The Discussion Bus

[Maelstrom Vortex]

That's not a bad suggestion Mr. Director.. a rebellion should have to scramble for resources if permitted. I think both of these would be good options for a community vote as I can see this working either way.

[The Zigur]

Prior assets, including military assets, should remain from before the white space became a protectorate, since protectors cannot roleplay citizens or anything native.

 

The protector should have forces capable of repressing an uprising and put in more roleplay to that effort than "x units have deployed." That approach didnt work well for the Soviet protectors of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

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.

Unless this comes with a rule that only via ships one can have these facilities, it's a pretty moot point. I mean, why exchange a carrier for an airfield, if I can have those under common sense anyway?

 

If one needs ships to have hardened airfields and nuke silos, that's a bit unfair towards all the people who don't have IG navy and makes little sense.

 

Also, what is a nuclear hardened airfield? Any RL example for that?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Unless this comes with a rule that only via ships one can have these facilities, it's a pretty moot point. I mean, why exchange a carrier for an airfield, if I can have those under common sense anyway?

 

If one needs ships to have hardened airfields and nuke silos, that's a bit unfair towards all the people who don't have IG navy and makes little sense.

 

Also, what is a nuclear hardened airfield? Any RL example for that?

 

I am uncertain a RL parallel exist, because in reality most nations use their highway system for airfield redudancy in a manner that is much cheaper. But I can imagine how one can be created by burrowing into a mountain face or underground. You'd simply have blast doors close at the end of the runways when they were not in use. If you have no mountains they could be built on an incline that runs into the ground. Pretty much like Cheyenne Mountain with an airbase inside.

 

Actually, I found one.. but I find it hard to believe where it is located:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDeljava_Air_Base

 

And apparently there are more without wiki listings:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_hangar

Edited June 20, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

They got protection for the hangars and support. Runways etc. are out in the open still. So, you can safe your aircraft and decontaminate them in the interior, but they will neither take off, nor be recovered. Not to mention, it's supposed to survive a 20 kt bomb. Most modern thermonuclear weapons (available to pretty much everyone with nukes ingame) are at least 300-500 kt, which if set to surface detonation takes out that base.

 

And who'd ever opt for a 20 kt nuke? So, what's the point?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Keep in mind though, most of these aren't built in facilities of high construction quality. I'd build mine like Cheyene Mountain. If you build your runway into the mountain, and close the blast doors.. then it could remain functional.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Keep in mind though, most of these aren't built in facilities of high construction quality. I'd build mine like Cheyene Mountain. If you build your runway into the mountain, and close the blast doors.. then it could remain functional.

That's pretty inpractical, given that you need to prevent aircraft taking off from racing into the ceiling and aircraft that are landing need to hit exactly that one point that's still runway, yet they should not fly too far or it's no longer runway. The building costs would be enormous, it's way beyond common sense and I'd think it's better to keep with RL proven concepts and technology, something this RP wanted to do, as far as I remember.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

That's pretty inpractical, given that you need to prevent aircraft taking off from racing into the ceiling and aircraft that are landing need to hit exactly that one point that's still runway, yet they should not fly too far or it's no longer runway. The building costs would be enormous, it's way beyond common sense and I'd think it's better to keep with RL proven concepts and technology, something this RP wanted to do, as far as I remember.

 

Solution 1 Launch: Electromagnetic catapult with automatic pilot guidance on thrust and lift .

Solution 2 Retrieval: Catch cords and automatic pilot guidance for landing. Poper visual landing cues. Alternate surface airfields nearby for emergency retreivals.

 

I agree the building costs would be great..but the build time would also be great.. meaning the budgeting would be distributed across many years. I think I may take upon the task simply as a pet project for my nation of making one of these.  It shouldn't be more expensive than operating a mine.. and maintenance and facilities upkeep should be comparable to nuclear aircraft carriers which are also very expensive.

 

They are proven concepts. Airfields have been built underground.  Extensive mining facilities have been built, even in granite. Nuclear protected bases have been built. It's easy to launch rockets form under ground.. and with sufficient guidance technology (which I have).. then the problem about takeoff and landings should be easily resolvable. Landings in precise areas have been taking place for years, notably on air craft carriers. This runway wouldn't even roll or pitch.

 

The only part that's challenging is making sure the base will survive an x megaton blast, but engineering is up to it and if you select the correct geography; that can do half the work for you.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I'm pretty sure you could build it so it survives some sort of nuke. But if it hits your entrance or exit... well, that base will be having quite a time to take care of that.

 

Overall, I'd say, just use an economic alternative of strengthened highways and try to avoid nuclear escalation of a conflict. (Most people nuke population centers anyway, not airfields).

