King Timmy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Third World Nation (0~49.99 tech) (~1970) Your technology level is very low, and are developing your own way in the world. You have Vietnam War technology*, and any tech you receive from other nations (weapons, aircraft, etc.) is not easily maintained without help. It's much like what buying tech from other nations is now IRL. You may design items appropriate to the period. Developing Nation (50~499.99 tech) (1970~1980) Having reached a critical point, you can now start developing relatively advanced weapons. Your tanks are in their second generation, which jet fighters are third generation. Modern Nation (500~1499.99 tech) (1980~1995) Your technology has made it into the information age, and you can now start building precision weapons. Having enough firepower to obtain air superiority over developing nations are now within your hands First World Nation (1500~3499.99 tech) (1995~Current) Your technology has reached a modern level, and you can build anything military-wise that currently exists*. You may design items appropriate to the period. Future Nation (3500+ tech) (Current~15 years from current) Inventions start coming from your nation, and you can build anything that is believed to be capable of being developed within 15 years. You're still limited to IG levels of soldiers, tanks, nukes, CMs, etc. Now, beyond this your tech level still matters for your army efficency, but a lot less. Design statistics will matter less as there is an efficiency formula for your armies. Can we at least make more suggestions as to what numbers are being used for each level of tech before they're set in stone? I for one would vote for this over the current option one if it were an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 So I just found the old logarithmic scale (or one of the proposals). Triyun said something about it. Originally posted by [b]Sadinoelus[/b], probably an LVN-multi at the time: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=36435&view=findpost&p=959497"]Click Me[/url] [quote]I think an logarithmic scale would do best, simply because the growth in "tech year-equivalent" would need exponential growth by the amount of tech you have. In short, the amount of tech needed to go from 1940 to 1980 in actual tech should be much smaller than what's need to go from 1980 to 2020. Using numbers, the best equation I can get is: (log(Tech level / 10) / log(1.0475)) + 1900 = RP tech year-equivalent. For example, using my own numbers (1200 tech) I get a tech-year of 2003. Not bad. Some other points, for example: 15 tech = approx. 1910. 50 tech = approx. 1935. 100 tech = approx. 1950. 250 tech = approx. 1965. 500 tech = approx. 1985. 1000 tech = approx. 2000. 2000 tech = approx. 2015. 4000 tech = approx. 2030. 6000 tech = approx. 2040. 8000 tech = approx. 2045. 10000 tech = approx. 2050. To calculate your own: http://rechneronline.de/logarithm/ First number: Your tech / 10 Second number: 1.0475 Hit calculate, add the third number to 1900, and you get your tech-year equivalent on the scale I proposed.[/quote] If we want to use a log scale, we'll be able to use this and tweak it for superiority, and starting at ~1970 or so. If I have the time today, I'll try and figure something out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantWatcher Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) I vote Proposal #1, even though it means i will have scale back to use older equipment. Still, it will be interesting to rp it. Edited April 23, 2011 by Curristan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 [quote name='Curristan' timestamp='1303551657' post='2697615'] I vote Proposal #2, even though it means i will have scale back to use older equipment. Still, it will be interesting to rp it. [/quote] You voted for #1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantWatcher Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I meant #1, sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Okay, so I went into excel real quick and made this: [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing338.png[/img] Tweaking will have to be done, but I believe while mathematically more complicated, this makes everyone's stuff more modern. (Except that of people of 10 and less tech <.< ) Edit: I forgot including that, but I made the base 1970. So the result of the logarithm is added to 1970. Edited April 23, 2011 by Lynneth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Voted #1 And I've always done Tech Exchanges. I buy more advanced equipment, set up a revolving fund that pays for the training of the users and fixers of said equipment, and have a blast. Not sure why people seem to think it is just bad bad bad bad bad that a lower tier nations have access to advanced weaponry. However, it must be role played out and upkeep and repair must be done regularly. Edited April 23, 2011 by Tidy Bowl Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted April 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1303552610' post='2697620'] Okay, so I went into excel real quick and made this: [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing338.png[/img] Tweaking will have to be done, but I believe while mathematically more complicated, this makes everyone's stuff more modern. (Except that of people of 10 and less tech <.