The Discussion Bus

[Lysergide]

I understand your point of going over the maximum cap, and I have already stated I am not against it, but 10,000 soldiers shouldn't give you ten planes, it should give you one. Ten plane costs more to build, fuel, maintain, and arm than 10,000 soldiers. One Plane is more around what it costs to train, arm, and maintain 10,000 soldiers.

[Zoot Zoot]

I would be fine with 10,000 soldiers being five planes, or even one, but with a 750k troop cap. Im not utterly stripping my ground army of its manpower for an extra 100 planes when I can lose 250,000 men and gain 168 planes.

[Lysergide]

If there are going to be caps, they should effect all levels of the RP, you shouldn't be able to lose some soldiers and suddenly gain air superiority. The point of the caps are to make everyone equal.

[Rudolph]

Except that realistically based on terrain, no country is going to BE equal against other countries, which is the point of Zoot's suggestion.

[Captain Enema]

There are too many proposals and everything is so convoluted. Someone needs to grab up the main 2-3 ones and simplify them all in one post that could actually be voted on.

 

 

This here, I don't see enough clarity or support behind any one support at this point to justify adding anything to a voting poll.

However, that's not to say the discussion has been unproductive. Definitely a lot more interest in getting this sorted out than there was last time.

 

So, I'll refrain from posting the monday voting for a bit and give you all some more time to create some polling points and demonstrate community support for those polling points. 

[Lysergide]

Except that realistically based on terrain, no country is going to BE equal against other countries, which is the point of Zoot's suggestion.

 

Then just remove all the caps.

[Shave N Haircut]

 

 

This here, I don't see enough clarity or support behind any one support at this point to justify adding anything to a voting poll.

However, that's not to say the discussion has been unproductive. Definitely a lot more interest in getting this sorted out than there was last time.

 

So, I'll refrain from posting the monday voting for a bit and give you all some more time to create some polling points and demonstrate community support for those polling points. 

Both of my Proposals have gained ample support, what's being discussed here has practically nothing to do with them. There's only been one dissenting opinion and it's not even a real dissent.

[Captain Enema]

Both of my Proposals have gained ample support, what's being discussed here has practically nothing to do with them. There's only been one dissenting opinion and it's not even a real dissent.

 

k, post the polling options for your proposal on the Monday Night voting thread. If the other stuff being discussed here gets moved forward and gets supported.. someone ought to get some polling options posted on the Monday thread as well.

[PresidentDavid]

Ok so last night whilst under the influence i had an idea. So here is the proposal.

 

At the moment navies are unbalanced and airforces even more so.

 

So using the present naval system (IG Navies and Mogars point system), I think we should incorporate FHIC's naval proposal of modifiers for destroyers and frigates of *2.

 

This means that small nations who use the points as a method of maintaining a navy, so for example 4000 points allows for six destroyers, using FHIC's modifier, this gets increased to twelve destroyers.

 

For larger nations like myself, it allows us to maintain a larger navy and have realistic fleet compositions based on screen vessels to protect our carriers whilst not granting too much power as to create an unbeatable force.

 

Now then for stage two. Some nations don't need 750k troops. I'm going to be using the British Isles as an example.

 

Using a max cap of 750k troops, 630 aircraft and a small fleet based on the above naval proposal.

 

Britain only needs for example between 100k and 200k soldiers to defend the land territory, its main defence comes in the form of its airforce and navy, but its navy is limited in its operations because of its lack of air cover. So I propose that we be able to substitute soldiers for more aircraft squadrons.

 

Going off my example of a minimal 200k standing army, we have 550k soldiers that are useless. I propose that for every 50,000 soldiers we subtract from our standing army, you can gain five aircraft squadrons.

 

So from 630 aircraft, this can be increased using the above example to 762 aircraft with an additional 11 squadrons of aicraft. This means that britains main defence comes from its navy and airforce, rather than a bloated and useless army which cant target airforces or naval formations.

 

To use another example I will use my own nation as a base.

I have 750k active troops, 460 aircraft (stealth planes count as 2 slots) and three carrier fleets (with 1 carrier per fleet).

 

To defend the territory I have, I need 500,000 men. This leaves me with 250k soldiers that I dont need. This grants me an additional five aircraft squadrons (50 aircraft as my squadrons are ten aircraft, not 12), raising my total airforce to 510 aircraft.

