Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Destruction of on Map Emplacements Options · View
Mark0628
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 3:38:41 AM
 Major

One Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/15/2012
Posts: 545
#1 should it be allowed at all, only in peace time or also in times of war in your owned territory?

#2 What should be allowed to be destroyed? AA, Forts, Ports, infrastructure, Airfields?

#3 Should there be a limit on how much you may destroy or not?



IMO, you should be allowed to destroy Forts, AA, Ports, and Airfields in times of Peace and in times of War when you are not fighting a human player or a nation owned by a player.

I would like to hear everyone's opinion in this matter.


King of Men
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:25:05 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,470
Location: Nowhere
Are you talking about edits, or an ingame mechanism, or what?

Incidentally, what was the eventual decision about airfields?

Read my blog.
Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
Mark0628
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:48:04 AM
 Major

One Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/15/2012
Posts: 545
edits there is no ingame mechanism so it would have to be by edit
Mighty G
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:27:06 AM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 12/3/2007
Posts: 2,218
Location: Land of the Bunyip
Mark0628 wrote:
#1 should it be allowed at all, only in peace time or also in times of war in your owned territory?

#2 What should be allowed to be destroyed? AA, Forts, Ports, infrastructure, Airfields?

#3 Should there be a limit on how much you may destroy or not?



IMO, you should be allowed to destroy Forts, AA, Ports, and Airfields in times of Peace and in times of War when you are not fighting a human player or a nation owned by a player.





Id say no. choose wisely where you build your infrastructure Smile
Especially airfields, there are literally a thousand airfields scattered over north australia that were built in preperation for a japanese landing. 70 years later there still there and there still just flat dirt.

Enemy forts might be the execption........

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

Stalins Elite
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 9:15:51 AM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/16/2007
Posts: 1,000
Location: Under your mum's bed!!!
Mighty G wrote:
Id say no. choose wisely where you build your infrastructure Smile
Especially airfields, there are literally a thousand airfields scattered over north australia that were built in preperation for a japanese landing. 70 years later there still there and there still just flat dirt.

Enemy forts might be the execption........


In regards to forts. You could write a script in line with "destroying the Maginot line" event in Armageddon. But I suppose it would have to be pre-established forts already existent in the scenario. SE.

Admiral Kutzenov - The Cold War lives.



Mark0628
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 9:42:51 AM
 Major

One Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/15/2012
Posts: 545
Mighty G wrote:
Id say no. choose wisely where you build your infrastructure Smile
Especially airfields, there are literally a thousand airfields scattered over north australia that were built in preperation for a japanese landing. 70 years later there still there and there still just flat dirt.

Enemy forts might be the execption........


Not so much infrastructure, but more so ports. as i have literally everywhere possible a level 10 port in India that i have no real use for or reason to keep maintaining. As in real life i could either privatize these ports aka sell them or just leave them completely unmaintained, but as a game restraint i must keep them full maned "is a decent drain on my MP" just in case my Merchant Marine decides to dance around and visit all of the cool hang out spots?
Mighty G
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 10:18:20 AM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 12/3/2007
Posts: 2,218
Location: Land of the Bunyip
Ports are infrastructure, in the sense that I used that word Smile (referring to it as all infrastructure not just the roads yay)
Though I see what you mean yay

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

Mark0628
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:17:56 AM
 Major

One Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/15/2012
Posts: 545
any rule on weather we can or cant?
oddman
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:35:47 AM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,830
Location: Netherlands
You had the option to get rid of them before starting the game.

If you wanted to get rid of them, you should have done so then, or not have built them in the first place.

I, for one, got rid of most of my Caribbean ports.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
jodokus
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 1:18:47 PM
 Generaloberst

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/17/2009
Posts: 2,575
Location: places...
yea editing stuff is always nonkosher... so I wouldn't accept any possibility of players to be able to edit their provinces into more demanding for enemy.

Mark0628
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 3:18:40 PM
 Major

One Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/15/2012
Posts: 545
oddman wrote:
You had the option to get rid of them before starting the game.

If you wanted to get rid of them, you should have done so then, or not have built them in the first place.

I, for one, got rid of most of my Caribbean ports.


I did not have the option to get rid of them. >.>

but why should i have to keep manning these level 10 ports all across India it just seams unfair to me that i have to use that much MP for emplacements i wont use.
danomite
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:05:10 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
But Congo did have the option to remove them, and he (or someone on his behalf) removed some other ones.

On removing stuff during the game... whats to prevent me from removing all but say 2 pacific ports from the many pacific islands, some long held, others newly acquired.
It would make future wars in the pacific near impossible.
Or what about Africa removing ports on the mainland, landings against them would all have horrid supply problems.

These same issues would be a problem with removing airfields.
Or removing all border infrastructure, or other not very economically valuable but strategically important areas.
Or removing IC that you think will think will fall to the enemy next session.

Lots of ways I can see this being problematic.