< ) Edit: I forgot including that, but I made the base 1970. So the result of the logarithm is added to 1970. [/quote] Mhm I like this alternative a lot, I will see with cochin and Em what they think but due to the amount of different proposals and the closeness of the poll it might be better if we voted again after more discussion has been had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggressivenutmeg Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 hmm...Lyn's one isn't so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Agreed Lynneths Log scale is my favourite option to date. I would say maybe take a few years off (1500ish to 2000ish being present day) and have upper and lower limits, maybe 1971/81 to 2021/31 and increase both by a year every year and it sounds like the perfect scale to me. Edited April 23, 2011 by King Timmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I think this whole 2050 and beyond thing is a bit disconcerting. I only can support current year plus 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggressivenutmeg Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1303559428' post='2697660'] I think this whole 2050 and beyond thing is a bit disconcerting. I only can support current year plus 10. [/quote] yeah, after that it become to difficult to predict how technology will develop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1303552610' post='2697620'] Okay, so I went into excel real quick and made this: [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing338.png[/img] Tweaking will have to be done, but I believe while mathematically more complicated, this makes everyone's stuff more modern. (Except that of people of 10 and less tech <.< ) Edit: I forgot including that, but I made the base 1970. So the result of the logarithm is added to 1970. [/quote] There's a little bit of a problem. How can a RPer accurately predict 20 years from now? In the 1990s, very few people expected tablet PCs and smartphones dominate and to rival PCs, LED based screens emerging in the market or streaming movies from the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I like Lynneth's logarithmic scale proposal. With much more varied tech abilities, there is greater opportunities for RPd technological development. It will definitely make our jobs as GMs slightly harder as each abuse case would require individual calculation rather than straight judgment on seeing the players's IG stats, but then again that is hardly a reason to count against this proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Can we abolish Kankou's idea please... with her tech level it would make sense as to why she wants this change, It benefits her... Why should we heap benefits on RP'ers who generally not only have more land IC but also have more tech IG and know how to really use it. This proposal does nothing but increase the "income" disparity (using a RL term) between smaller and midsized nations and the super huge nations. Super huge nations already have the benefit of being at the top of the scale... why do we have to punish the smaller nations by sliding them down? is it just so the big nations can be all lollittlepunynation and lollittletech, and basically rape them on the battlefield? this whole second scale of Kankou's is taking away from RP'ers by constraining what they can do while placing no limits on the big nations. It's BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1303563914' post='2697688'] I like Lynneth's logarithmic scale proposal. With much more varied tech abilities, there is greater opportunities for RPd technological development. It will definitely make our jobs as GMs slightly harder as each abuse case would require individual calculation rather than straight judgment on seeing the players's IG stats, but then again that is hardly a reason to count against this proposal. [/quote] I agree with this logic, I find Lynneth's proposal to be good as well. Either way, I'll be willing to play with whatever tech scale is accepted by the community, so long as we don't have that tech scale that went back to WWI... Edited April 23, 2011 by TheShammySocialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Actually it would be fun to play trench warfare for awhile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 About my scale, we could just use 1965 as base instead of 1970. Adjusting the logarithm itself won't change a whole lot, though I can of course try to get several more examples if you guys would like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1303567765' post='2697710'] I agree with this logic, I find Lynneth's proposal to be good as well. Either way, I'll be willing to play with whatever tech scale is accepted by the community, so long as we don't have that tech scale that went back to WWI... [/quote] Everyone knows how well Sopwith 7F.1 Snipe aircraft stand up against F-22s and Mark IV tanks (armoring was so thin that the tanks could be crippled by small arms fire) stand up against M1 Abram tanks... Edited April 23, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Yeah what Lyn said is essentially the log function I was talking about. If I could add to that proposal, because of tech dealing we should set a tech floor at 50 tech (1984). Maybe cap it 2030. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1303570889' post='2697744'] Yeah what Lyn said is essentially the log function I was talking about. If I could add to that proposal, because of tech dealing we should set a tech floor at 50 tech (1984). Maybe cap it 2030. [/quote] Cap at [Current Year +20] or something. Because 2030 is in 19 years from now, but 18 from 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I'm cool with either option 1 or the log. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 [quote name='graniteknight' timestamp='1303568192' post='2697714'] Actually it would be fun to play trench warfare for awhile [/quote] I'm with MO here. I remember when I first started CN, we had a really different equation for tech (I actually like it a lot, and I think we should totally go back to it). But in this, if you had 0 tech, you literally were back in WWI times. Now, I'm all for bring back this old tech equation, except a select group of people will !@#$%* and moan about how you require them to pull out a calculator for 12 seconds because you need to take the log of a number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Ill be sticking to the present tech scale regardless of how this turns out. Only one or two of my things are remotely close to being futuristic anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1303571923' post='2697750'] Cap at [Current Year +20] or something. Because 2030 is in 19 years from now, but 18 from 2012. [/quote] Yeah I agree. 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.