Since some people have a tough time with military for a variety of reasons, whether it be due to time or because they are not that military savvy. Well, that ends now because you can get help in this thread.

Here are the guidelines of this thread that I wish to be respected so that people can get the help they want:

1. Please post the stats, a description and what type of equipment it will be. Types of equipment mean, fighters, bombers, tanks, artillery, etc. The equipment portion is fairly important because it will allow those helping you know what would be appropriate for your tech level.

2. Please don't post anything complimenting/trashing the person equipment and/or the stats for it. That isn't what this thread is for.

3. Any help isn't a final decision of "you can/can't do x,y,z with this", it's merely advice to help out those that need or want it.


Some helpful tips to get started on making your own military equipment:

1. Base it off of some real life stats and from there, create your own.

2. Don't use the "best of the best" all the time for your tech level. Most of the time, it really isn't the best and it could bog down the design.

3. Look at some people's factbooks to see what would be reasonable for you. Bavaria has one of the better ones regarding reasonable stats, as does Lavo extremely old "For Sale" thread.

Bavaria: Bavaria Factbook

Lavo: For Sale Thead [56k Warning]


Well there you have it. If you need help, post away and I'll help the best I can.

Best thread posted in the past week. \o/

I believe every weapon I've made in Pimp My Gun needs te be reviewed.

Clicky

Specifically the ranges.

I'll go in order.

Type 28 Sub-machine gun - The way the MP40 was built, you need a different rail for the ACOG. Other than that it's decent.


Type 62 Shotgun - Looks good, although that particular model of shotgun (seemingly the SPAS-12) has an internal magazine of 8 rounds.


Type 71 Semi-Automatic rifle - The M14 was not designed for that particular Grenade launcher. Try using a different grenade launcher.


Type 93 Assault Rifle - Perfectly fine, except the magazine looks backwards. The range is short, I think you mean 250 yards.


Type 100 Assault Rifle - Perfectly fine, except I think your range should be 240 yards.


Type 102 "Arisaka" Bolt-action sniper rifle - Magazine should be of a different type, and I believe you mean 450 yards.



Hope that helps.

For reference: SG 550 400m, M16A1 275m, M16A2 550m, AK47 varies 150-350m, Barrett M82 1500m

Ranges on the Type 93 and Type 100 seem pretty short unless they're really cheap guns (plus the Type 93 clip is backwards, there's a reason they bend the other way), Type 71 is reasonable but the Type 102 sniper rifle needs significantly more range (it has much less than the Type 71), and that type of front grip of the Type 62 would be harder to operate since it's pump-action (have to pull back really straight or the gun swings around a bunch as you pump it).

I fully realize that the Type 93's magazine is backwards, it's intended to be that way. I intend to give the rifle to sprecial ops and the navy. I'll see if I can't remake the Type 71 again in PMG and upload it. All comments have been filed away for future use.

I take it this thread is to appraise made up tech then??

NDII Chaperone IFV/Light Tank

I based the chassis stats on the M551 Sheridan Cold War Era Light Tank
203 mm howitzer is based off of the M110 203mm SPH
120 mm compact gun system is based off of the Ruag 120mm compact gun

NMI Ripper Automatic Rifle
I based certain design aspects off of the FN Minimi, FN P90, Ak74/103 and Saiga 20k shotgun!

NDII Defender Heavy Tank
Most of this tank was of my own imagination, however, I used the Halo Scorpion tank and dimensions as the perfect chassis for the AHDM system.
The tandem 120mm guns were based of the same Ruag system
30 mm is taken from the M242 chaingun on the M2 Bradley, basically relies on the AHDM and its highly angular armour plates to survive against otherwise superior tanks.

Although it doesnt have its own entry yet, the NMI Torrent 9.55 mm machine gun is based off of the M60 and MG3. Aestheticly identical to the Starcraft I not II!!!! marine 'gauss rifle'

the 9.55 round itself is based of of the .375 magnum H&H big game round

NDII Devastator Super-Heavy tank
The three tiered defence system is based off of the T-90 heavy tank
Asylum pods are based off the AH-1 Supercobra's Hydra 70 launchers, the Spike 90mm unguided rockets are simply upsized Hydra 70's
30mm autocannon is same as the bushmaster
130 mm guns are based off of the Ak 130 system, although it definitely isnt
automatic!!!!!

