Jump to content

On the merger of two of the Largest Nations in the Game.


Shave N Haircut
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm sure I'm not the only one concerned about the safety of starting super-states in this game. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the spontaneous combining of India and the USA under any circumstances, since it would make it by far the largest and most powerful group.

 

However, I feel like this thread should be about mergers in general, so let's just put that out there. The combination of two people's resources under one banner has a great deal of potential for abuse. For instance, one nation could be active all the time while all the others Literally never ever get on, and we would have one person controlling the power of several nations at once, it would be a nightmare and would completely break the system we've got in place. That's not balanced, that's not fair to all the people who are RPing one nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And then you have pairings like me and PD who are both pretty active, both involved, roughly equally sized and too small to really hurt anything. I'm not saying that I'm for large mergers like the USA and India, but I am saying I don't appreciate being told I can't RP with one of my friends as the same singular nation.

 

PD and I have it parsed out so that I control the actual standing army and he controls all of the National Guards. I can't touch the Guard, he can't touch the Army. We're still working on the AF and the Navy.

Edited by Mara Lithaen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you have pairings like me and PD who are both pretty active, both involved, roughly equally sized and too small to really hurt anything. I'm not saying that I'm for large mergers like the USA and India, but I am saying I don't appreciate being told I can't RP with one of my friends as the same singular nation.

 

Your situation is different Mara, you've basically taken a hunk of your territory and given it to him, it's not like he claimed the entirety of the Northern USA and then handed it to you to play with, which is what the new situation looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the cap still applies, correct? So I don't see it as a big deal. Instead of it per person it's just per country.

This would be an interesting way to do it. Multiple players are allowed to control one country, but you simply use the larger nation's capped stats...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That raises interesting issues.

 

In cases of two merged nations how would the soldier caps/military calculations be carried out? Will it be treated as two nations for calculation/cap purposes or will the caps be calculated based upon the combined nation?

 

On the question of activity: Perhaps a possible proposal would be to apply the wipe/inactivity rule to each of the nations in a merger? Something like 'If that individual hasn't posted in X weeks, then they go inactive'.

Edited by Imperator Azenquor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then who would control the forces?

I feel that it would be the only way to do it that could also allow for both players to have equal control.

 

Also relevant:

00:01 Uberstein Hmm

00:01 Uberstein maybe it only applies if combined they go over the 50k cap

00:01 ImperatorAzenquor ^That'd make sense.

Edited by Uberstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that it would be the only way to do it that could also allow for both players to have equal control.

 

Also relevant:

00:01 Uberstein Hmm

00:01 Uberstein maybe it only applies if combined they go over the 50k cap

00:01 ImperatorAzenquor ^That'd make sense.

 

I just don't understand why the cap is per country not per player. The player will have to commit to their own forces. I.E. If someone abuses it to get more soldiers, they are going to be bad war RPers because they don't know how to play. I don't understand why forces should be limited because you and someone else would look better as one big nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we still control our own forces. Mona's is the only really "active" military units

 

mine's national guard. this was done A. because she was really the only one to say yes to a merge and B/ because i want to focus on internal RP

Edited by bones wizard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/122307-america-news-and-actions/?p=3268182

 

and looking at stats Pongoz has 307k NS. with mona and I combines we have 312K

The difference is that as it stands, he's limited to the cap on a single nation, while your two would have the combined strength of both as adjusted by your individual caps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the issue. Either treat them as the larger nation, for military purposes, or just let them run into the caps that we have in place. What does it matter if it's two people playing together?

YES.

 

And (no offense) if you guys put as much effort into caps and OOC bickering, into ACTUAL RP there wouldn't be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I've been told to talk here and not on IRC: This is only an issue if we make it into one. There doesn't need to be a vote. Just use some common sense. Treat them as one nation for the purposes of caps. Do it for all mergers. Do the basic thing of going: Hey, guys about to merge, do you agree not to go over our caps for your nation? Ten to one odds, they agree, "problem" solved right then and there. Move on and get back to the RP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bones, please understand that at least from my position, this isn't an attempt to hinder you or make you look bad. My main goal as a GM is to mediate disputes, and prompt discussion early on so that disputes don't happen in the future.

 

I don't know you; but I want to stress that doesn't mean I distrust you. I like to think I give all players the same benefit of the doubt at the beginning. Plus, given your responses in this thread so far, you've shown yourself to be a rational and civil fellow, so bonus points there. I certainly don't want to help enact a rule that would make the RP no longer fun for you. In fact, I can completely understand your desire to stick to one kind of RP. Back in CNRP1, I had the idea of "merging" with somebody's nation to play purely as a general, and simply RP some allotment of forces they gave me. The rules prevented that.

 

Personally, I'd love to see an iteration of the rules that allows for more complex RP (such as having multiple players RP different aspects of the same nation) while keeping things balanced. Having a set rule for such things also helps prevent abuse by hypothetical players, and helps stop arguments before they even start.

 

So far, one of the proposals that I think is the most fair and flexible is the following:
 

 

On merger of a nation, the involved players theoretically control all assets of the nation in question. How the players split that control is between them.

If the combined stats is less than or equal to 50k NS, then they use their combined stats.

If the combined stats is more than 50k NS, then the nation stats of the strongest nation is used.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of a nation in North America having no rp based historical ties nor irl historical or geographical proximity to India and just having rolled merging with a India.

 

It seems way too ooc to me.

 

If a gm decision were to be requested I would push for a retcon.

 

Too much OOC hinkiness to me.

 

As far as the cap goes, I'd say they each control their own forces and each of them are capped independently of each other.

Edited by Tidy Bowl Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask, what is the difference between a coalition and a merger in terms of foreign policy and military strength? If two people/nations really want to cooperate, they will start to harmonise on foreign and security policy. That's neither unrealistic nor unreasonable, if you have an alliance for common objectives you would want to pursue them in the most effective way possible.

 

In terms of gameplay, there are caps per player (currently). If I may say so, these caps are rather restrictive in terms of military forces and limit the amount of troops a single person can have severely. I personally think, such should be more than sufficient to handle the issue. Just bring up inactivity rules for the individual players instead of just the whole merger and all should be fine.

 

You people stated that this RP was to be a cooperative RP. Well, you'll have to admit, a merger is pretty much the highest level of cooperation there is. Two people share a common country, having to work out a common policy, a consensus on how things will be run and both will have to be happy, else such a union won't go on. Now, what if two larger nations merge? Would it be powerful? Sure. Would it break the game? Hardly. It's not any more different than if two large people would ally, their capped stats are maybe able to dominate single people, but you can already create a viable coalition by arraying three people against them. This isn't a CNRP merger of Tricent, where combined they'd field the 4 million doomstack that ends the world. This is a system were both players are so limited, that even combined they are manageable. The argument that the two combined hold 300k NS is pretty ignorant, when most of that NS goes nowhere, because of caps.

 

I would say, let mergers where all parties involved are active, have their combined stats, capped per person, not per nation. Reward people for being cooperative, don't discourage people from it by limiting them as soon as they want to not just have a common foreign and security policy, but also a common law, budget and postal system. Even if five people merge, is it really that much more game-breaking than if five people are allied? And would five people working together not be entitled to be allowed to have a bonus over say one strong person working alone? It's why we have the caps in the first place. So that coalitions remain viable. So that single people can't dominate. You are actually trying to break that.

 

Now, this was on the general case. This specific one I'm not informed enough about to say much, though it sounds stupid.

 

Honestly, for saying this is cooperative RP, you people are waging the worst crusade against cooperation and IC friendship ever. The moment two people who are remotely strong have anything in common, it's seemingly game-breaking and metagaming...

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...