On Efficiency

[Kaiser Martens]

Hello,

It has come to my attention that there's something in CNRP called Efficiency, used during wartime. I do not have the formula with me, but essentially, it has to do with IG technology comparison between two nations at war. Do note that it is separate from the technology system. In any case, it tries to say how efficient is an unit, how strong an unit is compared to another when taking tech into consideration. So this system can say that for example a low tech unit needs to outnumber a high tech unit 2 to 1, 3 to 1 or much more in order to be able to take them down. In a large scale what this means is that if the IG tech difference is large, one country has no option but to lose, and the other country has no option but to win.

What this means is that we have one magic number which determines a victory, and makes lower tech troops nearly completely useless. For example, if we have a cold war era sniper who is fighting a soldier whose nation has 7000 tech, even if the soldier is some 500m away, not only he can defeat the sniper, but he can defeat an entire team all by himself.

This system was created, I have been told, by LVN, who had a huge tech advantage, purposefully to help himself. This system is against RP, because it makes it so that smaller nations basically cannot kill enemy soldiers no matter what. It makes no sense. Let's compare this to RL, for example, take one of those super poor african countries which hardly reach cold war status. Well, some don't even reach. And compare it to USA, Russia, or other developed country. If they go to war in CNRP, the African soldiers, if fighting separately and one on one against their enemies, would lose ten out of nine times. But in reality, we know that this isn't the case. Modern countries only win with ease because of things such as airforce.

The Efficiency system makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It should be no more. It should be replaced by RP. It is purposeless. Let's abolish it. I don't see a single reason why we would want to keep it.

[Fizzydog]

I agree. I didn't know of this but it seems awfully unfair. Being able to win by just having a number isn't fair. Best RPer and strategizer wins, not Mr. 7000 tech.

[Sargun II]

I agree wholeheartedly with Kaiser Martens, as I always have.

[Malatose]

I agree with the points set fourth by KaiserMartens. For the game to truly be fair, I believe the efficiency system has to go.

[Fizzydog]

Wait, who is LVN?

[Biohazard]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='30 May 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1275274903' post='2317389']
Wait, who is LVN?
[/quote]
fgtree, in essence.

[Triyun]

I tend to be in general agreement with Martens. I am a strong believer in having corresponding stats for having stuff. I do not believe you should get to have a navy if you don't have one in game (although there should be some accounting for alliance surrender terms). I do believe though that there should be some skill involved. I believe war needs to take into a great variety of factors, countries which use their armies more often (provided they don't get caught in severely difficult quagmires ala Iraq to wear them down) would have more experienced NCOs and mid level officers which matter at least as much in military situations as equipment. I also think that nations which RP training a lot would have an advantage in this field. Having experienced sergeants, captains, and lieutenants who know battlefields and know how to react under pressure would make a big difference. I also think that the leaders creativity and doctrine should matter. If you have a commander who just lines his army up along a border and pushes forward in a straight line, if you act stupidly and charge up a mountain, I don't care if you have 5000 tech and your opponent has 100, if they engage you in a guerilla mountain warfare, they should stand a great shot at winning.

Information warfare which is what is increasing troops efficacy real world today should give you an advantage, but you need to know how to use the weapons you are given. For example, if you RP smart use of drone warfare, networked combat systems, and do all of this well, you can do some serious damage with that !@#$. But if you just say: hurr my tank shoots further than yours and its armor is impenetrable, then you are abusing your stats. That is what I read the tech efficacy system to mean. If you DO have more tech and you know what you are doing, THEN it should reflect in your advantage. This is the same thing with quantities of troops.

I would point out that in the modern world, most rising regional military powers are looking to develop technologies that counter the US's huge conventional technology military advantages with new tactics and creativity. Players should have an opportunity to use this, to outthink their competitors.

[Voodoo Nova]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the efficiency should have been removed months ago.

