discussion about scaling back the timeline

[kitex]

I can't agree to this because ATM, I have up to 2005 tech which I am cool with. This new tech scale would take me back decades and it would allow for me to be crushed if I were invaded. I like the current tech scale.

[Zarfef]

I should like to note that the tech required for 2035 tech is out of reach - 2034 tech still requires a whopping 14,000 technology. I don't know of two many nations that have that much tech. Even at full blast, I won't be able to reach that for another 2 years (assuming I'm not knocked back by some random off-the-wall war). You practically have to be part of the GPA to get into that range. 9000 tech is still required to get to the year 2030, with tech from the year 2035 being about 3x as powerful as tech from 2030.

I would however, that a lot of these problems occur because technology like the above, is non-linear in growth. Every decade, our technology becomes roughly one order of magnitude better. So Sabres can't keep up with F-4 phantoms, F-4 phantoms can't keep up with F-15s from the 1980s, which couldn't keep up with F-15s from the year 2000, which couldn't keep up with the F-22 (Note that the aircraft have different letters next to them, describing their current generation). The tech from the year 2022 for instance will likely blow the socks off the F-22 with some kind of fighter drones that no longer need human pilots and the tech from the year 2030 will make the tech from the year 2020 just as obsolete. The current tech scale - because every tech seller should have tech of 50 at minimum, goes roughly from 1984-2034, or a range of roughly 50 years. The one noted by Triyun, isn't all that different. It's just that the first 1000 tech doesn't jump you forward 20 years, so keeping in line with Lynneths tech scale while implementing a minimum of 1984 for the tech range to avoid curb-stomps of all tech sellers (they're the reason the tech heavy nations exist in the first place) and you'd have,

[b]500 tech and below:[/b] 1984
[b]1000 tech:[/b] 1991
[b]1500 tech:[/b] 1995
[b]2000 tech:[/b] 1998
[b]3000 tech:[/b] 2001
[b]4000 tech:[/b] 2004
[b]5000 tech:[/b] 2006
[b]6000 tech:[/b] 2008
[b]7000 tech:[/b] 2010
[b]8000 tech:[/b] 2012
[b]9000 tech:[/b] 2014
[b]10,000 tech:[/b] 2015

Far less scary that way. However, like I noted, far more boring. I like my RPs interesting, I prefer fantasy and sci-fi over realistic military books - sorry Tom Clancy. I realize that it has problems with people saying "That's not even possible!" But honestly, nothing in RP here is completely in the realm of possible - it's role-play and it's for fun. Stop trying to argue whether something is possible or not and stop acting like you can win a war because of your techno-gadget. It's cool, we know, but it won't win wars. For game purposes, perhaps the following should be in play

For an equally matched impact of two sides, every twenty years of technology allows for the destruction of 3 enemy units for every one of your own, 10 years only 2 for every one of your own and less then 10 years makes them an equal match. If the two sides meet with one having the strategic or tactical advantage, the tactical advantage changes the scale by +1 to one side if technologically superior, but if the technologically inferior or roughly equal (within 1 decade of) nation achieves the advantage then the inferior nation destroys roughly 2 enemy units for each one of it's own.

With the above, it stops the god-weapons of doom by making everything mortal again. No weapons can be built that would fall outside of that range of power and super-weapons are to remain simply as they are - essentially a constant for all sides, with perhaps nations having fusion being capable of producing fusion weapons without the radioactive fallout, but the lack of fallout is it. Nukes are nukes.

