Executive Minister Posted February 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) [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] Only, that would be purely OOC, and the community has shown that it will not stand for such blatant IC/OOC trespasses. [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] I agree with Sargun here, if this is the case. I don't care if EVR is in the airforce, dog-fighting with Osama Bin Laden himself, or if he's been abducted by aliens. All this 'saving' land for friends business is nonsense. [quote name='dotCom' timestamp='1296619096' post='2615563'] As I understand it, it was RPed some time ago that Rebel Army, Koryo, and the UFE moved in to protect the land. [/quote] This is also what I believe is the case atm. Let those nations protect the land, be my guest- but as long as it is IC. Edited February 2, 2011 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1296611444' post='2615328'] 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] Forced rerolls are something entirely different from normal rerolls. If the player has to reroll due to being overwhelmed by an enemy or a similar situation, it's all good and fine. But if it's because they can't decide where to go or because they suddenly change their opinion or whatever, then it should be restricted. Edited February 2, 2011 by Lynneth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well, since EvR seriously wigged out last time he almost lost japan, we all decided it was best to hold onto it for him. I'm not going to go deeper than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1296657773' post='2616156'] Well, since EvR seriously wigged out last time he almost lost japan, we all decided it was best to hold onto it for him. I'm not going to go deeper than this. [/quote] If the guy is so damn attached to CNRP it may be for the better if he loses Japan :v 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='dotCom' timestamp='1296659425' post='2616183'] If the guy is so damn attached to CNRP it may be for the better if he loses Japan :v [/quote] I've heard his story. This really is one of the few things he can find solace in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 We aren't a mental health group. Wipe his nation or if someone wants the land IC then the nations currently protecting it should be forced to give the land up to a re-roller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1296660774' post='2616205'] I've heard his story. This really is one of the few things he can find solace in. [/quote] Well if it's so damn important to him, when he gets back he can reroll. It's not like we're going to say "NO YOU CANNAE RETURN TO CNRP NEVAR" He can always reroll. I mean, if his life hinges on a few pixels shaped like Japan on a roleplay game, I think he needs to get some help, seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 EvR is seriously the biggest weeaboo I know. If he comes back without japan, you can rest assured that the entire remainder of his CNRP career will be countless rerolls of countries with the sole objective to take back japan. I don't care if we strip him of his Russian holdings, but for the sanity of everyone, leave him the bloody islands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [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] Cochin, you might notice that in the case of the Koreas, they have near parity or a greater number of SPAs than tanks. While most other countries have almost 2x tank for their IFV/APC, that's because they either have overwhelming air power or are situated in a flat area, which is not the case for the Koreas. Therfore your point of "PC/IFV would remain equal to IG tanks and we could consider SPGs to be equal to half IG tanks." cannot stand. The main difference between APC/IFV and SPA is the focus on mobility and firepower. APC/IFV are for mobility, moving large number of troops safely while not hindering fighting ability, while SPA is to ensure artillery isn't pounded as easily as towed ones. In the end, they are part of the same thing as armored units. Also, the current rule is IFV/APC/[b]SPA[/b] being 1x IG tank. Your suggestion is a regression from it. I for one will be against being put into a mold where I use the same tactics as everyone else, without considering my environment/doctrines. My nation is a highly defensive one, focusing more on firepower to prevent enemies from putting their foot on my land rather than moving tens of thousands of soldiers across great distances over land using armored vehicles. I think I can finally understand what EM was talking about when he mentioned the fine line between restricting large numbers and stifling creativity. Forcing everyone to have the same ratio of equipment is another step down making this a pure number game, without giving RP a chance to make difference. Can Executive Minister and Cent give their thoughts? I wish to know other's opinions. [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.