DIscussion: Nerf Navies

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Well, you can get more than 2 carriers. How about 4, then you spent 48 points on carriers and can get a whooping 2 corvettes to protect them (12+12+12+12+1+1=50). Do I need to explain any further as to why you'd be able to get reasonably one or two carriers?

[Yerushalayim]

At 5k infra. Which isn't that much. But as noted in the edit, just bump up the points. 3 points per 100 infra within 5k infra means 150 points for a nation at 5k infra.

[Captain Enema]

We need TBM's retardopult for Mogar. Seriously man, just read what the man is saying, then go for a smoke or a coffee, and think about it properly before posting a furiously inaccurate resonse based on past indiscretions.

 

I can't claim credit for the retardopult. That hails from LVN and the great sail boat race rp.

 

 

 

And did someone just refer to Lynneth as some sort of evil overlord?

 

 

Again, yall can whine about this all you want or actually post polling options. I'll say Triyun raised some interesting points, without any polling options. Meaning, any of his points will be missed if and when this moves to a vote.

 

Less moaning and groaning and zooting and more polling options yall.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Tidy Bowl Man

[Triyun]

 

I can't claim credit for the retardopult. That hails from LVN and the great sail boat race rp.

 

 

 

And did someone just refer to Lynneth as some sort of evil overlord?

 

 

Again, yall can whine about this all you want or actually post polling options. I'll say Triyun raised some interesting points, without any polling options. Meaning, any of his points will be missed if and when this moves to a vote.

 

Less moaning and groaning and zooting and more polling options yall.

 

Yes I did, my proposal is to keep it the same except everyone's assumed to have the ability to field what they could field if they had 5000 infra and 1 of each improvement in game minimum (ie able to get a carrier) plus the current point system and allow for naval substitutions based on Voodoo's proposed system.

 

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow when I can get my power cord on my laptop replaced.  Yeru again, Navies aren't decisive in theatre, its only counterbalancing beyond theatre as I showed.  Land based missiles and land based air planes in theatre do the same thing.  So the tl;dr of it, is if you don't have big guys able to counterbalance from out of theatre, you're still going to be getting smacked around by the local dominant coalition.  And if you nerf navies, you're really simply making it harder for there to be a force that can break through a well defended A2AD system.  If you read numbers of military studies from projections, the navies we'd end up under your proposal with could not attack a single knowledgable opponent.  You'd need 6 to beat China, as a concentrated military force where you'd be fighting China IRL, Britain's way stronger so are a number of others.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Triyun

[Mogar]

can one of the voting options be "Should we make CN:RoleplayRealLife", I think aspects of the community would much rather be playing another game.

[Captain Enema]

 

Yes I did, my proposal is to keep it the same except everyone's assumed to have the ability to field what they could field if they had 5000 infra and 1 of each improvement in game minimum (ie able to get a carrier) plus the current point system and allow for naval substitutions based on Voodoo's proposed system.

 

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow when I can get my power cord on my laptop replaced.  Yeru again, Navies aren't decisive in theatre, its only counterbalancing beyond theatre as I showed.  Land based missiles and land based air planes in theatre do the same thing.  So the tl;dr of it, is if you don't have big guys able to counterbalance from out of theatre, you're still going to be getting smacked around by the local dominant coalition.  And if you nerf navies, you're really simply making it harder for there to be a force that can break through a well defended A2AD system.  If you read numbers of military studies from projections, the navies we'd end up under your proposal with could not attack a single knowledgable opponent.  You'd need 6 to beat China, as a concentrated military force where you'd be fighting China IRL, Britain's way stronger so are a number of others.

 

I'd say you are trading far too heavily on irl studies and trying to apply them to the rp equivalent of Mother Claire's Drug Addled Chimp Sanctuary.

[Mogar]

RP = RP, if any of us wanted play realisticnations, we'd not be here.

[Hereno]

It's hard to make polling options just for an individual option, TBM. I'm more than willing to apply my expertise here if someone else will gather up all of the suggestions in a way that I can actually see what all the options are without having to read through 5 pages of nonsense.

[Yerushalayim]

 

Yes I did, my proposal is to keep it the same except everyone's assumed to have the ability to field what they could field if they had 5000 infra and 1 of each improvement in game minimum (ie able to get a carrier) plus the current point system and allow for naval substitutions based on Voodoo's proposed system.

