Monday Vote thread...

[Captain Enema]

This is a notice that this coming monday, 7 days from now.. or sooner if we can get the lead out.. I'd like to post a voting thread that will include all the modifications and such to various rules.

 

That means, I need polling options for the following:

1) Soldier Cap modifications

 

2) Nuke rule options

 

3) Options for in-activities rules

 

4) Possible modification to the Naval rules

 

5) Possible major restructuring for the Over 50k rules.

 

 

This is going to be a megavote and I have a reason for it. I think we are a bit tired of voting and discussing, and voting, and discussing. 

 

I'd like to hammer out as much of the fiddly bits as we can in one large vote. If we need to modify further, its easy enough to do. I think we've demonstrated the process works well with the first navy rule modification.

 

 

 

So, please, let's use this thread to corral all the polling options. 

 

Once we have a decent set to work with, I'll put them all together and present them to you all. If we don't have too many death threats, we'll move onto voting. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lynneth]

On #1: What was Hereno's proposal again? I forgot.

On #2: One IG nuke is classed as one IC warhead, no MIRVs. 5 MT for land-launched nukes, 1 MT for sub-launched. 1/2 strength for people without WRC wonder. (Full for those with)

On #3: 3 weeks standard (21 days), 4 weeks with warning (28 days), longer absences possible as per Uber's suggestion

 

On #4: The only thing I would modify is small ships (corvettes, destro, frigate) counts, but those would have to be balanced as to not give large players like me too big an advantage. Difficult. Very difficult. No opinion yet otherwise.

 

On #5: I'm fine with voting people in after a few weeks of optional recognition, as it is atm, I guess. I am against removing 50k+ people from RP.

[Hereno]

First thread: Nukes

1. Should nuke strength vary between silo nukes and submarine nukes?

A. Yes
B. No

2. If there is not a difference, what should the cap be?

A. A flat cap of 5 MT for all nukes.
B. A cap of 2.5 MT for nukes, which is doubled to 5 MT if the nation has a WRC.
C. Nuke strength varies based on tech, with tech/1000 being the MT strength of your nukes, capped at 5 MT (or 5k tech).

3. If nuke strength is varied between silos and subs, what should the cap be?

A. A flat cap of 5 MT for silo nukes and 1 MT for submarine nukes.
B. A cap of 5 MT for silo nukes and 1 MT for submarine nukes, that is halved if the nation does not have a WRC (to 2.5 MT and 0.5 MT, respectively).
C. Tech/1000 is silo strength, and tech/5000 is sub strength, in MT. Modifier is capped at 5k tech, or 5 MT for silo nukes and 1 MT for submarine nukes.

---

Second thread: Soldiers

1. Should we have a soldier floor (a certain amount of soldiers that everyone can have, even if they are at ZI)?

A. Yes
B. No

2. If we have a soldier floor, what should it be?

A. 25,000 troops
B. 50,000 troops
C. 75,000 troops
D. 100,000 troops

3. Should we remove the 750k soldier cap for nations under 50k NS?

A. Yes, there should be no cap for soldiers for sub-50k NS nations
B. Yes, raise the cap up to 850k soldiers, in line with the 50k-75k NS soldier cap
C. No, keep it at 750k soldiers

---

Third thread: Inactivity

1. How long should a nation be able to go without participating before we remove them from the map?

A. 2 weeks
B. 3 weeks
C. 4 weeks
D. 2 months

2. How long should a nation be able to go without participating, if they give the GMs notice that they'll be gone, before we remove them from the map?

A. 3 weeks
B. 4 weeks
C. 2 months
D. 3 months

3. Should extensions be given under certain circumstances to allow people to stay any longer than in question 2?

A. Yes, if the GMs decide it is appropriate
B. Yes, but only if the community votes on each individual case
C. No, they'll have to reroll when they come back

Edited June 10, 2014 by Hereno

[Markus Wilding]

While we're on the discussion of soldiers, I asked about this a few times in IRC but never got an answer: How do we determine soldier counts now that the criminal update has gone live? Do we take our soldier numbers with or without the criminal population?

