Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Subjects up for discussion.

Soldier cap, The Soldier Cap being tiered is a horrid decision, especially when it starts at 50k and goes up from there. This RP is supposed to be for the people less than 50k, not those above it, so why is this rule clearly gauged to give them an advantage over those in the actual target audience?

 

Tl;dr - Why the fuck is that tiered in such a moronic fashion?

 

50k votes, A simple majority needs to carry the vote on this. If more people want them to stay than to leave, why the hell should they still have to leave? This was clearly a ploy to make it harder for them to stay by those in the lower division who prefer it as being an only <50k RP. It's undemocratic in the extreme.

 

Tl;dr - Whose dumb idea was it to not just make it a simple majority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, at least one of you is listening. As any other of these things, if there is enough support from the community, the next vote will have polling options to reflect a change.

 

We aren't looking for a set number of supporters, just enough support to justify putting it on a poll. 

 

Here is a hint.. when this is all said and done, have polling options quoted and identified for best effect. If I have to sort through a thread full of comments without any clearly identified polling options as the final product, I'll have no idea what I'm being asked to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are that way because people voted for them to be that way.

I brought the issue of the soldier cap up like 2 days ago: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/121679-cnrp2-ooc-thread/?p=3266006

It isn't a flat cap, but then most people under 50k NS wanted it to be a tiered cap. I feel as though my alteration provides a good balance that can make everyone happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are that way because people voted for them to be that way.

I brought the issue of the soldier cap up like 2 days ago: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/121679-cnrp2-ooc-thread/?p=3266006

It isn't a flat cap, but then most people under 50k NS wanted it to be a tiered cap. I feel as though my alteration provides a good balance that can make everyone happy.

 

 

How many people would you say are inclined to support this option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the tiered cap proposal, I'd be entirely in favor of changing the wording to Hereno's proposal on soldier caps.

That said, I do agree that the voting percentage should be lowered to a simple majority vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, another thing to discuss that I don't think has another home, Naval rules. Now, I dig that some people want to keep the numbers limited, but the present set up where there are no modifiers is absolutely crippling to try and set up a modern naval formation in.

 

Now, there are two possible solutions to the problem as presented that I have come up with:

  1. Put the modifiers back in, but make them only for the smallest ships, Destroyers, Corvettes, and Frigates, with the point system remaining as-is. Submarines remain unmodified. This makes it so that a modern naval formation can be properly put forward by nations big enough to have them, and gives the smaller nations a proper coast guarding force.
  2. Make the point system more extensive, benefiting nations based on their size and not on their game-fleets, which many of the nations involved in this RP cannot afford to maintain, one of the main reasons I suspect the modifiers were removed in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I think.

 

cut the points by half for all light classes other than submarines for nations under 9500 infra. Further, allow aircraft carrier points to be converted for points to be used for light classes by everyone. Carriers still have to be owned in game though. Point values remain the same for nation over 9500 infra. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Navies are far more important in rp than they are in cybernations. I personally think people need to chill out with their navies and consider cutting the sizes of their armies.

 

But I know how much that'll booed down so I won't bother chasing after it. 

 

but really, if you don't have a navy big enough to match your army, why not cut your army size?

 

It'll cut these huge mother of god battles that have transpired in the past where 900000000 men have gotten moved in a matter of hours.

 

As I said, I know no a single one of yall are going to cut your army size, so I'll stick with suggesting increasing points for under 9500 infra rpers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will attempt to summarize this as best as I can.

 

A carrier is usually surrounded by about a dozen escort ships, used as a screen to be able to ensure as much protection as possible to the carrier, recently we have been using Carrier Strike Groups, which tend to be smaller, a CSG consists typically of:

 

A supercarrier, which is the centerpiece of the strike group and also serves as the flagship
One or two Aegis guided missile cruisers
A destroyer squadron with two to three guided missile destroyers
Up to two attack submarines

 

in a Carrier Battle Group, you could double those numbers, and include frigates and corvettes, I am basing this off wikipedia guidelines, zoot's naval makeup and split would give you an idea of a normal Carrier Battle Group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question to you, can you really justify parking a huge number of your planes on a Gerald Ford Class carrier?

 

You all do realize that air forces are somewhat more limited. If you are crazy enough to plonk 1/7th of your combat aircraft on 100,000 tonne floating Ballistic Missile Honey Trap, you are asking to get reamed.

 

The order of the day here is smaller is better. Smaller carriers, faster carriers, and as is the case, smaller CVBGs. You need to shift your model from the US to a nation handling a more modest array of ships. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so a carrier battle group operates with several classes of ships for many reasons.

 

You have the carrier, the flagship/centerpiece and most valuble asset, it needs protecting. Now whilst its aircraft provide good defence, they won't stop a determined enemy on its own. This is why we have screen ships.

 

Destroyers/Frigates and Cruisers act as a shield so to speak, spread around the carrier to provide an all round defence from missile attack through the use of intergrated weapon systems. They also operate ASW (Anti submarine warfare), operations, as a carriers greatest threat is from beneath the waves.

 

The purpose of screen vessels is to act as the eyes and ears for the carrier, providing detection under water, and in the skies and of course, on open water. They also give a fleet much needed firesupport against an enemy fleet or targets on shore. Basically, a carrier without its screen fleet is just a floating coffin, likewise, a fleet without a carrier is very much open to air assault from long range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I think.

 

cut the points by half for all light classes other than submarines for nations under 9500 infra. Further, allow aircraft carrier points to be converted for points to be used for light classes by everyone. Carriers still have to be owned in game though. Point values remain the same for nation over 9500 infra. 

Would prefer it be for nations with a certain tech level or below. But that's just because I've got a shitton of infra and no tech, so this change doesn't help me in the slightest. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zoot is entirely correct. The Present system essentially allows for two proper, one carrier fleets, and that's not really fair for anyone who actually has the capacity to have carriers. This is also pretty much assuming that we're emptying the country of ships to do this.

Really, I'm up for either of my proposals. If anyone's got another Proposal, shoot it out. I agree with part of what AgressiveNutmeg says:

 

Also, navies should be what you're capable of having IG, we shouldn't actually have to maintain ships for RP purposes.

Because this, unlike everything else in the game, requires an expenditure in game that many low tier nations simply cannot afford, even if they can have ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Right, another thing to discuss that I don't think has another home, Naval rules. Now, I dig that some people want to keep the numbers limited, but the present set up where there are no modifiers is absolutely crippling to try and set up a modern naval formation in.

 

Now, there are two possible solutions to the problem as presented that I have come up with:

  1. Put the modifiers back in, but make them only for the smallest ships, Destroyers, Corvettes, and Frigates, with the point system remaining as-is. Submarines remain unmodified. This makes it so that a modern naval formation can be properly put forward by nations big enough to have them, and gives the smaller nations a proper coast guarding force.
  2. Make the point system more extensive, benefiting nations based on their size and not on their game-fleets, which many of the nations involved in this RP cannot afford to maintain, one of the main reasons I suspect the modifiers were removed in the first place.

 

I like both of these. In truth, I don't understand the extreme limits on the navy compared to other things, like soldiers and air forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...