mykep Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Mergers according to LVN. That is all I'll settle for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Its very funny that the idea i suggested weeks ago, that mergers are only as strong as the strongest nation, is now growing in popularity as others ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I do not want mergers. However some of you near sighted people do. I have one glorious Rule.The sum total stats of a merger is equal to that of the strongest nation. IE: A merger is only as strong as its strongest nation. OR, your minions don't help. I merge with Shan. We RP as if it were just my IG stats. Those that want to merge can, and we will soon see who the powergamers are, and those with legit merger ideas. Should also add up ig Soldier counts I could agree with tech but otherwise you give Mergers a very big disadvantage should they get in a war and would promote unofficial mergers as the Dragon Bloc who are not influenced by these rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Should also add up ig Soldier counts I could agree with tech but otherwise you give Mergers a very big disadvantage should they get in a war and would promote unofficial mergers as the Dragon Bloc who are not influenced by these rules. No, the # of soldiers in a merged nation is the # of soldiers of the Ig largest nation. Thats all! See, Merged nations are for fluff only. And non offical mergers are still just blocs, so they are still just nations. Edited May 21, 2009 by LeVentNoir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 That's punishing mergers while keeping blocs the same. You guys can keep saying whatever you want, I'll continue going down the "I'm going to be sane and logical about this and not punish myself for doing something new" path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 That's punishing mergers while keeping blocs the same.You guys can keep saying whatever you want, I'll continue going down the "I'm going to be sane and logical about this and not punish myself for doing something new" path. Same I will recognize combined statistics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 That is why you use the average stats; it makes mergers more unique than blocs (which can do the same thing as a merger in reality), makes all of the member states have the same technology/stats (like the USA), and does not make the whole any worse when war comes around. There has to be some gain from merging; otherwise we'll just see blocs. Besides, if mergers get removed (or changed into what your suggesting) then all those currently merged will just go "oh well" and bloc together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I'm just concerned that the tech swapping aspects of these mergers aren't being role played properly. You have people going from 1970 all the way to 2000 in a hot second and how well does this work out? The actual tech swapping needs to be roleplayed out along with the training, the upkeeping of the equipment, and the acquisition of expendables to keep these new golly gee whiz gizmos running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I'll wait for the USA before I judge. Nordland is running fine so far (except triyun), so I see hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 That is why you use the average stats; it makes mergers more unique than blocs (which can do the same thing as a merger in reality), makes all of the member states have the same technology/stats (like the USA), and does not make the whole any worse when war comes around. I'd agree with this, but every war we'd have to constantly look at what the tech is, and see where they all stand. I dont think everyone is going to trouble themselves with these advantages fluctuating. I also know that "pre-war" stats will be mixed with present stats to get the best result. There has to be some gain from merging; otherwise we'll just see blocs. Besides, if mergers get removed (or changed into what your suggesting) then all those currently merged will just go "oh well" and bloc together. You look pretty on a map. And I dont mind blocs. The whole reason I hate mergers is because you are RPing someone else's stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I'd agree with this, but every war we'd have to constantly look at what the tech is, and see where they all stand. I dont think everyone is going to trouble themselves with these advantages fluctuating. I also know that "pre-war" stats will be mixed with present stats to get the best result. You look pretty on a map. And I dont mind blocs. The whole reason I hate mergers is because you are RPing someone else's stats. The current system prevents that. Independent nations in the merger have to post their own moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 That's punishing mergers while keeping blocs the same.You guys can keep saying whatever you want, I'll continue going down the "I'm going to be sane and logical about this and not punish myself for doing something new" path. Mergers shouldnt be punished? Look at the last time. They didnt turn out so well with combined stats. By all means, be logical about it, but you KNOW noone not many are logical about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 There has to be some gain from merging; otherwise we'll just see blocs. Besides, if mergers get removed (or changed into what your suggesting) then all those currently merged will just go "oh well" and bloc together. Actually, there doesn't! That way, only hardcore RP'ers doing for the RP and story will merge, and I truely doubt any bad mergers will occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Actually, there doesn't! That way, only hardcore RP'ers doing for the RP and story will merge, and I truely doubt any bad mergers will occur. On this point, I actually agree with LVN. if the only reason to merge is for the RP and the story...they won't be