Tahsir Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Anything larger than a company of dug in men would be impossible to artillery out unless you had thousands of precision bombs dropping simultaneously. Only way to get men out of foxholes is to send in more men than they can shoot down. Of course smarter tacticans dont bother trying to remove them and waste the manpower. They just encircle and wait. Edited January 3, 2009 by Tahsir Re Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Nobody I've seen has problems with it...*Puzzled Look* I haven't seen any signs of problems with refusing to be just rolled over. Like, you know, what Martens did to the Slavorussian defenses. Professionally, I've seen Marine platoons entrenched, and the kind of resistance they could put up. It's a standard part of Combat Training, and we spent plenty of time digging those positions (arm-pit tall to the shortest man). The main issue is magic/missiles that everyone wants to use, and I'm a rifleman at heart. I just refuse to be wiped out, and furthermore, the lack of real ground war-fare (Other than mass formations where millions die) in CNRP is kinda disturbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Professionally, I've seen Marine platoons entrenched, and the kind of resistance they could put up. It's a standard part of Combat Training, and we spent plenty of time digging those positions (arm-pit tall to the shortest man). The main issue is magic/missiles that everyone wants to use, and I'm a rifleman at heart. I just refuse to be wiped out, and furthermore, the lack of real ground war-fare (Other than mass formations where millions die) in CNRP is kinda disturbing. Yum yum set piece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I must say that if they bomb you, you won't hold out for long if all you AA is that joke of an AutoFLAK. (Its impossible, the hint is Sentient AI) However, as I see, your troops have no experience, and any kind of dug in position, although hard to attack with infantry gets wasted by bombs, and then the infantry goes in. In fact any smart attacker would simply use incendiary bombs, and set the city on fire. Fire fighting would be bear impossible with the restriction of movement you have placed yourself in, and with all the demolition, there would be all manner of explosive and flamable material around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I must say that if they bomb you, you won't hold out for long if all you AA is that joke of an AutoFLAK. (Its impossible, the hint is Sentient AI)However, as I see, your troops have no experience, and any kind of dug in position, although hard to attack with infantry gets wasted by bombs, and then the infantry goes in. In fact any smart attacker would simply use incendiary bombs, and set the city on fire. Fire fighting would be bear impossible with the restriction of movement you have placed yourself in, and with all the demolition, there would be all manner of explosive and flamable material around. Yeah, training. I haven't done my "Explanation of Marine Training" yet, but it'll be a pretty epic piece. Until then, realize that I put these men through a hell my old DI couldn't begin to imagine for 18 weeks of physical and weapons fitness. Also, I roleplay that my nation has been wandering the world for several years. It's a natural warrior culture; you'd know this if you went and looked up Kingdom of March/Marchland on the old boards. Experience we have in spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I must say that if they bomb you, you won't hold out for long if all you AA is that joke of an AutoFLAK. (Its impossible, the hint is Sentient AI) Calling the china black isn't really helping your argument, LVN Anyway, the main problem I'm seeing in CNRP: Everyone thinks they're the good old RL US, which has never fought against a technologically equal opponent since WW2. They all think they can just bomb the other side to nothing with millions of missiles before sending in the troops. It isn't like that. No modern nation can bomb as much as what happened in the Oceanic War in Mindanao ALONE without being on a total war economy, and the infinite number of bombs and missiles being launched is disturbing to say the least. People accused me of having impossible numbers of cruise missiles, but they never look at their own arsenal. It's hypocrisy at its worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Yeah, training. I haven't done my "Explanation of Marine Training" yet, but it'll be a pretty epic piece. Until then, realize that I put these men through a hell my old DI couldn't begin to imagine for 18 weeks of physical and weapons fitness. Also, I roleplay that my nation has been wandering the world for several years. It's a natural warrior culture; you'd know this if you went and looked up Kingdom of March/Marchland on the old boards. Experience we have in spades. Since you have not actually Rp'd the training, then you can't claim that benefit, and second, as this nation you have not had any fighting experience, so you can't claim that either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Since you have not actually Rp'd the training, then you can't claim that benefit, and second, as this nation you have not had any fighting experience, so you can't claim that either. Unlike you, LVN, Margrave is continuing his RP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Since you have not actually Rp'd the training, then you can't claim that benefit, and second, as this nation you have not had any fighting experience, so you can't claim that either. I don't leave behind my culture/tribe whenever I leave my territory..the Irish Marchar's became Western March (California) became the Eastern March (When we left California to Virginia).the survivors of March become the army of the Crusades in Acre, which later becomes Camberlain. The reason I call my main race Marchar's is to identify them as the people of the March Kingdom which was destroyed by a bloody nationalist conflict. I don't have to write the history; its there if you care to research it. And I fought a ton of wars in between then...so, how experienced do you think my people are with warfare, when they've practically been at war (And alliance/GW's counted back then when CNRP wasn't so official, so I'm not going to pretend all those conflicts didn't happen, I'll just describe them in generic terms) since their founding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) I'm not sure why my statement prompted such a response since I'm not even in this war, but here goes. You've got guys in fox holes, trenches and bunkers, and their packing. Now, I said if I were assaulting this city alone and not Nordland/Rebel Army, quick fix. ICBM's, pin-point airstrikes, mobile artillery, helicopters, and a ton more men. It really doesn't have any relevance anyway, you won't see me fighting up there, or anywhere in this war for that matter. I'm just saying, anyone attacking there will suffer a bit, but invincible defense it ain't, and I'm sure you guys know that. The thing I would like to see more of in RP wars is battles. Right now its just, "I push your forces back to city A." "Oh yeah? Well i counter offensive and send them back to B." I think it would be way more interesting to RP individual battles in individual cities, giving instances like Murmansk much more depth, reason, and detail. Edited January 3, 2009 by Cody Seb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) I'm not sure why my statement