The Anunia Convention - Final Draft
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: The Anunia Convention - Final Draft
Iehova, Monty's going off the old SNARL values. Planes have cost 1000 for time immemorial. He's just reduced fighters. Battleships have also always cost 5000 (remember it said 25000 men or 25 planes or 10 Crusiers or 5 Battleships?) - this is just looking at them the right way. The one thing is we've dropped Carrier from it's original insane cost of 12500 down to 1000 but without planes. But if you would like to suggest different costs you're welcome to go ahead.iehova wrote:Hang on, so a bomber supposedly costs the same to build as an aircraft carrier, a battleship costs five times more and a cruiser two and a half times more? Some of these prices seem... messed up.Bomber = 1,000
Fighter = 500
Stealth Plane = 1200
Battleship = 5,000
Carrier = 1,000 (This does NOT include Aircraft)
Diesel Sub = 500
Nuclear powered submarine = 1,000
Submarine capable of ICBMS = 1,500
Destroyer/Frigate = 1,000
Cruiser = 2,500
Corvette/Minesweeper = 500
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
No they didn't. Ever.Longbow of Tokidoki wrote:the old aircraft carriers came with aircraft, which is why they used to cost so much more.
@Andreas: It still doesn't make much sense to me... if a large aircraft carrier like the Nimitz Class costs $4.5 billion, and a B-52 bomber costs a mere $14.43 million, they surely shouldn't cost the same? Likewise an Arleigh Burke class destroyer costs only $1.1 billion to build, and there's no way a large battleship should cost 5 times that of a large carrier ($22.5 billion?)
If we're talking relative power, and not taking price into consideration, then you might have a point and I could more or less accept the points designation here... more or less.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Iehova, SNARL has always been on strength, not price.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Bayen raised a good point elsewhere. He pointed out that with the three day, forces disappearing rule, then returning when the commander returns, there's the distinct possibility commanders can be absent for a while, and be bugged by their nation to return just as their city is captured or something - so the attacker, who's been paying careful note of all the active units and knows no one is in the city, suddenly finds an enemy army right next to him, which before was immune to attack because it had 'disappeared'.
His suggestion was that when commanders whose forces disappeared return, they announce their return, and they have to wait 24 hours from that for their forces to reassemble. Assumedly, when they 'disappear' the force has run off to hide, every man for himself. Making people wait a day to reorganise the army then allows the attackers time to remember they're there and work around. Because, let's face it, war gets extremely confusing and after a while you just focus on the posts relevant to you. You can't reasonably be expected to remember where your opponent was a week ago if they've done nothing since ...
His suggestion was that when commanders whose forces disappeared return, they announce their return, and they have to wait 24 hours from that for their forces to reassemble. Assumedly, when they 'disappear' the force has run off to hide, every man for himself. Making people wait a day to reorganise the army then allows the attackers time to remember they're there and work around. Because, let's face it, war gets extremely confusing and after a while you just focus on the posts relevant to you. You can't reasonably be expected to remember where your opponent was a week ago if they've done nothing since ...
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
From MRWS forums
extreme007 wrote: I am not registered at MCS forums, so can't post there. and too lazy to go register.
anyways, here's my take:
The problem with this is that nations that are not members of MRWS will not be able to play effectively to their strengths. It would hamper their capabilities if MRWS were to disagree to some of their 'information'. For instance, Karnali isn't a member of MRWS at the moment. Or a new nation say, Dinarchy of Panzerland Commonwealth, wants to fight. In either of these cases, any 'information' given by them to MRWS before the war begins would undergo scrutiny by MRWS. This 'information' may or may not be allowed, or subjected to lots of questions (which is common in micronationalism.. lets face it!) and thus, lose out because the nation was unable to satisfy the MRWS. For instance, Ocia or Dinarchy of Panzerland Commonwealth could claim to have anti-missile shield protecting their cities, which when under immense question period by MRWS, may not satisfy the MRWS.B. At the current time, both of these bodies of knowledge will be held with the MRWS, and only information within the MRWS BEFORE the commencement of hostilities will be used in the war.