abused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 That is why you use the average stats; it makes mergers more unique than blocs (which can do the same thing as a merger in reality), makes all of the member states have the same technology/stats (like the USA), and does not make the whole any worse when war comes around.There has to be some gain from merging; otherwise we'll just see blocs. Besides, if mergers get removed (or changed into what your suggesting) then all those currently merged will just go "oh well" and bloc together. you mean like they already were doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Here's another idea for mergers' stats: It's the strongest nations' stats + 10% of any other nation's stats involved in the merger (except technology); Technology is the average amongst members of the merger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Actually, there doesn't! That way, only hardcore RP'ers doing for the RP and story will merge, and I truely doubt any bad mergers will occur. this.. god.. this.. this.. this.. this.. this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Here's another idea for mergers' stats: It's the strongest nations' stats + 10% of any other nation's stats involved in the merger (except technology);Technology is the average amongst members of the merger. Tis is good idea. /supports Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Tis is good idea./supports Yay, I'm not the only one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Just like to say whilst I agree with mergers I disagree with everyone getting to share stats. My opinion is that people can merge as they say if they follow the same ideals or cultures but you use your own stats for your own nation. Its a bit like the EU everyones a part of it, they all work towards improving but they all function according to their own stats. This way mergers are more about the RP of nations than the stats of nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Just like to say whilst I agree with mergers I disagree with everyone getting to share stats. My opinion is that people can merge as they say if they follow the same ideals or cultures but you use your own stats for your own nation. Its a bit like the EU everyones a part of it, they all work towards improving but they all function according to their own stats. This way mergers are more about the RP of nations than the stats of nations. You just defined a bloc dude; a bunch of countries. There are already blocs. People want a merger because they want to be the same country (...in different roles), but because CNRP is based off stats then the stats "should" carry on; if it doesn't, some people would be happy, others would not be (as a Bloc can possibly do everything a non-stacking merger can do, but allow each individual/nation their own stats). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 All I have to say right now is quit spewing ideas for limiting the stats of mergers. It makes absolutely no sense for a merged nation to have anything but stacked infrastructure, citizens, military personnel, etc. How would it make sense for two nations to merge together, and then suddenly 40% of their infrastructure disappears? It makes no sense at all. The only exceptions are the obvious limits on technology and sharing and whatnot. Technology levels should not be the average of the nations int he merger, how could a nation with 2010 tech merge with a nation of 1980 tech and suddenly have 1995 tech? Nah, they should be just how they are now, same as a tech sharing deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 You just defined a bloc dude; a bunch of countries. There are already blocs. People want a merger because they want to be the same country (...in different roles), but because CNRP is based off stats then the stats "should" carry on; if it doesn't, some people would be happy, others would not be (as a Bloc can possibly do everything a non-stacking merger can do, but allow each individual/nation their own stats). Well if the nations did merge then I still disagree with shared stats, at least from the beginning. Say you had a thrid world nation and a first world and they both merged it would take many years or at least quite a few months before the third world nation would come anywhere near to being along the lines of the first world nation. So unless the merging nations are all close enough to equal stats then all the nations should use their own stats and RP the development of the lesser nations in the merger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 All I have to say right now is quit spewing ideas for limiting the stats of mergers. It makes absolutely no sense for a merged nation to have anything but stacked infrastructure, citizens, military personnel, etc. How would it make sense for two nations to merge together, and then suddenly 40% of their infrastructure disappears? It makes no sense at all. The only exceptions are the obvious limits on technology and sharing and whatnot. Technology levels should not be the average of the nations int he merger, how could a nation with 2010 tech merge with a nation of 1980 tech and suddenly have 1995 tech? Nah, they should be just how they are now, same as a tech sharing deal. See my above statement for why there should be limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Well if the nations did merge then I still disagree with shared stats, at least from the beginning. Say you had a thrid world nation and a first world and they both merged it would take many years or at least quite a few months before the third world nation would come anywhere near to being along the lines of the first world nation. So unless the merging nations are all close enough to equal stats then all the nations should use their own stats and RP the development of the lesser nations in the merger. Well....obviously. Things don't just happen overnight. 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.