NMI Sentinel Battle Rifle
Full auto stats are based on the B.A.R.
All other stats are based off of the Troy Modular M14 system
9.55 mm round is again the H&H .375

NDII Thrasher SPAAG
NOT BASED ON THE SHILKA!!!!
Chassis based on the awesome M47 Sergeant York
Dual 40mm's based on the 40 mm Bofors L7
Missile box system based on the Canadian ADATS and the Canadian Multi mission effects vehicle, although slightly retarded due to these being slightly ahead of my time...

The often talked about 120mm Stabber Anti-tank/Helicopter triple tandem charge guided missile is based off of the RPG 29's PG29 and guided like the Spike, with an extra warhead.

NDII Hunter
Otokar cobra all the way

[...]



Now, I was going to RP a multiple barrelled Self-propelled 155 mm howitzer, but i didn't have time before Lavo declared on Zephyr... Now, i didnt wanna look like I was doing an $@! pull just for the war, so instead i opted for the readily available South African Denel G6 155mm...

Basically, I was going to use the 'Defender's chassis with an armoured box system similar to the M270's but instead of rockets, basically it would contain 4 side-by-side 155mm howitzers. They would not be able to move independently and instead would simply be used to replace artillery groups with a single vehicle... I was also going to apply similar, but not as effective stealth from the B2 bomber...


[...]


same thing here, but this was my attempt at a supersonic Close-Air support craft... a hybrid of a somewhat slower YF-12/SR-71 with the same principles as the A-10 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25

Exec, I'll get to your stuff tomorrow. I'm tired and can't think straight.

Roger that!

Lol, you linked to Lavo's Star Wars stuff?

Good thread, nonetheless. I'm aiming to (finally) compile my nation's arsenal by the end of the month so I might add a link by then.

It's also completely outdated regarding some of the information, as I'm Austria now, and I really need to add some additional guns to my arsenal.
Otherwise, it's cool to see that I'm seen as reasonable with my stuff.

Hi...
Awesome post buddy... Since last long time i have ever seen the post regarding Technology... Thanks for sharing....

NDII IFV/Light Tank: The two look pretty good. Your crew should be four, because you also need a loader to load the shells in manually. Your "Knee Capper" shouldn't be automated, you're better off keeping it as Coaxial with the "Torrent" being the gun on top.

NMI Ripper: I assume you are basing the style of the gun off of the AK, meaning that it is meant to spray a lot of fire in one area without much concern for accuracy. The bullet type should be one or the other. You're better off skipping the ability to modify the rifle and sticking with the more common round. Most (if not all) modern guns don't have a 'DAD' because it's relatively useless. A soldier should change out their magazine after every battle anyways. The liquid nitrogen thing, I don't believe is possible on guns today (I'd be interested in seeing the research to this).


NDII Defender: Keep it simpler, if the plan is to make this an anti-tank defend system. Keep it to one gun, and you can make more of them. The tank's chassis being separated like that also makes it incredibly weaker underneath where it joins. The autoloader makes your tank unreliable to a degree, and you should keep it to training men to load faster. The digging system should be completely gone, it's useless and makes the tank a sitting duck when it is digging and dug in. You can manually create these sort of things quietly and more efficiently with a corp of engineers, and the tank wouldn't need to worry about the AHDM system malfunctioning. I suggest making a separate vehicle for the AHDM system. As with the light tank above, your "Knee Capper" shouldn't be automated, you're better off keeping it as Coaxial with the "Torrent" being the gun on top. You will also need a loader as a crewman.

NDII Devastator: As a main battle tank, it looks decent. The tank's defenses will find it hard to block all anti-tank missiles, etc. The pod looks pretty good, and the likelihood of the tank itself surviving an onslaught of three tanks is highly unlikely with the average tank crew. Any well placed ordinance will take out this tank.

NMI Sentinal Battle Rifle: Looks good, although I think it's based more off the HK416 due to the modular abilities of the rifle.