This would create those nations to not want to fight under these rules. They may be entirely satisfied with all the other information/rules of the charter, but MRWS has a problem with some of the technology / 'information' they provided and this would affect the war from perhaps even happening!
Did I make myself clear on that point?
This should be allowed. However, make it such that the use of these weapon systems is clearly defined at the start of the war and what exactly constitutes them. For instance, Karnali and Dinarchy of Panzerland Commonwealth might want to go to war with each other and use nukes, chemicals, biological weapons!They must also contain an end date. Where the parameters for the war are not defined, it is assumed that Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons and Magic are banned, and that any technology used must be in use (or have been in use) in real world military operations, and sufficient data must be obtained about its specifications.
Or what about napalm and such incendiary devices? They could be classified as chemical weapons and banned under their use.
So, at the start of the war, the two parties should explicitly mention whether or not nukes, chemical and biological weapons are allowed in the war. And then perhaps even define what those mean (so we do not end up in situations where one side uses an incendiary device only to realize that they fall under chemical weapons!)
The problem with this is that the war becomes one-sided sometimes (especially when someone called Ardashir is involved, who has very good talents to get other nations involved on his side). Perhaps, new nations/members can only join when all parties involved accept them? So, if Karnali and Dinarchy of Panzerland Commonwealth are fighting, and a nation The Not Red Antilles wants to join on Karnali's side, then both Karnali and Dinarchy of Panzerland Commonwealth should agree to it.D. Belligerent parties can include nations, organizations, and individuals. Once a war has started, no new belligerent party may join except at the invitation of a belligerent party already participating.
This could be considered 'standard'. But like your next point shows, 'non-standard' units could exist. In such cases, their values should be explained. For instance, I might have a standard infantry unit of 10,000 men (10,000 points) plus 1000 standard special forces (1000 times 5 = 5000). Which is total of 15,000. Plus 500 Advanced special forces (500 times 20 = 10,000) where these special forces are 4 times better than the standard special forces.Infantry = Light Infantry = 1
Paratroops = 3
Marines = 3
Special Forces = 5
APC = 15 (This does NOT include IFVs)
Armour = Main Battle Tank = 50
Infantry Fighting Vehicle = 40
Light Tank = 35
Reconnaissance Tank = 30
Armoured Artillery = 25
Armoured Anti-Air = 20
Towed Artillery pieces = 10
Multi-Purpose Helicopter = 60
Attack Helicopter = 75
Bomber = 1,000
Fighter = 500
Stealth Plane = 1200
Battleship = 5,000
Carrier = 1,000 (This does NOT include Aircraft)
Diesel Sub = 500
Nuclear powered submarine = 1,000
Submarine capable of ICBMS = 1,500
Destroyer/Frigate = 1,000
Cruiser = 2,500
Corvette/Minesweeper = 500
Its just an idea to consider.
Is the difference here mainly the number of bombs or guidance? And what sort of guidance are we talking about? the bomb's guidance or aircrafts? If its the bomb's, then you are making it overly complicated. If its aircraft's, then its not really required. I mean the improvement might just be a tad better, but certainly not worth increasing the cost over. I mean, I could improve the 'software' of guidance system but that doesn't mean that my aircraft's cost should go up.For example, if the ‘standard’ bomber had was guided by GPS and contained 20 bombs, and the ‘non-standard’ bomber proposed was Satellite Guided by an advanced computer system, and contained 25 bombs, it would be costed at 1100 compared to the standard 1000.
Normally during this situation, the rest of the war is going on as if nothing's happened. In wars, this is generally not the case. The results of one battle influence the tactics of another battle in a different place, happening at the same time. If one battle is put on hold (because of this judging issue), then the other battle should also be put on hold to allow both events to simultaneously grow/happen.A. Where the outcome of a battle cannot be decided by mutual consent of the two parties involved, the judge may intervene. The Judge has the final say in all events.
B. When one parties requests a judgement, they must start a new thread, clearly titled with the matter to be judged and the two opposing commanders involved. They must then explain what they believe needs to be judged (whether this be how realistic an action is, or to protest losses etc), and provide a link to the offended post or posts.