prompted such a response since I'm not even in this war, but here goes.You've got guys in fox holes, trenches and bunkers, and their packing. Now, I said if I were assaulting this city alone and not Nordland/Rebel Army, quick fix. ICBM's, pin-point airstrikes, mobile artillery, helicopters, and a ton more men. It really doesn't have any relevance anyway, you won't see me fighting up there, or anywhere in this war for that matter. I'm just saying, anyone attacking there will suffer a bit, but invincible defense it ain't, and I'm sure you guys know that. The thing I would like to see more of in RP wars is battles. Right now its just, "I push your forces back to city A." "Oh yeah? Well i counter offensive and send them back to be." I think it would be way more interesting to RP individual battles in individual cities, giving instances like Murmansk much more depth, reason, and detail. I agree with you, but there is a just a problem. For example, you claim that you killed two enemy soldiers with a sniper rifle. Then, your enemy goes, "No way! All of my troops know not to move into uncleared area, etc, etc!". And then things derail... Edited January 3, 2009 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 All I mean is realistically, people are forced to pour 10x as many soldiers as they need to to one point, just because of how CNRP works. Realistically, you don't need 100,000 men in one city just to fortify it, but that is what people are forced to do here. If the wars were just *slightly* more battle oriented, the casualty figures and movements would be way more accurate. Take D-Day, and this is world war II mind you, when way bigger numbers were required, the biggest invasion of the war was 130,000 allied troops. It was also very bloody, killing 2500 and injuring another 7500. Now, in the two months leading up to D-Day, the allies lost 12,000, people here blow through that in a single battle. This isn't the Middle Ages or Lord Of The Rings where these huge battles of hundreds of thousands take place. modern warfare is quality over quantity, and requires a much smaller number of troops, simply because the supplementing vehicles and technology are so great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 My war requires quantity over quality. Why? It's funner. Stop telling me how to waste manpower and resources, I want to do it my way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 That was just to the people who are looking for the more modern style and realistic approach. I'm just saying I would be interested in semi-fihting that way if I get into that war, if anyone else would do that with me. You go ahead and slaughter hundreds of thousands, that's your perrogative. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 That was just to the people who are looking for the more modern style and realistic approach. I'm just saying I would be interested in semi-fihting that way if I get into that war, if anyone else would do that with me.You go ahead and slaughter hundreds of thousands, that's your perrogative. :lol: I believe it's pretty obvious that it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Actually huge multi-thousand losses occur in numerous modern battles. Just that most of us get news reports in countries doing the killing. Lets take some american wars. Vietnam. Huge use of guided and conventional bombs. First real loss. Korea being a stalemate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties Military wise Vietnam was a "victory" for the U.S., but it was a political loss. Or maybe another major U.S. war. The current war in Iraq, because of its significantly larger military presence than Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war_casualties Notice again the many hundreds of thousands of casualities on the Iraqi side. Edited January 3, 2009 by Tahsir Re Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Or maybe another major U.S. war. The current war in Iraq, because of its significantly larger military presence than Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war_casualtiesNotice again the many hundreds of thousands of casualities on the Iraqi side. That would potentially be possible if say a nation like the UFE attacked a nation like Rebel Virginia. However, what we have here is not that big of a gap. Like Sumeragi said, the US hasn't fought a technological equal since world war II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 That would potentially be possible if say a nation like the UFE attacked a nation like Rebel Virginia. However, what we have here is not that big of a gap. Like Sumeragi said, the US hasn't fought a technological equal since world war II. America: Beating up smooshy backwards nations since July 1950 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 America: Beating up smooshy backwards nations since July 1950 You mean June 1950. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I never commented on technology, although Iraq wasn't to far behind with their own military. As for Vietnam, that was equal tech. They even shot down B-52s when they bombed Hanoi... and the MiGs... and the AKs... etc etc Anyway, my main point was that high casualty rates didn't vanish because of "modern warfare". They just got hidden better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) You mean June 1950. US didn't intervene until July 5th Edited January 3, 2009 by Il Terra Di Agea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applesauce59 Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Ok I have a question/issue about Kaiser Martens stats. In the Stat Database thread it says Kaiser is excused from the IG state rule since he is a long time player and got rolled and I am fine with that. Yet when you look at the database (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=psWb10reFHzE5656kdq-TIQ) and go to his stats all its says is ?. ? can be pretty much anything and is not a number. So I thought well maybe it’s just not included so I searched through all the posts in the thread and I still couldn’t find it. Final I ran through some of his posts and topic to see if it was there and still once again I couldn’t find it. Now I am not fighting his right to have his old stats. I mean Mercy Fallout has the same situation and has agreed to set stone stats. I mean without actual numbers it’s really unfair to everyone else. I mean it’s hard to fight something if you don’t know what it looks like. I also feel like there should be some sort of proof of his old stats so he can't just make up a higher number. Basically I like to see this issue resolved and a documented set of stats appear for Kaiser Martens to allow for fairer game play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) I personally say Martens should be 2800 tech (the stat that LVN had mentioned in IRC) and 2000 infra (the infra before he got out of peace mode). Of course, he should retain most of his pre-destruction RP weapons. Edited January 3, 2009 by Sumeragi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Is that Poland's stats, or a bit added to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applesauce59 Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I personally say Martens should be 2800 tech (the stat that LVN had mentioned in IRC) and 2000 infra (the infra before he got out of peace mode).Of course, he should retain most of his pre-destruction RP weapons. Is this tech-sharing with his partner in his nation or his own tech? 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.