The GM's Hall

[Mogar]

considering is it just a tank, and not attempting to circumvent the rules on aircraft we all agreed to, I doubt that it would be much of an issue, as most people consider a tank to be a tank.

[Hereno]

Nobody cares if you're not trying to get an advantage over people. The point is when people spend hours of their lives researching tech shit because they need an edge over everyone. Which would mean they'd be forced to RP as something other than listless conquerors, whilst pretending that it's good RP because they put a lot of effort into gaming their technology.

[Uberstein]

Reasonable. I've just been flying all day and was reading the forums on my phone, so my "mental filter" is a tad bit skewed at the moment, heh.

 

Also, Goose Island is a terrible beer. It tastes like how geese smell.

[Triyun]

Nobody cares if you're not trying to get an advantage over people. The point is when people spend hours of their lives researching tech !@#$ because they need an edge over everyone. Which would mean they'd be forced to RP as something other than listless conquerors, whilst pretending that it's good RP because they put a lot of effort into gaming their technology.

 

The objection appears to be that I'm parking the wrong stuff on my canon aircraft carriers.  I'm using the number of ships I have in game just like everyone else.  Sparta's not conquered one country so to say I'm a conqueror is false.  I'm entitled to ten carriers I'm using them.  What's wrong with that.

 

I would request the GMs provide input on what it would be to have the ships be canon, because I do believe every other player is allowed to have as many carriers as they have in game.  Is it merely that the carriers have large amounts of unmanned vehicles?  If so what is the reason for that, because the drones are significantly weaker than high capability Super Bugs and Lightning II aircraft on my carriers, but have advantages for reconnaissance and fighting low end threats.  

[Centurius]

considering is it just a tank, and not attempting to circumvent the rules on aircraft we all agreed to, I doubt that it would be much of an issue, as most people consider a tank to be a tank.

That's applying rules selectively, you either go by strict real-life in all fields or none at all.

 

Nobody cares if you're not trying to get an advantage over people. The point is when people spend hours of their lives researching tech !@#$ because they need an edge over everyone. Which would mean they'd be forced to RP as something other than listless conquerors, whilst pretending that it's good RP because they put a lot of effort into gaming their technology.

The problem is neither the drone or the ship were against the rules. Both are on wikipedia and have been shown to work in real-life.

[Kevin Kingswell]

So what I can gather from all of this is that:

 

A) Only current or older tech is allowed to be used up to the year 2014. 

B) Anything experimental is forbidden.

C) We are not allowed to design our own tech.

D) If we make any modifications it must still ensure that whatever is being changed still works in the original role it was made for.

 

Is this correct?

[Centurius]

So what I can gather from all of this is that:

 

A) Only current or older tech is allowed to be used up to the year 2014. 

B) Anything experimental is forbidden.

C) We are not allowed to design our own tech.

D) If we make any modifications it must still ensure that whatever is being changed still works in the original role it was made for.

 

Is this correct?

E) You can only use real life stealth to non-stealth ratios when it comes to air forces.

F) Using anything in larger numbers than was done in real life is banned.

[Triyun]

So the U.S. has a few thousand fighter planes when you add all the services up.  It has about 187 F-22s and about 100 F-35s, so 287 fighters but again thousands of aircraft.  When the max number is capped at 630 air planes, are we then having to add up all the Air Force, Naval Aviation, and Marine Corps aviation planes then divide 287 by that and make that our ratio of stealth aircraft in order to field stealth aircraft now?  Do we need to add up all the bombers and divide 19 (the number of B-2s) by that, in order to field more.  Also as the F-35 is an ongoing production, should we be participating in this RP in one year, may we calculate a new ratio based on the number of F-35s fielded in order to field an acceptable number of F-35s or are these ratios fixed?

[Hereno]

So the U.S. has a few thousand fighter planes when you add all the services up.  It has about 187 F-22s and about 100 F-35s, so 287 fighters but again thousands of aircraft.  When the max number is capped at 630 air planes, are we then having to add up all the Air Force, Naval Aviation, and Marine Corps aviation planes then divide 287 by that and make that our ratio of stealth aircraft in order to field stealth aircraft now?  Do we need to add up all the bombers and divide 19 (the number of B-2s) by that, in order to field more.  Also as the F-35 is an ongoing production, should we be participating in this RP in one year, may we calculate a new ratio based on the number of F-35s fielded in order to field an acceptable number of F-35s or are these ratios fixed?

You're trying too hard. Nobody cares about any of this.