[king of cochin]

I hardly think technological efficiency calculation is being used any more in any form of RPing, but I would like to point out that it determined not just war efficiency, it also determines numerical parity.

Now consider Nation A has 5000 tech, Nation B has 2000 tech. A and B being allies, B buys its full complement of military from the higher tech nation A, purportedly to RP a higher technology and higher strength equipments, which it may use against another nation C with 3000 tech. The TE calculation prevents an abuse of that sort to occur.

If Nation B can have 3000 tanks IG, when he buys 5000 tech tanks, he would get to RP proportionately less tanks, to account for the technology gap.

As far as I can see, this rule was created to prevent tech/RP abuse, ie, people saying, "I have greater tech, so my stealth wont be discovered by me, you have no defense from me, i am untouchable, RAWR".

Now if the community as such decides to give greater preference to RP than stats, all is well and good, no harm in scrapping this antiquated rule.

The earlier argument was mostly used in unplanned wars, if pure RP is to be the measuring factor, then of course there have to be greater cooperation between belligerents, aka, planned wars.

[HHAYD]

What if a 350 tech country buys advanced helmets with radar and obviously better protection for their soldiers' heads from a 3100 tech country? How would the formula take that in account when a lower tech country is buying only bits and pieces rather than entire tanks, ships, aircraft, weapons, defenses, and soldiers?

Edited May 31, 2010 by HHAYD

[Triyun]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='31 May 2010 - 04:17 AM' timestamp='1275275860' post='2317408']
I hardly think technological efficiency calculation is being used any more in any form of RPing, but I would like to point out that it determined not just war efficiency, it also determines numerical parity.

Now consider Nation A has 5000 tech, Nation B has 2000 tech. A and B being allies, B buys its full complement of military from the higher tech nation A, purportedly to RP a higher technology and higher strength equipments, which it may use against another nation C with 3000 tech. The TE calculation prevents an abuse of that sort to occur.

If Nation B can have 3000 tanks IG, when he buys 5000 tech tanks, he would get to RP proportionately less tanks, to account for the technology gap.

As far as I can see, this rule was created to prevent tech/RP abuse, ie, people saying, "I have greater tech, so my stealth wont be discovered by me, you have no defense from me, i am untouchable, RAWR".

Now if the community as such decides to give greater preference to RP than stats, all is well and good, no harm in scrapping this antiquated rule.

The earlier argument was mostly used in unplanned wars, if pure RP is to be the measuring factor, then of course there have to be greater cooperation between belligerents, aka, planned wars.
[/quote]

As I understand it, under this system the problem is the 5000 tech tank beats the 2000 tech tank every time. What Martens is proposing is not too say that the 2000 tech nation has always equal to tanks, but that if used smarter it can beat the 5000 tech tank or even a group of 5000 tech tanks.

[quote]What if a 350 tech country buys advanced helmets with radar and obviously better protection for their soldiers' heads from a 3100 tech country? How would the formula take that in account when a lower tech country is buying only bits and pieces rather than entire tanks, ships, aircraft, weapons, defenses, and soldiers?
[/quote]

As I understand it the current equation means you can only have so many of those just like tanks, there I see value in the system, not when deployed on the battlefield though.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Triyun

[Kaiser Martens]

That's right. Compare to RL again. Of course that an Abrahams is better than a cold war outdated Russian tank. It is more versatile and it can do more things with greater ease. But if the Russian tank gets to shoot the Abrahms, it's still going to die. I'm not saying that they're equal. The abrahams would be a lot better when it comes to dealing with infantry and has detection systems the old tank does not have, and higher crew survivality among many other things.