[/quote] I would certainly agree with HAE and Greater Pacifica, but I cannot get why you added Martens. He's almost as active as the ten least active people combined. [quote]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] Japan is a [i]protectorate[/i] of two of the most inacitve people around. However, it's still a protectorate. It just wasn't changed because we all know of Elrich's situation. Anyone being against protectorates also have problems. [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] First, it's Zargathia, not me. Second, who the land goes to is decided by the two protectors. There is nothing OOC about it: They can refuse anyone if they so wish. Not a good thing, but forcing them to give away land is not going to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1296713051' post='2617303'] First, it's Zargathia, not me. Second, who the land goes to is decided by the two protectors. There is nothing OOC about it: They can refuse anyone if they so wish. Not a good thing, but forcing them to give away land is not going to work. [/quote] I ain't sayin' 'force them to give the land away'. I'm sayin' they're holding it for a specific RPer and as I see it will turn down anyone else who wants Japan. And there is quite a bit OOC about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1296713051' post='2617303'] Cochin, you might notice that in the case of the Koreas, they have near parity or a greater number of SPAs than tanks. While most other countries have almost 2x tank for their IFV/APC, that's because they either have overwhelming air power or are situated in a flat area, which is not the case for the Koreas. Therfore your point of "PC/IFV would remain equal to IG tanks and we could consider SPGs to be equal to half IG tanks." cannot stand. The main difference between APC/IFV and SPA is the focus on mobility and firepower. APC/IFV are for mobility, moving large number of troops safely while not hindering fighting ability, while SPA is to ensure artillery isn't pounded as easily as towed ones. In the end, they are part of the same thing as armored units. Also, the current rule is IFV/APC/[b]SPA[/b] being 1x IG tank. Your suggestion is a regression from it. I for one will be against being put into a mold where I use the same tactics as everyone else, without considering my environment/doctrines. My nation is a highly defensive one, focusing more on firepower to prevent enemies from putting their foot on my land rather than moving tens of thousands of soldiers across great distances over land using armored vehicles. I think I can finally understand what EM was talking about when he mentioned the fine line between restricting large numbers and stifling creativity. Forcing everyone to have the same ratio of equipment is another step down making this a pure number game, without giving RP a chance to make difference. Can Executive Minister and Cent give their thoughts? I wish to know other's opinions. [/quote] Indeed I am once again forced to eat my own words on the SPG = 0.5 Tank solution. Definitely it is IFV/APC/SPG = 1X IG Tank. As for the creative aspects you have full freedom to adjust the numbers of your equipments within that limits, ie, you may have a 3:1 ratio of SPG : APC/IFV, but at the end of the day the total number of these vehicles should still be less than or equal to the maximum of your IG tank numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1296718047' post='2617461'] Indeed I am once again forced to eat my own words on the SPG = 0.5 Tank solution. Definitely it is IFV/APC/SPG = 1X IG Tank. As for the creative aspects you have full freedom to adjust the numbers of your equipments within that limits, ie, you may have a 3:1 ratio of SPG : APC/IFV, but at the end of the day the total number of these vehicles should still be less than or equal to the maximum of your IG tank numbers. [/quote] I do agree with cochin, specifically as we are not allowed to change an existing rule without community support. Kankou, if you can find enough support amongst the community to loosen the rule we will, but for now I fear this is the best we can do within the existing rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Prior to the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65298&view=findpost&p=2451995"]CN war[/url], I had at my disposal 550,000 IC troops available approx and 5600 IC MBTs available approx. My order of battle was as follows: Heavy Armor (MBTs) Platoon- 4 MBTs Company- 14 MBTs -1 APC -2 Light Transport (Humvee equivalent) -2 HEMTT (11 ton truck) -8 Mobile Gun/Missile System (AA) Battalion - 4 x Contents of a Company -12 HETS tank transports Brigade- 5 x Contents of a Battalion Division- 2 x Contents of Brigade Which would mean that in the workhorse formation of my Tanks, the Tank Division, had 560 MBTs, 60 HETS, 40 HEMTTs, 20 APCs, 40 Light Transports and 180 AA vehicles. As per my understanding of present rules, in reality, only the [b]560 MBTs, 20 APCs, and POSSIBLY 180 AA Vehicles per Tank Division would matter. [/b]So far so good, as my ratio in my Tank Division is extremely low compared to the actual MBTs involved. The IG Tank count is paramount to this hierarchy.... however I have Mechanized and Armored Infantry too. Mechanized Infantry (APCs, Feet and unarmed and armored (relatively speaking) transports) Militant Cell (Platoon Equivalent) [40 IG Soldiers total] - 40 Basic Infantry Men -2 APCs -1 Light Transport (Humvee equivalent) -1 HEMTT -1 AA vehicle (see above) Militant Squad (Battalion Equivalent) [650 IG Soldiers total] -10 x Contents of Militant Cell -250 Middle Tier Infantry Militant Division (Division)[14400 IG Soldiers total] -1000 Elite Infantry -20 x Contents of Militant Squad [b]Which would give me 400 APCs, 400 Light Transports, 200 HEMTTs and 200 AA Vehicles PER [u]14400 IG Soldier of mine if they are in a Mechanized Division[/u][/b] Then, Armored Infantry (Similar to Mechanized, yet they have access to IFVs) Militant Cell (Platoon Equivalent) [40 IG Soldiers total] -40 Basic Infantry -3 IFVs -1 Light Tank (Unsure about how I treated these light tanks, similar to Sheridans.... i BELIEVE I counted them as IFVs too) -1 AA Vehicle -2 Light Transport (Hummer) -1 HEMT Militant Squad (Battalion Equivalent) [650 IG Soldiers total] -10 x Contents of Militant Cell -250 Middle Tier Infantry Militant Division (Division)[14400 IG Soldiers total] -1000 Elite Infantry -20 x Contents of Militant Squad [b]This would leave me with 600 IFVs, 400 Light Transports, 200 Light Tanks (considered additional IFVs), 200 AA Vehicles per [u]14400 IG Soldiers if they are in an Armored Division[/u].