[Kevin Kingswell]

You're trying too hard. Nobody cares about any of this.

 

I do.

[Hereno]

 

I do.

 

You may be genuinely interested in pursuing Triyun's arguments, but he is making them in bad faith, so you are hopefully alone in your naivety. He is taking advantage of imperfect wording and the propensity of this community to argue. Not in order to make CNRP2 better, but in order to cause conflict and perhaps get the rules changed to benefit his style of RP by putting pressure on the GMs and splitting the community. Nobody is going to say a word about 90% of the random alterations he's mentioning in his poorly-veiled slippery slope argument, and he's doomed to fail anyway because the community was literally started as a middle finger to him. But I'd rather not see otherwise sound-minded persons being drawn into this nonsense.

[supercheese]

I really dont understand how... hes putting UAVs on a carrier... all in the hopes to cause a conflict?

 

I hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds. And the fact that you claim that all this is to create conflict shows an obvious bias against him.

Edited July 19, 2014 by supercheese

[Centurius]

 

You may be genuinely interested in pursuing Triyun's arguments, but he is making them in bad faith, so you are hopefully alone in your naivety. He is taking advantage of imperfect wording and the propensity of this community to argue. Not in order to make CNRP2 better, but in order to cause conflict and perhaps get the rules changed to benefit his style of RP by putting pressure on the GMs and splitting the community. Nobody is going to say a word about 90% of the random alterations he's mentioning in his poorly-veiled slippery slope argument, and he's doomed to fail anyway because the community was literally started as a middle finger to him. But I'd rather not see otherwise sound-minded persons being drawn into this nonsense.

[20:24:42] <+Centurius> I guess people can't do all-stealth air forces either

[20:24:48] <+Centurius> because y'know, those don't exist in real life.

[20:25:10] <~Rudolph> Pretty much, Cent.

 

Bad faith indeed.

[Kevin Kingswell]

 

You may be genuinely interested in pursuing Triyun's arguments, but he is making them in bad faith, so you are hopefully alone in your naivety. He is taking advantage of imperfect wording and the propensity of this community to argue. Not in order to make CNRP2 better, but in order to cause conflict and perhaps get the rules changed to benefit his style of RP by putting pressure on the GMs and splitting the community. Nobody is going to say a word about 90% of the random alterations he's mentioning in his poorly-veiled slippery slope argument, and he's doomed to fail anyway because the community was literally started as a middle finger to him. But I'd rather not see otherwise sound-minded persons being drawn into this nonsense.

 

What bothers me is that according to what I am taking from this we all will have to use the exact same tech, give or take country of origin, have no room for making too big of a modification and any attempt to create a force or piece of equipment unique to our nation will be disallowed. That is what bothers me. That and how Triyun like EVERY other player that joins should get a clean slate which it appears he is not.  

Edited July 19, 2014 by Kevin Kingswell

[Evangeline Anovilis]

So, before I'm going to get someone complaining about how my stuff is deviating from RL stuff, here are three questions to the GMs for them to answer and decide:

• Is it a stretch to assume that a quad-missile box launcher for the Harpoon can be replaced with one for the Exocet or Naval Strike Missile? Similar missiles, all which do use box launchers on ships in pretty much the same configuration and are of the same size. I'd say it's a reasonable change, but well...
• If I use a certain gun or missile system and it is proven that this gun or missile system can fire/launch said ammunition type, however the specific country where I got my armaments for is not using it, do I also don't get it? Say for example, using copperhead shells from a 155 mm howitzer like the TRF1.
• If I use an aircraft to kamikaze into a high value target or attempt to ram an enemy vehicle with one of my own, both tactics that have been used before, but which most often defied the actual purpose the vehicles were built for, is this still fine? A F-16 is clearly not built to ram an enemy ship. In certain situations though, it might be quite useful to load some bombs on it and just have a go at slamming into a carrier. Is that fine?

I'd really like if the GMs answer this, given this debate is now a chaotic mess, where everyone answers questions, even if the authority to answer them is pretty near nil. The guidelines lined out before I see nowhere else, nor a thread where it was decided to implement them. There is no precedence system and the whole matter seems to me to be so vague, it'd be better if this is clarified in a more detailed manner, which clearly demarkades what is possible and what is not, instead of leaving it up to the mood swings of people who are interpreting these vague rulings at the time of an incident.