NDII Thrasher: It isn't a tank as much as it is an anti-personnel, anti-aircraft vehicle. It wouldn't function as a tank well, but in regards to defenses against another tank, it's survivability wouldn't be as high as a light tank. The RPM could be toned down a bit to make it more reasonable with the larger round.

NDII Hunter: Looks good, although I cannot see how it would work well as an armored ambulance.

The Howitzer idea: It isn't wise to have a 4 barreled howitzer as that would be easy to take out. The way the M270 is set up, it would be difficult to use that type of system. The amount of crew to load all four barrels, aim them all, etc, would also be a waste of a system. Stick with single barreled howitzers and use the M270 set up as a rocket system.

The plane: Until I see a fuller description, I can't rightfully comment on it.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=66280

The Steinhammer-F and Vessla II.

I think they work for my technology level.

They do work towards your level, in my opinion.

Steinhammer-F - I am not sure where you fit the three machine guns, unless you made one coaxial and the other two on the turret.


Vessla II - Looks good to me.

The Steinhammer F's other two are in the cupola. It's kinda like a modern version of a panzer-1 turret ontop of an Abrams turret.

Ok, I can visualize it now.


Also, the OP is being edited...

Voodoo could you provide stats that would be acceptable for the below displayed tank. Ignore the two grinders on the front for obvious reasons.

Image

I've always disliked the dual main gun for tanks, but I'll give it a go.


Crew: 5, Two Loaders, Commander, Gunner, Driver

Armament: 2 105mm smooth-bore cannons

Armor: RHA & DU Plating

Power: 1600hp

Operational range: 250 miles

Speed: 32 mph

Thank you Voodoo I admit the twin barrel design isn't really practical but it looks cool.

I prefer practicality in my weaponry personally, but that's just me.

Does anyone know how advanced AI is at this point in RL? I'm thinking about having some for some of my aircraft, though obviously NOT a majority, as I would expect it to be expensive.

For now, it isn't overly advanced. We are no where near human intelligence when it comes to AI, but something such as "Computer Vision" for military applications exists for those with Modern technology on a very very limited scale in my opinion. Computer vision allows for recognition and tracking. I believe Britain uses it currently for their surveillance systems in London. It is probably used with satellite programs as well.

Could you give any comments on this: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/F-1%28Shadow%29 ?

And how close would a First World nation that links hundreds of bunkers filled with hundreds of computers each using 2020 level of computing power to AI?

Computing Power doesn't equal Intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI
It's a goddamn complicated topic. And simulating a brain or something similar will be fun, even with such advanced computers.

Hmm...it doesn't matter if the AI were too smart...I mainly had it as a way to counter the neural interfacing the Norldandic pilots traditionally had with THEIR planes.

Lynneth is right here. Although no matter how advanced the AI, it still will need a human counterpart to ensure a high reliability.

Yeah but I was thinking a large system with so much code for all possible situations it could encounter it could technically be considered AI as it processes all data extremely fast. It isn't AI in the real sense as it works on a pre-set program but it could process data and provide the rest of the system faster than a human doing it manually.

Well, that isn't AI, that's data processing. It still needs a person, and technically you can't program it for all possible situations because you'll always have that one situation that happens that isn't programed. When that happens, you will need a human to take over. I do not think that any technology in CNRP will ever include true AI systems, and it'll just end up being better identification systems or other data processing systems.

This thread will now be used for both CNRP tech and ERP tech to allow for a central tech advice thread.

Hm.
Voodoo, could I use most of my old bavarian stuff for the PRC?
What would I need to tone down, if anything?

Follow them guidelines in the thread, but all your stuff should be allowed.

Obviously, I'll use IRL-PRC weapons in the first weeks and then shift to my own stuff, slowly. I'll RP development and whatnot.

You can, tone it down to be what would be more modern, so nothing extremely fancy. This means things like no dual primary guns on tanks, etc.

What about the ETC gun on my MBT? From what I know there are working ETC prototypes already, only not as efficient as they (the US, who obviously funded that IRL) would like it.
I'd probably RP the development for making the gun effective enough so that it's not as good as my CNRP-weapon, but still packs way more punch than conventional guns.

