CNRP OOC Thread

[Sargun II]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293665956' post='2557690']
What if I RPed the one-shot equipments only using cheap shells made of made of aluminum, plastic, and rubber? The only way they could kill someone is if a person got directly hit by one of the decoy shells.
[/quote]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1293665404' post='2557686']
[b]That would be nice.[/b] Again, I'm thinking of possible ways of abuse rather than typical applications. If everything were used as intended we wouldn't need rules.
[/quote]

[Centurius]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293665956' post='2557690']
What if I RPed the one-shot equipments only using cheap shells made of made of aluminum, plastic, and rubber? The only way they could kill someone is if a person got directly hit by one of the decoy shells.
[/quote]

You could still abuse it by making a few million of them.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1293641711' post='2557386']
I have to take issue with [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90697&view=findpost&p=2446088"]this post[/url] from Kankou's defense thread (yes, I know this is way after the fact. I'm at work and I'm bored, sue me).[/quote]

I'm fine with it. However....


[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1293641711' post='2557386']
50,000 artillery units? Sorry, but no. Artillery units, APCs, IFVs, etc. are to be lesser than or equal to total number of tanks. And sorry, no one has 50,000 tanks. Not even Lynneth.
[/quote]

I sort of find the rule strange. I can understand putting self-propelled artillery under the IG tank number, but why the hell are we including [b][i]towed[/i][b] ones? They're a real hassle to move around, making them very limited in range, never mind the fact that the majority are used as more of "static" defense (which are not limited by any numbers.)

So, a proposal I have in mind:


Tank: IG Tank Number
Self-propelled artillery units, APCs, IFVs: IG Tank Number (Maybe x2, given how we;re including three different types of weapons)
Towed artillery units: No limit (Assuming they aren't being moved hundreds of kilometers in wartime, which basically makes them "self-propelled")


Just for comparison for Tanks and Self-propelled artillery units, APCs, IFVs, using US and UK numbers:

[u]US Army[/u]

Tanks: 9,100
Self-propelled artillery: 950
APCs: 13,700
IFVs: 9,350


[u]Royal Army[/u]

Tanks: 710
Self-propelled artillery: 134
APCs (includes converts): 2,700
IFVs: 7970


Thoughts?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293685781' post='2557926']
I sort of find the rule strange. I can understand putting self-propelled artillery under the IG tank number, but why the hell are we including [b][i]towed[/i][b] ones? They're a real hassle to move around, making them very limited in range, never mind the fact that the majority are used as more of "static" defense (which are not limited by any numbers.)

So, a proposal I have in mind:


Tank: IG Tank Number
Self-propelled artillery units, APCs, IFVs: IG Tank Number (Maybe x2, given how we;re including three different types of weapons)
Towed artillery units: No limit (Assuming they aren't being moved hundreds of kilometers in wartime, which basically makes them "self-propelled")


Just for comparison for Tanks and Self-propelled artillery units, APCs, IFVs, using US and UK numbers:

[u]US Army[/u]

Tanks: 9,100
Self-propelled artillery: 950
APCs: 13,700
IFVs: 9,350


[u]Royal Army[/u]

Tanks: 710
Self-propelled artillery: 134
APCs (includes converts): 2,700
IFVs: 7970


Thoughts?
[/quote]

^ I agree with this. Place limits on Self propelled guns but let the towed guns be in the realm of uncontrolled "common sense". Their benefit is principally as static defense and as Kankou argues, there is no limit in that, is there?

Edited December 30, 2010 by king of cochin

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293659616' post='2557615']
Do disposable one-shot artillery guns, howitzers, and mortars fall under the "equal to or less IG MBTs"?
[/quote]


[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1293660548' post='2557626']
Considering they're still used to kill stuff, yes.
[/quote]


[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1293662303' post='2557641']
Unfortunately, yes. Gotta close the loopholes so one ass hole doesn't ruin it for everyone.

edit: apparently !@#$%^& is filtered and ass hole is not, but ass hole is considered proper english on firefox. what O_o
[/quote]

Armored fighting vehicles that include self-propelled artillery, IFVs, APCs, etc etc yes they should have a restriction on them.

