Kevin Kingswell Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1296049981' post='2602647'] That's why it's a temporary measure. Just long enough for people to be able to prperly rp the destruction. [/quote] Huh but you don't need saved stats for that. As soon as the war ends you can just start rping your damages. All saved stats do is ensure that until the war ends if they get attacked they have their pre war stats which I believe shouldn't be allowed. You rp with your current stats regardless of anything else. Edited January 26, 2011 by Kevin Kingswell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 The point is is that it gives people time to create an IC reason for half of their army to be suddenly laid off. During the time of saved stats two players can easily plan out a war that would reflect their losses in CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1296051375' post='2602664'] The point is is that it gives people time to create an IC reason for half of their army to be suddenly laid off. During the time of saved stats two players can easily plan out a war that would reflect their losses in CN. [/quote] I see your point and I give you it. However, if something effects their nation in CNRP they better use their current stats not their saved ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Speaking for myself as a role player, when I went from 8700 infra to 2000 infra, I did not have any saved stats to rely upon. I just made sure that I RPd the losses when my final tally of losses was ready. In my personal opinion we do not need saved stats to tide this thing over. Those who lose stats massively in the war, be neutral ICly during the period of conflict and reflect your losses afterwards. Bringing saved stats for a war could give potential for loopholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'd be all for a temporary "saved stats" measure until the closure of the war, then you have to RP the damages afterwords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 A clarification: The following post of mine, [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97237&view=findpost&p=2600211"]#83[/url] with the following statement of mine, [quote]First of all Kankou has explicitly said that she is only taking the numbers for ground equipment apart from tanks. As things stand we do not have any IG basis of calculation for many military equipments like APCs, IFVs, Humvees, Trucks, Helicopters etc apart from the common sense rule.[/quote] Ought to be actually read as [quote]First of all Kankou has explicitly said that she is only taking the numbers for ground equipment apart from tanks. As things stand we do not have any IG basis of calculation for many military equipments like Humvees, Trucks, Helicopters etc apart from the common sense rule.[/quote] It was a kind of slip of the finger situation. APCs, and IFVs numbers are determined based on the IG tanks, as is the rule now. Sorry, if that post of mine seemed contradictory, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Cochin, mind writing your thoughts on my 2x IG Tank suggestion? Also, may i decom my IG nukes? Since Malatose is in a IG war, it seems it'll be a bit before he responds to his attack on me (RP-wise). Therefore, I want to know whether I may decom my nukes until he gets around to posting. Svaed Stats: Not even temporary. The players who are being wrecked can RP their decreasin powers step by step. After all, the UK in RL lost 20% of its GDP in an year recently, and is going massive reduction in military forces. Why not do something like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1296022420' post='2602239'] I've taken out general WAVs and the DPRK APCs. Towed artillery and AA guns are not calculated. Current (5,500 tanks) IFV/APC: 2,700 SPA: 10,000 Future (9,600 tanks) IFV/APC: 9,000 SPA: 12,500 Seriously, let's just double the IG tank numbers for IFV/APC/SPA and get this over with. Simplest solution. [/quote] [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1296105680' post='2604683'] Cochin, mind writing your thoughts on my 2x IG Tank suggestion? [/quote] As regards Kankou's suggestion, a count of Self propelled Guns nearly twice the number of Main Battle Tanks is unreasonable. In my opinion the count of APC/IFV remain as per current regulation, ie, equal to max IG tanks. The count of Self Propelled Guns could be half of max IG tanks. [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1296105680' post='2604683'] Also, may i decom my IG nukes? Since Malatose is in a IG war, it seems it'll be a bit before he responds to his attack on me (RP-wise). Therefore, I want to know whether I may decom my nukes until he gets around to posting. [/quote] You do have the option of decommissioning your nukes. But only you would be responsible for that decision if you base it on any OOC assumptions. I dont see where/how this needs a GM interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1296294436' post='2609314'] As regards Kankou's suggestion, a count of Self propelled Guns nearly twice the number of Main Battle Tanks is unreasonable. In my opinion the count of APC/IFV remain as per current regulation, ie, equal to max IG tanks. The count of Self Propelled Guns could be half of max IG tanks.