Captain Enema Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Legion supports this open hunting season on mutie freaks, but only if enough people get together for a rousing game of butt darts in the Eggresion thread. If not, to heck with this insane notion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Actually, I think making a bunch of furries then releasing them into the wild for an international hunt would be fun. Of course, it wouldn't go well with the religious, but pffft, the religious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 1. FEL and THEL are entirely practical counter-missile (and generally C-RAM) systems. However, I do believe they should be limited to (strictly) SDI as opposed to being able to, say, shoot down aircraft. While I do believe that the Boeing laser was able to destroy a tank (citation?), I'm pretty sure it'd leave way too much room for abuse. 2. The only space weapon I'd support is taking out other satellites, or perhaps kinetic weapons. Absolutely nothing of a nuclear ICBM orbital nature, though. 3. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Speaking of mechs, the Plustech Harvester is a mech, no? Shove a machine gun or cannon on that thing and it seems pretty menacing. If the Plustech can cut down trees and carry logs away, then why can't a super-high tech nation build a larger one that can fire weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggressivenutmeg Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1301670320' post='2682187'] 2. The only space weapon I'd support is taking out other satellites, or perhaps kinetic weapons. Absolutely nothing of a nuclear ICBM orbital nature, though. [/quote] Kinetic weapons is one of the problems though, I myself would like to see them but they can too easily be abused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) Regarding space weapons, satellite defensive systems, yes. Space laser and Rods from God? Maybe, under these conditions: 1. Cooperation from at least a dozen of RPers that have large IG stats to build such weapons due to massive costs. Earth's atmosphere is amazing at how much light it can reflect and absorb before it hits the surface. You're going to need a massive satellite with massive electricity and chemical storage capacity and a laser cannon. Each pound lifted up into space will cost between $5,000 to $10,000, and a satellite that large would require in total hundreds of billions of dollars to build and launch, not including satellite defensive systems. Assuming the laser satellite has solar panels, it would take years of uninterrupted charging to buildup sufficient amount of electricity to fire the cannon again. That's at least 6 RL months recharge time. Rods from God satellites are no exception. If you're going to drop heavy metal rods that weigh hundreds or even thousands of tons onto the surface, they have to be lifted up from the surface and loaded into the satellite. Suppose you want to fire a 100 ton rod into space to load it into a satellite. ($5,000 per pound)*(2,000 pounds per tons)*(100 tons)=$1,000,000,000. At least $1 billion per rod, a single rod, not including the satellite, other rods, delays, research and development, and etc. A LGM-30 Minuteman, a nuclear ICBM, cost about $7 million per missile. The LGM-30 Minuteman can outdo a Rods from God satellite's rod in terms of damages to a city. 2. At least one year of RL time of RPing is required. The ISS took nearly 13 years to build, and its still not fully completed yet despite cooperation between many countries. 3. A way to maintain such expensive weapons. Given the potentially high complexity and fragility of the space weapons, not to mention dangers from lethal space junk, it will cost dozens of millions up to a billion per year per satellite to maintain them. When in active use, the maintenance requirement will skyrocket. It's a freaking nightmare to fire rockets with extremely expensive cargo while the enemy has aircraft and/or anti-missile/aircraft to knock the rockets out of the sky. 4. Sacrifice of reasonable amount of military units and weapons. The money needed to fund the space weapons have to come from somewhere. Nuclear stockpiles, air/naval/ground forces, weapons and defensive systems will have to be reduced in strength to maintain the space weapons. 5. Lack of capability to hide the weapon(s) from public knowledge. Someone WILL notice the numerous rocket launches, and WILL snoop around to figure what is going on, such as tracking the rockets to see where they release their payloads. Edited April 1, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 [b]The first rule is a ban of lasers. [/b]Realistic chemical lasers for anti missile/artillery are grand. Personal hand held weapons, no. Just no. [b]The second rule is a ban on space-based weapons [/b]Does anyone really lose out from not having these? No. [b]The third rule is a ban on mechs and the like.