CNRP OOC Thread

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1294809121' post='2572764']
This might seem silly, but how does one access of #CNRP?
I've always done my CNRPing on these forums.
[/quote]

http://wbe03.mibbit.com/?server=irc.coldfront.net&channel=%23CNRP

Type a name and click connect, or type this if you've already joined:

/nick NAME

To register your name (required for #CNRP but not for all channels), type:

/msg nickserv register PASSWORD EMAIL_ADDRESS

Follow the instructions in the registration email. You may then need to type:

/msg nickserv identify PASSWORD

Now type:

/j #CNRP

And you're there! On subsequent visits, you can just follow the link and type:

/msg nickserv identify PASSWORD
/j #CNRP

[Triyun]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1294811063' post='2572795']
The Republic of China still exists. And no I don't believe the PRC should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and that Hong Kong should have been given to it. If I did support the PRC's seat on the security council it certainly wouldn't be because the RoC had one.

But which is it? The same state or the successor state?
[/quote]

Most countries in the world no longer recognize the Republic of China as still being a state, the Chinese would argue I believe that in regards to treaties there remains continuity of the state. China admittedly does appear to be a special case admittedly within foreign affairs, even compared to the issue of USSR and Russia.

In regards to both the other issues, than you are in the minority of opinion amongst the vast majority of countries, now whether you care or not is your own problem not mine Sal.

[SK Wynter]

I agree with what has been said about the war and flimsy evidence and such. Considering how politicians inside and outside of CNRP flare up at the smallest things, one must take into the consideration the flaws of humanity. It's far too easy to abuse any sort of power, great or small.

And because it was mentioned and I'm late to the party:

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1294374928' post='2566798']Not only enjoying, benefiting from. Remember, I'm playing a Bane in the WoD thread that parallels CNRP. I fully encourage the destruction of Gaia in all her forms.[/quote]

For those confused, I'm running a World of Darkness/CNRP crossover. It's only one thread so far (and a thread I need to get cracking on).

So yeah.

Edited January 13, 2011 by SK Wynter

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1294809121' post='2572764']
I've always done my CNRPing on these forums.
[/quote]

#cnrp is an OOC channel. There is #cnrpic but that's only for things like war discussions, treaty stuff, or anything else that requires multiple amounts of people talking about the same time, and requires logs to be posted anyway.

[Kankou]

What I've been watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh_3lj48RwI

[Lestari]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1294983813' post='2574741']
What I've been watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh_3lj48RwI
[/quote]
Awkward.

[Sir Keshav IV]

nvm [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]

Edited January 14, 2011 by Sir Keshav IV

[Kevin Kingswell]

A question for you Merger.

In this post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97045&view=findpost&p=2575624

You say that the terrorist was supported by Korea is that something that the terrorist made up and is thus not true or you saying that the Korean government have actually backed them.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1295326263' post='2580132']In strategic areas of the Greater Nordic Empire, dozens of underground missile silos opened. From these silos, fifty Intercontinential Ballistic Missiles launched into the heavens, in two waves. These ICBMs, which were the V-2012, were equipped with 8 Anti-Satellite Kinetic Kill Vehicles each. The goal of the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Greater Nordic Empire were simple, to knock out all Korean communications, links to and from ground stations, and guidance technologies; thus, crippling the country significantly.

As the Intercontinential Ballistic Missiles reached their intended targets, the deadly kill vehicles were unleashed. The anti-satellite kinetic kill vehicles were split amongst the Korean satellites. The kinetic vehicles would shred the satellites, damaging them immensely. Any satellites still operational would be destroyed completely by a second wave of these kinetic kill vehicles.[/quote] Malatose’s strategy, in CNRP, is impossible.
Attacking satellites with missiles is impossible in CNRP.
All forms of space weapons have been disallowed for a long time.
Missiles that attack satellites constitute space weaponry.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Centurius]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295536621' post='2586365']
Malatose’s strategy, in CNRP, is impossible.
Attacking satellites with missiles is impossible in CNRP.
All forms of space weapons have been disallowed for a long time.
Missiles that attack satellites constitute space weaponry.
[/quote]

Actually I remember them having been used in the past without any objection. If you want to take the definition of space weapons that far you can ban ICBMs in their entirety.

[king of cochin]

AFAIK, there is no prohibition on earth based Anti Satellite weapons.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295313809' post='2579144']6) Space weapons: Space weapons are banned. Missile defense and SDI units are exempt from this ban. [MOD RULING: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO NORMAL SPACE WEAPON BAN] [/quote]I could be wrong.
There seems to be a huge precedence for allowing satellite killing missiles.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295538832' post='2586429']
I could be wrong.
There seems to be a huge precedence for allowing satellite killing missiles.
[/quote]

Yes, that specific ruling is aimed at weapons stationed in and launched from space like Rods from god and those kind of weapons.

[Executive Minister]

Just curious, do these 50 ICBM anti-satellite missiles fall under the IG CM count for non-nuclear WMDs? Or are they an imaginary weapon with no check?

[Shatner]

The space weapons ban is supposed to only be against space-to-earth missiles. I've developed and used anti-satellite missiles before. I think that SDI's are exempt from these, though.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295541018' post='2586507']
Just curious, do these 50 ICBM anti-satellite missiles fall under the IG CM count for non-nuclear WMDs? Or are they an imaginary weapon with no check?
[/quote]

The latter, the 50 ig cm count is for non-nuclear EMP, Chemical, Biological and High Yield conventional weapons.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295546138' post='2586692']
The latter, the 50 ig cm count is for non-nuclear EMP, Chemical, Biological and High Yield conventional weapons.
[/quote]

Thank you. Also, to pre-emptively nip this in the bud - Yes, I do realize that such weapons exist, I am not insulting your intelligence by calling them imaginary.

