king of cochin Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 The basic need for this multiplier is to bring a semblance of realism to submarine numbers. The numbers for capital ships can be understood, but for submarines it is too absurd. That is why I had called for this amendment. My principal argument is still valid - Ever know of any country that has 1:1 ratio of Aircraft carriers to submarines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Only one country in the world has five or more aircraft carriers in service. Less than a dozen have even built five aircraft carriers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 The basic need for this multiplier is to bring a semblance of realism to submarine numbers. The numbers for capital ships can be understood, but for submarines it is too absurd. That is why I had called for this amendment.My principal argument is still valid - Ever know of any country that has 1:1 ratio of Aircraft carriers to submarines? Yes, my country. We have 0 carriers and 0 submarines But seriously, I get your point. The only problem is that we only see a number of ships, and not the specific number of each type. If a person has 7 corvettes and 1 submarine, what's to stop them from saying they have 8 submarines to boost their navy even more? I think that we should just let the numbers stay as they are. Nobody really uses their navy anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) 'Realism'? This is CNRP! There are zombies, there are unlimited resources, people materialize out of thin air, we've gone to Mars! And some things cannot exist in reality for unknown reasons to the citizens of planet Bob! Realism? BAH! Someone attempts to construct the laser-cannon-equipped aircraft, then good ol' Fist of God smites it. This is a common occurrence to the citizens of planet Bob, to the point where its in no newspapers nor' do they bother remember things vaporized by this Hand of God. Only the incredible, insanely intelligent Lynneth has been able dodge this Fist... (Next priority: make Saxton Hale come into reality. Australia will never be the same again.) Edited November 7, 2009 by JerreyRough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Only one country in the world has five or more aircraft carriers in service. Less than a dozen have even built five aircraft carriers. And the higher infra and tech nations notionally are at the size and power of that country, hence the proposal Yes, my country. We have 0 carriers and 0 submarines But seriously, I get your point. The only problem is that we only see a number of ships, and not the specific number of each type. If a person has 7 corvettes and 1 submarine, what's to stop them from saying they have 8 submarines to boost their navy even more? I think that we should just let the numbers stay as they are. Nobody really uses their navy anyways. In Game submarines have to obtained at a particular infra/tech level! According to a nation's stats we can reasonably predict how many submarines they can have. For example, right now if a large nation says it has 5 aircraft carriers, 5 destroyers and 5 cruisers who can say whether they actually have them in game rather than 8 corvettes, 8 LSTs and 3 battleships? The opportunity for fraud exists even now, it is not a factor that is brought about by these reforms. Personally I dont know how such a fraud can at any time be found out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 And the higher infra and tech nations notionally are at the size and power of that country, hence the proposal According to in-game, if you cannot buy 200+ ships then your nation is not capable of holding a US sized Navy. I'm against this multiplier for any portion of the navy. Stronger nations do not need to be made stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 According to in-game, if you cannot buy 200+ ships then your nation is not capable of holding a US sized Navy. I'm against this multiplier for any portion of the navy. Stronger nations do not need to be made stronger. VN, could you please tell me where in CN it is said about this 200+ ships? Also the votes are in and community has chosen for the multiplier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Yes, but it is up to the GMs to decide to change. Democracies are the worst forms of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Yes, but it is up to the GMs to decide to change.Democracies are the worst forms of government. Long live GM Sargun! o7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 The GMs are Ty, Sarah and EVR , right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 The GMs are Ty, Sarah and EVR , right? correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 correct No Sargun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amyante Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Question 1: B Question 2: E Question 3: Very Awesome Additional Information: It should be mentioned that this would only concern smaller ships... Not endgame stuff like Destroyers, Subs and Aircraft Carriers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 You honestly don't need that many ships in your navy... in all honesty, if anything, change the suggestion by being able to tinker around with the ships you already have. Say you have 60 ships, you can allot certain numbers to a specific ship, but of course there would need to be limitations in order to prevent abuse (like 60 aircraft carriers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 You definitely need the multipliers with respect to submarines. I have given the numbers of the major submarine forces of the world. All of them are at least one carrier navies. PLAN has no carrier yet has 50+subs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 After reviewing this poll, the community has come to the conclusion that it desires a change in the way navies are RPed in CNRP. However as to multipliers, I still believe the community as a whole is divided with not reaching a fifty percent majority or above. Again I fail to see why a multiplier or a change in navies is needed whatsoever, but if there is a change that needs done than I believe it should be done as following. While tech and infrastructure can influence a multiplier, it should influence it equally and not stack on top of each other, so that will have to be worked out where an amount of tech and an amount of infrastructure can equal the same multiplier. However something that I refuse to change is, if you do not have any such navy In-Game, you may not have a navy in RP. The same what if you don't have an air force In-Game you do not have it in the Role Play, that you do not have Nukes. Once you have a navy you may multiply all you want after those figures are determined, but only once you achieve the navy. I personally do not see the reason for expanding the navies because naval battles do not exist anyways and are only used for blockades it seems against weaker nations. While giving nations with navies, extremely powerful flotillas, however if the community desires this. This is my proposal on how and where we can take the voting from this point. I await your questions and concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Since it was my proposal that started the ball rolling I would like to make a clarification. Blockades and such acts of power projection against smaller nations can only be done by surface war ships like carriers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Submarines are offensive weapon platforms, that do not have the power projection capability of a surface war ship. Submarines are also versatile systems which can be used for blockade breaking, offensive naval battles and defensive area protection. Due to these multitude of roles playable by submarines which would not affect the strength parity of nations in power projection i suggest that any multiplier be applicable only to submarines. No multiplier for surface war ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Very well, but you still have to have submarines IG to have them for the Role Play...that does not change. But if surface ships are not to be multiplied, that's even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 (edited) Of course you have to have submarines in game, however since there is no way to ascertain what exact ships a nation actually has in game we must perhaps impose the tech/infra limit for buying submarines as it is defined in the game,ie, Vessel Infrastructure: 4,500Vessel Technology: 750 Requires Shipyard Improvement Edited November 8, 2009 by king of cochin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Since it was my proposal that started the ball rolling I would like to make a clarification. Blockades and such acts of power projection against smaller nations can only be done by surface war ships like carriers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Submarines are offensive weapon platforms, that do not have the power projection capability of a surface war ship. Submarines are also versatile systems which can be used for blockade breaking, offensive naval battles and defensive area protection. Due to these multitude of roles playable by submarines which would not affect the strength parity of nations in power projection i suggest that any multiplier be applicable only to submarines. No multiplier for surface war ships. Tell that one to the allies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean...8World_War_I%29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 ^ Point noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Personally, I think we should multiply corvettes. The little !@#$%^&* are pretty much useless when you've got only like 9. 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.