 

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow when I can get my power cord on my laptop replaced.  Yeru again, Navies aren't decisive in theatre, its only counterbalancing beyond theatre as I showed.  Land based missiles and land based air planes in theatre do the same thing.  So the tl;dr of it, is if you don't have big guys able to counterbalance from out of theatre, you're still going to be getting smacked around by the local dominant coalition.  And if you nerf navies, you're really simply making it harder for there to be a force that can break through a well defended A2AD system.  If you read numbers of military studies from projections, the navies we'd end up under your proposal with could not attack a single knowledgable opponent.  You'd need 6 to beat China, as a concentrated military force where you'd be fighting China IRL, Britain's way stronger so are a number of others.

You've misread me, again. I'm not arguing for a nerfing of navies, I'm arguing for a balancing of them. Several of the options for my proposal, as noted, would result in an increase in navies, while also balancing them between lower, mid, and top tier nations. Top tier will retain the largest navies, but they would no longer have such a commanding lead over mid tier nations, and mid tier would no longer have such a commanding lead over small nations. Thus people would have more options beyond "suck a top tier nation's dick and hope they come rescue you".

[Evangeline Anovilis]

 

I'd say you are trading far too heavily on irl studies and trying to apply them to the rp equivalent of Mother Claire's Drug Addled Chimp Sanctuary.

While most likely most people here have little to no clue how to properly use a navy or any of their forces (given this isn't what most people spend their time on learning), I'm thinking that an RL study isn't to be dismissed, if at least one or two know the implications of the study and how to recreate the results lined out in the study.

 

RP = RP, if any of us wanted play realisticnations, we'd not be here.

Thing is, basing warfare on who can make the better argument as to why they realistically would win and on the more skillful application of force, it maybe is not perfect a solution. But it's pretty much the most reasonable we have. Because, what are the alternatives? Rolling a dice? Well, then we are really playing risk, where battles are decided by nothing but numbers of reserves and luck with dice rolls.

 

You've misread me, again. I'm not arguing for a nerfing of navies, I'm arguing for a balancing of them. Several of the options for my proposal, as noted, would result in an increase in navies, while also balancing them between lower, mid, and top tier nations. Top tier will retain the largest navies, but they would no longer have such a commanding lead over mid tier nations, and mid tier would no longer have such a commanding lead over small nations. Thus people would have more options beyond "suck a top tier nation's dick and hope they come rescue you".

Well, then buff smaller people's ability to get ships, to empower them compared to larger nations.

 

I'd say, the easiest fix would be to throw away the multiplier and to instead introduce a system of points based on NS.

 

3 points per 100 NS up to 20,000 NS, 2 points per 100 NS from 20,000 NS up to 40,000 NS, 1 point per 100 NS from 40,000 NS up to 50,000 NS. No points above.

 

This gives a maximum of 1,100.

 

If we then adjust the point values of ships...

 

1 per patrol boat/fast attack craft (<1,000 tons)

5 per corvette (< 2,000 tons)

20 per frigate (<8,000 tons)

40 per destroyer (<12,000 tons)

50 per cruiser (<25,000 tons)

40 per battleship (<80,000 tons)

100 per helicopter carrier

250 per amphibious assault ship

500 per carrier (<80,000 tons)

800 per supercarrier (110,000 tons> x >80,000 tons)

10 per conventional attack submarine

25 per nuclear attack submarine

100 per nuclear ballistic missile submarine/nuclear guided missile submarine

 