But howitzers and mortars? Mortars in particular? Anything used to kill stuff?

We don't have limits on guns, mortars are used in the same capacity. That is a ridiculous inclusion. Next you'll be telling me we're placing limits on stationary machine guns.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Executive Minister

[Kankou]

I understand Sargun's point. Perhaps we can go with this.....


Tanks: IG Tank Numbers
Self-propelled armored units (excluding regular jeeps): IG Tank Numbers x 2
Towed artillery: IG Tank Numbers x 2 for movable ones, unlimited for "static" defense.

I think the above would reflect the deployments of most of the world's military. Aside from the US and Royal Army (which do not carry around much artillery since they mostly use air power), artillery does make up a substantial portion of a army.

And of course, if you happen to be DPRK.... artillery is the most powerful part of your army. Seriously, tens of thousands of "static" artillery units are used as coastal defences, but they can't be moved outside their coverings.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Kankou

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1293686287' post='2557947']
Armored fighting vehicles that include self-propelled artillery, IFVs, APCs, etc etc yes they should have a restriction on them.

But howitzers and mortars? Mortars in particular? Anything used to kill stuff?

We don't have limits on guns, mortars are used in the same capacity. That is a ridiculous inclusion. Next you'll be telling me we're placing limits on stationary machine guns.
[/quote]

Was that what he meant? I actually misread that[b] completely[/b]. That's a [b]complete[/b] my bad, although you're still a meanie pie.

[SpacingOutMan]

So... are towed weapons no longer limited by IG tank counts?

[Kankou]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1293687920' post='2557993']
So... are towed weapons no longer limited by IG tank counts?
[/quote]
That's the proposal so far. We'll have to see about a ruling.

[king of cochin]

I hope not. My static defense doctrine is based on Border Guard brigades which are essentially heavy artillery battalions. I depend on aptly positioned layers of static artillery as one of my defenses. I am NOT going to strip all that RP away.

[Sargun II]

That argument won't work. "I already have rods from god, I am NOT going to get of them" has historically failed

[king of cochin]

And that is precisely why there is more than one GM.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293692826' post='2558071']
And that is precisely why there is more than one GM.
[/quote]

"I'm Cochin and I misunderstood what Sargun said"

The [b]only[/b] thing I said was that your specific argument, that you had previously RP'd something and thus it should stay that way, is not legitimate. If that was an argument then we need to get rid of submarine multipliers, because we RP'd with normal submarine numbers before. Get rid of the tech scale - hell, get rid of the limits on tech trading! Rods from god are back, and you can go back to things that are physically impossible like Gundams and mecha robots and all that. Go ahead, the rules don't matter because you don't feel like changing!

There's a reason you're not a GM - basic competence in English is needed.

(yes, I know what I just did)

Edited December 30, 2010 by Sargun

[king of cochin]

In a conversation everyone has the right to express their opinion and I expressed it my own way. Perhaps you may not have the literary dexterity to understand it. My condolences.

Edited December 30, 2010 by king of cochin

[Michael McBride]

Sorry, but I'm against even allowing towed artillery to be more that your IG tank numbers. If you want to make the ruling "towed artillery = IG tank number, self-propelled killers on wheels/treads/halftracks (non-tanks) = IG tank number", then fine, I see that as a fair compromise. But 50,000, to me, is completely absurd.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1293695857' post='2558122']
Sorry, but I'm against even allowing towed artillery to be more that your IG tank numbers. If you want to make the ruling "towed artillery = IG tank number, self-propelled killers on wheels/treads/halftracks (non-tanks) = IG tank number", then fine, I see that as a fair compromise. But 50,000, to me, is completely absurd.
[/quote]
Especially for a nation as small as Korea.