I already answered this on IRC, but might as well share for the rest of the RP community. You can, at a toned down level.

I noticed that it was the Modular M14 after I re-looked at the pics.


As for an appropriate RPM for a dual cannon 40mm; the Bofors 40mm gun L/70 goes 330 rpm with one gun. A RPM of about 630 would be appropriate for your gun, in my opinion.

Basically... this is a Super Heavy Artillery system, supplemented by the already existing G6 SPH.

Built on the chassis of the NDII Defender heavy tank, this tank would contain an armoured box, each individual 155 mm (I can negotiate calibre size) howitzer is housed within, side-by-side. The box contains all the autoloading mechanisms to the rear with exhaust and shells ejected from those two rear nozzles.

I know the thing is unwieldy and would be extremely expensive, but im going for the notions that sometimes the NoN, being outnumbered most of the time, needs quality, not quantity. This thing would be built to fire an insane amount of shells (for my tech level of course) and then leave before counter battery measures could be taken against it. While the G6 can do this, its single barrel can't do nearly as much damage required and capable of the Quad system in the same time.

Being mounted on the lithe Defender chassis, this thing would also be capable of setting up an AH-DM... im sure the NoN would be well aware of the cost of such rare units, their vulnerability to enemy tanks, jets and mines but also need the firepower.

See, theRPM for that particular weapons system wouldn't be that great. It doesn't look like the barrels are separated and can be used individually, in case you needed to. Such a system would need people inside of it because automation wouldn't work well for too long either due to reliability issues with shell feeding, etc.

Nope, each barrel is firmly side by side... no individual aiming, just point at the general target, fire 5 rounds at varying trajectories per each barrel (aimed as a group), and end up with 20 shells landing together against a single target - all from a single unit.

By individually, I meant if one barrel broke down, jammed, etc, it wouldn't work. With that image, I can see how it would work, however effectiveness and reliability will be no where near a single barreled howitzer.

How about a similar system where the howitzers and the mechanism were exposed, ie: no box.

As self-propelled, with 2 barrels attached to the same chassis, maybe. The chassis needs to be wide enough, and the crew to work it would almost have to be double due to the second barrel being on the vehicle.

Originally i envisioned that "box" section on the render I provided to be something similar to the Katyusha rocket launcher rails, where two howitzers would be on the bottom, and two on top. Each gun would fire after a delay, creating an almost constant rate of continuous fire, spaced seconds apart. The design would actually allow the individual actions of the cannons (recoil, shell casing ejection) to be seen.

When i found that render, I said, hey why not wrap the whole thing in armour! And who cares if instead of a 2x2 arrangement, you get a 1 x 4?

Hey, a question: are the vehicles in this video possible to be used in CNRP? And at what approx. technology?

Notes:
-The machine gun/Gatling gun tank most likely would not be used, unless re-fitted for Anti-Air purposes.
-Same with the double barrel round tank "anti-bunker" vehicle (massive grenade launchers? ).
-Ignore the nuclear sign on the second artillery unit (in-game, it is a "nuclear powered artillery unit"; never needs to refuel >.<), which I think is out of the question (...as a nuclear powered unit, or anything to do with nuclear material for that matter).

It's an interesting idea, just keep it reasonable with the statistics with it and I think you'll be fine.

The designs are fine, although I'll need to see information for the designs before I can say if it's possible to use them/not use them. Just based off of images alone, I'd say Modern/First World.

I was talking to Centurius earlier about Submarine Air Carriers and the possibility of them working, so I thought I would share what I told him earlier about them as some advice for you budding RP military equipment designers.


Submarine air carriers, while yes have existed at one point and have worked in the past, they are not feasible to have in any military. Mechanical issues, stability while on the surface, and defenses are three reasons why they would not be feasible. The salt water, as many of you know, would corrode much of the pneumatics and other various parts of the ship; constant maintenance would also be required for such a submarine. Stability while on the surface would also be an issue. The sub would roll and rock and be pushed around by the waves when the carrier is surfaced and receiving the planes. Defenses for the submarine would be minimal while it is submerging or rising, making it a sitting duck for aircraft and ship bombardment.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1643450

Could you look over the Naval Defense Platform for me? Thanks.