What do we notice in this proposal? Smaller ships are cheap, carriers are expensive. Why did I make carriers expensive as all hell? Because not every 40-50k nation needs tons of carriers. What people can do now is to get their fill of smaller ships, which they can use for defending themselves and their sealanes. You can however still have people with ingame naval capacities or coalitions of smaller peeps who each own just one carrier, that can credibly project power abroad. I also put limits on the different tonnages. Most often, there should not be an issue really, as the brackets cover most ships of their type. There's mostly two implications with these brackets: Zumwalts, if ever allowed, fall under cruisers, as they are too large for destroyers. And carriers can now be smaller carriers, as most of the world use them, which take lesser points, or supercarriers, as the US uses them, for more points. This way, people are encouraged to not own tons of Nimitzes. Submarine costs were drastically decreased, to increase the effective value of sub-surface combattants, which up to now were utterly unattractive, due to not being multiplied and being too costly to be worth it. If you can get double the amount of frigates for less  points than a diesel sub, you'll go for frigates. Especially when frigates may not be as stealthy, but they carry more missiles, have capable radar and are overall just way more useful than a specialist ship that relies on about 20 torpedoes/cruise missiles and has rather limited anti-air capabilities, hardly any land-attack capabilities of meaningful effectiveness. Helicopter carriers and amphibs are divided, so as to make a difference between ships like Japanese helicopter destroyers and helicopter cruisers like the Andrea Doria, and a Wasp-class. Given the former carry only helicopters, have no amphibious element really, while the latter carries STOVL aircraft and marines with landing craft.

 

Additionally, I advocate allowing substitutions based on these points, with one exception: Carriers, which can only be exchanged at a quarter their points. While people like Triyun or Lynneth with ~10 carriers are well-equipped, letting them have 6 carriers, but 80 more destroyers is just way too OP. They can be stuck with their carriers or exchange them for something more meaningful at a less game-breaking rate.

 

With these values, people can have larger navies of smaller ships, but the assets to project power abroad are still limited somewhat.

 

And before I forget it, patrol boats now are also in the equation, so as to prevent patrol boat spam based on "common sense" rules.

 

Battleships are battleships. Minimum caliber of the main battery is 280 mm, to avoid people using Kirovs here and abusing the actually low amount of points you spend on battleships. Battleships should also be limited to a maximum of 48 missiles of more than 20 km. The 48 missiles I took from what the Iowa carried, the 20 km is pretty much the furthest, before you go from point-defense missiles to more capable medium-range SAMs. Also, none of these stored in VLS. These limitations are mostly to preserve the battleship as the kind of odd semi-obsolete ship it is, which is easily available ingame and via points, but it doesn't add much functionality. With these limitations, you are bound to use something between a pre-dreadnaught and a super-dreadnaught, with GM-approved limited modernisation. Or you go exchange it for a few destroyers.

 

Feel free to discuss.

[Triyun]

 

I'd say you are trading far too heavily on irl studies and trying to apply them to the rp equivalent of Mother Claire's Drug Addled Chimp Sanctuary.

 

We both know when push comes to shove the majority of people advocate for IRL numbers and effectiveness except when they'd be losing vs. a better opponent and its always been this way.  People mostly base their position on the time of who has the advantage in any individual battle on where they stand.  Using IRL as some objective measure makes sense.

 

You've misread me, again. I'm not arguing for a nerfing of navies, I'm arguing for a balancing of them. Several of the options for my proposal, as noted, would result in an increase in navies, while also balancing them between lower, mid, and top tier nations. Top tier will retain the largest navies, but they would no longer have such a commanding lead over mid tier nations, and mid tier would no longer have such a commanding lead over small nations. Thus people would have more options beyond "suck a top tier nation's dick and hope they come rescue you".

 

Yes and what Eva showed was that your navies nerf the top and mid tiers.  It either gives them carriers or the ability to protect carriers and shipping, not both in any thought out war scenario.  The Navies you're advocating are what I'm writing my original post towards even a coalition fleet based around 3-4 carriers simply can't attack an entrenched enemy without a significant qualitative advantage on their side.  You're nerfing amphibs too which makes conducting amphibious operations to do more than simply punish, all but impossible.  

 

My proposal gives bottom tier more stuff but leaves the top and mid tiers in tact, raising people up rather than bringing them down.  Neither proposal makes much difference in a low tier being able to defend its own shorelines, but it does enable them to have a more active role in coalitions, while preserving the only proven check of top tier checking top tier.  

 

While most likely most people here have little to no clue how to properly use a navy or any of their forces (given this isn't what most people spend their time on learning), I'm thinking that an RL study isn't to be dismissed, if at least one or two know the implications of the study and how to recreate the results lined out in the study.

