Jump to content
verum vox vocis

Information/FAQ/Questions National RP

Recommended Posts

In my opinion population levels should be based on common sense, it should also depend on what kind of country you want to RP. India and China had less infrastructure than most developed country until very recently, and still it is low as a percentage of population. I would point out that it is not realistic to have even a 100 civilians to 1 soldier as a percentage of population, especially in a country with a highly advanced army as a good chunk of these countries are. You have to take into account cost of training, equipment, housing, etc. A population of 9 million say imo would not be able to fund a fleet of 6 carriers and half a million men at arms if these were US standards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, population of an RP nation need only to be considered for character or economic RP considerations. They are also a subtle pretext to explain away IG stats losses as some natural calamities. As ineffectual in so far as inter-national RPs are concerned, what a person chooses to RP as his population should not matter. Essentially argument is why limit something that cannot be abused anyway? Rules are needed only to prevent abuses, and not as straight jackets to prevent creativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would point out that at a 100x modifier for population, the maximum soldiers you can have is about right at IG levels, for a peacetime army that is. 10x could work for a wartime army, as long as you accept that such levels would quickly bankrupt you, and devastate representative population...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Silhouette' date='12 May 2010 - 05:38 AM' timestamp='1273657109' post='2295902']
i would point out that at a 100x modifier for population, the maximum soldiers you can have is about right at IG levels, for a peacetime army that is. 10x could work for a wartime army, as long as you accept that such levels would quickly bankrupt you, and devastate representative population...
[/quote]

Unless you have a draft and don't pay them. And/or there is a strong nationalism within the country that propels citizens to enlist in the military and for training; in that regard they get paid, but not well. Likewise (and how I RP my military) is they get paid near little to nothing, but have very easy lives after the leave the military (subsidized education for the individual, additional tax breaks for children in school, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I plan on having a massive submarine fleet that is beyond CN's max submarines limit, ranging from underwater aircraft carriers (amount of aircraft they can carry is up to 10 for quick launch and dive to avoid being sunken) to battle submarines (basically a hybrid of a battleship and a submarine but less firepower). Is there a multiplier for the surface vessels to submarines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' date='22 May 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1274580427' post='2308665']
Underwater Aircraft Carriers? lol?
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

They pulled it off during WWII. I could cram more aircraft inside a giant submarine by throwing in elevators and adding an extra take-off pad. Add some modern stealth stuff to it and your enemy will find a very "FRIENDLY" gift firing off 10 multi-role bomber/fighter jets that are screaming toward their capital city loaded with bombs when they thought they had decimated your navy fleet.

Edited by HHAYD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='HHAYD' date='23 May 2010 - 07:50 AM' timestamp='1274581225' post='2308681']
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

They pulled it off during WWII. I could cram more aircraft inside a giant submarine by throwing in elevators and adding an extra take-off pad. Add some modern stealth stuff to it and your enemy will find a very "FRIENDLY" gift firing off 10 multi-role bomber/fighter jets that are screaming toward their capital city loaded with bombs when they thought they had decimated your navy fleet.
[/quote]

The modern fighter/bombers are for one thing larger and more technically sensitive than the low tech propeller planes of that time. Now there are amphibious jet planes, but the risk of a blowout due to water ingestion is massive in these planes. They hardly would be able to conduct landings and takeoffs in combat conditions especially in stormy seas. This is assuming that you are just using these as the I400, towing the plane, surfacing, releasing the plane, the plane then taking off like a regular amphibian plane. I hope that you are not planning to RP your submarine carrier with a runway and all? Because that would be impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always envisioned a modern submarine carrier as one that would 'launch' its aircraft through vertical launch tubes, like ICBMs. This would require modified aircraft, but there are Naval variants of landbased aircraft used in the Navy anyways.

I suppose a carrier could theoretically be comprised of an enclosed runway, the actual air strip making up the length of the ship, all internal systems and supporting modules situated below or around the launching tunnel, like [url="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070501203746/supcom/images/3/3f/Command_class_insitu.jpg"]this[/url].

The aircraft launch from the front of the sub, and landing aircraft enter through a similar opening in the rear. Note the openings are sealable, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what is the maximum CNRP submarine limit? I read that your navy IG is used directly to CNRP, but it syas submarines are an exception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='23 May 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1274623278' post='2309041']
Wait, what is the maximum CNRP submarine limit? I read that your navy IG is used directly to CNRP, but it syas submarines are an exception?
[/quote]

There's a multiplier for submarines, but you still have to have some ingame.