At the same time though I do understand your issue.
You inherited a ton of un-needed ports and you are paying heavily for it in terms of lost manpower.

I just can't help but feel there is no solution that outweighs the potential negatives in other parts of the world.

If anyone has any ideas on this, please speak up.

It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
Gollevainen
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:11:01 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 50,000th Forum Post

Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 4,230
Location: "I need zoo love!"
I would like most of my mainland naval ports edited outBig Grin



Irsh Faq wrote:
I've noted with Golle a trend of stirring up as much drama publicly as he can whenever he's up to something shady in the background. Presumably its a smokescreen strategy.
Irsh Faq
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:14:55 PM
 Primus pilus
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/29/2009
Posts: 1,640
Location: Ipswich, Massachusetts
danomite wrote:
Or what about Africa removing ports on the mainland, landings against them would all have horrid supply problems.


I pretty much already did this, I think I only left two or three ports in Ethiopian North Africa (for exactly this reason, although the infra there is terrible enough in its own right as well).

Quote:

But Congo did have the option to remove them, and he (or someone on his behalf) removed some other ones.


I did the tech buys for them, but I'm pretty sure I did not have time to do port removals on Kongo's behalf (IIRC I barely had time to sort out the tech buys, so I can't imagine I got around to the ports). I don't know if anyone else did.

Quote:
I just can't help but feel there is no solution that outweighs the potential negatives in other parts of the world.

If anyone has any ideas on this, please speak up.


I don't have an opinion on whether you should or should not allow it. I would propose four possible routes, though (or a combination of some parts of 2-4)

-Disallow. Only players present at the game start get to remove their superfluous ports.
-Allow as a single time grace option. Players taking over a nation unplayed during conversion (Kongo being the only remaining contender) get a single chance to remove their ports for free.
-Allow with a relatively hefty cost. Dissent per port removed, representing big, beefy, cannibal dockworkers angry at their sudden unemployment.
-Allow with cost and floor. Dissent per port level removed, and cannot lower a naval base below 1 (you can remove the workers and let the facilities rust away, but you can't delete the physical presence of a deep-water harbor). Prevents supply shenanigans but allows (most) manpower to be freed up.

Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Pharaoh of Alexandria, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, Bhatara of Java and Sumatra, Archduke of Australia, Captain of the Cape of Storms, Autocrat of Carthage, Sea Lord of the East Pacific, Caliph of Baghdad, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant.
oddman
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:04:35 PM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,830
Location: Netherlands
Irsh Faq wrote:
I don't have an opinion on whether you should or should not allow it. I would propose four possible routes, though (or a combination of some parts of 2-4)

-Disallow. Only players present at the game start get to remove their superfluous ports.
-Allow as a single time grace option. Players taking over a nation unplayed during conversion (Kongo being the only remaining contender) get a single chance to remove their ports for free.
-Allow with a relatively hefty cost. Dissent per port removed, representing big, beefy, cannibal dockworkers angry at their sudden unemployment.
-Allow with cost and floor. Dissent per port level removed, and cannot lower a naval base below 1 (you can remove the workers and let the facilities rust away, but you can't delete the physical presence of a deep-water harbor). Prevents supply shenanigans but allows (most) manpower to be freed up.


All are acceptable to me, with the caveat that for option 2 Kongo should retain a reasonable amount of ports, relative to its starting navy.

Ideally, Fasq should pop back in for an hour and say which ports not to keep, for India as well.
EDIT: Given that Irsh is impartial as well, letting him do it would work, too.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
danomite
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:25:32 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Irsh Faq wrote:

-Disallow. Only players present at the game start get to remove their superfluous ports.
-Allow as a single time grace option. Players taking over a nation unplayed during conversion (Kongo being the only remaining contender) get a single chance to remove their ports for free.
-Allow with a relatively hefty cost. Dissent per port removed, representing big, beefy, cannibal dockworkers angry at their sudden unemployment.
-Allow with cost and floor. Dissent per port level removed, and cannot lower a naval base below 1 (you can remove the workers and let the facilities rust away, but you can't delete the physical presence of a deep-water harbor). Prevents supply shenanigans but allows (most) manpower to be freed up.



EDIT:
4th option.
.1 dissent cost per port removed with a lower limit of 1 port should make stuff still work.
Can not be done during war with humans.


It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
oddman
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:13:04 PM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,830
Location: Netherlands
danomite wrote:
I do like the 4th option. some small cost per port removed with a lower limit of 1 should make stuff still work.


Put your red font where your mouth is, then Tongue

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
Mark0628
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:07:30 PM
 Major

One Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/15/2012
Posts: 545
Can we get an exact ruling before end of day? Smile
King of Men
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:41:54 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,470
Location: Nowhere
By "per port" I take it you mean "per port level"? So reduction from level 10 to level 1 costs 0.9 dissent?

Read my blog.
Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.