[Captain Enema]

So, before I'm going to get someone complaining about how my stuff is deviating from RL stuff, here are three questions to the GMs for them to answer and decide:

• Is it a stretch to assume that a quad-missile box launcher for the Harpoon can be replaced with one for the Exocet or Naval Strike Missile? Similar missiles, all which do use box launchers on ships in pretty much the same configuration and are of the same size. I'd say it's a reasonable change, but well...
• If I use a certain gun or missile system and it is proven that this gun or missile system can fire/launch said ammunition type, however the specific country where I got my armaments for is not using it, do I also don't get it? Say for example, using copperhead shells from a 155 mm howitzer like the TRF1.
• If I use an aircraft to kamikaze into a high value target or attempt to ram an enemy vehicle with one of my own, both tactics that have been used before, but which most often defied the actual purpose the vehicles were built for, is this still fine? A F-16 is clearly not built to ram an enemy ship. In certain situations though, it might be quite useful to load some bombs on it and just have a go at slamming into a carrier. Is that fine?

I'd really like if the GMs answer this, given this debate is now a chaotic mess, where everyone answers questions, even if the authority to answer them is pretty near nil. The guidelines lined out before I see nowhere else, nor a thread where it was decided to implement them. There is no precedence system and the whole matter seems to me to be so vague, it'd be better if this is clarified in a more detailed manner, which clearly demarkades what is possible and what is not, instead of leaving it up to the mood swings of people who are interpreting these vague rulings at the time of an incident.

 

Trolling, nothing more than trolling. 

[Mogar]

That's applying rules selectively, you either go by strict real-life in all fields or none at all.

 

The problem is neither the drone or the ship were against the rules. Both are on wikipedia and have been shown to work in real-life.

Thats having to create particular rules for one particular player simply to prevent them from explotiing in bad faith to provide themselves with a massive statistical advantage over everyone else in the community, you know, exactly why this little rebellion happened in the first place, if you want to play through the same exact scenario again, and in another year we create CNRP3 to get away from the technobullshit again, then please, feel free to continue to support allowing someone to circumvent the aircraft rules by committing to a huge number of drones on carriers.

[Centurius]

Thats having to create particular rules for one particular player simply to prevent them from explotiing in bad faith to provide themselves with a massive statistical advantage over everyone else in the community, you know, exactly why this little rebellion happened in the first place, if you want to play through the same exact scenario again, and in another year we create CNRP3 to get away from the techno!@#$%^&* again, then please, feel free to continue to support allowing someone to circumvent the aircraft rules by committing to a huge number of drones on carriers.

The problems with CNRP you complained about were never the numbers Triyun used but rather that the technology was highly technical and difficult to understand. Both the carriers and drones have pretty clear wiki articles that handle everything from the way they work to likely issues they have. If the use of certain numbers is your problem you don't ban custom doctrines and such, you restrict the numbers of drones someone can have. It's a lot more effective and doesn't destroy the chance for heterogeneity in military rp.

 

Added to that I find the use of unproven technologies such as arsenal ships a lot more dangerous than a large number of easily taken care of drones. 

 

Edit: And of course implementing rules for just one person who hasn't done anything wrong in the rp.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Centurius

[Mogar]

Pardon the rest of us for being wary of the hegemons joining and circlejerking immediately.

 

the aircraft rules were designed with the idea in mind nobody should be able to field more than 3 carrier groups realistically, since again, this was designed for SMALLER nations, not those who have avoided wars for the past 3 years.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Mogar

[supercheese]

I thought a clean slate was a big part of cnrp2? Why assume its the old hegemons going back to their same old tricks, when everything they have said makes sense? The technology exists, and nothings really been posted that can't be understood.

Edited July 19, 2014 by supercheese

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I think I've chosen the smart approach here. I'm going to keep a diverse air force that is a mix of high speed, stealth, and existing already in use drones. The drones will be kept lower in number unless they're predators because predators are in broad use. I've relegated the archangel to a civilian research craft as a prototype bomber.. just as it would be in reality had the SR-72 program been chosen by the US. It will not be active in military duty, but will justify me having a mach 6 bomber should it be announced as a real aircraft. It may never make it out of prototype status due to the way world air force doctrines are panning out.. but cest-la vie.. it'll be fun for the air show. My personal x-plane.

 

Cheese, it is.. unless past behavior is being repeated then the slate just gets re-dirtied.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Hereno]

 

[20:24:42] <+Centurius> I guess people can't do all-stealth air forces either

[20:24:48] <+Centurius> because y'know, those don't exist in real life.

[20:25:10] <~Rudolph> Pretty much, Cent.

 

Bad faith indeed.

