The GM's Court

[Triyun]

SDIs cover expeditionary forces they have for a while iKrolm. The SDI roll I can RP in whatever manner I wish as can others. Cent rolled my SDI in this post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105517&view=findpost&p=2959862, I got three intercepts, I chose to RP it that way.

I then have had 3 successful destroy nuke spy rolls 1 failure. I've RPed 3 take downs via aircraft of 'destroy nuke' 1 failure. In total 6 nukes have been defeated, 3 by SDI rolls, 3 by spy rolls.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335483428' post='2959907']
SDIs cover expeditionary forces they have for a while iKrolm. The SDI roll I can RP in whatever manner I wish as can others. Cent rolled my SDI in this post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105517&view=findpost&p=2959862, I got three intercepts, I chose to RP it that way.

I then have had 3 successful destroy nuke spy rolls 1 failure. I've RPed 3 take downs via aircraft of 'destroy nuke' 1 failure. In total 6 nukes have been defeated, 3 by SDI rolls, 3 by spy rolls.
[/quote]

Can you provide a link to the change of ruling? Here's the last discussion I remember, but nothing changed then: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=87417&st=0

[Triyun]

Been how its been for a while. It was the case when I became a GM. If its that big a deal I can have one of my cruisers over the Pacific instead of a fighter do it but you are always entitled to your SDI. If you have it in game you have it in RP unless it gets destroyed. Thats the rule for all.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Triyun

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335486943' post='2959936']Been how its been for a while. It was the case when I became a GM.[/quote]This particular rules change was never decided by poll nor discussed anywhere in the forum community.

Lots of things from *that* era where arbitrarily decided over IRC.

It’s time to decide this particular statute in open polling!

[Triyun]

Its not exactly the first time we did this. Sumer just had SDIs rolled for her in Sweden with her not owning the territory. Nobody complained then.

[Generalissimo]

If the rule isn’t posted anywhere how are we supposed to know?

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1335489878' post='2959947']
If the rule isn't posted anywhere how are we supposed to know?
[/quote]
I've been wondering that myself

[Kankou]

As far as I know, isn't SDI coverage only for either large formation of conventional troops (as in not some paratroopers), national territory, and naval fleets?

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335480921' post='2959889']
I've already stated you can defend against this like any other WMD with your MDs, that you've chosen to ignore that isn't my problem EM.
[/quote]

The fact that you've chosen to ignore the rather inconvenient truth that it is nigh impossible to shoot something like a rod travelling at orbital speeds down doesn't answer my question.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, but only moves like a duck half of the time, is it a duck? Is the only difference between a banned rods from god system and your FOBs rod system the amount of time it takes in orbit? Yes or no?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Executive Minister

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1335491105' post='2959958']The fact that you've chosen to ignore the rather inconvenient truth that it is nigh impossible to shoot something like a rod travelling at orbital speeds down doesn't answer my question.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, but only moves like a duck half of the time, is it a duck? Is the only difference between a banned rods from god system and your FOBs rod system the amount of time it takes in orbit? Yes or no?[/quote]Let's also put this to a vote.
Voting for everyone!

[Triyun]

[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1335314813' post='2958754']
I'm requesting an auto-advance in the Netherlands. Elrich hasn't responded.

Thank you.
[/quote]

Granted.

[quote]As far as I know, isn't SDI coverage only for either large formation of conventional troops (as in not some paratroopers), national territory, and naval fleets? [/quote]

You shot nukes at a marine division.

[quote]The fact that you've chosen to ignore the rather inconvenient truth that it is nigh impossible to shoot something like a rod travelling at orbital speeds down doesn't answer my question.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, but only moves like a duck half of the time, is it a duck? Is the only difference between a banned rods from god system and your FOBs rod system the amount of time it takes in orbit? Yes or no? [/quote]

Already said its subject to the same missile defense restrictions. That you don't like it isn't really my fault or problem. If you'd prefer to shoot it in traverse phase to prevent it from doing a direct dissent as your RP of Missile Defense that is fine.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Triyun

[Triyun]

Another set of nuke rolls. Also requesting that if successful these ones supercede any post made after this one attempting to get off any successful nukes before I kill them.

[Kankou]

You know, I do believe I've been called out for using too many nukes by you. Just how is it that you get to supercede nonexistent nukes, unless you're saying I can replenish them?



[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335495070' post='2959983']
You shot nukes at a marine division.[/quote]
Please tell me how on earth you managed to transport SDI-class SAMs when using aircraft to transport marines forces.

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335304765' post='2958631']
In the North across the coast ground effect aircraft would begin transporting marine forces onto the North of the Island, landing a total of 18, 000 troops in a matter of hours.[/quote]
Isn't this basically marines being transported by air, hence having no SDI coverage?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Kankou

[Triyun]

Ground effect vehicles fly about 20 meters over the water and then beach on unloading marines. They essentially act as island hopping based amphibious transport craft. The SDI systems as has been ruled for a very long time, going back to when I setup my SDI as the USC can take any form it wishes to, it just retains the same odds. In this case I am using fighters to provide that support, in others I can use ballistic missiles. It does not have to be limited to one IC system. For example if you drop a gravity nuclear bomb on me, or use a nuclear artillery piece on me, fire a nuclear cruise missile, or a nuclear tipped torpedo, obviously I'm going to intercept all of those differently than a nuclear tipped ICBM however the SDI system is treated as the same 60% interception odds rule.

