The GMs Court

[Uberstein]

Who is we? And he wouldn't know the concrete numbers in the first place. You're trying to give KP information he didn't have in order to revise his attack, which is not the actual issue. Yawoo will give information once KPs attack is revised. What's the issue?

I'm not trying to give KP concrete numbers, i'm trying to make sure Louisana can't change his numbers later to his advantage.

So PM'd numbers to a GM is a brilliant idea.

[Yawoo]

I'm not trying to give KP concrete numbers, i'm trying to make sure Louisana can't change his numbers later to his advantage.

So PM'd numbers to a GM is a brilliant idea.

I'm rather sick of you trying to smear me Uberstein. First, you go around telling people that I am planning on nuking KP, now you are acting like I'm going to change all my numbers just to gain a tiny bit of an advantage in a fight. Have I done so in my naval battle with Merger? No. Will I do so in my land or air battles with other people? No. So quick acting like I'm some kind of toddler who changes the rules of the game to make sure he wins.

KP can PM his own number to a GM, he does not need your assistance to do so, and I will ask the GM's right now not to accept any numbers from anyone but KP.

That being said, my numbers have been sent to Sarah.

Edit: Spelling mistake.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Yawoo

[Sarah Tintagyl]

I'm rather sick of you trying to smear me Uberstein. First, you go around telling people that I am planning on nuking KP, now you are acting like I'm going to change all my numbers just to gain a tiny bit of an advantage in a fight. Have I done so in my naval battle with Merger? No. Will I do so in my land or air battles with other people? No. So quick acting like I'm some kind of toddler who changes the rules of the game to make sure he wins.

KP can PM his own number to a GM, he does not need your assistance to do so, and I will ask the GM's right now not to accept any numbers from anyone but KP.

That being said, my numbers have been sent to Sarah.

Edit: Spelling mistake.

Woo for Yawoo <3...I got them

Edited January 18, 2010 by Sarah Tintagyl

[Uberstein]

I'm rather sick of you trying to smear me Uberstein. First, you go around telling people that I am planning on nuking KP, now you are acting like I'm going to change all my numbers just to gain a tiny bit of an advantage in a fight. Have I done so in my naval battle with Merger? No. Will I do so in my land or air battles with other people? No. So quick acting like I'm some kind of toddler who changes the rules of the game to make sure he wins.

1. I trust my friends and when they tell me things I tend to accept that they aren't lying, so when Niconov told me you were going to nuke KP, I believed him.

2. I've seen it happen before with other people, I take the same stance against everyone, declare concrete numbers early on so nothing gets left vague and dangerous, so it's nothing personal with you, I just always push for concrete numbers and locations, even with my allies.

KP can PM his own number to a GM, he does not need your assistance to do so, and I will ask the GM's right now not to accept any numbers from anyone but KP.

Where did I say I was going to assist him? I said I was going to tell him, as in a friendly reminder, in case he didn't check this thread.

That being said, my numbers have been sent to Sarah.

Good to hear.

[Yawoo]

1. I trust my friends and when they tell me things I tend to accept that they aren't lying, so when Niconov told me you were going to nuke KP, I believed him.

2. I've seen it happen before with other people, I take the same stance against everyone, declare concrete numbers early on so nothing gets left vague and dangerous, so it's nothing personal with you, I just always push for concrete numbers and locations, even with my allies.

1. Trusting friends is good, but check the facts over something that large in the future, before telling everyone and their mother.

2. I've no problem with you wanting concrete numbers, but I take offense when you start implying that I'm about to cheat.

Where did I say I was going to assist him? I said I was going to tell him, as in a friendly reminder, in case he didn't check this thread.

You're correct, I miss-read your post, I apologize.

[Uberstein]

1. Trusting friends is good, but check the facts over something that large in the future, before telling everyone and their mother.

2. I've no problem with you wanting concrete numbers, but I take offense when you start implying that I'm about to cheat.