C. Their opponent must be given a chance to respond, and discuss the matter outside of the war thread with the opposing party. Once this chance has been given, the Judge may deliver his judgement based on the arguments of the two parties, and his knowledge of realistic military combat.
For instance, lets say unit A1 is fighting unit B1 in region 1, and unit A2 is fighting unit B2 in region 2. A1 is winning the battle in region 1 and A2 is losing in region 2. Its clear that for As to win, A1 has to provide support to A2. They want to do so. However, A1/B1 battle is put on hold because of judging issue (which may or may not be intentionally done by side B in order to stop A1 from supporting A2). Before A1/B1 battle is solved by judge, B2 finishes off A2 and now is in position to attack A1. Now, I am sure you see the 'unfairness' in this situation. A's were winning (or were able to win).. but now, B has an upper hand.
So, a judging should temporarily halt the entire war. Or other forms of solutions must be found in order to avoid halting the entire war (or even a battle). Like for instance, if there's argument about loses on side B1, then continue the battle with the damages that were high. If the judge later determines that B1's damages were lower, then the difference in value can be provided to B to be placed anywhere in the war/battle they want. An advantage for B yes I know, but at least they allowed the war to continue while playing with much lower numbers (remember they unfairly got higher damages). Or something like such solutions.
They did. Jaris war. the first war under SNARL. The aircraft carriers came with aircrafts.Longbow of Tokidoki wrote:No they didn't. Razz Ever.the old aircraft carriers came with aircraft, which is why they used to cost so much more.
Not a bad suggestion. However, you are assuming this is an infantry unit that can easily hide. What if this unit is in the open lands? what if this unit is an air or naval unit or tank unit? You can't hide everything.Bayen raised a good point elsewhere. He pointed out that with the three day, forces disappearing rule, then returning when the commander returns, there's the distinct possibility commanders can be absent for a while, and be bugged by their nation to return just as their city is captured or something - so the attacker, who's been paying careful note of all the active units and knows no one is in the city, suddenly finds an enemy army right next to him, which before was immune to attack because it had 'disappeared'.
His suggestion was that when commanders whose forces disappeared return, they announce their return, and they have to wait 24 hours from that for their forces to reassemble. Assumedly, when they 'disappear' the force has run off to hide, every man for himself. Making people wait a day to reorganise the army then allows the attackers time to remember they're there and work around. Because, let's face it, war gets extremely confusing and after a while you just focus on the posts relevant to you. You can't reasonably be expected to remember where your opponent was a week ago if they've done nothing since ...
I remember in the Jaris war, Ryan Curso was on my side and had left for a few days or something. His unit was in the open and the Shirerithians saw the opportunity to wipe him out. I had to provide cover and protection for Ryan's unit in order for him to return and have something left to play with. Thus, in case of a commander of a unit leaving, the unit should still be kept there, though doing nothing. Just sitting there. They could do basic defenses only, but no attacks or advanced defense moves. It would then be the responsibility of the other commanders allied to that unit, to provide cover and protection for that unit. If they fail to do so, then that side should be punished.
The problem with the suggestion from Bayen is that what happens when: unit A is in city XYZ. Unit A commander leaves. unit B enters XYZ. Takes over. moves to city QWE. takes over. unit A commander comes back. now, XYZ was already under control of side B and now that city is perhaps deep inside B's territory gains. you can't really expect unit A to just show up behind the enemy's backs!
Anyway, that's it for now.
Particularly the last bit is important to read.My response wrote:Thanks very much Extreme. In answer to your thoughts:
B. You're right, that could be a problem, but the information does need to be held in a central place and undergo a basic approval mechanism. If we automatically let everything, well, that would include all of Gralus' awesome magic defences. It's not that they're not well developed, it's just that they're magic, and so shouldn't be allowed to assist in the war. Likewise, a nation could say they have forceshields - not magic, but still unrealistic.
Personally, I'm not concerned if people understand all the details or not, just if they can describe it well and it's basically realistic. If you're concerned the MRWS might judge to harshly, we can get another body to judge, but somewhere along the line we need to have a judge, so we don't get to the war and, half way through, Nation A's defences they thought they had get removed because the judge decides they're unrealistic. It has to be approved before the war, and kept somewhere easy to access ...
