Sargun II Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I don't remember who said this, but.. The problem with common sense is that it ain't that common Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I guess I'm one of the lucky few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I guess I'm one of the lucky few. I thus declare my nation to have 500 billion inhabitants. (35 to 40 million, actually. Sounds like a good number to me.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmashBrother299 Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I would agree with a 1000x multiplier. 161 million sounds good for the nation of Saskanada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 With the 1000x rule, my nation's population would be approximately 80 million. Sure, that may be a...bit small, but hey, it's more than the population of the RL Turkey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayanchur Khan Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I don't think this is an unreasonable change at all. If you look at how fast the RL world population is exploding, the 100X modifier we use is quite conservative. This would give me 12.6 Million in comparison to 1.2 million. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I would say 500x is a good number, but with leaway. I don't want to have to fit nearly 90mil people on my bunch of islands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sadinoelus Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 The actual population of the four states I occupy is 9 million, which would be the equivalent to around a 180x multiplier for me. Then again, I have some of the least densely populated areas in the US, so it's not like I couldn't fit more. If we take the in-game value and apply it to the actual area claimed by me, it'd be a 320x multiplier. Thusly, 250x seems like a very sensible solution for me... at least. Just throwing out some numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 NZ has 4 mill and the rest of the islands I own would be hard pressed to muster a mil between them. Admittedly, they do have a low pop density atm, but I do not want to start crowding people into my tropical paradises. Next, since I play with such a low pop, I have to have some weird way to explain how I have like 400,000 troops. Which I why I like to play 1x soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 I would have 53 Million people if we go by the 1000x citizens rule. That is only around double today's statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Question?: Would the soldier multiplier change as well? Cause if it doesnt it would be weird if you had 87 million people and only something like 20,000 soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 No. If you had 87 million civilians it would mean your CN pop is 87,000, which means you can have 70,000 soldiers. 70,000 x 10 is 700,000 CNRP soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Ah I see. My failing maths strikes again. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 I am tired of the whole "I COULD buy tanks/planes/navy, I just don't want to for economic reasons" argument to get off scot free. You are running a nation here people, you can't magicly have things appear that you don't have ingame! If you have economic reasons ingame, you have economic reasons in CNRP. I sacrificed some of my ingame economy, because I RP to my nation's stats, I don't pull things out of my $@! saying I "shoulda coulda woulda" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Would you agree that there is a difference between economic reasons and surrender term reasons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Would you agree that there is a difference between economic reasons and surrender term reasons Yes. Surrender terms don't go into CNRP because it's with ingame alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted October 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 This is CyberNations roleplay. If you accept one, you must accept the other. Besides, maxing out your military causes rioting and is incredibly stupid to do unless in a war you can't really win. I would personally refuse to accept alliance war terms as an excuse, and in Tahoe's case I didn't voice opposition just to stop pointless bickering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 This is CyberNations roleplay. If you accept one, you must accept the other. Besides, maxing out your military causes rioting and is incredibly stupid to do unless in a war you can't really win. I would personally refuse to accept alliance war terms as an excuse, and in Tahoe's case I didn't voice opposition just to stop pointless bickering. Okay, no exception for Tahoe either, it was on shaky grounds anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 I am tired of the whole "I COULD buy tanks/planes/navy, I just don't want to for economic reasons" argument to get off scot free. You are running a nation here people, you can't magicly have things appear that you don't have ingame! If you have economic reasons ingame, you have economic reasons in CNRP. I sacrificed some of my ingame economy, because I RP to my nation's stats, I don't pull things out of my $@! saying I "shoulda coulda woulda" I am personally tired of the whole "RP to your nation! Alliances don't matter here! Blah blah blah"... Well, if you want to RP to your IG nation stats, that's fine, but then you're making alliances matter because that affects your IG nation which you base your RP off of. If you want CNRP to be dependent on CNRP and not alliances, you just have to build and develop your nation in CNRP solely. Honestly, I don't see the problem with this, what would it do?: 1. New nations, even if they're huge IG, cannot have an advantage. They have to work in RP, making bonds, RPing military advances, etc to get more powerful. 2. RP wars would be much, much more devastating. If you want to RP your nation stats, honestly, then RP wars mean !