The Discussion Bus

[Lynneth]

 

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 the 1st.

The 2nd would need some elaboration imo, and I'm not gonna do it. I introduced the point system already. :V

[Hereno]

Navies are extremely important in this RP, and yet many of us are unable to maintain navies even a quarter of a reasonable strength.  The rules already heavily favor large nations and I don't support any additions that deepen the power imbalance that already exists between nations with in-game navies and those of us who don't have them or choose not to maintain them. If they want to run around with six aircraft carriers (see: more than the US currently uses), than they need to start giving some massive kickbacks to the rest of us.

[mona lisa]

The US has eleven IRL.

[Yerushalayim]

So just give a flat cap of points. 10,000 points for a navy, based on our existing costs for ships, and requiring that a nation have some coastal territory.

[Zoot Zoot]

Navies are extremely important in this RP, and yet many of us are unable to maintain navies even a quarter of a reasonable strength.  The rules already heavily favor large nations and I don't support any additions that deepen the power imbalance that already exists between nations with in-game navies and those of us who don't have them or choose not to maintain them. If they want to run around with six aircraft carriers (see: more than the US currently uses), than they need to start giving some massive kickbacks to the rest of us.

Dude, the US Navy operates 11 supercarriers and I don't even know how many helicopter carriers. I think only Lynneth comes close to that with 9 carriers. The restriction on carriers comes in with the aircraft rule. I use smaller carriers because one nimitz can support the aircraft of all 3 of my queen elizabeth class carriers, (30 fixed wing).

 

The modifiers of which i support, should only apply to screen ships which are destroyers and frigates. Corvettes are realistically useless for fleet operations and cruisers carry far too much firepower to be given a multiplier.

[Hereno]

The US could have a billion aircraft carriers in outer space IRL and it wouldn't make the thought behind my post in any way invalid. The naval system we have IC is extremely favorable to people who have in-game navies already and I don't see any point in fixing things if it's just going to even further disadvantage those of us without in-game navies. That I would rather keep a status quo in which I have five ships in my entire navy vs. one player having more aircraft carriers than that should probably say something about how broken things already are.

[Yerushalayim]

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.

[Lord Hershey]

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.

 

I like the idea behind this, though, there needs to be additional or extra points that have to be earned for achievements and such, that, I think, may complicate things, given that this system is well balanced.

[Hereno]

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.

I like the idea behind this. To use Tywin as an example, a cluster of islands having 400,000 soldiers and virtually no navy is kind of dumb. It would let things be a lot more dynamic, although we can always derive some fraction of points from our in-game nations if people are too attached to the idea.

[Markus Wilding]

I dunno, I think I'd have to see it on one of our nations to get a better idea of it. Right now, it seems like a lot of math that can go wrong somewhere.

[Yerushalayim]

I dunno, I think I'd have to see it on one of our nations to get a better idea of it. Right now, it seems like a lot of math that can go wrong somewhere.

 

Right, so, here's an example nation. We'll go with the Khmer Empire, over in South East Asia.

Starting Points: 100

Tech Year: 2013 (-60)
Soldiers: 400,000 (-8)
Air Craft: 7 squadrons (-12), 2 stealth squadrons (-8)
Navy: 2 Escort Group (-10)
Total Spent: 100

Versus the island nation of Puerto Rico.

Starting Points: 100
Tech Year: 2010 (-45)
Soldiers: 250,000 (-5)
Air Craft: 6 squadrons (-12), 4 stealth squadrons (-8)
Navy: 2 carrier groups (-30)
Total Spent: 100

This gives two very different nations. Puerto Rico, being an island, ends up with a much stronger navy and air force, while the Khmer have a significantly stronger army (and more modern tech to back it), due to their need to defend against aggression by their neighbors on the Asian mainland.

Again, these numbers are outta my ass, so they're not super-balanced (I'd consider making tech cheaper, or simply adding more points to the pool).

[Zoot Zoot]

The US could have a billion aircraft carriers in outer space IRL and it wouldn't make the thought behind my post in any way invalid. The naval system we have IC is extremely favorable to people who have in-game navies already and I don't see any point in fixing things if it's just going to even further disadvantage those of us without in-game navies. That I would rather keep a status quo in which I have five ships in my entire navy vs. one player having more aircraft carriers than that should probably say something about how broken things already are.

I pay to maintain my IG navy and have done since i was able to buy ships. It is a personal choice on wether or not to field an IG navy. Its not my problem that because I can have a bigger navy that you are at a disadvantage, even if I was at 50k. At 30k, I had one large fleet, before all multipliers. Some nations have large navies, some don't but make up for it elsewhere. So on that line of thought, I could support Yerus suggestion once it is refined down for minimal chances of abuse.

