Fizzydog Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) edit Edited March 3, 2011 by Fizzydog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1299163691' post='2651136'] Yes another ruling: After internal discussions among the gm team we have come to a joint ruling in regards to spy rolls. Regardless of if you are occupied or not as long as you have a nation ooc'ly you are entitled to spy rolls in line with an insurgency. However if you OOC'ly relinquished control of your land(ie re-roll) you lose that right. As Rotavele has a new nation her rolls as her old nation are not valid. For all rolls after her DoE she needs to use the one she has now [/quote] Completely disagree with this. You need an IC nation to have nukes, why wouldn't the same apply to spy roles? I would ask the GM team to either strongly reconsider this as they now have two conflicting rules, or put it to a community member vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1299203786' post='2651792'] Completely disagree with this. You need an IC nation to have nukes, why wouldn't the same apply to spy roles? I would ask the GM team to either strongly reconsider this as they now have two conflicting rules, or put it to a community member vote. [/quote] Thing is that's not how the nuke rules work, you can construct nukes if your nation has the facilities and ooc control of the land(in case of nukes the facilities too). You can not launch spy ops without having a nation, however if you are occupied but still actually own the land you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1299203786' post='2651792'] Completely disagree with this. You need an IC nation to have nukes, why wouldn't the same apply to spy roles? I would ask the GM team to either strongly reconsider this as they now have two conflicting rules, or put it to a community member vote. [/quote] I think Centurius' wording might have caused some issues. I'll copy pasta my thoughts on the matter (as this rule ultimately came from everyone agreeing with me). [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1299157574'] I do not believe people should be allowed Spy Rolls if they do not have a nation. If X chooses to retain 'control' (a loose interpretation of the word) of <its> besieged territory, then this would be just like how Mudd RP'd an insurgency via spy rolls. That would be permissible in my view. Feel free to copy pasta this in the GM's court.[/quote] [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1299163217'] Well, what I meant to convey is that, even though an entire coalition is set upon you, and occupies you, unless the player owning the occupied nation OOC'ly relinquishes control, he still OOC'ly 'OWNS' the territory. Thus, he still has a nation, and is thus allowed to RP an insurgency. So yeah, nation=spy rolls allowed. In this case, nation~occupied nation, and spy rolls~ insurgency.[/quote] [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1299163314'] PS: Yes, I am aware that technically problems could arise with the whole 'unless the occupied player OOC'ly relinquishes control of his land', but atm, this is justified as this was the precedent so far, since everyone to date that has been curbstomped would give up sooner or later. We have yet to deal with someone resilent enough and patient enough OOC to dig his heels in and live out a full blown occupation.[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 How about we meet in the middle? If you want to conduct spy rolls. You need to RP your "Organization" constructing the spy rolls location. The Location needs to be within an unclaimed nation state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Ah, alright. It was Cent's wording that caused the confusion for me. I thought he was saying as long as you have a nation IG (which is what I thought he meant by "OOC") you can launch spy attacks, which could have led to random spy attacks from people outside CNRP or someone not being on the map spying all over the place. Now I see the rule as if you are invaded, but wish to continue fighting, even if occupied, you are still able to build nukes and run spy roles, and the spy roles would count as your insurgency. If you re-roll into another nation then you lose all right to RP an insurgency in the nation you were before. Am I interpreting this correctly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Conquer the territory - they're your citizens. I don't see why that's being changed now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1299244980' post='2652408'] Ah, alright. It was Cent's wording that caused the confusion for me. I thought he was saying as long as you have a nation IG (which is what I thought he meant by "OOC") you can launch spy attacks, which could have led to random spy attacks from people outside CNRP or someone not being on the map spying all over the place. Now I see the rule as if you are invaded, but wish to continue fighting, even if occupied, you are still able to build nukes and run spy roles, and the spy roles would count as your insurgency. If you re-roll into another nation then you lose all right to RP an insurgency in the nation you were before. Am I interpreting this correctly? [/quote] Yes, I intended control of your nation ooc as in you are the player who owns those pixels on the map but you can be ICly occupied. [quote name='Shadowsage' timestamp='1299245046' post='2652409'] Conquer the territory - they're your citizens. I don't see why that's being changed now. [/quote] That has never been the rule, they become your citizens as soon as the old owner gives up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1299244980' post='2652408'] Ah, alright. It was Cent's wording that caused the confusion for me. I thought he was saying as long as you have a nation IG (which is what I thought he meant by "OOC") you can launch spy attacks, which could have led to random spy attacks from people outside CNRP or someone not being on the map spying all over the place. Now I see the rule as if you are invaded, but wish to continue fighting, even if occupied, you are still able to build nukes and run spy roles, and the spy roles would count as your insurgency. If you re-roll into another nation then you lose all right to RP an insurgency in the nation you were before. Am I interpreting this correctly? [/quote] You got it. I would venture and say that your original interpretation of my ruling, however, would allow many lulz to ensue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) Would small carriers, such as the ones used in the invasion of Normandy, be landing ships or within reason ships? Edited March 5, 2011 by Fizzydog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1299339897' post='2653515'] Would small carriers, such as the ones used in the invasion of Normandy, be landing ships or within reason ships? [/quote] You mean Escort Carriers, or what they called "Jeep Carriers" back in WWII? Like the USS Independence-class? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/USS_Independence_CVL-22.jpg[/img] Not sure if they were involved in Normandy... but I get what you're talking about. They would be considered Landing Ships today, I believe, or something like it, as they are similar in size. The US Navy had Harriers operating off its Landing Ships for awhile, not sure if it still does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 No, these: [img]http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/d00001/d02340.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1299341606' post='2653525'] No, these: [img]http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/d00001/d02340.jpg[/img] [/quote] Oh! Landing craft! Uh, I doubt they'd count against your ships, since you need so many of those to make a landing. I'm not even sure if merchant-converted troop transports count against ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Landing Crafts like these LCVPs and merchant converted troop transports do not count against IG ships for the simple reason that these have hardly any offensive attack capability on their own. The LCVPs and troop transports may have machine guns or even Man Portable SAMs at the extreme but they hardly stand a chance against the weakest corvette, the weakest element of IG ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Skjold class patrol boat, corvette or no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1299344316' post='2653559'] Skjold class patrol boat, corvette or no? [/quote] It is a borderline between corvettes and missile boats, thus due to their seaworthiness, aka blue water capability, it would count as a corvette, hence IG ship numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 That's what I thought. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 So I would probably be able to maintain a fleet of small patrol boats to use along my coast? But it wouldn't count against IG Ship Numbers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1299346322' post='2653581'] So I would probably be able to maintain a fleet of small patrol boats to use along my coast? But it wouldn't count against IG Ship Numbers? [/quote] Brown water vessels and coast guard vessels are typically not counted against IG Ship numbers. This is on the assumption that they would be easily destroyed by any IG ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1299346691' post='2653588'] Brown water vessels and coast guard vessels are typically not counted against IG Ship numbers. This is on the assumption that they would be easily destroyed by any IG ship. [/quote] Thanks for clarifying, Cochin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axolotlia Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Spy roll please. [IMG]http://i823.photobucket.com/albums/zz156/JBurman94/Lutaispy.jpg[/IMG] 2 rolls. 1st roll is to infiltrate the Chunian Democratic Nation Splinter, in order to find out the current situation in the country. 2nd, to attempt to infiltrate Kingdom of Chunia military communications, through hacking into military communication devices, in order to find out the Kingdom's current plans in regards to the northern splinter nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1299475872' post='2655067'] Spy roll please. [IMG]http://i823.photobucket.com/albums/zz156/JBurman94/Lutaispy.jpg[/IMG] 2 rolls. 1st roll is to infiltrate the Chunian Democratic Nation Splinter, in order to find out the current situation in the country. 2nd, to attempt to infiltrate Kingdom of Chunia military communications, through hacking into military communication devices, in order to find out the Kingdom's current plans in regards to the northern splinter nation. [/quote] 1-10= Failure 11-100= Success [img]http://i51.tinypic.com/n5hu1i.png[/img] Both rolls are a success. Edited March 7, 2011 by Centurius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1299342006' post='2653530'] Oh! Landing craft! Uh, I doubt they'd count against your ships, since you need so many of those to make a landing. I'm not even sure if merchant-converted troop transports count against ships. [/quote] The thing is that landing craft are always paired with a larger landing ship, so I think that we [u]do[/u] need an IG ship to do amphibious landings. Also, Merchant-converted ships can't be used to do amphibious landings either, as they aren't designed to beach themselves, or have bay doors like LST's do. You need an actual friendly port facility to offload troops from these converted ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1299539262' post='2655860'] The thing is that landing craft are always paired with a larger landing ship, so I think that we [u]do[/u] need an IG ship to do amphibious landings. Also, Merchant-converted ships can't be used to do amphibious landings either, as they aren't designed to beach themselves, or have bay doors like LST's do. You need an actual friendly port facility to offload troops from these converted ships. [/quote] You can always just beach a Merchant Ship and hope your men can swim. Edited March 7, 2011 by Fizzydog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1299539262' post='2655860'] The thing is that landing craft are always paired with a larger landing ship, so I think that we [u]do[/u] need an IG ship to do amphibious landings. Also, Merchant-converted ships can't be used to do amphibious landings either, as they aren't designed to beach themselves, or have bay doors like LST's do. You need an actual friendly port facility to offload troops from these converted ships. [/quote] LCVPs were launched from converted merchantmen during WWII, of course if this were done without naval combat vessels around, it is a dangerous proposition, but still "doable" without any IG ship numbers. If this is not the case, then how did Markus launch an assault on the beaches of the Republique de Fleuve without any ships? And even then, LSTs aren't combat ships, they don't really have much in the way of combat support elements, especially if you RP them in their original unmodified state. Some of them were modified to carry rockets and such, but for the most part, they were armed with a couple machineguns and, maybe some AA guns, but they were basically more of a target then anything else. Hence their dubbed nickname "Large Slow Targets". I don't disagree with you about this whole thing, they do need larger landing ships, but if you RP it correctly, you can still do a legit invasion with landing craft, without needing IG ship numbers. At least it would seem that way as I have been told/read the rules. I see where you are coming from though, don't get me wrong. Markus definitely didn't roll up to Rotavele's ports and ask if he could offload troops, than have a battle. No one called him on that. Edited March 8, 2011 by TheShammySocialist 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.