[SpacingOutMan]

[url="http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=South-Korea"]South Korea as of 2004 had 4,000 towed artillery pieces[/url]
South Korea also had the following:
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 185 [2004]
Mortars: 6,000 [2004]
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 58 [2004]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 1,692 [2004]
[url="http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea"]North Korea as of 2006 had 3,500 towed artillery pieces.[/url]
North Korea also had the following:
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 2,500 [2006]
Mortars: 7,500 [2006]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 11,000 [2006]
[url="Towed Artillery: 5,178 [2001]"]U.S as of 2001 had 5,178 towed artillery pieces.[/url]
The U.S didn't have any additional information; all it says is that it has a total (Total Land-Based Weapons: 29,920) and the towed artillery piece count provided.

Just throwing this out there, though: these counts don't include battery emplacements as towed artillery are specifically categorized as field/mobile artillery. Towed artillery include:

* infantry support guns: directly support infantry units.
* mountain guns: lightweight weapons that can be moved through difficult terrain.
* field guns; capable of long range fire.
* howitzers: capable of high angle fire, they are most often employed for indirect-fire.
* gun howitzers: capable of high or low angle fire with a long barrel.
* mortars: typically short-barreled, high-trajectory weapons designed primarily for an indirect-fire role.
* anti-tank artillery : weapons, usually mobile, designed for attacking tanks.
* anti-aircraft artillery: weapons, usually mobile, designed for attacking aircraft from the ground. Some guns were suitable for dual-role anti-aircraft and field (anti-tank) use. The World War II German 88 mm gun was a famous example.
* rocket artillery : rocket-launched instead of shot or shell.

So towed artillery [b]does not[/b], by classification, include the following:
[b]
# Motorized artillery: towed by Artillery tractors or APU-installed.[/b] (I don't know why this is a separate classification, but I would [i]assume[/i] this would be thrown in with towed artillery)
[b]# Self-propelled artillery: typically guns, mortars or gun howitzers mounted on a vehicle.[/b] (I believe we all agree these should be limited to the IG tank amount)
[s]# Railway gun: large-caliber weapons that are mounted on, transported by and fired from specially-designed railway wagons.[/s] (Unless you [i]really[/i] want railway guns, I believe those would count under self-propelled)
# Naval artillery: guns mounted on warships and used either against other ships or in support of ground forces. The crowning achievement of naval artillery was the battleship, but the advent of airpower and missiles have rendered this type of artillery largely obsolete. The correct term for an individual piece of naval artillery is a 'naval rifle'[citation needed]. They are typically longer-barreled, low-trajectory, high-velocity weapons designed primarily for a direct-fire role.
# Coastal artillery: Fixed-position weapons dedicated to defense of a particular location, usually a coast (e.g. the Atlantic Wall in WW II) or harbor. Not needing to be mobile, coastal artillery used to be much larger than equivalent field artillery pieces, giving them longer range and more destructive power.[b] Modern coastal artillery (e.g., Russia's "Bereg" system) is often self propelled, (allowing it to avoid counter-battery fire) and fully integrated, meaning that each battery has all of the support systems that it requires (maintenance, targeting radar, etc.) organic to its unit.[/b] (That last part would probably fall under self-propelled as well)

So in summation: should the IG tank amount act as the cap for mortars, towed artillery, and the sorts, I'd be limited to roughly 10,000 (10,003 to be precise). North Korea not only exceeds the self-propelled cap I have (more than 21,000 self propelled vehicles), it also would exceed the towed artillery cap I have as well with it hitting approximately 11,000. Even South Korea systematically reaches 10,000 between mortars and towed artillery.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1293727995' post='2558337']
[url="http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=South-Korea"]South Korea as of 2004 had 4,000 towed artillery pieces[/url]
South Korea also had the following:
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 185 [2004]
Mortars: 6,000 [2004]
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 58 [2004]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 1,692 [2004]
[url="http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea"]North Korea as of 2006 had 3,500 towed artillery pieces.[/url]
North Korea also had the following:
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 2,500 [2006]
Mortars: 7,500 [2006]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 11,000 [2006]
[url="Towed Artillery: 5,178 [2001]"]U.S as of 2001 had 5,178 towed artillery pieces.[/url]
The U.S didn't have any additional information; all it says is that it has a total (Total Land-Based Weapons: 29,920) and the towed artillery piece count provided.