 

Thing is, basing warfare on who can make the better argument as to why they realistically would win and on the more skillful application of force, it maybe is not perfect a solution. But it's pretty much the most reasonable we have. Because, what are the alternatives? Rolling a dice? Well, then we are really playing risk, where battles are decided by nothing but numbers of reserves and luck with dice rolls.

 

Well, then buff smaller people's ability to get ships, to empower them compared to larger nations.

 

I'd say, the easiest fix would be to throw away the multiplier and to instead introduce a system of points based on NS.

 

3 points per 100 NS up to 20,000 NS, 2 points per 100 NS from 20,000 NS up to 40,000 NS, 1 point per 100 NS from 40,000 NS up to 50,000 NS. No points above.

 

This gives a maximum of 1,100.

 

If we then adjust the point values of ships...

 

1 per patrol boat/fast attack craft (<1,000 tons)

5 per corvette (< 2,000 tons)

20 per frigate (<8,000 tons)

40 per destroyer (<12,000 tons)

50 per cruiser (<25,000 tons)

40 per battleship (<80,000 tons)

100 per helicopter carrier

250 per amphibious assault ship

500 per carrier (<80,000 tons)

800 per supercarrier (110,000 tons> x >80,000 tons)

10 per conventional attack submarine

25 per nuclear attack submarine

100 per nuclear ballistic missile submarine/nuclear guided missile submarine

 

What do we notice in this proposal? Smaller ships are cheap, carriers are expensive. Why did I make carriers expensive as all hell? Because not every 40-50k nation needs tons of carriers. What people can do now is to get their fill of smaller ships, which they can use for defending themselves and their sealanes. You can however still have people with ingame naval capacities or coalitions of smaller peeps who each own just one carrier, that can credibly project power abroad. I also put limits on the different tonnages. Most often, there should not be an issue really, as the brackets cover most ships of their type. There's mostly two implications with these brackets: Zumwalts, if ever allowed, fall under cruisers, as they are too large for destroyers. And carriers can now be smaller carriers, as most of the world use them, which take lesser points, or supercarriers, as the US uses them, for more points. This way, people are encouraged to not own tons of Nimitzes. Submarine costs were drastically decreased, to increase the effective value of sub-surface combattants, which up to now were utterly unattractive, due to not being multiplied and being too costly to be worth it. If you can get double the amount of frigates for less  points than a diesel sub, you'll go for frigates. Especially when frigates may not be as stealthy, but they carry more missiles, have capable radar and are overall just way more useful than a specialist ship that relies on about 20 torpedoes/cruise missiles and has rather limited anti-air capabilities, hardly any land-attack capabilities of meaningful effectiveness. Helicopter carriers and amphibs are divided, so as to make a difference between ships like Japanese helicopter destroyers and helicopter cruisers like the Andrea Doria, and a Wasp-class. Given the former carry only helicopters, have no amphibious element really, while the latter carries STOVL aircraft and marines with landing craft.

 

Additionally, I advocate allowing substitutions based on these points, with one exception: Carriers, which can only be exchanged at a quarter their points. While people like Triyun or Lynneth with ~10 carriers are well-equipped, letting them have 6 carriers, but 80 more destroyers is just way too OP. They can be stuck with their carriers or exchange them for something more meaningful at a less game-breaking rate.

 

With these values, people can have larger navies of smaller ships, but the assets to project power abroad are still limited somewhat.

 

And before I forget it, patrol boats now are also in the equation, so as to prevent patrol boat spam based on "common sense" rules.

 

Battleships are battleships. Minimum caliber of the main battery is 280 mm, to avoid people using Kirovs here and abusing the actually low amount of points you spend on battleships. Battleships should also be limited to a maximum of 48 missiles of more than 20 km. The 48 missiles I took from what the Iowa carried, the 20 km is pretty much the furthest, before you go from point-defense missiles to more capable medium-range SAMs. Also, none of these stored in VLS. These limitations are mostly to preserve the battleship as the kind of odd semi-obsolete ship it is, which is easily available ingame and via points, but it doesn't add much functionality. With these limitations, you are bound to use something between a pre-dreadnaught and a super-dreadnaught, with GM-approved limited modernisation. Or you go exchange it for a few destroyers.

 

Feel free to discuss.

