KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) I really don't think we need to change squadron multipliers. As I've seen it, aircraft numbers have never been an issue. Also, the rule has pretty much been that if you are into categories, you stick with the lower one. We should keep it that way. Plus, the only reason we had naval multipliers was to give a more realistic ratio of capital ships to support ships, so you may want to specify that cruisers, battleships, and carriers are excluded from those multipliers. Edited October 29, 2014 by KaiserMelech Mikhail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 So the same multipliers with far lower ceilings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 So the same multipliers with far lower ceilings? Pretty much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I really don't think we need to change squadron multipliers. As I've seen it, aircraft numbers have never been an issue. Also, the rule has pretty much been that if you are into categories, you stick with the lower one. We should keep it that way. Plus, the only reason we had naval multipliers was to give a more realistic ratio of capital ships to support ships, so you may want to specify that cruisers, battleships, and carriers are excluded from those multipliers. There are already squadron multipliers, as well as fighter generation substitution rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I was more referring to the levels. It takes no time at all for someone to hit 6000 infra and 2000 tech if they have a decent alliance pushing them on, so in the long run, the multipliers are meaningless since everyone is the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 So the same multipliers with far lower ceilings? Yea, anyone with 6k infra or 2k tech will have the highest multipliers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I say we keep the naval multipliers, cut the air force ones by half and call it a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I say we keep the naval multipliers, cut the air force ones by half and call it a day. The multipliers aren't changing, the threshold to reach them changed in my proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 The multipliers aren't changing, the threshold to reach them changed in my proposal. That's what I was talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Lowering the multiplier thresholds seems fair enough to me. Also, a question. Do multipliers apply to substituted assets as well? Like say I substituted 10,000 troops for the 5 squadrons do I get 60 aircraft or 180 aircraft (due to the x3 aircraft multiplier I get). This isn't addressed by the published rules as far as I can see. Edited October 29, 2014 by MostGloriousLeader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Lowering the multiplier thresholds seems fair enough to me. Also, a question. Do multipliers apply to substituted assets as well? Like say I substituted 10,000 troops for the 5 squadrons do I get 60 aircraft or 180 aircraft (due to the x3 aircraft multiplier I get). This isn't addressed by the published rules as far as I can see. Multipliers have always been applied prior to substitutions. You get 60 aircraft in your example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I don't mind that thresholds are being lowered, I just think that they're being lowered to a stupidly low level. Reaching the highest stage of something really should still be an achievement to work for, not something that everyone will get after a while. Like we said, this isn't about making everyone equal, it's just about letting the smallest people have a slightly easier time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Lowering the multiplier thresholds seems fair enough to me. Also, a question. Do multipliers apply to substituted assets as well? Like say I substituted 10,000 troops for the 5 squadrons do I get 60 aircraft or 180 aircraft (due to the x3 aircraft multiplier I get). This isn't addressed by the published rules as far as I can see. As voodoo said that's multipliers of squadrons, not the multiplier for squadrons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 As voodoo said that's multipliers of squadrons, not the multiplier for squadrons. As far as I know, the aircraft formula is: a = aig*x*y a... Number of aircraft aig...Number of potential ingame aircraft x...Modifier, dependent on technology (6 if <500 tech; 12 if >500 tech) y...Modifier, dependent on infrastructure and technology (in the proposal, 2 if >5,000 infra/1,000 tech; 3 if 5,000-6,000 infra/1,000-2,000 tech and 4 if >6,000 infra/2,000 tech) So, a nation freshly created is at 50*6*2=600 aircraft A nation at most gets (50+25+20+10)*12*4=5,040 aircraft Note that substitution multipliers come thereafter (for example 2 F-15s for 1 F-22). In general on substitution, a nation first has to calculate the assets it is to have without substitutions. It then substitutes assets according to the substitution rules. So, for example GLs current nation gives him, according to current rules: 917,736 soldiers 9,177 tanks 3,780 aircraft 45 corvettes 35 frigates 35 destroyers 7 cruisers 9 landing ships 8 battleships 6 carriers 30 submarines (As a note, I went with an assumption of what the fleet looks like, based on the ship number and nation built. He'd have to buy more ships ingame to have more ships ICly) Let's assume he wants to swap 10,000 soldiers for aircraft. He gets 5 squadrons for that, which are 5x12=60 aircraft. Normal multipliers have already been applied before to calculate the forces he had prior to substitution, so he no further multiplier applies. Except, if he were to use the generation substitution multiplier, which allows switching of 2 older generation aircraft for one newer generation. He could field 5th gen fighters, so if he decides, he rather uses F-15s, then he can use 120 F-15s. If he was to utilise something even older, like the F-4, it would end up as 240. The generation substitution multiplier is the sole multiplier that is applicable after substitution of assets. For example, would he swap 9,800 soldiers for a Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, he'd be getting exactly one ship. Not 5, given there already was a standard x8 multiplier applied to calculate the soldier count. On the other hand, if he wants to exchange ships to soldiers, he can utilise all 35 destroyers to transform into soldiers, not just 7. These soldiers however also don't get multiplied (which would have been by 10, given the logic of citizens x8 is citizens x0.8 (maximum soldier count) x 10, but this is getting very theoretical). To restate substitution ratios: Force substitution: 10,000 soldiers = 10,000 metric tons of shipping = 500 tanks = 5 squadrons of aircraft Generation substitution: 1 xth generation fighter = 2(x-1)th generation fighter This only goes downwards. You can not get 1 F-35 for 2 F-15s, if you can't already build F-35s. [hr] Any further questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Cnrp is dead, long live cnrp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 I think everyone should have 12 AC per squadron regadless IG. Also make that equation look less HS freshman year first periody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 First question will now be on lowering the ultipliers, second question will be to make it 12 aircraft per squadron flat. Any additions? And my equation mostly is there as an explanation. It's not rule text. All rules I listed were either already in existence or suggested by Voodoo already in a different format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 I think everyone should have 12 AC per squadron regadless IG. Also make that equation look less HS freshman year first periody. I can agree with Triyun here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/124740-cnrp-multiplier-reform-poll/ A first poll has been created here. Any minimu troop strength for smaller nations needs proposals and further discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 For soldier minimums, I suggest 200,000-300,000 until a nation can hold that based on their own stats. This is around the 25k NS mark IG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 For soldier minimums, I suggest 200,000-300,000 until a nation can hold that based on their own stats. This is around the 25k NS mark IG. Further suggestions can be made till I return in a few hours. Else, this goes up for a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.