The GM's Court

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1340391675' post='2992851']
I'd like to ask Shammy (no offense to Curri or EM) about the legality of the African Union Pact's larger members building and giving whole flights of sixth generation aircraft to members with barely the stats to maintain it. It seems to me that Joel James and Zephyr with 2500 and 1800 tech would fall well below the maintenance thresh hold for this in any real numbers. I don't think we ever restored complete tech sharing since we got rid of it.
[/quote]

I believe that this objection does have some merit, considering most of the AUP does not even have the stats to [i]build[/i] much less [i]maintain[/i] a sixth-generation aircraft, only a couple of the members possess the ability to do so. Therefore, going on current CNRP logic, it is up to the person procuring the aircraft to be able to maintain these aircraft, as well as their own fleet of aircraft.

Given there is very little evidence of these types of actions before, and none that I can seem to find, I believe that some sort of community ruling should be made to limit the amount of advanced aircraft able to be procured for other nations by more technologically advanced nations. I do know that logistics and maintenance continue to be a realism issue that still plagues the military side of things in CNRP, the ability to maintain large fleets of highly advanced aircraft for a whole slew of allies with such lower technology ratings is rather obscene, in my honest opinion.

Until a community ruling can be made and discussed, I'd like to say that only limited numbers of these aircraft are available for actual combat for less-technologically-advanced nations, and any adversary that has to face what can be deemed as an extraneous amount, will be granted leniency in casualties and the right to observe non-canon standards. These decisions, will be made on a case-by-case basis, and given there have been very few of these problems ever had in the annals of CNRP, I feel as though this is the right course of action until the community can act as a whole on it.

[Executive Minister]

whoops

Edited June 22, 2012 by Executive Minister

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1340400787' post='2992942']
Ill accept a community vote, but from my perspective, these aircraft are not entirely supplementing Joel or Zephyrs airforces entirely, which can be written off as elite ace squadrons recieving the best equipment, support and training.

The AU is a union. While I might not say its an outright merger-although that might change depending on the outcomes of this complaint, things like our AUSF which is a continental force comprised of all AU members would warrant all states in recieving the highest performance aircraft, at least the forces each state contributes.

Lastly, while I appreciate the complement, these aircraft are not sixth gen. Perhaps 5+ at the best. 5++ would be a marketing call ICly.
[/quote]

[TheShammySocialist]

Not all countries can contribute the same high-performance maintenance staff to maintain these aircraft, however, something that my ruling made note of. Even Generation 5+ are out of the reach of some of these countries involved in the AUP, therefore their ability to maintain them is on those higher states.

Yes, the AUP is a full-on union of African countries, but those member states contribute their own strength, just because one member can procure and maintain an aircraft, doesn't mean all have the same ability, in my honest opinion. Forty Squadrons for one nation alone, that nation being one with the lowest technology counts in the Union, actually requesting those forty squadrons of aircraft? That's a little much, EM, and you and I both know that.

I don't think any nation anywhere has forty squadrons of "elite aces"... I didn't say in my ruling that the technology couldn't be shared around, I said that it has to be cut down in the number of aircraft squadrons of the lower-tech members of the AUP, in this case anyways. There is a precedent that needs to be kept here, and I'm going to stick by my original ruling.

Edited June 22, 2012 by TheShammySocialist

[Triyun]

You don't see most US allies even the EU ones able to maintain Raptors would we export them, several have conducted feasibility studies the only ones who really have that option are Japan and they're bigger than most great powers militarily in their own right. I think the same thing would apply if I started arming up Markus, Domingo, and Melech with F-1s.

In regards to Sumer's complaint, the microsphere technology which is being researched and which is employed on the F-1s allows for a skeletal structure as I understand it which frees up significant space along with a semi-delta body going back. If you look at the proposed F/B-22 it has room for 30 small diameter bombs+2 AMRAAMs. A single NGTAM is a about the space of 2 SDBs. Given the F-5 is a bit smaller than the F/B-22, you minus 2 of those NGTAMs plus the 2 AMRAAMs you come to 14.

[Executive Minister]

Apologies, but Shammy, I didn't exactly see a concrete ruling besides 'the number should be reduced on a case by case basis until a community vote is held', or a much more disturbing 'people have permission to take less casualties from extra aircraft '.

Provide a fraction or multiplier and give it to us to follow. Don't include such nonsense provisional terms that could royally screw up future wars.