@#$. Why? Because well your IG nation was untouched, you can rebuild quickly to those stats again. 3. It doesn't punish you for honoring your alliance and not deserting it. 4. It doesn't punish you for wanting to grow your nation IG at the quickest rate for IG alliance expansion (if you're a bank) or war is looming. 5. CNRP solely dependent on the players themselves and how they interact with one another. IG politics, nations, and alliances do not interfere with this RP which would great to see in my eyes. Personally I'm tired of the "if you want to RP maximum in RP you gotta max out IG", that's just punishing the player's IG nation and the IG develop for the sake of RPing. RPing should be fun and be devestating in RP, not affecting IG things too. /end rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted October 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 I am personally tired of the whole "RP to your nation! Alliances don't matter here! Blah blah blah"... Well, if you want to RP to your IG nation stats, that's fine, but then you're making alliances matter because that affects your IG nation which you base your RP off of. If you want CNRP to be dependent on CNRP and not alliances, you just have to build and develop your nation in CNRP solely. Honestly, I don't see the problem with this, what would it do?:1. New nations, even if they're huge IG, cannot have an advantage. They have to work in RP, making bonds, RPing military advances, etc to get more powerful. 2. RP wars would be much, much more devastating. If you want to RP your nation stats, honestly, then RP wars mean !@#$. Why? Because well your IG nation was untouched, you can rebuild quickly to those stats again. 3. It doesn't punish you for honoring your alliance and not deserting it. 4. It doesn't punish you for wanting to grow your nation IG at the quickest rate for IG alliance expansion (if you're a bank) or war is looming. 5. CNRP solely dependent on the players themselves and how they interact with one another. IG politics, nations, and alliances do not interfere with this RP which would great to see in my eyes. Personally I'm tired of the "if you want to RP maximum in RP you gotta max out IG", that's just punishing the player's IG nation and the IG develop for the sake of RPing. RPing should be fun and be devestating in RP, not affecting IG things too. /end rant This is what I've always wanted, but there's always a lot of opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 I am personally tired of the whole "RP to your nation! Alliances don't matter here! Blah blah blah"... Well, if you want to RP to your IG nation stats, that's fine, but then you're making alliances matter because that affects your IG nation which you base your RP off of. If you want CNRP to be dependent on CNRP and not alliances, you just have to build and develop your nation in CNRP solely. Honestly, I don't see the problem with this, what would it do?:1. New nations, even if they're huge IG, cannot have an advantage. They have to work in RP, making bonds, RPing military advances, etc to get more powerful. 2. RP wars would be much, much more devastating. If you want to RP your nation stats, honestly, then RP wars mean !@#$. Why? Because well your IG nation was untouched, you can rebuild quickly to those stats again. 3. It doesn't punish you for honoring your alliance and not deserting it. 4. It doesn't punish you for wanting to grow your nation IG at the quickest rate for IG alliance expansion (if you're a bank) or war is looming. 5. CNRP solely dependent on the players themselves and how they interact with one another. IG politics, nations, and alliances do not interfere with this RP which would great to see in my eyes. Personally I'm tired of the "if you want to RP maximum in RP you gotta max out IG", that's just punishing the player's IG nation and the IG develop for the sake of RPing. RPing should be fun and be devestating in RP, not affecting IG things too. /end rant I have a big army ingame because of CNRP, I don't see why others couldn't do that also, or are they "better" than me and don't need to? Okay, i'll reduce my military to the minimum 21% and grow more but claim I still have my tanks and troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 (edited) I have a big army ingame because of CNRP, I don't see why others couldn't do that also, or are they "better" than me and don't need to? Okay, i'll reduce my military to the minimum 21% and grow more but claim I still have my tanks and troops. So basically your logic is: I do it so I feel others should have to too. Right? You don't have to punish yourself IG. If you did the minium thing, you'd actually be allowing yourself to RP a bigger army because more tech and infra supports more troops and tanks. Also if you want to counter my points, please do so for all of them. I want a good debate because I honestly see myself right in this case for RP. Edited October 6, 2008 by Highbuzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 Well this is CN RP. There are a lot of other RPs on the internet that have nothing to do with any game stats, only thing that matters is how you RP your nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 Well this is CN RP. There are a lot of other RPs on the internet that have nothing to do with any game stats, only thing that matters is how you RP your nation. Exactly, you want a different RP that isn't nation-based? Go join KMRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 Well this is CN RP. There are a lot of other RPs on the internet that have nothing to do with any game stats, only thing that matters is how you RP your nation. Exactly, you want a different RP that isn't nation-based? Go join KMRP. Yea, CNRP means you get to RP with fellow CNers.. We define what CNRP is really all about, and you guys have made it about IG stats. I am not saying it is wrong, I mean the majority of you do it so I guess that's something to follow, but no one has told me a good reason why relying on IG stats is better than not. And I am in KMRP 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.