Centurius Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 You know the simple solution would be to just let people rp the maximum they can buy like soldiers and tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 IG=RP. No need all these silly calculators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 I say replace all modern warships with paddle steamers and let everyone have as many as they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 I really dont understand why the debate that was settled then has to rise up now for no reason at all!! Has any of the arguments for the ruling at that time been changed? Has there been any abuse? The vote had in fact decided on this issue and GM had ruled positively. Unless there arises some gross abuse I do not feel that the amendment must be ruled out just because certain minority refuses to accept it. This is a community game, not to cater to the whims of few. The ruling regarding submarine multiplier was debated exhaustively. It was voted upon. Further debates had arisen which brought no serious problems that were not addressed and only after that the GMs had ruled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Sir Keshav IV' date='05 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265385826' post='2161559'] IG=RP. No need all these silly calculators. [/quote] Still leaves the problem of knowing which ships someone actually has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Centurius' date='05 February 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1265394864' post='2161775'] Still leaves the problem of knowing which ships someone actually has. [/quote] Well, do it like planes. We don't know the number of bombers/fighters, so we just let people make squadrons of whatever combination. We can do the same for Navy. For example, 10 ships can equal any combination of ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Before I go any further with this...besides Cochin and Subtle...does anyone else use the multiplier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='05 February 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1265397552' post='2161860'] Well, do it like planes. We don't know the number of bombers/fighters, so we just let people make squadrons of whatever combination. We can do the same for Navy. For example, 10 ships can equal any combination of ships. [/quote] Now that I'd like to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='05 February 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1265397552' post='2161860'] Well, do it like planes. We don't know the number of bombers/fighters, so we just let people make squadrons of whatever combination. We can do the same for Navy. For example, 10 ships can equal any combination of ships. [/quote] I completely agree with this. If somebody wants to have fifteen aircraft carriers, that's fine with me. It just means that they'll be unescorted and easily sinkable. Thirty battleships? Have fun against a few submarines! This is the simplest solution and, without any multipliers at all, makes for little mess. It's easily checkable, simpler, and penalizes nobody; it also allows for more variety in ship choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' date='05 February 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1265397743' post='2161868'] Before I go any further with this...besides Cochin and Subtle...does anyone else use the multiplier? [/quote] I use the multiplier, but my ship models, names, and numbers have always been exhaustively labeled whenever they are used. Also, I agree with what Cent and Sargun put forward. Let people try and build the best navy with whatever combination they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' date='05 February 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1265397743' post='2161868'] Before I go any further with this...besides Cochin and Subtle...does anyone else use the multiplier? [/quote] I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' date='05 February 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1265397743' post='2161868'] Before I go any further with this...besides Cochin and Subtle...does anyone else use the multiplier? [/quote] I don't, but only because it was only supposed to apply to submarines, of which I have none. Moreover, I disagree with the removal of the multiplier, however, making it smaller would be fine. We already multiply everything else (Planes, soldiers, tanks), the only exceptions being nukes and occasionally cruise missiles; Why should navy be different? Especially when it is not a whole-navy multiplier, just a submarine multiplier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) I have no problem with people re-configuring their navy if they wish. It's just that there was a GM ruling against that at one point. Edited February 5, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Il Terra Di Agea' date='05 February 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1265408080' post='2162157'] I don't, but only because it was only supposed to apply to submarines, of which I have none. Moreover, I disagree with the removal of the multiplier, however, making it smaller would be fine. We already multiply everything else (Planes, soldiers, tanks), the only exceptions being nukes and occasionally cruise missiles; Why should navy be different? Especially when it is not a whole-navy multiplier, just a submarine multiplier. [/quote] We don't multiply tanks and planes are not really multiplied, they are just deemed squadrons. They are still on an in game basis as well, with how many IG planes being how many squadrons you have. Edit: Why does the navy need to be multiplied, when the in game structure allows for the average RL navy size (barring patrol boats)? Edited February 5, 2010 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Il Terra Di Agea' date='05 February 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1265408080' post='2162157'] I don't, but only because it was only supposed to apply to submarines, of which I have none. Moreover, I disagree with the removal of the multiplier, however, making it smaller would be fine. We already multiply everything else (Planes, soldiers, tanks), the only exceptions being nukes and occasionally cruise missiles; Why should navy be different? Especially when it is not a whole-navy multiplier, just a submarine multiplier. [/quote] Planes are multiplied only because 60 planes isn't enough to cover a small coastline, let alone larger nations. Soldiers are multiplied for the same reason. Tanks are not multiplied. Nukes are not multiplied. Cruise missiles are limited to a reasonable number. 