Executive Minister Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Alright. Decided to make a poll to shirk all responsibility WHILE maintaining a sense of authority by appearing to be democratic. The poll speaks for itself. Using the F-22 case from the Coal Wars as an example, earlier date is the first flight of 1997, the later date is the introduction year of 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) The higher date. To continue with the Coal Wars example: You haven't reached 500 tech, so you aren't at 2005 when the F-22 that the US military uses was introduced and produced. Edit: It should be noted this poll is primarily for those up to 2012 tech. Edited June 6, 2012 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Even though this won't help my allies I will say production date for when they are avaliable, it has always been that for me when I chose tech. After all isn't first flight just when the very first protoype took off and flew around for a bit. So yeah has to be introduction year I am afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 My vote is for higher date as well. Just because it first flew in the 80s doesn't mean it has all the whizbangs and gizmos it does in 2005 where it was more effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) There is a distinct difference between something's propulsion working, and it being operational. I vote higher. ALSO END THE RAPTOR GLUT! Edited June 6, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavo Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) First flight refers to prototype and test flights. It, by absolutely no means, says that the craft is ready for production and general use, most of the time. Edit: Voted for higher, to be precise. Edited June 6, 2012 by Lavo_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiden Ford Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Allowing people to use the Prototyping dates unleashes a whole torrent of issues. for example, do you want railguns in common naval service circa 2005-12 tech range, or later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 I think the answer to this one is fairly straightforward to those with common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiden Ford Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1339005460' post='2978306'] I think the answer to this one is fairly straightforward to those with common sense. [/quote] You would be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel James Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 I'll have to go with the higher date as well. Theoretically, the planes can still be built with the lower date, but they won't do much good in a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 This is just over-regulation :/. I can't believe y'all have to make a rule about THIS. I also can't believe TBM hasn't raged here yet. What a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 [quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1339008038' post='2978321'] This is just over-regulation :/. I can't believe y'all have to make a rule about THIS. I also can't believe TBM hasn't raged here yet. What a waste of time. [/quote] Okay, here's an idea: Let's not raise this issue and watch the fun you have when you're warring somebody who should have military technologies from the mid-1980's but instead pits you against aircraft which became practical in 2005. Something tells me you wouldn't be quite so passive and disgusted if it were happening to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel James Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 [quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1339008038' post='2978321'] This is just over-regulation :/. I can't believe y'all have to make a rule about THIS. I also can't believe TBM hasn't raged here yet. What a waste of time. [/quote] Yeah, I have no idea where TBM went Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 TBM's probably off trolling small Chinese children. Back to the topic, David, can you provide a comprehensive argument as to why this shouldn't be implemented? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Higher date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Whats the effect on arming client states which we have bases in to support (to be clear not talking about the highest end Tianxia weaponry) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 [quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1339009120' post='2978330'] Okay, here's an idea: Let's not raise this issue and watch the fun you have when you're warring somebody who should have military technologies from the mid-1980's but instead pits you against aircraft which became practical in 2005. Something tells me you wouldn't be quite so passive and disgusted if it were happening to you. [/quote] If it's something I can barely get I usually just use the lower gate since everyone who is my enemy is so powerful anyway. You have people who have indestructible F-23s or whatever and I'm stuck with my awesome F-16s! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1339009792' post='2978333'] TBM's probably off trolling small Chinese children. Back to the topic, David, can you provide a comprehensive argument as to why this shouldn't be implemented? [/quote] I think it's just being too specific and technical. It will definitely limit the smaller nations from getting things like F-22s. Do it if y'all want; I think it's just more useless regulation. Edited June 6, 2012 by PresidentDavid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiden Ford Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) The Smaller Nations should be using F-16s, or F-15s, or MiG-21s. Or they can nut up, do a bit of googling on how to do lineart and attempt to draw a reasonably aerodynamic aircraft then get some stats assigned to it. !@#$, my most Advanced Aircraft is the YF-12, and F-117. You don't see me !@#$%*ing about AMG I WANT MAH F-22z. Edited June 6, 2012 by Aiden Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantWatcher Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 This only effects current and past weapons if no-one is certain up to 2012. Sorry if i am pointing out the obvious for people, i just needed to clarify it as it wasnt put in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Creative tactics and upgrades from more advanced power you could $%&@ up some Lightnings and Raptors with the latest Sukhois teen series and SAMs working in tandem. You might not win but you could put a few away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) It's CNRP, I could care less about military specs. All I know about a F-22 is that it's better then an F-16. I'm not going to spend four hours drawing an airplane so I can use it in a story-based Role Play forum game. It would be like buying the Statue of Liberty so you can beat your arch enemy, who is also your neighbor, in a yard decorating contest because you just can't stand his gardenknomes so you need something bigger and better then those little pointed hatted twerps. It's really fun that if you use a group of F-16s in battle against an F-22 the other player magically assumes that your F-16s can't even notice, let alone harm, the F-22. Like really? I could care less. I would want to be in more wars with other players in CNRP, but it's just a bunch of technological crap that no one except Triyun who controls half the world or the rest of you techies who just want to RP stats. Anyway, make the rule what you want. I voted with the other two people to make it lower. Edited for my terrible grammar. Edited June 6, 2012 by PresidentDavid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Other: No hard cutoff dates, use it as it existed in your tech level. If you're in 2000 tech when only a handful of prototypes existed, you can only field a handful of prototypes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 higher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Honestly I feel that every nation should be able to rp stuff that exists in RL regardless of their tech level and any extra tech they have could count towards future junk. But since we're stuck on the tech scale here I voted for the higher option just to simplify things. I feel that iKrolm has the most realistic suggestion but honestly that leads to messes in verifying what existed when and it just gets complicated. 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.