

[Williambonney]

 

Please, do be a stranger.

I second this motion.  :awesome:

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Lynneth and I are literally the only ones who have been working on this. Just the two of us, nobody else has given input as to how we figure out what numbers to use. I encourage anyone who reads this and disagrees with our proposal to offer an alternative, because I'm more than willing to find an easier one that's fair for both sides.

No, because I disagree on the fundamental level of deeming a seperate ruleset for insurgencies unnecessary.

 

Is this you guys way of inviting me back?

 

You could just contact me, you know?

We would've contacted you, if we wanted you back. But I doubt that's the case.

[iKrolm]

log_2 can beat your natural log any day, just saying...

But yes, there is too much math. And no matter how much (or little math) you add an insurgency is not going to work unless both parties want it to happen and are willing to allow some unrealism to make it fun.

[Triyun]

I mostly chose the bonuses and maluses because I felt both sides should have an equal chance - should you be invaded for example and have to go into an insurgency you would have a resource pool several times larger than what mine would be. But for the occupier, all they have to work with is a base 500 points.

 

Lynneth and I are literally the only ones who have been working on this. Just the two of us, nobody else has given input as to how we figure out what numbers to use. I encourage anyone who reads this and disagrees with our proposal to offer an alternative, because I'm more than willing to find an easier one that's fair for both sides.

 

 

I wish it could be.

Because people don't want it.  

 

The problem is you keep using equal chance.  That's not ever going to happen so long as CN RP is an open writing platform with national numerical stats based on IG nations that are of different strength.  People who are more familiar and creative with military actions and who have bigger nations are always going to be at an advantage over those who aren't.  If you don't like it, you need to RP in something not related to CN tbqh.

[Captain Enema]

 
Wilding was supposed to provide an online logarithm calculator, he just forgot.
Using this here: Click Me
With that it's just a matter of putting the right base in (e), putting the number in and using Windows' integrated calculator to multiply that with the other log result and then multiply -that- by ten.
That's as simple as you can possibly make it, so unless you have a better, less math-intensive yet similarly fair solution, please do not whine about the math required - which is really just multiplication.

 

1) calm down.

 

2) I shouldn't need to do math problems to conduct a story driven rp.

 

3) I see what he's trying to accomplish, bring order to disorder. I just don't think providing a calculator is the way to do it.

 

4) My last post gave Wilding advice on how I think he should proceed. My advice and encouragement has already been given.

 

 

This is a simple matter of role play, not math. Either you role play and keep on role playing until the other person gives up or you give up. Through the process of that role play you have to accept limitations on your ability to act as is the case in all role play. In an insurgency your limitations would be much greater given your nation, source of funding, and industry are under control of another power.

 

So again, the answer is simple, just keep role playing. If you examine modern and ancient insurgencies, you'll notice that it is the very rare example of a successful one being won via direct conflict. Hence, keep on role playing, keep on nibbling away whether you are successful or not. Given how short of attention spans most role players have and how unwilling they are to commit to long term role plays, your chances of winning some concessions are fairly good if you are willing to accept that most of your attacks will fail.

 

But whether they fail or not isn't the point, you are still role playing, still forcing the occupier to have to accept the space on the map they claim as theirs is contested.

 

So long as you keep that space contested, you are role playing.

 

 

In conclusion, just don't stop roleplaying and keep the occupier busy whether you win or lose.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

 

1) calm down.

 

2) I shouldn't need to do math problems to conduct a story driven rp.

 

3) I see what he's trying to accomplish, bring order to disorder. I just don't think providing a calculator is the way to do it.

 

4) My last post gave Wilding advice on how I think he should proceed. My advice and encouragement has already been given.

 

 

This is a simple matter of role play, not math. Either you role play and keep on role playing until the other person gives up or you give up. Through the process of that role play you have to accept limitations on your ability to act as is the case in all role play. In an insurgency your limitations would be much greater given your nation, source of funding, and industry are under control of another power.