 

 

I don't see a problem with having to RP reality if you don't want your shit to be optionally recognized. People who RP dragons and such have to deal with the fact that not everybody wants to RP with dragons. I see no reason why tech should be any different. Play fair or don't.

 

 

What bothers me is that according to what I am taking from this we all will have to use the exact same tech, give or take country of origin, have no room for making too big of a modification and any attempt to create a force or piece of equipment unique to our nation will be disallowed. That is what bothers me. That and how Triyun like EVERY other player that joins should get a clean slate which it appears he is not.  

 

Well, for the first part you shouldn't be bothered as we are not all going to be cookie cutter. If anything, the rules being made over time have made it more possible, rather than less possible, for our nations to be different and interesting.

 

As for "getting a clean slate", we can RP a tabula rasa here all we'd like but the rivalries and grudges from CNRP and other places are never going to magically go away. I'd much, /much/ prefer people simply be honest about it rather than pretending that they don't have a grudge or alternative reasoning for their actions. I don't have any grudges against anyone, but I'm not stupid and I can see the arguments being made in the context they're being made and reason that they're disingenuous.

 

So, before I'm going to get someone complaining about how my stuff is deviating from RL stuff, here are three questions to the GMs for them to answer and decide:

• Is it a stretch to assume that a quad-missile box launcher for the Harpoon can be replaced with one for the Exocet or Naval Strike Missile? Similar missiles, all which do use box launchers on ships in pretty much the same configuration and are of the same size. I'd say it's a reasonable change, but well...
• If I use a certain gun or missile system and it is proven that this gun or missile system can fire/launch said ammunition type, however the specific country where I got my armaments for is not using it, do I also don't get it? Say for example, using copperhead shells from a 155 mm howitzer like the TRF1.
• If I use an aircraft to kamikaze into a high value target or attempt to ram an enemy vehicle with one of my own, both tactics that have been used before, but which most often defied the actual purpose the vehicles were built for, is this still fine? A F-16 is clearly not built to ram an enemy ship. In certain situations though, it might be quite useful to load some bombs on it and just have a go at slamming into a carrier. Is that fine?

I'd really like if the GMs answer this, given this debate is now a chaotic mess, where everyone answers questions, even if the authority to answer them is pretty near nil. The guidelines lined out before I see nowhere else, nor a thread where it was decided to implement them. There is no precedence system and the whole matter seems to me to be so vague, it'd be better if this is clarified in a more detailed manner, which clearly demarkades what is possible and what is not, instead of leaving it up to the mood swings of people who are interpreting these vague rulings at the time of an incident.

 

>where everyone answers questions, even if the authority to answer them is pretty near nil

 

If you want to talk just with the GMs, there is a PM button that would allow that. The reason nobody is talking to the GMs in private is because they aren't actually interested in getting rule clarifications. They want to start arguments and grandstand, and the only place they can do that is here on the forums (or on IRC like Triyun insisted on doing yesterday).

[Kevin Kingswell]

 

Well, for the first part you shouldn't be bothered as we are not all going to be cookie cutter. If anything, the rules being made over time have made it more possible, rather than less possible, for our nations to be different and interesting.

 

As for "getting a clean slate", we can RP a tabula rasa here all we'd like but the rivalries and grudges from CNRP and other places are never going to magically go away. I'd much, /much/ prefer people simply be honest about it rather than pretending that they don't have a grudge or alternative reasoning for their actions. I don't have any grudges against anyone, but I'm not stupid and I can see the arguments being made in the context they're being made and reason that they're disingenuous.

 

 

Not sure what you mean by the phrase cookie cutter as I have never heard it before. As for what you said afterwards I don't see how you think the rules can make it for our nations to be more different when everyone has to use the same real world planes. Six different nations with the same make of equipment is not different at least military wise it is just six different named armed forces.

 

Lets be clear this is all about the military side of things here I know nations can be different elsewhere but forcing people to have to use real world planes and equipment without any true room for modification and development is just curtailing possible role play.

 

As to your second point I never said they had to go away just people should not allow them to interfere with how they react. That is all.

[Mogar]

do you have a degree in aeronautics to understand how a minute change to an airframe could have dramatic and potentially disastrous effects on said airframe Kevin? Do you feel that level of knowledge is something that should be reasonably required in order to play on an equal battlefield?

[Captain Enema]

I thought a clean slate was a big part of cnrp2?

 

It certainly thought that was the case.

 

So far Cent is making way more sense than most people on this thread.