Also, you can add defences during the war - you just have to clearly explain them in a post, and the judges can decide to ban them then and there. Doing it beforehand makes it easier. It came out of a situation in Micran WW2 where Novatainia sent missiles at Alexandria, and Alexandria said they defended against them with missile defences that were in their cities under a city defence charter, but not in the orbat. (Enrique, I can't quite remember, sorry if I told it wrong - they might have been in the orbat but you didn't make it clear and we thought at the time it was from the city defence charter. Either way, the point is made). Novatainia had no idea we'd have to go and look at the city on the Alexandrian forums to find it's Defence Charter before invading it - and we shouldn't have to. The point of this system is that such charters are put in a central location for easy finding.
On Nukes etc, of course you can use them. You must have misread it - it says that they're only banned if not defined at the start of combat. I know SNARL says end date and define nukes in it - people don't always do it though. So this way, if they don't define it, the 'standard' is set in the charter and not up to the judges discretion midway through the war.
With D, other nations, I can certainly see your point ... (thinks of a war where, while Aradashir wasn't directly involved, was supporting one side, and it ended up most of the world vs us). Ideally, most nations would be in the war from the start. .... if we say both have to agree, it has the potential to get ugly and petty. If we say only one has to invite, it has the potential to be one sided. I'll have to see what others think before any permanent change.
With the troop costs, you really must have misread me ... one of the major points of Anunia is that it has the standard, but expects people will use non-standard troops, and merely asks them to price them accordingly. Experienced SNARL commanders (and Gralans, cause we've stressed this point to them) do it automatically. But some commanders say "Plane = 1000. Ok, I have this Plane, it's 1000" when in reality it is so strong that it should be worth at least 1.2 a normal plane. This reminds people to:
a. Price properly
b. Describe basic stats of their units so it's clear from the start. You have to do this with ones your micronation creates, so why not with real world ones you're using?
That example was just an example made on the fly. I understand recwar fine, just don't have much in the area of specific military knowledge. If you can get what I'm trying to say and write a better example, go for it, I'll happily change it.
With the judging thing, I don't think it says the battle has to stop. This was just putting into words what normally happens in judging (as asking them to do it in at max two days, not drawn out like some wars ...). In my experience in Recwars, both commanders go on as if they're in the right in the situation, and everyone else ignores the judging. If we had to stop the war for every judging ... either people would only bring up serious issues for judging, or the war would spend more time not on than on. Continuing with high damages ... is probably close to what normally happens. Adding the troops back if it's decided you keep them is certainly what I assumed would happen when the decision is made ... I'll just write it into the charter.
skip Carriers ...
For your final thing, your argument is good, but you miss the point. Under SNARL, if a commander is absent for 3 days, his unit disappears after those 3 days. Bayen's fear is basically this makes it invulnerable, and especially in wars where each person fights for themselves, someone could win by just not turning up for the first 3/4 of the war, coming in at the end when everyone else is worn down, and has full force because he was invulnerable up to then. Bayen's answer to this is make it take a day to come back.
Your option sounds like dropping the three day rule entirely. That says that a unit never dissapears, you can just keep 24 houring them if the commander doesn't turn up. Either way, you're approaching it from slightly different perspectives - I'll see what you and others think when you read this and see the focus is on the invulnerability ...
(and for the city situation, I'd have to say they start outside the city. For Navy or Air, it's a little harder, as you said)
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
More:
Second - Extreme thinks we need to stop the whole war when a dispute is on, as that battle could affect the outcome of another. I think stopping the whole war is too much. Other thoughts?
Third - Further on Bayen's suggestion. Read for yourself with reference to the last set of posts.
Final - Anyone object to adding in what I'm told is an old SNARL rule - that anyone who joins the war after the start date must start in the capital, not anywhere they want in the map?
Extreme007 wrote:I agree with that. And with regards to 'somewhere easy to access', what about having all such information (even if 'simulated' secret) to be present at the nation's military forum (or defense ministry)?B. You're right, that could be a problem, but the information does need to be held in a central place and undergo a basic approval mechanism. If we automatically let everything, well, that would include all of Gralus' awesome magic defences. It's not that they're not well developed, it's just that they're magic, and so shouldn't be allowed to assist in the war. Likewise, a nation could say they have forceshields - not magic, but still unrealistic.