1. I've stopped claiming you were going to nuke him, haven't I?

2. That wasn't my intention, sorry if it seemed like that.

[Kevin Kingswell]

OOC: CMs what you have In-Game is what you have RP-Wise. Therefore the numbers must be reduced to reflect this policy. Thanks.

Im not saying you are really doing anything wrong here Sarah but I defiantly remember the rule being that IG CM's counted for how many biological and chemical weapons you could use where as normal cruise missiles you could have as many as you wanted, within reason.

The reason for this was that 50 CM's is about the same amount that one single modern destroyer has which makes things unrealistic if that is all a nation possesses. However, how you decide what is within reason I do not know.

Also this is from the guidelines.

*Also, large Fuel air explosive bombs, chemical weapons, large EMP weapons, and biological weapons are capped at 50 and equal to the number of CMs you have in game.

No mention of a cap for normal CM's as I believed we allowed people to have more than fifty as long as they used common sense.

Of course if your changing that rule Sarah then my arguement/statement is void haha.

[Sargun II]

The rule is that CMs = CMs in-game. Also detracting from that number is fuel-air bombs, chems, EMP weapons, and bio weapons. At least, that was the original intention.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Sargun

[Justinian the Mighty]

The rule is that CMs = CMs in-game. Also detracting from that number is fuel-air bombs, chems, EMP weapons, and bio weapons. At least, that was the original intention.

Unless that is standalone rule for the current war, no, that isn't the rule. There's no limit on CMs in cnrp.

[king of cochin]

What I have understood from the rules so far is the 50 CM rule involves only chemical / biological / FABs. It seems nonsensical to place a restriction on cruise missiles with conventional high explosive warheads. As regards the cost, Anti Ship Missiles are pretty expensive too, but people seem to throw them around like sand in a sandstorm.

[Centurius]

Unless that is standalone rule for the current war, no, that isn't the rule. There's no limit on CMs in cnrp.

Until either one of the gm's posts otherwise that is the new rule we're bound to.

[Justinian the Mighty]

Until either one of the gm's posts otherwise that is the new rule we're bound to.

Actually no, because GM's don't make the rules. I've said this over and over again in the past. They're cnrp police, not the cnrp legislature.

[Centurius]

Actually no, because GM's don't make the rules. I've said this over and over again in the past. They're cnrp police, not the cnrp legislature.

Quote me the rule that says we can have as much Cruise Missiles as we want.

[Justinian the Mighty]

Quote me the rule that says we can have as much Cruise Missiles as we want.

There isn't a rule one way or the other, and there shouldn't be.

[Voodoo Nova]

Quote me the rule that says we can have as much Cruise Missiles as we want.

*Also, large Fuel air explosive bombs, chemical weapons, large EMP weapons, and biological weapons are capped at 50 and equal to the number of CMs you have in game.

That is stated in the World Map. So the guideline for actual cruise missiles does not exist, but the rest are capped at 50.

[king of cochin]

Quote me the rule that says we can have as much Cruise Missiles as we want.

Cent, Cruise missiles numbers should conform to logic. A rule saying a maximum of 50 CMs and needing them IG would be like saying we need to have our max tanks in game all the time. CMs IG should be had by those who want to RP the usage of FAB, Bio and Chem war heads on cruise missiles.

Let me ask you, if i want to launch 25 SRBMs mounted with high explosive warheads is there any rule that says I cant? sure they are ballistic missiles, but they have regular warheads, not NBC or FABs.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

I to have always thought that the rule had gone as in having navies, and air forces, that you could only command cruise missiles when in fact you had them In-Game as well. However, I also realize that to group the various kinds of ballistic warfare, aka, all the abbreviations you people have mentioned in the past few posts that to keep this to a square number of fifty would be entirely unrealistic. Here is the problem I see in light of this. Since CNRP has no monetary value placed on anything, the creation of extremely powerful, albeit non-nuclear warheads can be mass produced and thrown around like hotcakes when two of you decide to go to war. Proposals of fluctuating what is currently held so that certain, extremely powerful non-nuclear missiles would be capped at fifty, but other more standard projectiles could be driven up to a REASONABLE number, we could roll with that.