Also I thought you've used up 23 of the 25 nukes up to this point. If you have used 25 and I miscounted, I'm quite content with that.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Triyun

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335509564' post='2960040']
Ground effect vehicles fly about 20 meters over the water and then beach on unloading marines. They essentially act as island hopping based amphibious transport craft. [/quote]
Over a thousand kilometer of wavy sea water? Do you realize that ground effect vehicle do not have that kind of distance range over oceans because the air itself is different from the Caspian? Research by the Koreans and Chinese on military application noted that GEVs are only efficient in crossing something like the Yellow Sea, and not for trans-oceanic travel.

As you are someone who should have known this, I am disappointed.



[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335509564' post='2960040']The SDI systems as has been ruled for a very long time, going back to when I setup my SDI as the USC can take any form it wishes to, it just retains the same odds. In this case I am using fighters to provide that support, in others I can use ballistic missiles. It does not have to be limited to one IC system. For example if you drop a gravity nuclear bomb on me, or use a nuclear artillery piece on me, fire a nuclear cruise missile, or a nuclear tipped torpedo, obviously I'm going to intercept all of those differently than a nuclear tipped ICBM however the SDI system is treated as the same 60% interception odds rule.[/quote]
Not going to bother discussing things with someone who is so set on what he wants.

[Centurius]

[img]http://i45.tinypic.com/rcpy6a.png[/img]

Two rolls on mobile launchers capable of launching WMDs(nukes, chemical weapons, etc.)

[Triyun]

First on the landing craft thing. Its not a 'efficiency' question at all. Its a speed question. The techs been long standing in CN RP, which I build ontop of. You're taking this to IRL procurement budgets and to private enterprise, neither of which is applicable here. Militaries aren't in the business of making money they are in the business of fighting wars. When you want to know about the financial health of UPS running these things we can talk.

In regards to the second point, that is simply the case you may not like it, but you benefited from it. Speaking of things people should know, you were attacked by nuclear tipped cruise missiles, again something completely different, you got rolled an SDI number too. You did not object to getting an SDI roll then. Quit attempting to spin things to turn yourself into the victim. You were MORE than willing to take SDI rolls in Sweden against multiple types of nuclear weapons. It wasn't just against nuclear tipped ICBMs. You were neither a nation with formal control over your territory, nor were you requiring solely ABM coverage. At that point you could have thrown your arms up and raised a fuss. But you did not. You took the military benefit when it was convenient for you and you are trying to back pedal now when it was inconvenient. Spare us the faux complaining its transparent.

Edit: Cent 19, 1 two successes.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Triyun

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335541524' post='2960115']
Edit: Cent 19, 1 two successes.
[/quote]
One thing that's been bothering me for a while: When did GMs stop posting screens of their rolls?
When it became inconvenient? That's not an excuse, in my opinon. Screen-making should be brought back.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1335544024' post='2960132']
One thing that's been bothering me for a while: When did GMs stop posting screens of their rolls?
When it became inconvenient? That's not an excuse, in my opinon. Screen-making should be brought back.
[/quote]

When a request totalling 120 rolls came in. Screentaking is no security against fixed rolls considering it's easy to just click again until you get the result you want, it's symbolic evidence more than anything.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1335546718' post='2960144']
When a request totalling 120 rolls came in. Screentaking is no security against fixed rolls considering it's easy to just click again until you get the result you want, it's symbolic evidence more than anything.
[/quote]
Still makes me feel better. Also, isn't there a tool on random.org that lets you roll x numbers at once so you'll have to take less screens?

[Evangeline Anovilis]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm

Records what you rolled on the right side. Maybe a bit more secure?

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335541524' post='2960115']
First on the landing craft thing. Its not a 'efficiency' question at all. Its a speed question. The techs been long standing in CN RP, which I build ontop of. You're taking this to IRL procurement budgets and to private enterprise, neither of which is applicable here. Militaries aren't in the business of making money they are in the business of fighting wars. When you want to know about the financial health of UPS running these things we can talk.[/quote]
A slight clarification: Military efficiency as in transporting man without getting in to accidents and such. You're going to lose quite a bit to the point of too many casualties and loss of equipment occurring.


[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335541524' post='2960115']In regards to the second point, that is simply the case you may not like it, but you benefited from it. Speaking of things people should know, you were attacked by nuclear tipped cruise missiles, again something completely different, you got rolled an SDI number too. You did not object to getting an SDI roll then. Quit attempting to spin things to turn yourself into the victim. You were MORE than willing to take SDI rolls in Sweden against multiple types of nuclear weapons. It wasn't just against nuclear tipped ICBMs. You were neither a nation with formal control over your territory, nor were you requiring solely ABM coverage. At that point you could have thrown your arms up and raised a fuss. But you did not. You took the military benefit when it was convenient for you and you are trying to back pedal now when it was inconvenient. Spare us the faux complaining its transparent.[/quote]
1. The first round of nuking were against cities, with major infrastructure. If I wanted rolls to be done, there was the logical reason for them
2. I ignored the SDI rolls when I RPed except for the navy if it had shot down both missiles. I never took any benefit in the end.


Furthermore, your comparing a landing force which would be disorganized against control of cities which was not contested by ground forces is something of a rather disconnected thing.

[Triyun]

Its an area that you can cover. I've got radar, early warning systems, and what not lining the entire battlespace. Tough !@#$%*^ for you.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I still want to know how those landing craft did go so many miles over open sea...I have yet to see you address that point...

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1335566750' post='2960209']
I still want to know how those landing craft did go so many miles over open sea...I have yet to see you address that point...
[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM2000 < Check the range... (was canceled, but still, it is relevant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-8 < In use since 1959... still a significant range...

Landing Craft have gone a long way since Normandy, bub. There are smaller boats that go into open sea then landing craft.