[/b] Not bothered really, they're slow, expensive and not really a better platform for any type of weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 The first rule is a ban of lasers. Not too fussed on this as long as you don't get super killing lasers then its okay. The second rule is a ban on space-based weapons No rods from god etc but I think space combat as sucj is sort of feasible. I mean everyone worries about flying off into space and such by a compressed air jet pack device could maybe stop you from flying off right? The third rule is a ban on mechs and the like. Depends if used like Gundams from tv then no but if used as a replacement for tanks then sure after all its only the look that changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 [quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1301698705' post='2682506'] The third rule is a ban on mechs and the like. Depends if used like Gundams from tv then no but if used as a replacement for tanks then sure after all its only the look that changes. [/quote] [font="'Lucida Sans Unicode"]Mechs replacing tanks? Are you sure about that bro...[/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 [quote]The first rule is a ban of lasers. The second rule is a ban on space-based weapons The third rule is a ban on mechs and the like. [/quote] Lasers: This is a tricky one. Can lethal lasers be fired from something the size of a M16 or AK47? At this time, no and there probably never will be considering the UN had a ban on permanent blinding lasers weapons (The prototype PHASR managed to skirt this due to claims it only caused temporary blindness) and such a weapon would not be as feasible, reliable and as useful as current systems. Laser weapons such as THEL, MIRACL and ATL are anti-missile, and in the case of Zeus, anti-mine/IED. So, as far as a ban on lasers go, while it doesn't need to stay due to prototypes/working models of lethal small arm laser weapons being non-existent, it doesn't harm the development of military weapon RP by being in place. Space-Based Weapons should be non-existent in CNRP, except in the case of satellite defense. Show me a successful working prototype of a space-based weapon which will be produced by 2020 and I'll reconsider my position on this. Mechs ban should stay. I don't put walkers under mechs because those do exist and work well. Whether or not they will be able to be used for war is up to the poor sap of a nation wishing to try that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 I agree with Cent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1301531558' post='2680992'] After long arguments about the viability of the rules and the like and a confirmation from the moderation that said rules were in it is time to discuss the specific rules and have the community decide on what to do with them. The first rule is a ban of lasers. The second rule is a ban on space-based weapons The third rule is a ban on mechs and the like. We will be keeping this thread open for discussions for a while so you can all hear the required arguments to make a call, when the GMs feel enough time has passed a poll will be created on each of the rules. [/quote] 1) Lasers: Anything current should be allowed to use. However, all future development are banned. 2) Unless we have any sort of rule concerning satellites (because presently anyone can say they have thousands in space), I say we delay this. 3) I want mechs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Can you provide an actual argument as to why allowing mechs is a good idea other than "I want mechs"? I want a cold beer and a hot redhead right now but that isn't likely to happen, now is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1303403507' post='2695598'] Can you provide an actual argument as to why allowing mechs is a good idea other than "I want mechs"? I want a cold beer and a hot redhead right now but that isn't likely to happen, now is it? [/quote] I really don't have much of an argument except that it is possible to make mechs, although they wouldn't be gundams and be more like walkers. I mean, do we really need to have an argument for mechs? It's not like even if I bring out any good evidence of their possibilities, it would persuade those who are against mechs. It's a deadend, and I rather not spend my time on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1303403912' post='2695604'] I really don't have much of an argument except that it is possible to make mechs, although they wouldn't be gundams and be more like walkers. I mean, do we really need to have an argument for mechs? It's not like even if I bring out any good evidence of their possibilities, it would persuade those who are against mechs. It's a deadend, and I rather not spend my time on it. [/quote] There's a reason why mechs and walkers are a separate category. Edited April 21, 2011 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1303403507' post='2695598'] Can you provide an actual argument as to why allowing mechs is a good idea other than "I want mechs"? I want a cold beer and a hot redhead right now but that isn't likely to happen, now is it? [/quote] You getting a cold beer and a hot red head isn't ever going to happen in all likelihood. I'm ok with mechs providing they aren't anymore or any less useful than tanks. Adding a little color to the rp so to speak without any advantages or disadvantages to having them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.