+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+------ Forum: Private Halls of the Assembly (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-95.html)
+------ Thread: SPSF Review - May (/thread-2341.html)
SPSF Review - May - ProfessorHenn - 05-21-2015
Well, I feel that the future Chair ought to head it, and Assembly members can help draft it. The more involved, the better. I'll largely keep out, since this is a review about me and my blessed SPSF.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Kris Kringle - 05-21-2015
*nods*
Makes sense. If the future Chair needs or wants some assistance, I'd be happy to help with the drafting.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Unibot - 05-21-2015
Quote:If you have a problem with us raiding and would rather have us go full-defender, why not say so?
I think 'full defender' would be far more effective at development than our current 'full invader' programme. I repeat: no GCR has ever built up a strong base of soldiers from scratch with a raid-heavy programme. That's the truth of the matter. NPA and ESPA grew to the size and experience that they are during spans of time where they were effectively just doing defensive work - they used those programmes to fuel development.
Defensive practices are good for development. The reason is simple: volunteers like to help out; they want to see their time and effort as being a valuable contribution.
The SPSF will never take off if continues on its 'full invader' programme. Kringalia and others can put their head in the sand and say 'la la la no R/D debates' - but that is the problem: the army has always slanted towards invading and you cannot build a GCR army to any substantial size on an raid-heavy programme. We're following the same trajectory of growth that Balder has for most of its time as a militarized region - we're facing the exact same issue.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Darkstrait - 05-21-2015
(05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote:Quote:If you have a problem with us raiding and would rather have us go full-defender, why not say so?
I think 'full defender' would be far more effective at development than our current 'full invader' programme. I repeat: no GCR has ever built up a strong base of soldiers from scratch with a raid-heavy programme. That's the truth of the matter. NPA and ESPA grew to the size and experience that they are during spans of time where they were effectively just doing defensive work - they used those programmes to fuel development.
Defensive practices are good for development. The reason is simple: volunteers like to help out; they want to see their time and effort as being a valuable contribution.
The SPSF will never take off if continues on its 'full invader' programme. Kringalia and others can put their head in the sand and say 'la la la no R/D debates' - but that is the problem: the army has always slanted towards invading and you cannot build a GCR army to any substantial size on an raid-heavy programme. We're following the same trajectory of growth that Balder has for most of its time as a militarized region - we're facing the exact same issue.
Please, now is not the time or the place for this discussion. We can return to it later.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Arbiter08 - 05-21-2015
(05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote: I repeat: no GCR has ever built up a strong base of soldiers from scratch with a raid-heavy programme.There's a first time for everything.
(05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote: The SPSF will never take off if continues on its 'full invader' programmeWe aren't exactly "full invaders". We do liberations and detags too.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Punchwood - 05-22-2015
No we are not full defender and I don't think we should become full defender. I think we should have a 50%/50% of R/D.
The fact speak for themselves our current mainly invader programme doesn't work no one is joining. I think for a short period of time we should do as Unibot says and go full defender ONLY for a wee bit. See if it works and if it does it no harm done.
I would say the report should be written up by the MoA and The Assembly, then signed by the Chair, Del and MoA.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Farengeto - 05-22-2015
(05-22-2015, 10:29 AM)Punchwood Wrote: The fact speak for themselves our current mainly invader programme doesn't work no one is joining.
I can't recall on retention, but as Henn mentioned we've had 3 or 4 new recruits in the past month or so. So yes, people are joining.
SPSF Review - May - ProfessorHenn - 05-22-2015
Two months at this point.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Gladio - 05-22-2015
(05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote:Quote:If you have a problem with us raiding and would rather have us go full-defender, why not say so?
I think 'full defender' would be far more effective at development than our current 'full invader' programme. I repeat: no GCR has ever built up a strong base of soldiers from scratch with a raid-heavy programme. That's the truth of the matter. NPA and ESPA grew to the size and experience that they are during spans of time where they were effectively just doing defensive work - they used those programmes to fuel development.
Defensive practices are good for development. The reason is simple: volunteers like to help out; they want to see their time and effort as being a valuable contribution.
The SPSF will never take off if continues on its 'full invader' programme. Kringalia and others can put their head in the sand and say 'la la la no R/D debates' - but that is the problem: the army has always slanted towards invading and you cannot build a GCR army to any substantial size on an raid-heavy programme. We're following the same trajectory of growth that Balder has for most of its time as a militarized region - we're facing the exact same issue.
Out of curiosity, are you talking about the old defender NPA or the new Independent one from 2012 ?
RE: SPSF Review - May - Punchwood - 05-23-2015
(05-22-2015, 07:29 PM)Farengeto Wrote: I can't recall on retention, but as Henn mentioned we've had 3 or 4 new recruits in the past month or so. So yes, people are joining.
3 or 4 recruits in 2 months isn't high whereas these mainly defender armies had a huge number of new recruits in a very short period of time.