To do this I would need various proposals on how to implement this from you guys and what kind of missiles should fall under which category.

If I missed anything there, please let me know and we can discuss it further.

[Centurius]

I to have always thought that the rule had gone as in having navies, and air forces, that you could only command cruise missiles when in fact you had them In-Game as well. However, I also realize that to group the various kinds of ballistic warfare, aka, all the abbreviations you people have mentioned in the past few posts that to keep this to a square number of fifty would be entirely unrealistic. Here is the problem I see in light of this. Since CNRP has no monetary value placed on anything, the creation of extremely powerful, albeit non-nuclear warheads can be mass produced and thrown around like hotcakes when two of you decide to go to war. Proposals of fluctuating what is currently held so that certain, extremely powerful non-nuclear missiles would be capped at fifty, but other more standard projectiles could be driven up to a REASONABLE number, we could roll with that.

To do this I would need various proposals on how to implement this from you guys and what kind of missiles should fall under which category.

If I missed anything there, please let me know and we can discuss it further.

Perhaps do something similar as with Submarines? Every nation gets a base modifier of say 5 so their conventional missiles are capped at 250 after this basic modifier certain calculations can be made using infrastructure taking the maximum modifier to something closer to 20.

[Il Terra Di Agea]

On cruise missiles:

I really agree with Merger that it's unreasonable to cap standard cruise missile numbers at fifty. The US keeps thousands of cruise missiles in service, even smaller countries keep around a few hundred to over a thousand. Non-Nuclear ICBMs on the other hand, an In-Game cap on would be more reasonable, but not necessarily accurate. I would say that an IG number, with some sort of small multiplier for your base number of cruise missile, and maybe have something that, in longer wars, you can have them regenerate at a rate of 1 or 2 per week.

I don't know though, all of this reaches the same problem as nukes: There are so many different kinds of cruise missiles and ICBMs that it becomes hard to judge any reasonable limit. There are dedicated anti-ship cruise munitions, there are bunker busters, there are dedicated anti- building and anti-personnel cruise missiles, how would you factor those in? ICBMs, there are relatively small ones going up to massive ones, how does one regulate that?

I can try to think some system up, but it gets onto some very shaky ground when you throw in the various factors involved.

[Voodoo Nova]

I say, just keep it reasonable. Keep non-conventional warheads(Biochemical, etc) to 50, have cruise missiles as a whole (barring nuclear warheads) at a reasonable level for the persons nation and leave it at that. Formulas are annoying and no one follows them anyways.

[Il Terra Di Agea]

I say, just keep it reasonable. Keep non-conventional warheads(Biochemical, etc) to 50, have cruise missiles as a whole (barring nuclear warheads) at a reasonable level for the persons nation and leave it at that. Formulas are annoying and no one follows them anyways.

Voodoo makes a good point, and also helps factor in that a lot of people don't keep cruise missiles around on a day-to-day basis anyway.

[Justinian the Mighty]

We need rules on when it is and isn’t ok to breathe, and a formula on how many breaths to take when we can breathe. Also can we have a modifier for that?

Just leave it alone, we've never had a problem with CMs before.

[loannes]

To my knowledge, cruise missiles have been limited to 'a reasonable number'. Biological and chemical weapons = IG CMs.

[Lynneth]

To my knowledge, cruise missiles have been limited to 'a reasonable number'. Biological and chemical weapons = IG CMs.

This.

I remember this clearly.

[Executive Minister]

This.

I remember this clearly.

I second this, and would also like to add that Fuel-Air munitions were also part of the rule of 50. We've been over this problem before.