[Lynneth]

Honestly, I'd just combine both. Civvies and criminals. That's the original number after all, so nothing would be lost.

 

Also, Hereno is Credit to Team

Edited June 10, 2014 by Lynneth

[Hereno]

While we're on the discussion of soldiers, I asked about this a few times in IRC but never got an answer: How do we determine soldier counts now that the criminal update has gone live? Do we take our soldier numbers with or without the criminal population?

Criminals are deducted from your actual pop. total and will go back to being citizens if you buy a rehabilitation center, so I think the simplest answer is to just include them. Or, buy a rehab facility.

Source: I've been counting my rehabilitated criminals as soldiers.

[Captain Enema]

Just pushing this farther up the ladder. I want people to remember if the want anything on the vote about the last two I listed, they better get busy discussing it on the applicable thread. 

[Captain Enema]

Where are we at with this?

 

Monday is just around the corner. 

 

If there is new material to be added, please post a link to show where the community supports adding this to the poll. Need to see the love.

 

 

[Shave N Haircut]

Ample Support has been given to this proposal for voting. Whether or not there is a cap, however, should be the subject of another vote if we cannot come to a consensus between there and there.

[Captain Enema]

Bumping this one last time. Will pop the monday voting thread up tonight, which is about 12 hours off. Gives you all a little more time. 

 

Links to polling options needed. 

[Shave N Haircut]

Naval Rules:

Option A

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.

AND!

Remove the stipulation that one must [i]own[/i] the ships in-game to have them in the RP, and instead make it based on what one [i]might[/i] 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.

 

Option B
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.

 

Naval Caps:

Option A
[spoiler]10 Corvettes (*2 makes this 20 via modifiers)
8 Landing ships/AAVs
8 Cruisers
8 Frigates (*2 makes this 16 via modifiers)
6 battleships
6 destroyers (*2 makes this 12 via modifiers)
6 carriers
12 submarines (3 SSBNs/ballistic subs max)[/spoiler]

 

Option B

[spoiler]12 Corvettes (*2 via mod)
9 Landing ships/AAVs
9 Cruisers
9 Frigates (*2 via mod)
7 battleships
7 destroyers (*2 via mod)
6 carriers
14 submarines (3 SSBNs/ballistic subs max)[/spoiler]

 

Option C

No Cap.
 

[Captain Enema]

What are the infra scales and point increases being proposed?

[Lysergide]

Are we including removing the need to vote players above 50K NS in?

[Zoot Zoot]

My Proposal:

 

Soldier/Aircraft substituion

 

For every 10,000 soldiers you subtract from your soldier count, you gain an additional squadron of twelve planes onto the total of 630 aircraft.

 

This allows great customization of military forces which is dependent on your terrain and size. A small island nation doesnt need a massive army, but it needs a larger airforce. It doesnt benefit any one group over another, it simply allows nations to sacrifice strength where its not needed, to reallocate it to somewhere it is. The soldier hard cap for a start massivly prevents abuse and actually acts as a secondary cap on extra aircraft. For example a nation with 750k soldiers decided to only have a 50,000 man army, that leaves them with 168 extra aircraft, which when added to 630, is 798 total aircraft.

 

Naval Proposition (Semi tied in with the above proposal)

 

All it is is shifting the weight around to where its needed, and with our current naval rules which is IG + Points, a nation with no IG navy, but uses his points for five destroyers, can double his destroyer numbers with the modifiers that FHIC's proposition holds. But with no caps on how many ships you can have.

[Shave N Haircut]

What are the infra scales and point increases being proposed?

The Infra scales are just those in game, it means that however many it's possible for you to posess at your present infra is how many you have, before modification.

 

The point system would need further ironing out after it was voted in, but there's little point in cluttering up this vote with all the options that stem off of that.

[Captain Enema]

aieeeeeeeee... not sure how I feel about ironing out a rule after it has been voted in. 

 

 

hmmmm... let me think on it. I'm sure there is a means and mechanism for sorting it out, just needs to be carefully worded.