 

So again, the answer is simple, just keep role playing. If you examine modern and ancient insurgencies, you'll notice that it is the very rare example of a successful one being won via direct conflict. Hence, keep on role playing, keep on nibbling away whether you are successful or not. Given how short of attention spans most role players have and how unwilling they are to commit to long term role plays, your chances of winning some concessions are fairly good if you are willing to accept that most of your attacks will fail.

 

But whether they fail or not isn't the point, you are still role playing, still forcing the occupier to have to accept the space on the map they claim as theirs is contested.

 

So long as you keep that space contested, you are role playing.

 

 

In conclusion, just don't stop roleplaying and keep the occupier busy whether you win or lose.

I for one agree with this completely. And it does not even need a rule change.

[Centurius]

 

1) calm down.

 

2) I shouldn't need to do math problems to conduct a story driven rp.

 

3) I see what he's trying to accomplish, bring order to disorder. I just don't think providing a calculator is the way to do it.

 

4) My last post gave Wilding advice on how I think he should proceed. My advice and encouragement has already been given.

 

 

This is a simple matter of role play, not math. Either you role play and keep on role playing until the other person gives up or you give up. Through the process of that role play you have to accept limitations on your ability to act as is the case in all role play. In an insurgency your limitations would be much greater given your nation, source of funding, and industry are under control of another power.

 

So again, the answer is simple, just keep role playing. If you examine modern and ancient insurgencies, you'll notice that it is the very rare example of a successful one being won via direct conflict. Hence, keep on role playing, keep on nibbling away whether you are successful or not. Given how short of attention spans most role players have and how unwilling they are to commit to long term role plays, your chances of winning some concessions are fairly good if you are willing to accept that most of your attacks will fail.

 

But whether they fail or not isn't the point, you are still role playing, still forcing the occupier to have to accept the space on the map they claim as theirs is contested.

 

So long as you keep that space contested, you are role playing.

 

 

In conclusion, just don't stop roleplaying and keep the occupier busy whether you win or lose.

Basically what I've been trying to say since this shitty debate started in the first place. Fully agree.

[Yawoo]

Count me as one of those that agrees with TBM. We don't need to add more math to CNRP.

[PresidentDavid]

Can this go away? There has to be something else that we can be mindlessly debating about.

[TheShammySocialist]

Mindlessness and debating for months on end is what you shall receive here, in the dejected halls of the Open National RP Sub-Forum!

 

This is the place where you beat dead horses into ground horse meat, this is the encampment where many hours will be spent around a fire debating semantics and math, the sounds of thousands of WAAAAAAAAAAAMbulances have been heard here in these halls, and the sounds of thousands more will be heard before the end of time!

 

The only way to make this, go away, Padawan PD, is to provide your own thread of mindless debating, to attract attention away from this one.

 

Go forth with this knowledge! Use it! Be one with it!

 

---

 

Or, if you need a better idea, here's one if you find this post tl;dr...

 

And the tl;dr version is this;

 

If you don't like what you're reading, simply don't read it, bud. I frequently avoid this whole Sub-Forum unless I need to make a ruling or want to bring something up...

[Markus Wilding]

The current system is flawed in that there is none, leading to enormous problems, the least of which is it is impossible for anything to actually be agreed upon. Let's say iKrolm is invaded by MGL, for instance. At what point does iKrolm go into a mode of insurgent warfare? How long does he try to fight on that principle? And most disturbingly, what is to stop MGL from simply not RPing the effects that insurgent warfare has on a military and the home front?

 

We can argue about how much or how little math there needs to be in CNRP all day, But for myself, until the effects of such RP can be willingly ignored by players, the status quo is flawed. Honestly, at this point I don't care if what I proposed is actually accepted or not, so long as there are checks in place to stop someone from saying that an insurgency has no effect on their nation.

[Justinian the Mighty]

Here is the rule we should vote on: If you invade someone and they rp an insurgency you have to accept that it has an effect on your nation. An insurgency begins when then defender's government falls or all their territory is occupied. It ends when one side quits or runs out of troops.

Boom!

We can expand on this since insurgencies don't tend to have hundreds of thousands of trained, well-armed soldiers, tanks, aircraft or a navy.