Personally, I'm not concerned if people understand all the details or not, just if they can describe it well and it's basically realistic. If you're concerned the MRWS might judge to harshly, we can get another body to judge, but somewhere along the line we need to have a judge, so we don't get to the war and, half way through, Nation A's defences they thought they had get removed because the judge decides they're unrealistic. It has to be approved before the war, and kept somewhere easy to access ...
At the start of war, a thread in the war forum would provide links to each of the participating nation's defense military forum board.
Then, you give both sides X days/hours to go over each other's defense military and then say what they accept and what they do not think is possible (unaccepted). And these things can be negotiated perhaps.
This way, you take an organization out of the war and the charter can be applied easily to anyone wants to have a recwar. All you'd then need is just two sides.
Normally, when a battle ends up being under question, both sides (or players) wait for the arbitrator to make a decision. For instance, I remember during CR-war, Riponian submarines somehow evaded my first line of defense (naval ships actively searching for these submarines in a very small corridor/channel), then my second line of defense (ships surrounding my carrier) and managed to shoot at my carriers about 5+ torpedoes or something and escape. I could obviously not take that since there were two lines of defenses that had to be considered. Thus, that battle was put on hold till the arbitrator made a decision.With the judging thing, I don't think it says the battle has to stop. This was just putting into words what normally happens in judging (as asking them to do it in at max two days, not drawn out like some wars ...). In my experience in Recwars, both commanders go on as if they're in the right in the situation, and everyone else ignores the judging.
Similarly in several other cases over various wars.
If it takes a day to come back, and it comes back to its full strength again, then is it not still invulnerable? I do not see what that solution does other than delay the invulnerability by a day or so.Under SNARL, if a commander is absent for 3 days, his unit disappears after those 3 days. Bayen's fear is basically this makes it invulnerable, and especially in wars where each person fights for themselves, someone could win by just not turning up for the first 3/4 of the war, coming in at the end when everyone else is worn down, and has full force because he was invulnerable up to then. Bayen's answer to this is make it take a day to come back.
Oh, and I do not know if you mentioned this in your charter, but under SNARL, new units (those that start playing after war begins) had to start from their nation's capital city. Units couldn't just appear over the horizon and start participating in the war.
Summary: Anyone object to the city defence info not being held in the MRWS, but instead held by the individual nation? A link still has to be posted, and it still all has to be in the one place, it just saves the need for an organisation. Before the war you get 2 days to go over their defences and dispute them before the war begins.My Response wrote:First point -
Actually, that's a fair idea. As long as it's all in one place, a link to the forum is fine ...
Second point -
You're right, I suppose. Generally the individual battle stops until people can decide what happens, or the judge decides (people agreeing amongst themselves normally only works internally). However, I still think halting the whole war is too much. Because, say, the last SNARL war, there was at least 1 dispute if not more going on at any given time. It would have made the war take weeks longer ... which could yes, convince people to not dispute as much, but it still seems an unnecessary hindrance. I think forcing a decision within 48 hours is still the best option.
Third point -
By delaying their return a day, that gives other commanders time to factor them back into their plans. And if they were, say, in a city, and come back when the city is captured, gives them time to agree where they come back to, since it obviously can't be on top of the other troops. At least, that's how I see it.
Final thing - No, I didn't know that, but that's a really good point. Thanks, I'll add it in.
Second - Extreme thinks we need to stop the whole war when a dispute is on, as that battle could affect the outcome of another. I think stopping the whole war is too much. Other thoughts?
Third - Further on Bayen's suggestion. Read for yourself with reference to the last set of posts.
Final - Anyone object to adding in what I'm told is an old SNARL rule - that anyone who joins the war after the start date must start in the capital, not anywhere they want in the map?
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:09 am
- Location: Galatia, Alexandria
- Contact:
re:
I still think we should go with a simulated population for all nations posted of course by the Judges.