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Well yeah, a direct hit to the entrance would probably nerf Cheyenne mountain too, lol. I think I'm going to use a reduntant set of strategies, but what I'm saying is that if you can't have a navy.. and you need to protect some af and silos, etc.. this would be a good method of using navy to represent hardened assets in general.

[Lynneth]

I would like to promote a discussion on limiting initial claims beyond what you can claim with SoI. Kevz and Vektor both DoE'd with large tracts of land (though Kevz' is thinly populated), which prompted me to think about this.

 

Perhaps we could limit it to a certain SoI, or a maximum of 3 nations (not including the x largest RL), or a certain population, or a combination of them all. n essence, I would like to prevent 50k+ players from claiming xbox-sized tracts of lands initially; they can expand into them later-on without problem, surely?

 

Discuss (constructive critique please).

[Shave N Haircut]

I think I can support this. I don't think it's fair to people who want to join later for people to just scoop up large percentages of the land with their initial claim.

[Markus Wilding]

I could live with that.

[Centurius]

Would this force us to use the rl populations in an ic context or do we still get freedom with those?

[Lynneth]

Would this force us to use the rl populations in an ic context or do we still get freedom with those?

Only to determine the claim size, not what you RP in it afterwards, [b]if[/b] population is made part of how to determine it.

[Centurius]

In that case I have no objections.

[Voodoo Nova]

I don't have any issues with population limits. I feel we should keep it based on in-game at "Working Citizens" x 1000, if it goes through.

 

One problem that comes with population limits is countries like Japan, with a small territory and large population. Using Mogar as an example, he wouldn't be able to declare much more than Tokyo since his initial RL citizen limit would be ~73 million (based on the WCx1000).

Edited July 2, 2014 by Voodoo Nova

[Mogar]

I originally RP'd a population of about 60 million, through the additional lands and babymaking I have about doubled that.

[PresidentDavid]

Players should be able to RP as much or little population they want within reason. We do not force people to RP unless it is war. Once again, this is a long standing golden rule that protects RP. 

[Markus Wilding]

The population limit doesn't apply to actual RP, it applies only to how much land you can claim initially.

[Captain Enema]

Too many gawd damn rules up in hur already and yall fools want more?

[bones wizard]

This proposal is nonsense and is not needed.

[PresidentDavid]

I agree with bones and TBM. This rule is unnecessary. I'm happy you guys are being creative and trying to come up with some new stuff here, but we shouldn't add new rules unless they are vital to keeping the system flowing and preventing gridlock of monopolies. 

[Hereno]

ITT: Lynneth, whose nation comprises all of Central America, Mexico, and most of the islands of South America complains because Kevin took a bunch of useless, unwanted Siberian land. Land hogging does not necessarily just mean it looks big on a map, especially the Mercator projection. Land hogging is when a bunch of different opportunities for different, interesting RP are taken up by one person's nation. Geographically, all of Europe and the United States can all fit into Africa, but we'd gladly allow 5-6 different people to take over Africa even though 5-6 people taking all of Europe and the United States would be completely ridiculous. Why? Africa isn't as desirable because the people who play this - many of whom know a lot about geography - still probably couldn't successfully label a map with 50% of the African countries on it, whereas they could name most US states and most if not all of the European countries. And if you want to base things on population, Kevin should get even *more* land than he has now because he's in bumfuck nowhere where there are more wild animals than people. If you want a large Empire, do it somewhere that not as many people want to roll into like he did. And if you jump into Europe, don't hog up 5 different countries because that's 5 potential players who could be joining. It doesn't require some stringent bureaucratic nightmare to sort out, just tell people to stop being dicks and call them out if they try to grab up half the world and we'll yell at them and tell them to stop.

[Lynneth]

Hereno, you're completely misunderstanding the proposal. Only the -initial- claim when you DoE would be the one that is restricted to a certain size. Beyond that, you would be free to expand to your heart's content within the 7-post/2-week thing. That aside, what lands I own is irrelevant, because I started with -far- less than I have now and expanded afterwards.

 

The only thing that would happen is people asking the mapmaker (ie me or maybe mogar) about whether their initial land claim is too big. Or a GM if you don't want the mapmaker to have that 'power'. And you can always be smaller than those restrictions. People who already are on the map wouldn't be affected in any way. Only people rerolling or new players would be affected, and it would be minimal because the bulk of the work would be done by the person responsible for making the map (or the GMs, I guess).

 

I believe this is a useful rule to keep huge inactive blobs from forming and then never posting, amongst other things.

 

 

Edit: Also, please elaborate either why this rule would be unnecessary other than 'too many rules already' or things of that ilk.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Lynneth