Also, it doesn't matter if efficiency isn't currently being used. It COULD be, if someone demanded it in a war, so, we must officially remove it from CNRP so that it cannot ever be used.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Kaiser Martens

[Triyun]

[quote name='Kaiser Martens' date='31 May 2010 - 04:33 AM' timestamp='1275276793' post='2317435']
That's right. Compare to RL again. Of course that an [b]Abrahams[/b] is better than a cold war outdated Russian tank. It is more versatile and it can do more things with greater ease. But if the Russian tank gets to shoot the Abrahms, it's still going to die. I'm not saying that they're equal. The abrahams would be a lot better when it comes to dealing with infantry and has detection systems the old tank does not have, and higher crew survivality among many other things.

Also, it doesn't matter if efficiency isn't currently being used. It COULD be, if someone demanded it in a war, so, we must officially remove it from CNRP so that it cannot ever be used.
[/quote]

Abrams. /end dick mode

[HHAYD]

I have a question, is it possible for a 7,000 tech country to have large amount of Cold-War or even WWII-era tanks instead of smaller amount of modern tanks?

I want to see how would RPing 25,440 WWII Sherman tanks work out in a war instead of 2,544 modern tanks.

Edited May 31, 2010 by HHAYD

[Kaede Alexeivich]

I agree. I mean, if I have 50 tech and I'm fighting someone with 5,000, it's not entirely fair for, say, 50 of my troops to be wiped out by 1 of theirs. It's not realistic at all. I don't care how much tech you have, a bullet to the head is going to kill.

[Executive Minister]

Unless the higher tech dude is allowed to RP that his body armor can protect against multiple military grade rounds, I'd scrap efficiency... although I do admit I've never heard of it.

[iamthey]

Admittedly the technology efficiency factor was created by a player with a hefty tech advantage over others, and possibly with that specific reality in mind. While it is abusive for a magic number to essentially pre-determine the 'cost' of a war in terms of what numbers advantage one would need to overcome an enemy's tech advantage simply scrapping it without replacing it with something is problematic. Right now we are on a tiered tech system. So someone with 1500 tech could have 2020 tech, just the same as someone with 10,000. While I agree that making it entirely based upon stats isn't necessarily good, how do you reconcile for that advantage?

Should we remove the tiering of the tech system and allow it to be open again, either through a linear or non-linear formula? Should it just be an on the spot judgement call between RPers as to how much of an effect a technology advantage would have?

Also how do you control the inevitable arms race? If you leave it purely to RP then we'll see what happened with lolERP, basically people rushing to out do one another with RP's that answer the techs of others.

Whether people like it or not, the only way a game like this can function is in the presence of inequality. If its not through some structure based in CN stats, then its going to be basically whoever can spam the most tech RP's and make the best OOC criticisms and arguments. While its idyllic to say we say a war should be won by the best rper, this picture of the game raises serious issues. This community already can't get along when there is [u][b]NO[/b][/u] incentive to argue OOC as it is. Right now RP'd tech means jack !@#$. I could have the best jet fighter and if I threw it at a paper plane made by lynneth or lavo they would have a probability of winning that fight greater than myself. Thus who really cares how outrageous my planes are? Nonetheless people will argue and fight over [b]nothing[/b], as has been demonstrated numerous times. Imagine what the arguments and fights will be like when details and content can have game altering effects. While stats cannot be argued, RP's can, the level of nit picking, will be monstrous especially now that the community has refined its procedures and standards down to a regimented science. These are not the days of races of elves, and dragons, nor is it the days of super islands, rods from god, or jets with lasers. No longer is a concept enough, people want you to prove the exact science of what you are doing, and if you don't then it can suddenly be disregarded.

I'm not raising these questions because I don't think the TE system should go, but I am raising them because they need to be resolved before any change is made.

Edited May 31, 2010 by iamthey

[mdnss69]

The problem with this now is that some players have been taking time out to import huge amount of technology just for this purpose. If this gathers momentum, expect huge resistance from them because they have spent months working for this exact strategy.