 

So to clarify in your system you'd retain your IG max ship capacity, but you'd also have the ability to build this other navy?  I think that makes a lot of sense towards my argument.  Its also worth noting here you would have a double bump because navies themselves are pretty easily available because half even a large nations navy comes from wonders.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Triyun

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Yes, it'd be IG ships, plus the new point system, which should be enough to get upper tier enough escorts and the lower tier without IG navy can either get a large sea-denial navy or they work towards a carrier group.

[Yerushalayim]

 

We both know when push comes to shove the majority of people advocate for IRL numbers and effectiveness except when they'd be losing vs. a better opponent and its always been this way.  People mostly base their position on the time of who has the advantage in any individual battle on where they stand.  Using IRL as some objective measure makes sense.

 

 

Yes and what Eva showed was that your navies nerf the top and mid tiers.  It either gives them carriers or the ability to protect carriers and shipping, not both in any thought out war scenario.  The Navies you're advocating are what I'm writing my original post towards even a coalition fleet based around 3-4 carriers simply can't attack an entrenched enemy without a significant qualitative advantage on their side.  You're nerfing amphibs too which makes conducting amphibious operations to do more than simply punish, all but impossible.  

 

My proposal gives bottom tier more stuff but leaves the top and mid tiers in tact, raising people up rather than bringing them down.  Neither proposal makes much difference in a low tier being able to defend its own shorelines, but it does enable them to have a more active role in coalitions, while preserving the only proven check of top tier checking top tier.  

 

 

So to clarify in your system you'd retain your IG max ship capacity, but you'd also have the ability to build this other navy?  I think that makes a lot of sense towards my argument.  Its also worth noting here you would have a double bump because navies themselves are pretty easily available because half even a large nations navy comes from wonders.

Except Eva hasn't shown anything at all about my system. Especially the continued comments about the ability to simply increase the points available. Eva has said my system will nerf people, but not a one of you has shown anything to back this claim up.

 

You'd be correct that my absolute lowest point distribution (one point) would nerf navies, but the higher proposals (e.g.: 3 points and up) increase them. So either actually back up your claims with an example, or stop yapping. We're all already aware that you're interested in keeping your advantage, and don't want to see parity, there's no need to try and dress it up anymore. Attempting to make claims that are untrue, and demonstrably so, is laughable and only hammers home what you're doing.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Except Eva hasn't shown anything at all about my system. Especially the continued comments about the ability to simply increase the points available. Eva has said my system will nerf people, but not a one of you has shown anything to back this claim up.

 

You'd be correct that my absolute lowest point distribution (one point) would nerf navies, but the higher proposals (e.g.: 3 points and up) increase them. So either actually back up your claims with an example, or stop yapping. We're all already aware that you're interested in keeping your advantage, and don't want to see parity, there's no need to try and dress it up anymore. Attempting to make claims that are untrue, and demonstrably so, is laughable and only hammers home what you're doing.

Your proposal is not too bad, though I rather see it based on NS than on infra, as my counter-offer uses. I might point out that regardless of what system you apply, Triyun will have a first rate navy, most people will not. Simply because large people will live at the caps, small people will not. I think we can stop the yapping about how Triyun wants to preserve his top-tier quality, when he's guaranteed to stay top tier anyway.

 

I think, my proposal actually does more for parity, just by stopping attributing points after 50,000 NS, than a system that goes beyond 20,000 infrastructure. and keeping ingame assets without modifier is less an empowerment of upper tier, than for the mid tier, where you can easily get up to 6 carriers, with another carrier only every 5,000 infrastructure.

[Captain Enema]

Possible Revamped Navy Option

 

Based on your NS, you are allocated a maximum number of points and ships. The points can be used to build your navy with the corresponding point conversion table. This constitutes the entirety of your navy, no IG stats would be included.

 

Thoughts are welcome, especially on modifying the various numbers.

 

 

 

TBM's suggestion

 

 

 

My poll option, or my take on Ty's suggestion:


NS              points          total ships
100k+         300              100
50k+           250              80
25k+           200              60
0k+             150              40


Point values ty proposes seems workable for me. No changes to that.