My conception of 'Imaginary' in CNRP terms is that 'it does not have a direct IG representation'. Other things I would consider imaginary, as an example, would be IC helicopter gunships, as they are not traditionally included in the airforce, or ground launched ASBMs, as they are not under the CM count due to their 'not high yield' status.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295536621' post='2586365']
Malatose’s strategy, in CNRP, is impossible.
Attacking satellites with missiles is impossible in CNRP.
All forms of space weapons have been disallowed for a long time.
[b]Missiles that attack satellites constitute space weaponry.[/b][/quote]

Actually, space weaponry is defined as weaponry that is stationed in space, designed to strike other space weaponry or targets on the ground. Rods from god are banned because they attack targets on the ground.

However, this is a good opprotunity to bring up the potential for a rule change. As far as I know, at the moment, we are not allowed to have defenses on sats to protect them against ground-based sat killer missiles. I would be in favor of allowing satellites to have short range weapons (e.g. high intensity laser or somesuch) that could have the opprotunity to destroy incoming sat killer missiles. Obviously this would need to incorporate RP'd development and have some sort of roll to see if the defense is sucessful (I'd propose using either the 60% roll for SDIs, or rolling however many Missile Defense improvements a nation has (up to 50%)).

Thoughts?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295547198' post='2586731']
Thank you. Also, to pre-emptively nip this in the bud - Yes, I do realize that such weapons exist, I am not insulting your intelligence by calling them imaginary.

My conception of 'Imaginary' in CNRP terms is that 'it does not have a direct IG representation'. Other things I would consider imaginary, as an example, would be IC helicopter gunships, as they are not traditionally included in the airforce, or ground launched ASBMs, as they are not under the CM count due to their 'not high yield' status.
[/quote]

I am going to correct this. There is an IG representation for it, it's simply that you can't kill the entire effect of an enemy's satellite network unless you have enough missile defense batteries. The IG representation of this is satellites and missile batteries which have a direct counteracting effect on each other. For example.. if one player has 3 satellites and the other 3 missile defense batteries, they effectively counteract each other. In effect the target has enough missile defense batteries to counter act or destroy the enemy satellite network to remove its effect from their territory.

Both go up to 50% so it is possible for a nation to have sufficient defenses to make it impossible to put satellites over their nation to guide weapons. In such a case the attacker would have 5 satellites, but the enemy 5 missile batteries and the attacker can't generate a positive strategic effect from satellite count.

If the enemy actually has more missile batteries than the attacker has satellites, it begins to effectively impede the attacker's missile capability inside the defenders country. If the opposite is true the the missiles and guided weapons of the attacker become more effective due to better guidance.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1295552616' post='2586925']
I am going to correct this. There is an IG representation for it, it's simply that you can't kill the entire effect of an enemy's satellite network unless you have enough missile defense batteries. The IG representation of this is satellites and missile batteries which have a direct counteracting effect on each other. For example.. if one player has 3 satellites and the other 3 missile defense batteries, they effectively counteract each other. In effect the target has enough missile defense batteries to counter act or destroy the enemy satellite network to remove its effect from their territory.

Both go up to 50% so it is possible for a nation to have sufficient defenses to make it impossible to put satellites over their nation to guide weapons. In such a case the attacker would have 5 satellites, but the enemy 5 missile batteries and the attacker can't generate a positive strategic effect from satellite count.

If the enemy actually has more missile batteries than the attacker has satellites, it begins to effectively impede the attacker's missile capability inside the defenders country. If the opposite is true the the missiles and guided weapons of the attacker become more effective due to better guidance.
[/quote]

That is an interesting take... I'd imagine that such 'nullification' would prove handy to regulate all this anti-satellite business. Thoughts?

[King Timmy]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295553890' post='2586979']
That is an interesting take... I'd imagine that such 'nullification' would prove handy to regulate all this anti-satellite business. Thoughts?
[/quote]

It would make sense to use it for all aspects of regular missile defense and attack IC.

Would it be like a missile defense roll or something?

Or if someone has 5 sats IG and some one had 2 Missile defense then 5/7ths or 3/5ths of the missiles get through something like that?

As for anti-satellite I can't see it having a real impact on it as satellites don't have any protection against missiles.

Edited January 20, 2011 by King Timmy

[Centurius]

I can support the idea of making it rolls from 0%-50% depending on how many missile defenses someone has.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295553890' post='2586979']
That is an interesting take... I'd imagine that such 'nullification' would prove handy to regulate all this anti-satellite business. Thoughts?
[/quote]

All I know is this is exactly how I would handle it as a balancing issue if I were in your position. Have missile defenses shield from CMs.. while satellites amplify their capability.

The net result would be that missiles would either be magnified or reduced by 50% depending on the improvements each nation had.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[king of cochin]

I am okay with the notion of the balance of Satellites and Missile Defense improvements IG deciding efficiency of ASAT weapons, but I am not comfortable with the idea of satellite based lasers as anti-ASAT defenses. IMO, space should remain weapons free.

[Lestari]

I am of the opinion an anti-space weapons rule should be IC, not OOC (if said space weapons are realistically viable). IC nations could therefore violate this 'law' and the consequences would be imposed in an IC reaction rather than an OOC reaction. Something like a 'rogue state' sort of thing. Just a vague bit of opinion.