On the other hand, I'd be for it, being a mere 30k nation with a mere 2,500 tech

[iamthey]

Most people just import tech to build up their nation, the benefit from RP is fairly secondary. Honestly I would say if anything the current system decreases the influence that specifically buying tech has. Under an open non-tiered system the more tech you have literally the more advanced your country is. The current system puts a flat bar at the undefined year of 2020, making the only real incentive to maintaining huge tech amounts to have some abstract number that is rarely actually utilized to its full potential.

I would like to see it go myself, but we should at least be honest with ourselves when we examine the system we operate within.

Edited May 31, 2010 by iamthey

[Centurius]

I do not remember TE actually having been used in the past but I fully agree with ending that disease. It was made by a GM who only wanted his nation to be able to defeat everyone and it is hurting RP.

[JerreyRough]

Having a stronger nation just means you get modern/future weapons to use by your troops, as well as a larger army and navy ships for support in warfare. It does not mean you win every confrontation (i.e. you don't necessarily have the best training in the world, or the enemy forces have better knowledge on the area), but it surely does increase how much your forces will win battle-to-battle. Perhaps not win the war, but new weapons can make the difference in who wins and who looses.

For those that like simplification, RP should beat out the stats in-game but the stats should not be thrown out of the equation for who wins.

[Zoot Zoot]

burn the efficiency, keep the scale.
the scale just keeps order within RPers so people dont go !@#$% crazy on gear.

but yeah, efficiency has to go, only Mudds activly using it atm in his war anyway, and thatss questionable in itself.

[SpacingOutMan]

I agree with IAT's argument, which no one seems to have addressed. Likewise, if we scrap efficiency, then the scale needs to be augmented.

[Kaiser Martens]

I did not mean to modify or deal with the tech scale...this is ment to be entirely different. I have no objections to the current tech scale, though discussing it may or may not belong on another thread.

[quote]While its idyllic to say we say a war should be won by the best rper, this picture of the game raises serious issues[/quote]

To me, none: That is the way it should be in most cases, excepting when the national strength disparity is simply insanely massive, like 10 k vs 70k.

[quote]Right now RP'd tech means jack !@#$. I could have the best jet fighter and if I threw it at a paper plane made by lynneth or lavo they would have a probability of winning that fight greater than myself.[/quote]

That, too, is wrong.

As for the arms race issues, well, there's simply things that cannot be done. Back in the day the arms race led to things like Railgun Tanks, which were eventually discarded. Sure, people will try unreasonable things sometimes. So what? That's what mods are for, to undo those unreasonable inventions. In any case, TE makes it so that even if they do not RP for example unbeatable railgun tanks, certain nations can have, when compared to much weaker ones, tanks which literally become as if they were invincible, even if RP'ed as any Russian T-series tank. Like if I were to fight some dude with 20k and 300 tech. What would he be supposed to do other than die? In the current system, I could say that he basically cannot stop my armor and soldiers unless he gets really luck now and then. I do not like that.

Before we discuss other issues, what counts is that we all agree in one thing, removing Efficiency. The rest of the things are another discussion for some other time. How do we make Efficiency be officially no more in the game? Who are the mods who can officialize it?

[Triyun]

I agree scrapping the tech efficiency system now. As for having a cap, I am in favor of that. Why? Because we simply have no idea what will be around in 2030. Look back to 1980 and ask yourself what they predicted about today. Often times technologies will be brought forth with all their benefits, but we don't know enough about them to discuss their draw back and that can lead to god modding perfect tech which does not exist IRL. I think if you have more tech you will have more refined stuff for 2020. For example, I consider Lavo's airforce to be the best planes in the game across spectrum. One plane may be faster, but none is equal in terms of the full package. This is similar to US planes today versus any of their counterparts. On paper others may look on par but when you break it down, you see there are shortcuts taken.

I guarentee you if you got to 2040, people will take the tech that assumes absolutely no budget cuts to the military, no cost overruns, and no R&D delays, and the thing works perfectly. Name one weapon system in recent memory that followed that trajectory. You can't.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Triyun