[/quote] I find the current system to be very unrealistic. Here are the active (non-reserve) Tank/IFV+APC/SPA+MRL numbers of selected countries. Russia: 6500/12400/3500 China: 7000/9700/1200 DPRK: 3500/2500/4400 ROK: 1700/2800/1100 Israel: 1680/10830/850 US: 9200/19000/2250 UK: 800/3400/160 France: 400/1200/250 Brazil: 520/1306/130 India: 3300/2000/370 Turkey: 3000/6600/1530 The approximate ratio of Tank:IFV+APC+SPA+MRL is 1:2±0.5 for most countries. This is the basis of my IFV/APC/SPA/MRL = 2xIG tank suggestion. A rundown of the current situation 1) 1x IG tank: Not reflecting RL 2) Common sense: Too much conflict 3) Cochin's idea: Closer to RL, but forces all to conform to a single standard, destroying customization 4) 2x IG tank: Close to RL, and allows customization I therefore still put forth the 2x IG tank suggestion. [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1296294436' post='2609314']You do have the option of decommissioning your nukes. But only you would be responsible for that decision if you base it on any OOC assumptions. I dont see where/how this needs a GM interpretation. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1296541218' post='2614301'] I find the current system to be very unrealistic. Here are the active (non-reserve) Tank/IFV+APC/SPA+MRL numbers of selected countries. Russia: 6500/12400/3500 China: 7000/9700/1200 DPRK: 3500/2500/4400 ROK: 1700/2800/1100 Israel: 1680/10830/850 US: 9200/19000/2250 UK: 800/3400/160 France: 400/1200/250 Brazil: 520/1306/130 India: 3300/2000/370 Turkey: 3000/6600/1530 The approximate ratio of Tank:IFV+APC+SPA+MRL is 1:2±0.5 for most countries. This is the basis of my IFV/APC/SPA/MRL = 2xIG tank suggestion. A rundown of the current situation 1) 1x IG tank: Not reflecting RL 2) Common sense: Too much conflict 3) Cochin's idea: Closer to RL, but forces all to conform to a single standard, destroying customization 4) 2x IG tank: Close to RL, and allows customization I therefore still put forth the 2x IG tank suggestion. [/quote] First of all is a fundamental fallacy to club numbers of APC/IFV with SPGs. Tactically they can never be considered on par. For any discussion on numbers they are to be considered separate. As regards the numbers you have quoted ,ie, Tank/(IFV+APC+SPA)/MRL , especially the IFV/SPA numbers, if you consider the breakdown of numbers you would in fact see that SPG numbers are far far smaller than IFV and tank numbers. So as it stands APC/IFV would remain equal to IG tanks and we could consider SPGs to be equal to half IG tanks. Basically IFV/APC cannot be calculated on par with SPA or MRL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I have a proposal to make: Limit rerolling, to once every one or two months. Restrict people from making a nation, then one week later, going "whoops, things aren't going as I'd like" and rerolling. I believe that it would improve the quality of RP in CNRP, even though it somewhat restricts people's OOC actions in this regard. There are people who reroll more often than they change their socks, and in my opinion, that's not only annoying, but also disrupts the grand flow of RP. Thereforth I would support a limit or restriction on how often one can reroll in a given timespan. Discuss. [size="2"]This post was made with approval of Centurius[/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I would be unopposed to this. (yes I realize the irony in this statement) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I have a proposal to make: Force rerolling. Some people are sitting on huge swaths of land with rich histories and cultures that could provide many players with great RP opportunities, but have gone completely to waste while their owners post once or twice a month. This post was made with the approval of Sal Paradise Edited February 1, 2011 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1296597131' post='2615040'] I have a proposal to make: Force rerolling. Some people are sitting on huge swaths of land with rich histories and cultures that could provide many players with great RP opportunities, but have gone completely to waste while their owners post once or twice a month. This post was made with the approval of Sal Paradise [/quote] Umm, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1296595673' post='2615004'] I have a proposal to make: Limit rerolling, to once every one or two months. Restrict people from making a nation, then one week later, going "whoops, things aren't going as I'd like" and rerolling. I believe that it would improve the quality of RP in CNRP, even though it somewhat restricts people's OOC actions in this regard. There are people who reroll more often than they change their socks, and in my opinion, that's not only annoying, but also disrupts the grand flow of RP. Thereforth I would support a limit or restriction on how often one can reroll in a given timespan. Discuss. [size="2"]This post was made with approval of Centurius[/size] [/quote] This depends. For example I was pretty much forced to give up the United Winter Federation becuase Ezequiel told me that if I didn't RP a democratic government he would conquer my nation. Now whilst I don't mind fighting wars I refuse to rp what someone else wants rather than what I want. Thus I needed to re roll. As for the FSR the land I had claimed was protected even though it wasn't shown on the map. Thus a re roll was required. So if some one rage quits, like I have done before, then yes I agree to a restriction but if they are forced to re roll then there should be no restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 While I can agree with Lynneth's sentiments, I really don't see how such a rerolling limit can be justified, unless the reroller in question is something like a constant nuisance to other, more 'stable' RPs or otherwise hinders others from RPing ie: someone that lol nukes, rerolls and lol nukes again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 In the past, the only person who was ever punished for rerolling was Nikonov, who did it more than twice a week for several weeks. I have no problem with someone rerolling to find a place to stay (it took me two countries before I decided I wanted to stay in Louisiana a while, and then Acadia for me to decide I wanted to move to Scotland). I have a problem with people who reroll, get into some problem or reroll or issue, then reroll again. It [b]does[/b] contribute to the lowering quality, I believe, but at the same time most of these are IC issues. I am a firm believer that we should, as a community, say "hey stop !