________________

I do realise this may be hard to follow so here it is in plain and simple English. The naval modifier should be a mixture of the current system, and FHIC's modifiers but without the proposed cap.

To bring back the airforce balance, I propose that we be able to sustitute soldiers for extra airfcraft squadrons for military customization. Each 50,000 men you decide you don't want, you get five squadrons of aircraft to replace them with 10,000 soldiers acting as one squadron. You get the picture.

 

This means that a nation like the Phillipines or Britain can have a smaller standing army in favour of greater air power and air cover for their now larger fleets based on the naval modification I'm suggesting to run in tandem with this proposal to their island nation status.

 

I really like the idea of this. The only thing I am kind of iffy about is limiting nations to smaller navies.... I don't mind a country having a large navy. It just means bigger targets to shoot at. But this really seems like a nice plan. It helps smaller nations and makes it more realistic for bigger nations.

Edited June 16, 2014 by PresidentDavid

[Captain Enema]

Makes for some rp that wouldn't happen otherwise as well. I've no issues with it. 

[Dillon1102]

So, uh, here's a very basic point buy system for consideration if there's still interest in moving away from basing everything on the in game stats of our nations. As a disclaimer, all numbers are pulled straight from my ass, and are simply used to demonstrate how such a system would/could work. :P

So, let's say that nations start with 100 points in the system. They get to buy a few different things.

For example:
Tech Year: Starts in 2000, goes to 2013. Each year costs 5 points.
Aircraft: 2 points buys a squadron. 4 points buys a stealth squadron. All squadrons are the same size.
Navies: 5 points gets an escort group. 15 gets a carrier group. Define groups as whatever we want (carriers are not supers, and come with aircraft).
Soldiers: 2 points buys 50,000 soldiers toward your cap.

And so on. Lets people build up a nation how they want, while still keeping things relatively balanced.

This is really good

[Hereno]

This is really good

Was Yeru's suggestion even put on the polls?

[The Zigur]

Yerushalayem had a great proposal, but it will never happen because the large imperialist nations will throw a fit.

[The Zigur]

One thing I would note is differentiating between autonomous warfare setups (modern US) and attrition warfare setups (Soviets). One is meant for defensive warfare, and the other for offensive rushes.

[Dillon1102]

Was Yeru's suggestion even put on the polls?

No it wasn't or I would have voted for it.

[Shave N Haircut]

No it wasn't or I would have voted for it.

It would have been if anyone had bothered to post it in the Monday Vote thread, making it an option.

[Yerushalayim]

Yeah, it wasn't put in. I can resubmit it if folks want it. :P I was under the impression that the majority of the community wasn't interested.

[The Zigur]

Could always base a points system on NS, so big nations still have an advantage, it just wouldnt be as huge an advantage as before.

[The Zigur]

Proposed Revision of Yerushalayim's concept.

 

 

 

Nations 0-10,000 NS Receive 100 points to begin with. Additional points can be added, calculated at the following rates:

+20 points for each 5000 NS up to 50,000 NS (max 260)

+20 points for each 10,000 NS thereafter (max 400)

Thus any nation can be up to 4x stronger than the weakest nation

For example:
Tech Year: Starts in 1990, goes to 2014. 5 points buys two years of development.
Aircraft: 2 points buys a generation 4 fighter squadron, 5 points buys a generation 4.5 squadron. 10 points buys a generation 5 (stealth) squadron; stealth cannot be detected unless enemy surpasses tech year of asset and possesses 5th gen assets). Squadron = 24 aircraft; includes bomber attachment with air superiority) Aircraft used must be supported by tech year. Each generation offers a 2x bonus over the prior generation, up to 3x (thus a gen 5 will completely defeat a gen 4 1v1 even when detected).