Edited by iKrolm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='king of cochin' date='22 May 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1274589260' post='2308796']
The modern fighter/bombers are for one thing larger and more technically sensitive than the low tech propeller planes of that time. Now there are amphibious jet planes, but the risk of a blowout due to water ingestion is massive in these planes. They hardly would be able to conduct landings and takeoffs in combat conditions especially in stormy seas. This is assuming that you are just using these as the I400, towing the plane, surfacing, releasing the plane, the plane then taking off like a regular amphibian plane. I hope that you are not planning to RP your submarine carrier with a runway and all? Because that would be impossible.
[/quote]
Well, couldn't I design fighter bomber jets to have fold-able wings, tail wings, and landing gears that can be lowered greatly to save space? As for the runway, I could have it extended much longer, enough for an aircraft to take off or land, and push the section where the aircraft are loaded up in and launched from toward the back. To make the submarine balanced instead of rear heavy, I could have more of the heavier cargo, missile launchers, and cannons located on the front side.

OR

I can design the aircraft carrier submarines to only launch aircraft that has VTOL capability and helicopters, which would would eliminate the need for a long take-off/landing path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='HHAYD' date='23 May 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1274639470' post='2309252']
Well, couldn't I design fighter bomber jets to have fold-able wings, tail wings, and landing gears that can be lowered greatly to save space? As for the runway, I could have it extended much longer, enough for an aircraft to take off or land, and push the section where the aircraft are loaded up in and launched from toward the back. To make the submarine balanced instead of rear heavy, I could have more of the heavier cargo, missile launchers, and cannons located on the front side.



I can design the aircraft carrier submarines to only launch aircraft that has VTOL capability and helicopters, which would would eliminate the need for a long take-off/landing path.
[/quote]

Either way, you still have a massive problem, which is logistics.

A modern nuclear submarine can travel all over the world and stay submerged for I believe it's up to three months, before it has to be resupplied with things like food, possibly ammunition, personal items (toiletries and such), oxygen scrubber parts, spare parts period, assisting with any repairs, I think you get the point.

A submarine, though they can stay submerged for a long time, are very prone to spartan living conditions and less comfort and morale of the crew the longer that the submarine has been submerged.

But just imagine adding aircraft to the mix!

All that crew, parts, munitions, fuel, repair facilities, hangers, would make your submarine impossibly huge. There's a point where even the most modern stealth technologies cannot help enough for it to avoid detection in enemy waters. Even with purely VTOL aircraft and helicopters, the space you can save by not needing runways it taken away by the massive space needed for all that fuel to make the submarine worthwhile in an extended war. VTOL aircraft and helicopters are plain old fuel hogs. They guzzle fuel like it's nothing and always need more.

On top of that, why would you even logically need aircraft-launching submarines? You have carriers that hold multi- role fighter/bombers with enough range to be over the horizon from an enemy country (Most of the airstrikes in the Afghan war originated from the fleet in I believe the Persian Gulf). On top of that your longest range and heaviest hitting bombers are based back home, their range is massive because that's what they were made to do.

It's just interesting to me though, that idea. I can kind of see an allure to it :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Silhouette' date='24 May 2010 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1274684608' post='2310029']
It's CNRP, you need aircraft carrying submarines for what I call the LOL-factor
[/quote]

I think its on par with the same idea as lolgundam... :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Silhouette' date='24 May 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1274684608' post='2310029']
It's CNRP, you need aircraft carrying submarines for what I call the LOL-factor
[/quote]
[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' date='24 May 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1274698089' post='2310095']
I think its on par with the same idea as lolgundam... :3
[/quote]
Aye, it is. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. There were "lolgundams" in CNRP long before you showed up, Sarah, and there really weren't any problems. Of course, back then people actually had fun when they RP'd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='24 May 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1274745172' post='2310643']
Not really. There were "lolgundams" in CNRP long before you showed up, Sarah, and there really weren't any problems. Of course, back then people actually had fun when they RP'd.
[/quote]
Also back then, submarines (or any ship for that matter :P ) didn't exist ingame, and when people lost wars their nation wasn't wiped or annexed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='24 May 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1274745670' post='2310652']
Also back then, submarines (or any ship for that matter :P ) didn't exist ingame, and when people lost wars their nation wasn't wiped or annexed...
[/quote]

Oh, and don't forget that people were actually responsible with what they RP'd and there was no need for a GM because of an active, participating community doing things for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='24 May 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1274749914' post='2310719']
I weep for a past I have never experienced, then.
[/quote]
You know how they say "better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?" The torture of what this has become compared to the past hurts more than you know :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×