@#$@#$ rerolling" to people who reroll too much, but I am quite against some sort of rule for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1296597131' post='2615040'] Force rerolling. Some people are sitting on huge swaths of land with rich histories and cultures that could provide many players with great RP opportunities, but have gone completely to waste while their owners post once or twice a month. [/quote] I made a proposal similar to this concerning RPers who control ridiculously huge empires and hardly RP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1296600324' post='2615132'] While I can agree with Lynneth's sentiments, [b]I really don't see how such a rerolling limit can be justified, unless the reroller in question is something like a constant nuisance to other, more 'stable' RPs or otherwise hinders others from RPing ie: someone that lol nukes, rerolls and lol nukes again.[/b] [/quote] [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1296601742' post='2615171'] In the past, the only person who was ever punished for rerolling was Nikonov, who did it more than twice a week for several weeks. I have no problem with someone rerolling to find a place to stay (it took me two countries before I decided I wanted to stay in Louisiana a while, and then Acadia for me to decide I wanted to move to Scotland). I have a problem with people who reroll, get into some problem or reroll or issue, then reroll again. It [b]does[/b] contribute to the lowering quality, I believe, but at the same time most of these are IC issues. [b]I am a firm believer that we should, as a community, say "hey stop !@#$@#$ rerolling" to people who reroll too much, but I am quite against some sort of rule for it.[/b] [/quote] I strongly second these two opinions. Players may be forced to reroll several times due to OOC or IC reasons and we should not penalise them for it. However if and when some one does abuse re-rolling by say ,lol nuking by creating a nation firing several nukes and rerolling, or ceding land to another guy then rerolling after one week of RP etc, then the GMs can of course step in and correct the abuse. In my opinion the question of re-roll abuse can be solved well within the gambit of existing GM powers and duties and does not need a further overarching regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1296597131' post='2615040'] I have a proposal to make: Force rerolling. Some people are sitting on huge swaths of land with rich histories and cultures that could provide many players with great RP opportunities, but have gone completely to waste while their owners post once or twice a month. This post was made with the approval of Sal Paradise [/quote] I agree to an extent. Maybe force them to give away land they are not RPing in or is not immediately important. HAE, RA, whatever that German place is and Greater Pacifica are the only examples. But yeah, Latin America, Germany, South America and the Pacific have all gone to waste to land gobblers who post 1-2 a month. If you are going to be busy for more than a month or two, just give up some to most of your land. No one needs a huge empire. Oh, and Japan, Whoever sits there all day not making a single post needs to be kicked out. I cannot stand how much land that guy controls and how little of it goes to RP. It's ridiculous. Invade him, do whatever. Just get him out of there. Edited February 2, 2011 by Fizzydog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The guy who rps japan is away with the military I understand. It's under protection until he returns, although i do agree a rule for one must be a rule for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1296613561' post='2615360'] Oh, and Japan, Whoever sits there all day not making a single post needs to be kicked out. I cannot stand how much land that guy controls and how little of it goes to RP. It's ridiculous. Invade him, do whatever. Just get him out of there. [/quote] This has been explained many times. Elrich is in Air Force training. It's being held for him for when he returns. The last time he had internet, he used it to talk to his alliance members, not RP. He does not and will not have time to RP until he is done with Basic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Has he posted within 25 days? No? Wipe him. We didn't hold Margrave's land for him when he was [b]actually deployed[/b] in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1296617995' post='2615529'] Has he posted within 25 days? No? Wipe him. We didn't hold Margrave's land for him when he was [b]actually deployed[/b] in Afghanistan. [/quote] As I understand it, it was RPed some time ago that Rebel Army, Koryo, and the UFE moved in to protect the land. However, I believe to be holding the land for that specific RPer, waiting for him to return, would be nothing but OOC gifting and not permissible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 IIRC, Japan's allies moved in and occupied it. Of course, they continued to RP events in Japan as if it was still a separate nation. It's total !@#$%^&*. And it's CNRP. 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.