[Shave N Haircut]

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

• 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.
• 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.

 

Alright, an addition to the first proposal!

[LIST][*]Remove the stipulation that one must own the ships in-game to have them in the RP, and instead make it based on what one might be able to support based on the infrastructure that they possess. The normal technology limit placed on ships in-game would not matter, because at this point we're all roleplaying in the 21st century, and there's no reason that anyone with 2000 tech cannot build an aircraft carrier. This gives the low level nations the ability to have navy which can be modified, which gets rid of the argument that modifiers only benefit those with the ability to afford them in-game.
[/LIST]

Also now on the table is the possibility of imposing a cap on Naval power to keep some nations from having absolutely ludicrous amounts of navy.

[Lynneth]

 

Alright, an addition to the first proposal!
 

• Remove the stipulation that one must own the ships in-game to have them in the RP, and instead make it based on what one might be able to support based on the infrastructure that they possess. The normal technology limit placed on ships in-game would not matter, because at this point we're all roleplaying in the 21st century, and there's no reason that anyone with 2000 tech cannot build an aircraft carrier. This gives the low level nations the ability to have navy which can be modified, which gets rid of the argument that modifiers only benefit those with the ability to afford them in-game.

Also now on the table is the possibility of imposing a cap on Naval power to keep some nations from having absolutely ludicrous amounts of navy.

 

I support this post.

I voice my approval.

[Yerushalayim]

 

Alright, an addition to the first proposal!
 

• Remove the stipulation that one must own the ships in-game to have them in the RP, and instead make it based on what one might be able to support based on the infrastructure that they possess. The normal technology limit placed on ships in-game would not matter, because at this point we're all roleplaying in the 21st century, and there's no reason that anyone with 2000 tech cannot build an aircraft carrier. This gives the low level nations the ability to have navy which can be modified, which gets rid of the argument that modifiers only benefit those with the ability to afford them in-game.

Also now on the table is the possibility of imposing a cap on Naval power to keep some nations from having absolutely ludicrous amounts of navy.

 

I like this better than the other options. What sort of cap are you thinking of, though?

[Shave N Haircut]

I like this better than the other options. What sort of cap are you thinking of, though?

I don't know, that's the community's job to decide. I'm not the Capmaker here.

[Euphaia]

I support the proposal to make it based on what one might be able to support based on the infrastructure that they possess.

 

I also support the proposal to impose a cap on Naval power.

[Hereno]

 

Alright, an addition to the first proposal!
 

• Remove the stipulation that one must own the ships in-game to have them in the RP, and instead make it based on what one might be able to support based on the infrastructure that they possess. The normal technology limit placed on ships in-game would not matter, because at this point we're all roleplaying in the 21st century, and there's no reason that anyone with 2000 tech cannot build an aircraft carrier. This gives the low level nations the ability to have navy which can be modified, which gets rid of the argument that modifiers only benefit those with the ability to afford them in-game.

Also now on the table is the possibility of imposing a cap on Naval power to keep some nations from having absolutely ludicrous amounts of navy.

 

 

Yes. This. I want it, with a reasonable cap.

 

What constitutes a reasonable cap, though? That depends on how big navies can get. Someone who knows their CN naval rules should whip up some numbers for us.

[Captain Enema]

Needs to be a cap decided upon for the poll, but the idea in general seems good and fairly well supported. Would like to see one or two more people voice their support.

 

You've got a bit more time, keep on it FHIC, looks very good so far. 

[Lynneth]

I would like to propose the following naval caps,

10 Corvettes (*2 via mod)
8 Landing ships/AAVs
8 Cruisers
8 Frigates (*2 via mod)
6 battleships
6 destroyers (*2 via mod)
6 carriers
12 submarines (3 SSBNs/ballistic subs max)

The '*2 via mod' refers to the naval modifier suggested somewhere above.

[Shave N Haircut]

I would like to propose the following naval caps,

10 Corvettes (*2 via mod)
8 Landing ships/AAVs
8 Cruisers
8 Frigates (*2 via mod)
6 battleships
6 destroyers (*2 via mod)
6 carriers
12 submarines (3 SSBNs/ballistic subs max)

The '*2 via mod' refers to the naval modifier suggested somewhere above.

I endorse this cap

[mona lisa]

I dont understand these naval caps. Why are we capping them? Is Lynneth's caps for IG navies for non IG navies?

[Lynneth]

I dont understand these naval caps. Why are we capping them? Is Lynneth's caps for IG navies for non IG navies?

In char navies. RP-navies.

[Yerushalayim]

The ratios seem off. Same number of destroyers as carriers?

[Lynneth]

The ratios seem off. Same number of destroyers as carriers?

Multiplied by two with the modifiers. Though I guess one could argue for 8 (I like round numbers).