Just throwing this out there, though: these counts don't include battery emplacements as towed artillery are specifically categorized as field/mobile artillery. Towed artillery include:

* infantry support guns: directly support infantry units.
* mountain guns: lightweight weapons that can be moved through difficult terrain.
* field guns; capable of long range fire.
* howitzers: capable of high angle fire, they are most often employed for indirect-fire.
* gun howitzers: capable of high or low angle fire with a long barrel.
* mortars: typically short-barreled, high-trajectory weapons designed primarily for an indirect-fire role.
* anti-tank artillery : weapons, usually mobile, designed for attacking tanks.
* anti-aircraft artillery: weapons, usually mobile, designed for attacking aircraft from the ground. Some guns were suitable for dual-role anti-aircraft and field (anti-tank) use. The World War II German 88 mm gun was a famous example.
* rocket artillery : rocket-launched instead of shot or shell.

So towed artillery [b]does not[/b], by classification, include the following:
[b]
# Motorized artillery: towed by Artillery tractors or APU-installed.[/b] (I don't know why this is a separate classification, but I would [i]assume[/i] this would be thrown in with towed artillery)
[b]# Self-propelled artillery: typically guns, mortars or gun howitzers mounted on a vehicle.[/b] (I believe we all agree these should be limited to the IG tank amount)
[s]# Railway gun: large-caliber weapons that are mounted on, transported by and fired from specially-designed railway wagons.[/s] (Unless you [i]really[/i] want railway guns, I believe those would count under self-propelled)
# Naval artillery: guns mounted on warships and used either against other ships or in support of ground forces. The crowning achievement of naval artillery was the battleship, but the advent of airpower and missiles have rendered this type of artillery largely obsolete. The correct term for an individual piece of naval artillery is a 'naval rifle'[citation needed]. They are typically longer-barreled, low-trajectory, high-velocity weapons designed primarily for a direct-fire role.
# Coastal artillery: Fixed-position weapons dedicated to defense of a particular location, usually a coast (e.g. the Atlantic Wall in WW II) or harbor. Not needing to be mobile, coastal artillery used to be much larger than equivalent field artillery pieces, giving them longer range and more destructive power.[b] Modern coastal artillery (e.g., Russia's "Bereg" system) is often self propelled, (allowing it to avoid counter-battery fire) and fully integrated, meaning that each battery has all of the support systems that it requires (maintenance, targeting radar, etc.) organic to its unit.[/b] (That last part would probably fall under self-propelled as well)

So in summation: should the IG tank amount act as the cap for mortars, towed artillery, and the sorts, I'd be limited to roughly 10,000 (10,003 to be precise). North Korea not only exceeds the self-propelled cap I have (more than 21,000 self propelled vehicles), it also would exceed the towed artillery cap I have as well with it hitting approximately 11,000. Even South Korea systematically reaches 10,000 between mortars and towed artillery.
[/quote]

Sargun has already stated that he misspoke when he included mortars. Those aren't included in the number.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1293729186' post='2558351']
Sargun has already stated that he misspoke when he included mortars. Those aren't included in the number.
[/quote]

Oh derp. My apologies Sargun; didn't realize that was what you are apologizing about before for misspeaking.

But yea, he numbers I provided above are from both the CIA and the U.S Library of Congress.

[Zoot Zoot]

For once I find myself agreeing with kankou and her suggestion.

[Padraig Rua]

If I am to create a proper army/air force how would I go about doing it? By this I mainly refer to marking troops into divisions and battalions and giving them names?

Edited December 30, 2010 by Chancellor Patrick

[Markus Wilding]

For some it's as simple as marking in your factbook or news thread how many soldiers and equipment (tanks, airplanes, ships, etc.) you have. For others, it's as detailed as lining out the names of said units, order-of-battle, where each unit is stationed and what specialties the units have.

[Padraig Rua]

That did not help

[Markus Wilding]

It does actually. You can now decide which path you want to take in outlining your military - short and easy or super-long and detailed.

[Padraig Rua]

What do I win if I pick the right answer?