| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What kind of military structure?; 3RD TURN | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 18 2006, 07:09 PM (1,067 Views) | |
| NRE | Jul 20 2006, 03:47 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Map Tsar and Southern Gentleman
![]()
|
Well it wouldn't be that hard, just take everything after RD's "Hmmm... somebody sounds a bit anti-business... " and that should be mostly all the off-topic ranting. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 20 2006, 04:13 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
I made a new poll since many requested to change their votes. I also removed the "None" choice (since everyone seem to want a new military structure). I personnally voted for my 2nd formula, because I find it more precise and less biased. If I could make a second choice, it would be NE's method :) |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 20 2006, 04:57 PM Post #28 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
I voted for my choice. If I had a second vote, I'd vote for Paradise's second option. Of course, I maintain we should leave the door open for new ideas. If anyone else has an idea, it's not to late to bring it forward. |
![]() |
|
| Noriega | Jul 20 2006, 05:34 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Resident Hobbit
|
I hopped on the Paradise's second method bandwagon, if only because its more sure to beat Nag's way than his first method. If I had a second vote, I'd vote for the qualitatuive guide. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 20 2006, 07:26 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
That's me, voting for the bottom. I want a % of my population available for manpower, and I want my level of technology guided by my budget. That is all! |
![]() |
|
| flumes | Jul 21 2006, 10:05 AM Post #31 |
![]()
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
|
For right now I'm going to hold back my vote. I want to see something like this. I kinda agree with New Harumf on the budget guiding the technology level. I think some of the budget should go to the tech level for each branch*, and some would go to equiping each man in the nations armed forces. I guess a cost/person/your nations tech level. So if you wanted a bigger army you couldn't have as good tech. *I also think we should have army/navy/air force seperate, so just b/c you have biggest navy doesn't mean you have the biggest army... I guess I like each nation picking and choosing their own strong points. But I def. want more structure with the budget/size/economy/tax rate playing a bigger effect. Just some idea's not really a complete system. |
![]() |
|
| The CNNP | Jul 21 2006, 10:33 AM Post #32 |
|
Enforcer
|
If we go to a formula, someone is doing the math for me. Because, well damn... :wacko: |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Jul 21 2006, 03:55 PM Post #33 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
Thats what CPs are for, (I think), you'll get to spend your CPs on whatever branch you want in whatever way you want. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 21 2006, 07:05 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
STATEMENT OF FACT: If warfare on this forum turns into numerical formulas, dice rolls, or any other sort of geek-type RP, in order to satisfy Paradise's lone rogue view of how he wants to convert this forum from political to some actuarial table (I thought you were going away for a while to regions that WANTED this type of non-sense, or did they just not like you?) all of my nations will be neutral in any future multi-national combat. No threat, just fact. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 21 2006, 07:40 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
I think I will just quote myself:
I don't want to turn this into an actuarial table (at least, not intentionnally). I know I'm biased, that's why I proposed this poll. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 21 2006, 08:15 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I will, therefore, continue to observe and shut up. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 21 2006, 08:25 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Actually, we will implement something only if it reaches a simple majority. That means we may have one or two more turns to find out what our community really wants. That's why you shouldn't "shut up"... At least not now <_< |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 22 2006, 12:08 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
The third turn has begun. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jul 22 2006, 12:24 PM Post #39 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I voted for Nag's method because its simplest. And I just got my ass kicked by a 3 hour physics test so I can't concentrate on any numbers right now. :P But I like all three choices, I think they can all work out OK. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 22 2006, 12:48 PM Post #40 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I told you, the only thing you will remember from physics is s=1/2 at squared + v sub naught t |
![]() |
|
| Wadj | Jul 23 2006, 12:05 AM Post #41 |
![]()
The Very Model of a Modern Major General
|
The only thing I remember from Physics is that a wire with electricity flowing through it has magnetic field lines running perpendicular to the electricity around the wire. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 23 2006, 02:31 PM Post #42 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Wow. The vote is so close. I will let the poll open one more day to see what happens. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 24 2006, 02:26 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
This is the kind of situation I hate... No choice has reached an absolute majority, yet, the two other choices are tied in 2nd place. That means, we must wait until either "NE's method" gets a majority or the equality between my formula and the qualitative guide is broken (that would mean a 4th turn)... |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Jul 24 2006, 04:20 PM Post #44 |
|
Spammer
|
This is democracy for you lol! |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 24 2006, 04:36 PM Post #45 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Yup. A simple plurality of votes would be insufficient. We are not in the UK here ;) |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 29 2006, 06:18 AM Post #46 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Well as it stands, "I've" got 6 votes - twice as many as each of the other options (as option 3 is also "mine" I've used the quotes). 6 to 3 to 3. That's 50% of total votes. That's majority (you round up from 0.5). |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 29 2006, 08:30 AM Post #47 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Wrong. majority is 50% + 1. No vote in congress has passed with a 50% vote. As a matter of fact, parliamentary procedure says any vote getting 50% exactly is defeated. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 29 2006, 08:34 AM Post #48 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Yeah. It's stuck. The next vote will be determining. If it's for NE's method, your proposal reaches a majority. If it's for one of the two other choices, we can go on the 4th turn. |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Jul 29 2006, 08:35 AM Post #49 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
Why don't we just make two more polls? One that pits Nag's method against Paradise's second. Another that pits Nag's method against the qualitative guide. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 29 2006, 10:44 AM Post #50 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
So instead of makeing 2 more polls, you want us to make 3 more? :wacko: |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |














3:55 AM Jul 11