The Charter overall is really good, so tip of the hat to you! Excellenct work!
The Charter overall is really good, so tip of the hat to you! Excellenct work!
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Ok, posted a modified version with the suggested changes - including actual units for the standards, saying people that join midway have to start in their capital (but only if their nation was already involved), and changing the three day dissapear rule so it defines where they reappear, and that they must spend a day doing so, where they CAN be attacked.
Oh, and existing defences are now defined within your Department of Defence, not held by the MRWS, as per Extreme's suggestion. Anunia is now a convention that can be used free of any membership in an organisation! Yay!
Oh, and existing defences are now defined within your Department of Defence, not held by the MRWS, as per Extreme's suggestion. Anunia is now a convention that can be used free of any membership in an organisation! Yay!
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:11 am
- Location: Wherever my mind takes me...
actually, iehova brings up a very strong point.
in a real war, it takes a team of about five bombers to take out a single enemy ship, with all of the defensive parameters around the ship (its big @$$ guns). and that's without any fighters sent into the air to aid in the defense. one bombing run from one bomber is not going to sink a cruiser. damage it, maybe, but not sink it...
and hi, i'm from Toketi, by the way...
oh, and on iehova's idea to stop the war when a dispute is going on:
i'm all for that. i've had problems with that since i started in recwars. timelines go screwy, the people involved in the debate lose precious time and planning, etc. in the recent Tokish Ranking War, in which i took part, i found myself immediately involved in a debate with an enemy over a surprise attack (kinda inevitable, seeing as how it was a surprise attack, and not all the proper information was given in order for me to make a correct defense post), and even before that was over, my army in the future was attacked by another person. and when that was finally settled, which took days, i had lost an entire week and a half over debating, and not being able to prove my mettle, as i had previously wanted to do. and of course, then i was attacked again, once that dispute was settled. so yes, i think a pause in the war while a dispute is going on would be optimal. it would also serve to give everybody else not involved time to figure out what exactly is going on (recwars tend to be confusing), and time to plan their next move. because, let's face it, real world wars don't just go from battle to battle to battle, there is time in between for commanders to plan and deliberate, and in the current recwar system, that time is not provided.
in a real war, it takes a team of about five bombers to take out a single enemy ship, with all of the defensive parameters around the ship (its big @$$ guns). and that's without any fighters sent into the air to aid in the defense. one bombing run from one bomber is not going to sink a cruiser. damage it, maybe, but not sink it...
and hi, i'm from Toketi, by the way...
oh, and on iehova's idea to stop the war when a dispute is going on:
i'm all for that. i've had problems with that since i started in recwars. timelines go screwy, the people involved in the debate lose precious time and planning, etc. in the recent Tokish Ranking War, in which i took part, i found myself immediately involved in a debate with an enemy over a surprise attack (kinda inevitable, seeing as how it was a surprise attack, and not all the proper information was given in order for me to make a correct defense post), and even before that was over, my army in the future was attacked by another person. and when that was finally settled, which took days, i had lost an entire week and a half over debating, and not being able to prove my mettle, as i had previously wanted to do. and of course, then i was attacked again, once that dispute was settled. so yes, i think a pause in the war while a dispute is going on would be optimal. it would also serve to give everybody else not involved time to figure out what exactly is going on (recwars tend to be confusing), and time to plan their next move. because, let's face it, real world wars don't just go from battle to battle to battle, there is time in between for commanders to plan and deliberate, and in the current recwar system, that time is not provided.
-
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:33 pm
- Location: McCallavre, Straylight, Shireroth
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Surely Prodigy didn't count as Primarily Tokian ...
And I'm going to need to know theres a general consensus on stopping the war when a dispute is on - so far we have Iehova, Gerk and Extreme for it, but that's only three. Personally, I feel it's too much, considering the number of disputes in international wars ... but if there's a general consensus, I'm happy to put it in the charter.
And I'm going to need to know theres a general consensus on stopping the war when a dispute is on - so far we have Iehova, Gerk and Extreme for it, but that's only three. Personally, I feel it's too much, considering the number of disputes in international wars ... but if there's a general consensus, I'm happy to put it in the charter.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander