Jump to content

The GMs Court


hawk11

Recommended Posts

It would make no difference Triyun. Your MDAP could still do 16 spy rolls a day.. they're just not united. More semantics.

If you want to do what you're saying.. we should ban all player co-operation in any form.

Mergers are not one person power gaming. Mergers are a group of people co-operating under one banner to one end. You can do that outside a merger as well, we just enjoy doing it as one nation.

If each nation uses its own intelligence odds, it's just like each player had rolled their own dice to the same effect.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As seen with france/germany the way merger'd spy rolls work is you take the merger member with the highest rolls. Just like you don't add tech, you just take the highest member's tech. You also only get 2 spy rolls, you are a single nation, not a bloc. If you want to be one giant nation, then accept the consequences that accompany it. If you want to be a bunch of smaller nations with 16 spy rolls, you can of course do that as well.

EDIT: I would also add that if you could do 16 spy attacks, you could also be hit a total of 16 times by your enemies.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lynneth: unfortunately for Mudd, he didn't specify anything. [b]Anything[/b]. He didn't say whether the beaches were near populated areas or non-populated areas, whether the [b]hundreds[/b] of men were going to split up into vast distances or stay in groups nearby but split off, whether or not he would be going in forest-laden beaches or anything. He never did any of this until after the fact, which is metagaming at it's most CLASSIC definition.

Further, had he even specified these things, we're talking a large-scale operation going on the coast of California done by an extremely hostile nation during extremely high tensions. To even think we wouldn't be monitoring the borders is absurd. A small team of men might easily be able to do it, but we're talking many, many teams of men numbering in the hundreds.

edit: I, for one, support having only 2 spy rolls

Edited by Sargun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the way I see mergers compared to blocs:

Mergers provide the possibility for very good roleplay and situations, but you give up some benefits of being allies rather than joining nations (NS stacking, spy rolls, etc.).

Blocs are for political and military power, plain and simple.

I've always seen mergers as a conduit for RP, ergo why I was so peeved with the lack of RP on Ryan's entry to the US. Mergers aren't getting a benefit statistically, and so I saw RP as the reason behind them and if someone doesn't want to RP in depth, then what is the point?

My point is, if you are RPing a merger for RP, do it for the RP. If you are trying to RP a merger as a political or military powerplay, make a bloc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lynneth' date='21 July 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1279750472' post='2383378']
Regarding the issue with Mudd's men being found by Mael and whatnot...
Mudd sent me a few maps of beaches.




Click the links.
Forests. Forests EVERYWHERE.
No way anyone's gonna find anything there.
[/quote]

Hold on pedro..

First I'm calling shens big time. Mudd launched a spy op from a huge fleet that "wandered" its way into the area of California. A fleet that has a whacking big Carrier in the middle of it if I'm not mistaken. He then won a spy op and launched some flimsy half arsed probe with "hundreds" of spec for operators against unnamed targets.

That is what the point of the vote was about. The vote being people would win spy roles and use them as specific parts of role play.

Lynneth, allowing this is ignoring the will of the community. Allowing this allows a poorly planned and executed recon mission to go forward simply because someone won a spy roll. Mudd may have won the spy roll but he has clearly lost the rp. Sargun's people have been threatened repeatedly by North Tahoe, they ought to be expecting trouble.

Police out in force, the military patrolling, and with a coast like California, expecting something from the sea. The poorly worded recon screams that it deserves to be tripped up and someone caught. Mudd can still have a successful recon mission even if a few of his men are caught. Maybe not successful for the guys busted, but there you go.

As for the spyroll thing for Mael's DE part 2 thing.. If the individual states request a spy roll that is fine with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mergers give you the highest nations tech. So you can have a bunch of very small nations (like in the US) get a sudden boost from a single big nation. This is what the US has. Even more problematic is that CN RP is based on your potential to build rather than actually building. So those small nations instantly add 50 WMD and 600 state of the art warplanes. In other words a super merger DOES act as a power gaming tactic, this is especially true when your gifting land for more players to join your merger instantaneously. If I am in a MADP bloc with 4 small nations, they don't get my tech for their units. So this isn't semantics, or functionally the same. Its very much functionally different.

On top of that in mergers you can have inactive people who just exist as a fire support nation. One highly active player can do all the diplomacy, internal developments etc. Its all kind of ridiculous. Super mergers function as defacto alliances that are smaller versions of the alliance system in cyber nations. While RP blocs share some aspects, they don't share all of them, and I would argue that the ones they don't cover are the really troublesome parts of the Super Merger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each state plays their own role. Maelstrom specifically asked how he wanted my military forces spread out: as a federal army to be used in offensive actions or as a "national guard" to be used for defense. I assume that this applies for other things as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that is a problem in my opinion. I understand what your folks are trying to accomplish, but in my opinion your forces need to be under your own control at all times. You guys should be able to contribute to a Federal Army, providing you control those forces in that Federal Army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as you are controlling your forces in a Federal Army.. say.. acting as regimental, division, or corp level commanders for your state units in federal service I see no problems with it. But that means every movement your state unit in federal service makes is made by you and you alone. Same for fleets, I've seen Mael rping Gunther's ships already, not on in my opinion. Same goes for planes, CMs, Nukes, and spy roles.

Diplomacy.. can't say I care.

As for tech sharing.. hmm.. No.. not sure I like it. Needs to be some role play in place showing technology moving back and forth and the manpower to support the difference in education. Even then the difference in stats means high end items work differently for different states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' date='21 July 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1279758655' post='2383634']
So long as you are controlling your forces in a Federal Army.. say.. acting as regimental, division, or corp level commanders for your state units in federal service I see no problems with it. But that means every movement your state unit in federal service makes is made by you and you alone. Same for fleets, I've seen Mael rping Gunther's ships already, not on in my opinion. Same goes for planes, CMs, Nukes, and spy roles.

Diplomacy.. can't say I care.

As for tech sharing.. hmm.. No.. not sure I like it. Needs to be some role play in place showing technology moving back and forth and the manpower to support the difference in education. Even then the difference in stats means high end items work differently for different states.
[/quote]

For Granite's fleet Mael said that he was just rping them moving to Granite's state I think. The actual control of the fleet belongs to Granite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as realism goes, think about a state like Alaska. The technology they use day to day is generally inferior to that in the continental U.S.

I live in Missouri. Things are vastly different over in California and New York. It would make realistic sense for blanket tech to be abolished. I was under the impression that tech sharing was limited to 2 slots per nation and higher tech military hardware means you have less numbers if you are receiving a tech upgrade. Just as well, I was also under the impression that your tech efficiency does not automatically bump up to the providers, but goes to somewhere in the middle.

I like realism, but for RP I like game balance. Here I believe it would be realistic to implement a balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='22 July 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1279759407' post='2383662']
I just realized it doesn't matter anymore, as per a previous GM ruling anybody can control anybody's military with permission. It's even more natural for a merger to do it in regards to a federal army.
[/quote]

Where is that ruling? I seem to recall a mod said in a merger everyone rp's for himself and it has been a long time policy in cnrp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how I'm doing the U.S. merger and how I think everyone should do them as it is the most fair and is just on par with a highly organized MDAP as well as being a good representation of how the United States is organized.

1. All players control their own millitary, cia, and internal affairs actions.
2. All players are subject to the instruction of the head of the Merger, in this case, the President of the United States as per how it is organized, but must execute those instructions.
3. All players use their own stats, including tech.

That said, the quality of forces from different regions are going to differ based on capability. The Southwest and New Jersey are notably strong. A very strange mixed air force of varying quality results. I do not think this is unrealistic as old weapons are still in use today in different parts of the country for different reasons. So instead of 5000 super high teach aircraft you might get a couple of thousand supported by a swarm of less up to date aircraft.. still very dangerous, but not as.

4. Nuclear weapons are under control of the President, but turn-key launches must actually be performed by members of the Union who own the nukes directly.

I think this setup is ideal, any objections? It is notable mergers will vary by type and consistency, but generally speaking I feel these rules are good guidelines. This is basically what we're doing Vince.. what you said.. all playing for themselves, but acting in tandem organization.

This organization most accurately reflects the IG NS of the constituting nations.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Centurius' date='22 July 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1279760207' post='2383680']
Where is that ruling? I seem to recall a mod said in a merger everyone rp's for himself and it has been a long time policy in cnrp.
[/quote]

I'm not sure what ruling you are talking about sargun, or if this is some kind of implication you have drawn from some other ruling, but the mod rule was that everyone had to RP their own military as well as their own military deployments.

Also, mael the Rpers in your flock do not sound very sovereign...

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...