You'll have to excuse my abruptness for now, texting on a city bus is unforgiving. I'll be on later to post further

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1340406108' post='2992985']
Apologies, but Shammy, I didn't exactly see a concrete ruling besides 'the number should be reduced on a case by case basis until a community vote is held', or a much more disturbing 'people have permission to take less casualties from extra aircraft '. [/quote]

[quote]Until a community ruling can be made and discussed, I'd like to say that only limited numbers of these aircraft are available for actual combat for less-technologically-advanced nations, and any adversary that has to face what can be deemed as an extraneous amount, will be granted leniency in casualties and the right to observe non-canon standards. These decisions, [b]will be made on a case-by-case basis[/b], and given there have been very few of these problems ever had in the annals of CNRP, I feel as though this is the right course of action until the community can act as a whole on it.[/quote]

Note the bold spots, I never said that people have permission to take less casualties, stop putting words in my mouth and read my actual decision, please.

I said that in some circumstances, a GM presiding over the conflict could deem the amount of advanced aircraft in someone's arsenal (who does not have the technology for the upkeep), and whose numbers are outside a realm that could be deemed 'excessive and extraneous', therefore, the player being attacked by the player utilizing said advanced-beyond-their-years aircraft could ask for a GM review. If the GM's decision was ignored by the player using the aircraft, a leniency could then be granted to the player on the receiving end of these aircraft to observe them as non-canon, and therefore be granted leniency in casualties or something like that. This is as per usual doctrine.

I never said that people will automatically be able to ascertain and decide whether or not to take casualties, without a GM review of the situation.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1340391675' post='2992851']
I'd like to ask Shammy (no offense to Curri or EM) about the legality of the African Union Pact's larger members building and giving whole flights of sixth generation aircraft to members with barely the stats to maintain it. It seems to me that Joel James and Zephyr with 2500 and 1800 tech would fall well below the maintenance thresh hold for this in any real numbers. I don't think we ever restored complete tech sharing since we got rid of it.
[/quote]

These 'flights' are given much like how other RPers are able to buy equipment from higher tech equipment. The only difference is that the AU works together with its members after these sales to ensure training, maintenance and support is given adequately.

[quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1340395181' post='2992872']
I believe that this objection does have some merit, considering most of the AUP does not even have the stats to [i]build[/i] much less [i]maintain[/i] a sixth-generation aircraft, only a couple of the members possess the ability to do so. Therefore, going on current CNRP logic, [b]it is up to the person procuring the aircraft to be able to maintain these aircraft, as well as their own fleet of aircraft.[/b]

Given there is very little evidence of these types of actions before, and none that I can seem to find, I believe that some sort of community ruling should be made to limit the amount of advanced aircraft able to be procured for other nations by more technologically advanced nations. [u]I do know that logistics and maintenance continue to be a realism issue that still plagues the military side of things in CNRP, the ability to maintain large fleets of highly advanced aircraft for a whole slew of allies with such lower technology ratings is rather obscene, in my honest opinion.[/u]

Until a community ruling can be made and discussed, I'd like to say that only limited numbers of these aircraft are available for actual combat for less-technologically-advanced nations, and any adversary that has to face what can be deemed as an extraneous amount, will be granted leniency in casualties and the right to observe non-canon standards. These decisions, will be made on a case-by-case basis, and given there have been very few of these problems ever had in the annals of CNRP, I feel as though this is the right course of action until the community can act as a whole on it.
[/quote]

To the bolded, I have never denied that, which is why higher tech members of the AU contribute greater to the AUSF, and work closely with smaller AU members to ensure maintenance is assured.

To the underlined, here is a breakdown of the AU membership and relative tech log induced years.

Vedran - 500 tech, 2005
[color="#FF0000"]Curristan - 4000 tech, 2023
Lord Zephyr - 1800 tech, we'll low ball and go 1500 for 2014[/color][color="#2E8B57"]
Axolotlia - 12000 tech, 2033[/color][color="#FF0000"]
Joel James - 2500, we'll low ball and go 2000 for 2017
TBM - 1700, we'll low ball and go 1500 for 2014[/color][color="#2E8B57"]
Me- 9000, 2030[/color]

The wiki states that the [color="#FF0000"]Fifth Generation exists between 2010 and 2025[/color], the [color="#2E8B57"]Sixth exists between 2025 and 2030[/color]. Where is this huge maintenance of highly advanced aircraft needed? The lowest person we have is in 2005, the fourth generation. Vedran has not ordered any advanced aircraft yet. This 'problem' has been blown highly out of proportion. The AU is not exactly Axolotlia, Curristan and I propping up third world countries as several have made it out to be in here.


[quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1340403237' post='2992964']
[b]Not all countries can contribute the same high-performance maintenance staff to maintain these aircraft, however, something that my ruling made note of. Even Generation 5+ are out of the reach of some of these countries involved in the AUP, therefore their ability to maintain them is on those higher states.[/b]

Yes, the AUP is a full-on union of African countries, but those member states contribute their own strength, just because one member can procure and maintain an aircraft, doesn't mean all have the same ability, in my honest opinion. Forty Squadrons for one nation alone, that nation being one with the lowest technology counts in the Union, actually requesting those forty squadrons of aircraft? That's a little much, EM, and you and I both know that.

I don't think any nation anywhere has forty squadrons of "elite aces"... I didn't say in my ruling that the technology couldn't be shared around, I said that it has to be cut down in the number of aircraft squadrons of the lower-tech members of the AUP, in this case anyways. There is a precedent that needs to be kept here, and I'm going to stick by my original ruling.
[/quote]

To the bolded, everyone that has ordered aircraft are at least in the fifth generation. Coupled with the continued stressing on mutual development and military, economic and industrial capabilities, your arguments hold no water.

The elite aces comment was a mere concession to your assumptions with me actually looking into the tech of the AU membership. I refute that claim. I'd say with a bit more explicit posts outlining the training, maintenance and supply of these aircraft and equipment that we can outfit everyone in the AU with these aircraft. I'd say we'd be able to go Sixth Generation in a partial capacity.

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1340403660' post='2992969']
[b]You don't see most US allies even the EU ones able to maintain Raptors would we export them, several have conducted feasibility studies the only ones who really have that option are Japan and they're bigger than most great powers militarily in their own right. I think the same thing would apply if I started arming up Markus, Domingo, and Melech with F-1s. [/b]

In regards to Sumer's complaint, the microsphere technology which is being researched and which is employed on the F-1s allows for a skeletal structure as I understand it which frees up significant space along with a semi-delta body going back. If you look at the proposed F/B-22 it has room for 30 small diameter bombs+2 AMRAAMs. A single NGTAM is a about the space of 2 SDBs. Given the F-5 is a bit smaller than the F/B-22, you minus 2 of those NGTAMs plus the 2 AMRAAMs you come to 14.
[/quote]

To the bolded, you've said many times CNRP exists in a timeline that is much more militarized than the present real life peace. I bet if the US had Russia and China continuously knocking on its doors with similar capabilities to its own, you'd see a much wider proliferation of the F-22.

About your NGTAMs, a bit more info on the microsphere technology (ie: having enough room for another bay) and the NGTAM explicit dimensions couldn't hurt, could they?


EDIT: Shammy, that still doesn't cut it. Allowing for lesser losses even with our permission is a BAD move. Just give us a number or multiplier to lessen the number of aircraft that ANY high tech nation can sell to a lower tech (not low tech, these people are not as low as they've been portrayed) and we'll be done with it with no problems at all. But I doubt its needed, this issue has been blown completely out of proportion.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Executive Minister

[Triyun]

Yeah maybe amongst Japan and Germany I'd agree with you on that point EM. In my mind that'd be Curri. Also where did I miss the news reports that Russia and China [i]stopped[/i] knocking on some of these lesser sized nations doors. Last I checked the Phillipines, Vietnam, the Baltic States, etc were getting harassed on a pretty continual basis. I don't think many are objecting to a small contingency say 60, I think what without putting a number in Shammy's mouth what we're both saying is 40 squadrons is excessive.

[Kankou]

The F/B-22 is only able to carry 30 SDBs through the use of underwing weapon bays. It's not the main internal weapon bays that can carry all 30 SDBs (with the side bays being converted to handle the AMRAAMs).

Edited June 23, 2012 by Kankou

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1340413021' post='2993044']
Yeah maybe amongst Japan and Germany I'd agree with you on that point EM. In my mind that'd be Curri. Also where did I miss the news reports that Russia and China [i]stopped[/i] knocking on some of these lesser sized nations doors. Last I checked the Phillipines, Vietnam, the Baltic States, etc were getting harassed on a pretty continual basis. I don't think many are objecting to a small contingency say 60, I think what without putting a number in Shammy's mouth what we're both saying is 40 squadrons is excessive.
[/quote]

I thought Russia and China had inferior systems to America's? That Russian figures are often hyped for sales?