 

 

Voodoo's proposal

 

 

 

I recall someone asking me about the ships for points concept and how we would determine how many points each "type" gets, so I'll list out the concept:

Using the following list, from the rules thread: Corvette 200, Diesel Sub 300, Frigate 400, Destroyer 600, Nuclear Submarine(Attack, not ICBM)/cruiser 750, these are the points that are already in use. I suggest adding in Battleships at 600, Landing Ships at 750 and Carriers at 1500. The carrier is just double the largest number, for simplicity sake.
 

To exchange a ship, you just "sell" the type of ship in exchange for points to "buy" something different. When selling, you can sell only what you have pre-multipliers. This avoids the ability for players to abuse the system. For example:

A nation has 10 from IG and purchase 20 from points, for a total of 60 in the RP after the multiplier. If a player sold the corvettes after the multiplier is applied, they receive double the amount of points than they spent, effectively creating unlimited points for an unlimited navy. If it's based on pre-multiplier, then the only additional points received comes from IG ships before the multiplier.

As a part of an IRC discussion, I remember someone mentioning the balance between large and small nations when it comes to purchasing carriers, landing ships and battleships. I am indifferent to that discussion, so if the prohibition on purchasing those three stands, I won't effect this proposal.

 

 

Yeru's proposal

 

 

 

Ship Costs-
Corvette: 1
Frigate: 2
Destroyer: 5
Cruiser: 5
Battleship: 3
Landingship/AA: 7
Aircraft Carrier: 12
Diesel Submarine: 5
Nuclear Submarine: 7

Point Scale-
0-5,00 Infra: 3 points per 100 Infra
5,000-10,000 Infra: 3 points per 200 Infra
10,000-15,000 Infra: 3 points per 500 Infra
15,000-20,000 Infra: 3 points per 1,000 Infra
20,000+ Infra: 3 points per 2,000 Infra

 

I assume this is a submission from triyun and eva, not entirely sure.

 

 

 

3 points per 100 NS up to 20,000 NS, 2 points per 100 NS from 20,000 NS up to 40,000 NS, 1 point per 100 NS from 40,000 NS up to 50,000 NS. No points above.

This gives a maximum of 1,100.

If we then adjust the point values of ships...

1 per patrol boat/fast attack craft (<1,000 tons)
5 per corvette (< 2,000 tons)
20 per frigate (<8,000 tons)
40 per destroyer (<12,000 tons)
50 per cruiser (<25,000 tons)
40 per battleship (<80,000 tons)
100 per helicopter carrier
250 per amphibious assault ship
500 per carrier (<80,000 tons)
800 per supercarrier (110,000 tons> x >80,000 tons)
10 per conventional attack submarine
25 per nuclear attack submarine
100 per nuclear ballistic missile submarine/nuclear guided missile submarine

Additionally, I advocate allowing substitutions based on these points, with one exception: Carriers, which can only be exchanged at a quarter their points. While people like Triyun or Lynneth with ~10 carriers are well-equipped, letting them have 6 carriers, but 80 more destroyers is just way too OP. They can be stuck with their carriers or exchange them for something more meaningful at a less game-breaking rate.

Battleships are battleships. Minimum caliber of the main battery is 280 mm, to avoid people using Kirovs here and abusing the actually low amount of points you spend on battleships. Battleships should also be limited to a maximum of 48 missiles of more than 20 km. The 48 missiles I took from what the Iowa carried, the 20 km is pretty much the furthest, before you go from point-defense missiles to more capable medium-range SAMs. Also, none of these stored in VLS.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Tidy Bowl Man

[Triyun]

Except Eva hasn't shown anything at all about my system. Especially the continued comments about the ability to simply increase the points available. Eva has said my system will nerf people, but not a one of you has shown anything to back this claim up.

 

You'd be correct that my absolute lowest point distribution (one point) would nerf navies, but the higher proposals (e.g.: 3 points and up) increase them. So either actually back up your claims with an example, or stop yapping. We're all already aware that you're interested in keeping your advantage, and don't want to see parity, there's no need to try and dress it up anymore. Attempting to make claims that are untrue, and demonstrably so, is laughable and only hammers home what you're doing.

 

Eva did when she did out one of your proposals.  There's absolutely no reason to be rude or throw around personal allegations.  Btw, I've never enjoyed massive numbers edges ever compared to the numbers hostile.  Only edge has been qualitative.

 

Even if you raised the levels for everyone per tier level, the lower tier would still be unable to field their carriers with aircraft, and you do most definitely nerf the top end, and any gains on the offense are going to be leveled out on the defense by the regional powers navy growing at equal size to what you add to the offshore power so that gain cancels out too.  I simply don't see how you gain anything other than ensure fortress regions and balkanized popularity contests.

[Mogar]

I'd love to hear an example of the last time you fought a war without at minimum 2:1 odds in your favor, without including the massive ally advantage you hold in RP1 of course.

 

Nerfing the top end and bringing up the lowest end is the intent, the rest of that paragraph is already a reality, so I don't see what this would do besides nerf the massive statistical advantage a few players happen to have.(which was the original purpose of creating this RP in the first place since getting a few of the largest nations in the world together meant a world that was choked to death and now contains 6 members who besides eva, post every 3 weeks.)

[Captain Enema]

I'd love to hear an example of the last time you fought a war without at minimum 2:1 odds in your favor, without including the massive ally advantage you hold in RP1 of course.

 

Nerfing the top end and bringing up the lowest end is the intent, the rest of that paragraph is already a reality, so I don't see what this would do besides nerf the massive statistical advantage a few players happen to have.(which was the original purpose of creating this RP in the first place since getting a few of the largest nations in the world together meant a world that was choked to death and now contains 6 members who besides eva, post every 3 weeks.)

 

 

Are your panties twisted more than usual today?

[Mogar]

I simply find it rather entertaining the logic of "nerfing navies is bad because it would allow regional powers to fight larger powers more equally" to be kind of a ridiculous premise to argue.

[Captain Enema]

I'm finding your lack of logic even more annoying, either attempt to add value to the conversation or don't bother. 

[Voodoo Nova]

I recall someone asking me about the ships for points concept and how we would determine how many points each "type" gets, so I'll list out the concept:

Using the following list, from the rules thread: Corvette 200, Diesel Sub 300, Frigate 400, Destroyer 600, Nuclear Submarine(Attack, not ICBM)/cruiser 750, these are the points that are already in use. I suggest adding in Battleships at 600, Landing Ships at 750 and Carriers at 1500. The carrier is just double the largest number, for simplicity sake.

To exchange a ship, you just "sell" the type of ship in exchange for points to "buy" something different. When selling, you can sell only what you have pre-multipliers. This avoids the ability for players to abuse the system. For example:

A nation has 10 from IG and purchase 20 from points, for a total of 60 in the RP after the multiplier. If a player sold the corvettes after the multiplier is applied, they receive double the amount of points than they spent, effectively creating unlimited points for an unlimited navy. If it's based on pre-multiplier, then the only additional points received comes from IG ships before the multiplier.

As a part of an IRC discussion, I remember someone mentioning the balance between large and small nations when it comes to purchasing carriers, landing ships and battleships. I am indifferent to that discussion, so if the prohibition on purchasing those three stands, I won't effect this proposal.

 

 

My proposal for Navy Reform as posted in the Discussion Bus. It's the current system with the ability to swap. If you could add it to the list of proposals in your post tbm, that'd be great.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Voodoo Nova

[Yerushalayim]

Not sure what Yeru is proposing, seems to change, he can post his final version. Others can add their own, keep them simple is my suggestion. 

:P My proposal is modular and adjustable. I dunno. Go with the 3x points version.

[Captain Enema]

:P My proposal is modular and adjustable. I dunno. Go with the 3x points version.

 

pick a version and repost it for me. 

[Yerushalayim]

Ship Costs-

Corvette: 1

Frigate: 2

Destroyer: 5

Cruiser: 5

Battleship: 3

Landingship/AA: 7

Aircraft Carrier: 12

Diesel Submarine: 5

Nuclear Submarine: 7

 

Point Scale-

0-5,00 Infra: 3 points per 100 Infra

5,000-10,000 Infra: 3 points per 200 Infra

10,000-15,000 Infra: 3 points per 500 Infra

15,000-20,000 Infra: 3 points per 1,000 Infra

20,000+ Infra: 3 points per 2,000 Infra

[Captain Enema]

waiting on triyeva, post a submission, not going to dig through the last two pages trying to figure out what you absolute final submission is.