EDIT: Modified rule idea because I still disliked how strong the numbers were. The new rule idea would be far less lethal and grants the technologically inferior side the chance to gain advantage through superior RP strategy.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Zarfef

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Zarfef' timestamp='1333214533' post='2946186']
[b]500 tech and below:[/b] 1984
[b]1000 tech:[/b] 1991
[b]1500 tech:[/b] 1995
[b]2000 tech:[/b] 1998
[b]3000 tech:[/b] 2001
[b]4000 tech:[/b] 2004
[b]5000 tech:[/b] 2006
[b]6000 tech:[/b] 2008
[b]7000 tech:[/b] 2010
[b]8000 tech:[/b] 2012
[b]9000 tech:[/b] 2014
[b]10,000 tech:[/b] 2015
[/quote]

The tech scale affects military technology, but military technology doesn't change very fast. Take the US main battle tank, for example: the M1 Abrams has been in use since 1980. There have been a few upgrades: the M1A1 appeared in 1985 and the M1A2 replaced it in 1992. The M1A2 has been in service for 20 years now, but it is the M1 with a few upgrades for a total of [b]32 years[/b] of service.

Edited March 31, 2012 by iKrolm

[Zarfef]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1333218728' post='2946213']
The tech scale affects military technology, but military technology doesn't change very fast. Take the US main battle tank, for example: the M1 Abrams has been in use since 1980. There have been a few upgrades: the M1A1 appeared in 1985 and the M1A2 replaced it in 1992. The M1A2 has been in service for 20 years now, but it is the M1 with a few upgrades for a total of [b]32 years[/b] of service.
[/quote]

But I imagine that current M1A2 tank units make use of computers and GPS devices that their 1992 counterparts couldn't dream of. We're talking about the technological difference between front-style tactics and swarm based tactics, between placing a general set of forces in a region and directing firepower on the fly as needed. We're also talking the difference between regular depleted uranium shells and rocket propelled tank shells with significantly larger range - as well as more advanced counter-measures for inbound missiles and what not. Sure, the chasis might not change - the M1A2 is an amazing tank, much like the F-15 was an amazing plane, but the modifications with time greatly changed the role which these weapons had. The M-16 is another great example - great weapon, but I doubt that soldiers from Vietnam could match up against soldiers from today in urban combat.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Zarfef' timestamp='1333219038' post='2946216']
But I imagine that current M1A2 tank units make use of computers and GPS devices that their 1992 counterparts couldn't dream of. [b]We're talking about the technological difference between front-style tactics and swarm based tactics, between placing a general set of forces in a region and directing firepower on the fly as needed.[/b] We're also talking the difference between regular depleted uranium shells and rocket propelled tank shells with significantly larger range - as well as more advanced counter-measures for inbound missiles and what not. Sure, the chasis might not change - the M1A2 is an amazing tank, much like the F-15 was an amazing plane, but the modifications with time greatly changed the role which these weapons had. The M-16 is another great example - great weapon, but I doubt that soldiers from Vietnam could match up against soldiers from today in urban combat.
[/quote]
Tactics? As far as I know, most people throw them out the window. Give a RPer a M1A1 and they will in a fight just throw it at you. Give them a M1A2 and same will happen.

[Triyun]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1333218728' post='2946213']
The tech scale affects military technology, but military technology doesn't change very fast. Take the US main battle tank, for example: the M1 Abrams has been in use since 1980. There have been a few upgrades: the M1A1 appeared in 1985 and the M1A2 replaced it in 1992. The M1A2 has been in service for 20 years now, but it is the M1 with a few upgrades for a total of [b]32 years[/b] of service.
[/quote]

I'm inclined to agree with iKrolm here. The fundamental issue you have here is it really is removing a lot of the tech as a factor. There is no real reason to do that except possibly jealousy, which imo is a bad reason.

In regards to the whole GPS thing, I happen to know a bit about that. While that is true there really aren't restrictions on recievers, and the 1991 GPS stuff was enough to enable them to make that hook in the desert. I think you're being a bit niave in how CN RP works here Zarfef. The fact is that we've made the collective decision not really to account for support systems as much which would mean that a lot of this stuff which you talk about really wouldn't be practical as far as limitations. Further as far as the space stuff goes, which really is the principle thing that gives the US military its qualitative advantage, that stuff only one person in the coalition has to build and anyone in the coalition can use it, so your really not doing much there.