But that is besides the point. You have ignored the fact that all members that have requested the aircraft are not that far off from 6th Gen. I do not see why there should be a limit at all to their acquisition of sub-sixth gen aircraft. You have not demonstrated that people like Zephyr and JJ are incapable of working together with nations like mine, curristan's or Axolotlia's to maintain these aircraft. I will not accept an arbitrary number until this percieved deficiency is addressed. I believe the technological deficiency of the AU has been blown out of proportion.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Executive Minister

[Kankou]

On the Grey Widow complaint: The fighter is just the F-23/PAK FA equivalent to the proposed 3.2C level upgrade for the F-22. Why this is a problem when we have generational leap exporting is beyond my comprehension.

[TheShammySocialist]

If the AUP has that kind of tech, then that's fine, the original complaint centered around Sixth Generation aircraft, but if these aircraft are 5+ Generation, and the numbers of AUP members in that 5th Generation threshold is fine, then that's fine. My ruling wasn't [i]just[/i] centered around the AUP, it was meant to close a possible loophole that I saw growing, so I'm setting a precedent. I think you're taking this as a personal attack against you, when its aimed at the whole community, my ruling was aimed at the community as a whole, and if the AUP has a large number of members across the 5th Generation threshold, they now don't have anything to worry about this ruling if these aircraft are the kind of aircraft that fall under the 5+ Generation model.

If you're really asking for numbers, I'd have to say that depending on the circumstances, a cross-generational export from a higher-technology nation to another, in my honest opinion, should not exceed more than 25-35% of the lower tech nation's air force totals.

Don't take this whole thing as a personal attack, EM, I see a loophole developing here, and I would like to close it.

[Yawoo]

Shammy, if you'd be so kind, please post the ruling you made in IRC which was in regards to citizenship and private military corporations. I would like a public record since it changes a lot of old GM rulings in regards to PMC operators.

[Kankou]

I think it would be better if we start a discussion thread for that.

[Executive Minister]

I didnt take it as a personal attack, at least by you. You told us to lower our numbers, and that forty squadrons was too much. I argued that it wasn't, and convinced you. There is no more problem.

Everyone in the AUP that can upgrade will upgrade all their aircraft. Vedran, should he choose to ask for aircraft, will get your 30 percent or whatever

Edited June 23, 2012 by Executive Minister

[supercheese]

[img]http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p626/supercheese2/untitled.jpg[/img]
thats 50%

Requesting this spyroll to capture Rotas government.

[Isaac MatthewII]

Two rolls

One to find his super carrier by spotting it on Skynet Sat
Two to find his super carrier via training jets

[IMG]http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af349/Isaac-Johnson/spying.png[/IMG]

Sorry I didnt thow my mouse over it. Thats 50% odds.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1340963793' post='2999929']
Two rolls

One to find his super carrier by spotting it on Skynet Sat
Two to find his super carrier via training jets

[img]http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af349/Isaac-Johnson/spying.png[/img]

Sorry I didnt thow my mouse over it. Thats 50% odds.
[/quote]

Okay so here you go.

[img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww106/mofailla/shpies/Isaac.jpg[/img]

Both are below 50 so you have two wins.

[Kankou]

A general question: How limited are we to filling parts of the ocean to create land for various activities? Relatively often we see constructions which are not feasible without major reclamation efforts taking around decade to finish. Are we allowed a more accelerated time scale beyond the usual 1 month = 1 year for such constructions?

Edited June 30, 2012 by Kankou

[Captain Enema]

Obvious question, what are you thinking? If you are creating farmland for civilian purposes, who really would care? Something more significant might be a different story.

[Triyun]

[img]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4180/uavsurveillance.png[/img]

Two deep penetrating UAV radar sniffing/recon flights, high altitude. I'd like to map out radar with the stealth uav's sniffers and use the optics of both to search for air fields with special emphasis on F-22 climate controlled hangars as well a launch prep on satellites. Please note I'd have a good idea where to search for the satellites especially given the fact that they'd have shown up on Tianxia Early Warning Sensors when they were first launched. Also please note this will take place during the war between Russia and Isaac so radar is likely to be on.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Triyun

[Isaac MatthewII]

Yes when in combat they are turned on. Though being on the bad side of a curbstomp I am doing what the Serbs did with their RADAR and SAMs

[Triyun]

They still had them on.

[Executive Minister]

Didn't they strobe their radars, set up old units torn from Migs for false signatures and move the real ones around (at least the ones for actual SAM fire control)? That would counter act such a roll.