[/b] At this time, I RPed having 16 Mechanized Infantry Divisions, 10 Armored Infantry Divisions and 10 Tank Divisions. The rest of my IG soldiers were put in 7 Air Assault Divisions (Nothing saved Towed Artillery and Helicopters) and 5 Paratrooper Divisions and are not included in this example since they dont have the vehicles we are talking about. So for the three Divisions in question, I had a total of 10x600 IFVs + 10 x 200 Light Tanks for [b]8000 IFVs[/b], 10 x 200 AA + 16 x 200 AA for [b]5200 AA Vehicles[/b], 10 x 20 APCs + 16 x 400 APCs for [b]6600 APCs[/b] and [b]5600 MBTs[/b]. My ratio would be 5600 MBTs to 19800 IFVs/AA Vehicles/APCs, or 5600 MBTs to 14600 IFVs/APCs.... which is bad, considering that I didnt RP out explicitly how many Mobile Artillery Vehicles I had in position. My ratio is approximately 1:3, rounding up! However, do you see another problem? Had my ration been 1:1, then I would have an EXTREMELY disproportionate number of vehicles to IG Soldiers. I am therefore inclined to agree with a lot of other people in CNRP that this 1:1 ration CANNOT stand. For clarity, I based my numbers on roughly what the American Military currently uses- especially for my Heavy Tank Divisions and IFVs. Edited February 3, 2011 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 You guys are putting way too much effort into these orbatts, vehicle ratios, and other nonsense. Take away all the tanks and rearm everyone with potato guns. ps. if you make Japan avaliable, I'll take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Calling BS on yawoo in this thread. Using OOC information to influence his IC comments made against my nation. **OOC First example is before you got France Second example you are misreading. The Walls are not manned by inquisitors, but by soldiers. There are just inquisitors in the area. I'm also curious as to how the hell your Sats can differentiate one suited civilian from an inquisitor. They dont all dress like the inquisitor in my one RP when radical acts had been undertaken, which like I've said before, were secret. As you never RP'd sats watching it, you would be godmodding to now say you have proof. Secondly how would your government know that a letter was redirected by an inquisitor? You have spies? If so where are the rolls?** that was my last response. Here is the thread and page in question. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97661&st=20&gopid=2623336&#entry2623336 I would like a GM retcon of yawoos posts please as they arnt valid, have no relevance to the RP in question, same for aldeis posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Given that Yawoo has not said anything indicating that he has knowledge of what goes on in your nation other than that you are a Christian-dominated nation with inquisitors for state-sponsored Christianity. In the real world, nations that are theocratic have typically been harshly bigoted and violent against those of other religions. It has been like this throughout history, and even in nations not theocratic but just religiously dominated, from Christian to Muslim to Hindu. One of the most notorious acts of religious discrimination and murder was the [b]BLOODY INQUISITION[/b] which you use a variant of for the name of certain people in your government. Given that: A) You are a Christian-dominated Christian theocratic nation (and that nations along this line have in history have been violent against religious minorities) B) You use language that heralds from a past of violent suppression of religious minorities and C) All of this is public knowledge Then you should not find fault in Yawoo's statement. The person that Yawoo has RP'd has not put forward proof of his statement in an IC manner, [b]BUT, [/b]what he is saying in the first place requires no leap of faith or huge hole in logic or judgement to come to. In fact, I personally have never read your inquisitor RP but simply the facts that you admit are public knowledge would lead me to believe your government suppresses religious minorities as well. Oh, and by the way, RPing no religious discrimination whatsoever would raise red flags. Much like how some police officers who get arrested and charged for abuse of power have absolutely clean records arouses suspicion in the way the police handle things, a nation that follows a historically bigoted and violent form of government and religious mix having little to no problems like this publicly would arouse suspicion as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1297055701' post='2623358'] Calling BS on yawoo in this thread. Using OOC information to influence his IC comments made against my nation. **OOC First example is before you got France Second example you are misreading. The Walls are not manned by inquisitors, but by soldiers. There are just inquisitors in the area. I'm also curious as to how the hell your Sats can differentiate one suited civilian from an inquisitor. They dont all dress like the inquisitor in my one RP when radical acts had been undertaken, which like I've said before, were secret. As you never RP'd sats watching it, you would be godmodding to now say you have proof. Secondly how would your government know that a letter was redirected by an inquisitor? You have spies? If so where are the rolls?** that was my last response. Here is the thread and page in question. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97661&st=20&gopid=2623336&#entry2623336 I would like a GM retcon of yawoos posts please as they arnt valid, have no relevance to the RP in question, same for aldeis posts. [/quote] 1) That thread is continuing therefore, it is ongoing and not finished and as such my acquisition of France, which is completed, would have finished while that is still going on giving me the ability to see that event as it unfolds. Or, are you trying to tell me that since it isn't completed, it is happening in real time and it took your ambassador days to meet the other ambassador? 2) It doesn't read as if they're manned by soldiers but by Inquisitors. As such, it is reasonable for me to assume, based off of satellite photos considering the hatred of your nation by mine, that I would be seeing Inquisitor activity that is in no way, shape, or form that of missionaries. Which is where I'm getting they're manned by inquisitors and not soldiers - I never stated that I saw the letter, please quit assuming that. 3) There is very, very extensive RP showing my government striving to use any and all means to disrupt English credibility so it is not a stretch to assume I have satellites devoted to keeping watch on English activity. I may have one of the most extensive hatred RPs of any nation currently operating in CNRP. 4) Zoot RPs a very Christian nation. The use of Inquisitors was last used in the Inquisition, by the Roman Catholic Church and they perpetrated acts of murder, and various atrocities in the name of Christianity so it is not a stretch, as I previously posted in that thread, to connect the dots between the Inquisition of Zoot's and the Inquisition of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 If the thread began before you took France then it also ends before you take it. Seeing as that RP is a good week or so ahead of your move onto the mainland, which in cnrp is like i dnno, a month or so, if not more. If you didn't see the letter why quote it? You can't use it back up ICly arguments. And I believe common sense would rule on the London area. I've always used inquisitors in one or two man roles as overseers, not as a massed army cordoning the entire greater London area. I don't see you slamming shadow for his inquisitors. Regardless this entire thing means nothing if aldeis post is removed. It bears no relevance to the thread at all and goes completely off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1297057587' post='2623523'] I don't see you slamming shadow for his inquisitors. [/quote] There was a softening RP'd a while back in which Catholicism and other religions were allowed into the country again (just not Dragon-Cultism). In effect my Inquisitors are glorified secret police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1297057587' post='2623523'] It bears no relevance to the thread at all and goes completely off topic. [/quote] Al Dei posted a protest against a Christian-majority, Christian theocratic government as an Islamic group. He did it at a public forum for multiple nations to see, meaning that A) it was relevant to the thread and B) was on topic. Assassination attempts at public forums like these have been performed in the past (ask Uberstein), so this argument falls fall short. In fact, none of the points you could have used against Yawoo you could use against Al Dei; you have absolutely nothing to warrant a request for a GM to remove Al Dei's posts other than your wish to avoid Yawoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Then it's a good job your not a GM anymore sargun mate. What they decided is what's gonna happen. I'll leave this for Cent or EM Cochin can't rule because he's involved. Edited February 7, 2011 by Zoot Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I will be reading the arguments raised and the rp in depth, I will give you my ruling later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) While it is unlikely that Ireland would know specifics of the Inquisitors, I do not think Yawoo went out of line. As a neighbor it is likely he would have at least heard rumors and the names of the units do make it easy to establish a link between Britain's policy and the ancient inquisition. So I do not see a reason to wipe the rp however Ireland will not be able to provide solid evidence to the world of the oppression without further rp. As such the rp can go on as it has. Both sides are free to provide further arguments for their case if they do not agree with this ruling. Edited February 7, 2011 by Centurius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Runours how? Two nations in a cold war with highly militarised Borders don't exactly go holidaying across the border. I've never RPd my people going into Ireland and vice versa. I have not even RPd trade with him. Secondly, I quote this text from this thread. ***As such, I officially remove any and all restrictions put into place following the J. Andres war with the exception of the following. A travel ban is still in place so that no English citizens can travel to the Kingdom and no citizen of the Kingdom can travel to England. Trade may resume, but shall be subject to a higher rate of tariffs for the foreseeable future."*** http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93990 Please elaborate how these rumours crossed a border that people can not. Secondly, yawoos nukes in the war were along the border, so it's a common sense ruling as to why there would be a lack of people along the border, not to mention the highly militarised nature of the place. Edited February 7, 2011 by Zoot Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Zoot- the first bit is shaky ground, its the same tactic i tried using on Franz when he trade embargoed/travel banned me same with trade. Neither were received well by GM's 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.