I thought i would bring this here.
I think it is kind of difficult to for the IJN to reach an agreement on production since "different production" is the difference between the mini factions. Unlike the army which won't have troubles with the production.
...
So I would like to suggest to make it possible for the IJN to submit different production plans. I hope you can consider this.
....Hence I asked if we could just propose plans within our mini factions, because that is a lot easier.
Sorry, but I'm inclined to disagree here. The reason is quite simple, your not compromising.
If I can be so bold as to say; this multiplayer ARR is not about 'playing the game', it is about diplomacy and roll playing as much as it is about coming up with sensible plans. Now just think for a moment, since when did anybody get their way just by demanding it eh?
Even further, if your'd been smart (no disrespect here) you could have realised that you could have won the 'game' element between the factions, simply by making a case for balance navy military build up, build a load of ships, then do your worst to prevent the army from gaining any kind of victory on the mainland.
That would have been a sound strategy...that is, if the Army factions were your enemy.
But they are not are they? It's all the other AI nations in the game. If you treat the other factions within Japan as enemies then of course they are going to raise the defence "stop spamming me", be uncooperative and believe that you are trying to get one up on them with every suggestion you make. Thus you get nowhere. You see what I'm saying?
Which is where I get back to saying your not compromising. Each of you are trying to make a flat out case not to build each others units, in doing so there is no quid pro quo in that respect, and neither of you wish to except the others plans.
What you need to do is compromise with one another, when you see a plan, look to what you would like to tweak in it, repost that, see what the others think, they can then tweak it, re-post it and sooner or later both of you will get to a point where your at least happy with most of the elements. Of course on some matters you will disagree, but if you yield now, often they might be inclined to yield to you in the future.
What me and Surt did, and to a lesser extend Vet and CommCody, we did was just that. Check out how we arrived to consensus as an example.
Part of the frustration you may feel Admirals, is what the real military leaders must have felt at the time, and it's all part of the experience, don't 'blame the game' because not everything runs smoothly, but look to yourself to raise the game.
With that in mind guys/gals, can you please reach some kind of consensus, also don't think just because Army/Navy submissions are seperate there should be no dialogue, assume that you are playing the land war too. Think what you would want should you be playing as the other faction, and then you might want to offer those thoughts as 'back proposals' as a form of leverage to get what your faction might want off Army proposals.
Cybvep, it might be prudent that the Naval factions may be given small VP bonuses for any ships that they do sink in decisive combat, that means there there would not only be a priority in building vessels, but also seeking decisive combat and prestige through victories on the high seas.
Might I suggest 0.05 VP per 'non-capital' sank, not including convoys, and 0.1 VP per capital sank. Although I may need to review the VP scoring to see if that is balanced.
This all makes me think, what would be the little political idiom next to all our names on the politics tabs, any idea of mine?