Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1295562722' post='2587277'] Yep, I agree. The limits on everything are starting to kill any creativity. CNRP is way too strict. I can understand KISS, but putting an exact number/rule on something really hurts the fun. [/quote] Creativity is great until it is used to produce 1 million artillery batteries from thin air. Everything has an extreme and all things in extreme, must in some way be moderated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1295571861' post='2587476'] Creativity is great until it is used to produce 1 million artillery batteries from thin air. Everything has an extreme and all things in extreme, must in some way be moderated. [/quote] Apologies Cent, this will be my last irrelevant post. I completely agree. I'm just saying there shouldn't be a limit. I'm not syaing someone should produce 1 million arty batteries. If someone does, then they get their RP retconned. But if you keep a strict number everybody builds up to said number and CNRP is rather boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Okay so I propose the following, to decide on numbers of unarmed APCs(troop transports only) and static defenses/towed artillery we will leave it essentially open. If this right gets abused by impossible numbers a GM can wipe them. All armed APCs/IFVs/Self-propelled artillery, etc. combined must be equal or smaller than your maximum ig amount of tanks. Is this something you can all live with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295618832' post='2589089'] Okay so I propose the following, to decide on numbers of unarmed APCs(troop transports only) and static defenses/towed artillery we will leave it essentially open. If this right gets abused by impossible numbers a GM can wipe them. All armed APCs/IFVs/Self-propelled artillery, etc. combined must be equal or smaller than your maximum ig amount of tanks. Is this something you can all live with? [/quote] I am in agreement with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantWatcher Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I agree with this as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295618832' post='2589089'] Okay so I propose the following, to decide on numbers of unarmed APCs(troop transports only) and static defenses/towed artillery we will leave it essentially open. If this right gets abused by impossible numbers a GM can wipe them. All armed APCs/IFVs/Self-propelled artillery, etc. combined must be equal or smaller than your maximum ig amount of tanks. Is this something you can all live with? [/quote] No. Absolutely not. Until I start seeing link and link of evidence showing where multiple RPers have abused the open ended system then I fail to see where there is an issue that requires yet [b]more fixed numbers[/b] that only stifles creativity in our RPs. Quit throwing fixed numbers out there to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Edited January 21, 2011 by Yawoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1295629371' post='2589248'] No. Absolutely not. Until I start seeing link and link of evidence showing where multiple RPers have abused the open ended system then I fail to see where there is an issue that requires yet [b]more fixed numbers[/b] that only stifles creativity in our RPs. Quit throwing fixed numbers out there to fix a problem that doesn't exist. [/quote] The issue is this is already an existing ruling made by a previous gm staff, however we are certainly open to a change of this system if the majority of the community agrees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295629573' post='2589254'] The issue is this is already an existing ruling made by a previous gm staff, however we are certainly open to a change of this system if the majority of the community agrees. [/quote] You can't make a rule without the consent of the community, and as far as I am aware, there was never a community wide vote on the APC issue. Therefore, a new rule can not be put into place. So, once more, I request some evidence to show where there is an actual problem and not just one incident that could be handled by the good ol' GM wipe powers. Because, as far as I can see, there isn't an actual CNRP wide issue with regards to APCs, artillery, etc... the majority of us continue to use reasonable numbers. One incident and one RPer should not prompt a brand new rule be put in place. I think we all remember what happened last time this happened, aka the Mudd advance fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1295629806' post='2589260'] You can't make a rule without the consent of the community, and as far as I am aware, there was never a community wide vote on the APC issue. Therefore, a new rule can not be put into place. So, once more, I request some evidence to show where there is an actual problem and not just one incident that could be handled by the good ol' GM wipe powers. Because, as far as I can see, there isn't an actual CNRP wide issue with regards to APCs, artillery, etc... the majority of us continue to use reasonable numbers. One incident and one RPer should not prompt a brand new rule be put in place. I think we all remember what happened last time this happened, aka the Mudd advance fiasco. [/quote] Quoted from the existing guidelines: [quote]*Artillery, APCs, IFVs, etc. are to be lesser than or equal to your total number of tanks.[/quote] The rule in question dates from the beginnings of CNRP. However if you want to change it you are welcome to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295629976' post='2589265'] Quoted from the existing guidelines: The rule in question dates from the beginnings of CNRP. However if you want to change it you are welcome to. [/quote] Well, color me embarrassed for not knowing about that. As far as I was aware, and from conversations with past GMs, we used the KISS method... whoops. I still vote for the keep it reasonable method as I truly don't see any issue with RPers beyond the recently brought up example. Does anyone else? Am I missing other examples? If I am, please link me so I can read up on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I disagree with having APCs, Self Propelled Artillery, and IFVs being equal to the number of MBTs. While in modern armies Self Propelled Artillery is generally far smaller than main battle tanks, APCs and IFVs are more numerous. I think that APCs and IFVs along with other lighter armored personnel units should be one number, MBTs should be another, heavy artillery a third. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I concur with triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1295630463' post='2589274'] I disagree with having APCs, Self Propelled Artillery, and IFVs being equal to the number of MBTs. While in modern armies Self Propelled Artillery is generally far smaller than main battle tanks, APCs and IFVs are more numerous. I think that APCs and IFVs along with other lighter armored personnel units should be one number, MBTs should be another, heavy artillery a third. [/quote] I agree, though I'd also put AA guns in the same category as heavy artillery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Yeah, I would put mobile ones into that category, I would not put ones that are part of an AADN wonder, if people use them for point defense, nor would I put the small infantry operated rifles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Seeing as nobody actually RPs those things anyway, it doesn't really matter to me. This is a relatively pointless discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1295660959' post='2590195'] Seeing as nobody actually RPs those things anyway, it doesn't really matter to me. This is a relatively pointless discussion. [/quote] And most of these discussions aren't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295541308' post='2586516'] Is that 2x IG tank number an all-encompassing one for any vehicle types such as the IFV/APC or SPA? Or is it 2xIG for each category?[/quote] Obviously the former. You can have a total of 2x IG Tanks worth of IFV/APC/SPA. That way, people can customize their forces for firepower or mobility. And I have to say we need a rule. Otherwise peopel will be complaining when I have the amount of artillery of ROK and DPRK combined, which I would be RPing if we go with common sense. Sorry, but that's my stance, and hence why I support a number rule, to stop people from complaining about my RPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Also, I still say AA guns are not to be restricted by IG, but by common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted January 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295684365' post='2591564'] Obviously the former. You can have a total of 2x IG Tanks worth of IFV/APC/SPA. That way, people can customize their forces for firepower or mobility. [/quote] Ah, then I would support such a number for AFV counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295684365' post='2591564'] Obviously the former. You can have a total of 2x IG Tanks worth of IFV/APC/SPA. That way, people can customize their forces for firepower or mobility. And I have to say we need a rule. Otherwise peopel will be complaining when I have the amount of artillery of ROK and DPRK combined, which I would be RPing if we go with common sense. Sorry, but that's my stance, and hence why I support a number rule, to stop people from complaining about my RPs. [/quote] You know if you had their amount combined or I had the amount of the RoC and PRC combined, I still think that would be unrealistic. Looking at Germany as a model, after reunification, some of the older commie stuff was dropped from use, I expect a similar thing would happen in the event of a reunification of China or Korea's military resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 No more formulas. Less formulas = less numbers Less numbers = more creativity More creativity = more fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295684365' post='2591564'] Obviously the former. You can have a total of 2x IG Tanks worth of IFV/APC/SPA. That way, people can customize their forces for firepower or mobility. And I have to say we need a rule. Otherwise peopel will be complaining when I have the amount of artillery of ROK and DPRK combined, which I would be RPing if we go with common sense. Sorry, but that's my stance, and hence why I support a number rule, to stop people from complaining about my RPs. [/quote] Except one of the reasons they HAVE so much artillery is because they're still at war. Without an active enemy you have NO reason to invest so much in artillery when it can be invested elsewhere. It's common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1295734266' post='2592422'] No more formulas. Less formulas = less numbers Less numbers = more creativity More creativity = more fun [/quote] Less formulas = less numbers Less numbers = more people abusing the numbers (or lack thereof) More abusers = less fun Rules exist for a reason, and they aren't to keep the little man down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1295742443' post='2592625'] Less formulas = less numbers Less numbers = more people abusing the numbers (or lack thereof) More abusers = less fun Rules exist for a reason, and they aren't to keep the little man down. [/quote] There hasn't been a plethora of abuses that require a formula in this case. I still have yet to see my request for more links to abuses answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1295742443' post='2592625'] Less formulas = less numbers Less numbers = more people abusing the numbers (or lack thereof) More abusers = less fun Rules exist for a reason, and they aren't to keep the little man down. [/quote] And abusers aren't possible to stop, right? Wrong. All these set limitations cause a person to go for the maximum. If you say a person can only have X of something, they'll most likely take X. If you can say they can have as much as common sense allows, they'll probably set themselves at a sensible area. 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.