Air Defense Battery (AD): Gen 4: 2 points, Gen 4.5: 5 points, Gen 5: 10 points. Detects aircraft up to generation; gen 5 AD detects stealth aircraft to own tech year. Each Battery engages one squadron, can stack with own air squadrons. 5th generation AD provides stealth detection for friendly lower generation air and AD assets, up to current tech year (e.g. 2006 to detect F-22s). Each generation offers a 2x bonus over the prior generation, up to 3x (a gen 5 aircraft would destroy a generation 4 AD battery; gen 5 battery would destroy a gen 4 aircraft).
Navies: 10 points gets an escort or transport group. 50 gets a carrier group. Escort groups are worth a generation 4.5 air squadron and are 2x stronger than transport groups. Transport groups are worth a generation 4 air squadron can transport up to 5 divisions. Carrier groups possess 5th gen detection of assets up to tech year, and are combined transport and escort groups that can also support 3 squadrons of aircraft. Naval groups do not engage divisions directly. Naval groups are worth a single air squadron during engagement; a ten year advantage in tech offers a 2x bonus in all engagements (not stackable).

Divisions: 2 points buys either an Infantry, Mechanized Infantry or Armored Division (worth 10000 personnel, up to cap). An infantry division is strongest at fortified defense (urban, woods, mountains etc), equal to 2x mechanized divisions and 1x armored division. Armored divisions are strong at offense, worth 2x a defending mechanized division or unfortified infantry. Defending mechanized divisions are 2x stronger than infantry divisions, and attacking mechanized divisions are 2x stronger than defending armored divisions. Division strength is multiplied by 2x for having more than a 10 year tech advantage over the enemy (cannot stack with other bonuses). A division is considered worth an air squadron when attacked with general advantage given based on tech year; but a division can only directly engage back against generation 4 aircraft.

 

*During combat, units should be divided between front line and reserve, with only front line units able to be directly attacked.

*Total defeat could be considered to occur when 3v1 odds are achieved against the defender.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[The Zigur]

SAMPLE FORCE COMPOSITION UNDER REVISED SYSTEM

 

140 Point Nation (15k-20k)

 

Tech Year: 2006 [40 points]

Aircraft: 1 Gen 5 Squadron (F-22), 10 Gen 4 Squadrons (F-15) [30 points]

Air Defense: 1 Gen 5 Battery, 10 Gen 4 Batteries [30 points]

Navy: 2 Escort Groups [20 points]

Divisions: 5 Armored, 5 Infantry [20 points]

Edited June 19, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Rudolph]

Okay, due to the ongoing situation centered around Tywin's controversial move and whatnot, It's now time to discuss the following things!

 

Protectors, Protectorates and you!

 

As it stands, any player wanting to roll into Protectorate areas have to request it from the protectors. There are no rules regarding rebellions in protectorate areas, so I thought best to finally discuss this highly relevant topic.

[JEDCJT]

If you want to rp actions (rebellions, movements, whatnots) in someone's protectorate, you have to request permission from the protector.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I was wondering what people thought of the idea of allowing land locked nations who do not need to or will not support navies.. to use their IG navy to reflect structural improvements in their nation. I'll give the first example that comes to mind..

 

1 Carrier = 1 Airfield. The airfield is of course immobile, is nuclear hardened like a carrier as a professional military installation, and otherwise performs the same function as a carrier.

 

The swap rule could also be used by nations who do have navies and who do have a coast simply for having less navy and more ground installations. In order for it to be fair, the swap would have to be clearly documented in a factbook for the nation and the locations given as they'd be available to any nation with satellite capability. Non-satellite posessing nations would have ot use intelligence roles or recon missions to locate the positions of the installations.

 

1 Submarine = One nuclear silo field...

 

And these are just examples. It'd need refined.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

If you want to rp actions (rebellions, movements, whatnots) in someone's protectorate, you have to request permission from the protector.

 

I thought this was established already, but for clarity, I agree with this as a clarification of the existing rules.

[Mr Director]

Suggested rules:

Anyone can claim any white space as a protectorate, which would continue to be labeled as white space on the map. Protectors cannot rp the citizens of protectorates. Protectors must be able to defend their own protectorates, and other nations are allowed to launch invasions of protectorates. If a new nation wishes to roll in a protected region, it is suggested that they ask the protectors of that region. However, if they choose to they may rp a rebellion in the protectorate, with or without permission from the protector. The soldier multipliers for a rebellion would remain the same as if they were ordinary players, however, rebels may not use aircraft or navy, and the only way for them to get tanks, APCs and artillery would be to either steal them(spy roll) or otherwise gain them from existing nations, who can choose to back a rebellion. Multiple nations may cooperate to protect a single region.

I just typed this up on my phone, so there are probably a lot of gaps and loopholes still.