2/5 are multiplied. More importantly, the multipliers for planes/soldiers are a [b]flat[/b] multiplier. You don't say "okay, we don't multiply light fighters or medium fighters but heavy bombers are x5". You say "all aircraft are multiplied into squadrons, maximum 12". If we cannot have multipliers for surface ships, we should not have multipliers for submarines. It's a break in the entire system. It's a hole. An inconsistency. As soon as you're able to operate submarines, why is it that your nation is capable of only five cruisers but twenty-five submarines? Why is it we can have giant fleets of submarines while at the same time only hold five or six amphibious landing boats? It makes no sense whatsoever. Submarines should not be multiplied independently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' date='05 February 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1265386320' post='2161567'] I say replace all modern warships with paddle steamers and let everyone have as many as they want. [/quote] 100 billion paddle steamers coming right up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 [quote name='Tahsir' date='06 February 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1265484518' post='2164913'] 100 billion paddle steamers coming right up [/quote] Dude, that is more than the amount of population that Earth or Planet Bob can hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 What's the policy of using SDIs over enemy soil? Ie: If an invading force is penetrating my nation's boundaries and I launch a nuke at my own soil, my enemies' SDI won't cover his forces because they are under my jurisdiction, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' date='07 February 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1265511905' post='2165841'] Dude, that is more than the amount of population that Earth or Planet Bob can hold. [/quote] Note the sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 [quote name='Executive Minister' date='07 February 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1265559832' post='2166894'] What's the policy of using SDIs over enemy soil? Ie: If an invading force is penetrating my nation's boundaries and I launch a nuke at my own soil, my enemies' SDI won't cover his forces because they are under my jurisdiction, right? [/quote] If you still own the soil, yes. If he completely liberates a certain area over a long-term period of time in a drawn-out conflict and then annexes the area, his SDI probably would cover it. Then again, I don't think there's ever been a war long enough for that so far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 [quote name='Executive Minister' date='07 February 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1265559832' post='2166894'] What's the policy of using SDIs over enemy soil? Ie: If an invading force is penetrating my nation's boundaries and I launch a nuke at my own soil, my enemies' SDI won't cover his forces because they are under my jurisdiction, right? [/quote] If you're going to nuke your own land....there is not much anyone can do about it because the time it would take for the SDI to launch it's ABM's, the nuclear missile would have already struck the land in your nation. The only exception I could think of is detailed in Sargun's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 [quote name='Tahsir' date='06 February 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1265484518' post='2164913'] 100 billion paddle steamers coming right up [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/awesome.gif[/img] [/quote] [quote name='HHAYD' date='06 February 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1265511905' post='2165841'] Dude, that is more than the amount of population that Earth or Planet Bob can hold. [/quote] Someone's Sarcastometer is broken. [quote name='Executive Minister' date='07 February 2010 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1265559832' post='2166894'] What's the policy of using SDIs over enemy soil? Ie: If an invading force is penetrating my nation's boundaries and I launch a nuke at my own soil, my enemies' SDI won't cover his forces because they are under my jurisdiction, right? [/quote] [quote name='Sargun' date='07 February 2010 - 10:21 AM' timestamp='1265566915' post='2167039'] If you still own the soil, yes. If he completely liberates a certain area over a long-term period of time in a drawn-out conflict and then annexes the area, his SDI probably would cover it. Then again, I don't think there's ever been a war long enough for that so far [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/emot-v.gif[/img] [/quote] [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='07 February 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1265577117' post='2167290'] If you're going to nuke your own land....there is not much anyone can do about it because the time it would take for the SDI to launch it's ABM's, the nuclear missile would have already struck the land in your nation. The only exception I could think of is detailed in Sargun's post. [/quote] That's pretty much it. Until the enemy completely pacifies an area, he/she can't cover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 Noted, thank you all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) CNRP, I am writing this to both the RP community and the moderation staff that appointed me that I will be resigning my position as GM, as soon as the moderation team can find a suitable replacement for me. Until that time, I have no problem functioning as one of the GMs, but at the time I do not have the activity, or in all honesty, the desire to hold these responsibilities any longer. I appreciate the cooperation of everyone while I held this post, the population was friendly, good-natured, and I believe we made the best of what was offered to us. Again, so as not to cause any inconvenience I will remain at this post until another GM can be appointed. Thanks, S.T Edited February 9, 2010 by Sarah Tintagyl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' date='08 February 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1265677948' post='2169444'] CNRP, I am writing this to both the RP community and the moderation staff that appointed me that I will be resigning my position as GM, as soon as the moderation team can find a suitable replacement for me. Until that time, I have no problem functioning as one of the GMs, but at the time I do not have the activity, or in all honesty, the desire to hold these responsibilities any longer. I appreciate the cooperation of everyone while I held this post, the population was friendly, good-natured, and I believe we made the best of what was offered to us. Again, so as not to cause any inconvenience I will remain at this post until another GM can be appointed. Thanks, S.T [/quote] Nooooo, don't go! Well, you did an excellent job whilst you were a GM, sorry to hear that life is getting busy (unless it's a happy busy). 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.