"Simple. Elegant. Justinian Solutions .Ltd, We make overthought !@#$ simple again."

Edit: Taco!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Justinian the Mighty

[Triyun]

I'm fine with RPing political effects mutually.  For example when Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia resorted to much more extreme tactics and now ISIS has, they've lost support among Sunni Muslims.  And in fact during the Sunni Awakening, many tribal leaders sided with the Americans against their fellow 'occupied' sunnis in order to combat extremists.  The problem as I see it, is that in any iteration or complaint of RPing effects, the defender RPs all their populations loving the resistance, even if that resistance barbarically sends children, women to slaughter etc and the occupier is kind.  That's just as unrealistic if not more so than insurgencies not having an effect.  Its about balance, not just helping one side in a conflict.  

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

The issue is that when we RP insurgencies, I don't foresee people RPing sectarian violence, with attacks being targeted against occupying troops and collaborators.  Remember two things Triyun.

 

1. No matter how nice the occupier is, or how much "regional autonomy" you hand out, insurgencies are to be expected.  People don't like being conquered, simple as that.  You can build roads, schools, hospitals, vaccinate children, empower women, and as long as your soldiers remain in that region, expect resistance.

 

2. The populace hates seeing soldiers come back in body bags.  Army size and population size doesn't matter.  The United States has the world's 3rd largest population and 2nd largest army, and yet a few thousand dead soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan drives people into a frenzy here.  If your nation was directly attacked or you are attacking someone clearly evil, they are more willing to put up with losses.  However, if you go to war against someone because they said mean things to you, or you go in to support an ally of your ally, or you fight some third world country on the other side of the globe, expect significant domestic resistance to your actions.  

[Captain Enema]

You really can't codify any of these into rules that can be easily implemented. I say leave it to the individual rpers to sort it out on their own. RP in many ways isn't about the best story or best in game nation. It is about the determination of the out of character role player.

 

All yall are being kind of silly if you are convinced otherwise. If it was a simple matter of size always trumps, people like lynneth would be a much larger force to be reckoned with. Yet, he's a harmless fellow who just wants to RP Science.

 

Which is fine, he knows what he enjoys and what he is good at, which brings it down to the basic level of the out of character person being willing or able to engage in a protracted war or engagement.

 

 

My only advice, just don't cede complete control of your population, you can even cooperate ICly with one group while raising hell with the other group. Cause just enough trouble to ensure the title of disputed is never removed from your space on the map.

 

These rules you speak of, unwieldly, unworkable, and unwanted imo.

 

Now start banging your keyboards and do some @#$# rping.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

The issue is that when we RP insurgencies, I don't foresee people RPing sectarian violence, with attacks being targeted against occupying troops and collaborators.  Remember two things Triyun.

 

1. No matter how nice the occupier is, or how much "regional autonomy" you hand out, insurgencies are to be expected.  People don't like being conquered, simple as that.  You can build roads, schools, hospitals, vaccinate children, empower women, and as long as your soldiers remain in that region, expect resistance.

How long did foreign troops in Germany? How much resistance was encountered? Not every occupation is maybe Germany, but also not every occupation is Afghanistan.

 

Edit: If people would put as much time into getting the Pure Lands finished, instead of arguing over insurgencies and whatnot, that might be a much better use of their time.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Evangeline Anovilis

[Captain Enema]

People seem to want to water down rp to that of numbers and datapoints. RP isn't about numbers and datapoints. It's about writing a story that is influenced by other rpers.

 

Yall really need to think about what you are trying to do, rather than just writing. Having a larger army only counts when the weaker person gives up. Just refuse to give up, no need for violence, but neither do you have to swiftly comply. Non violent protests are sufficient reason to keep a place listed as disputed on the map.

 

I think what people want are rules that say, "If x has this much and does y, the result equals z."

 

It's not math we are doing, it is about the nerves and determination and creativity of the person doing the writing. You can't make up for those things with formulas and rules. Either you have them or you don't.

[Justinian the Mighty]

Vote "No" on insurgency reform.

[Centurius]

The issue is that when we RP insurgencies, I don't foresee people RPing sectarian violence, with attacks being targeted against occupying troops and collaborators.  Remember two things Triyun.

 

1. No matter how nice the occupier is, or how much "regional autonomy" you hand out, insurgencies are to be expected.  People don't like being conquered, simple as that.  You can build roads, schools, hospitals, vaccinate children, empower women, and as long as your soldiers remain in that region, expect resistance.

 

2. The populace hates seeing soldiers come back in body bags.  Army size and population size doesn't matter.  The United States has the world's 3rd largest population and 2nd largest army, and yet a few thousand dead soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan drives people into a frenzy here.  If your nation was directly attacked or you are attacking someone clearly evil, they are more willing to put up with losses.  However, if you go to war against someone because they said mean things to you, or you go in to support an ally of your ally, or you fight some third world country on the other side of the globe, expect significant domestic resistance to your actions.  

1. As mentioned, Germany was happy with the Allied occupation force, Egypt was also happy to let Greece conquer them when they kicked out Persia. Just a very recent and very ancient example with plenty similar ones happening before, in between and after.

 

2. The problem with all these things is you're thinking of the Western world since the Vietnam war. Our civilian populations had it easy with no wars being fought on our soil since WW2(for Europe) and much earlier for the US. We also have an independent, profit oriented sensationalist media. In CNRP most populations are used to the consequences of war and are hardened when it comes to seeing dead soldiers return. Add the fact that the media in general tends to be under a lot more government control in CNRP and the kind of responses you have in real-life wouldn't make sense here. Formulas ignore individual rp people have done with their nations and force them into cookie cutter nations while having rules dependent on how the nation is rp'd will also force people into a certain direction to get the most advantages in an insurgency.

 

You're trying to fix something that isn't broken, name one insurgency actually written out in CNRP that didn't work out because of rules.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

1. As mentioned, Germany was happy with the Allied occupation force, Egypt was also happy to let Greece conquer them when they kicked out Persia. Just a very recent and very ancient example with plenty similar ones happening before, in between and after.

Yes, but for each country that was okay with occupation, a dozen resisted. Germany may have been okay with Allied occupation, but France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Norway, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the Soviets had rabid resistance movements against those same Germans.

2. The problem with all these things is you're thinking of the Western world since the Vietnam war. Our civilian populations had it easy with no wars being fought on our soil since WW2(for Europe) and much earlier for the US. We also have an independent, profit oriented sensationalist media. In CNRP most populations are used to the consequences of war and are hardened when it comes to seeing dead soldiers return.

Except the main occupiers, notably you and Triyun, have had decades without a major war being fought on your territories, especially if you go by the month to year timescale.

Add the fact that the media in general tends to be under a lot more government control in CNRP and the kind of responses you have in real-life wouldn't make sense here.

It's not media anymore that does these things in. It's stuff like videos posted on YouTube of soldiers getting caught in IED blasts, captured journalists getting their heads cut off, or people leaking illegal practices in war that enrage the populace. Yes, in Vietnam it was coverage of the Tet Offensive that turned people against the war in large numbers, but that's not really the case anymore.

Formulas ignore individual rp people have done with their nations and force them into cookie cutter nations while having rules dependent on how the nation is rp'd will also force people into a certain direction to get the most advantages in an insurgency.

Formulas are stupid and math is for nerds, I just want people to realize that things like insurgencies can hurt them, and I want them to RP out those effects realistically should someone actually chose to use them.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Yes, but for each country that was okay with occupation, a dozen resisted. Germany may have been okay with Allied occupation, but France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Norway, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the Soviets had rabid resistance movements against those same Germans.

Germany also did not build hospitals, schools and other kind of positive infrastructure there. They pretty much plundered the arts, the industry and mass murdered civilians. So, it does not prove your point much. Also, the German war weariness did not increase that much due to partisans. It died down ressources, but it did not fan dissent at home by any meaningful amount. If it was not for the continued war in the East and West, Germany could have just kept plundering, without fearing a broad opposition at home for years to come.

[PresidentDavid]

I like your new avatar Eva.