Amendment to the Tech Log Scale

[Aggressivenutmeg]

What if a certain prototype was never introduced into service? What would be the acceptable date in that case?

[Executive Minister]

Well, the option does say the latest date... if there's no introduction date... perhaps that would be the cut off date?

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Aggressivenutmeg' timestamp='1339024755' post='2978447']
What if a certain prototype was never introduced into service? What would be the acceptable date in that case?
[/quote]

Personally I say if something doesn't have an introduction date then it shouldn't be used as there would be someone reason it hasn't been used to date.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1339024908' post='2978449']
Personally I say if something doesn't have an introduction date then it shouldn't be used as there would be someone reason it hasn't been used to date.
[/quote]
What if said reason was simply lack of funds? Or reorganising of priorities? E.g. the A-150, which was a feasable design, just that a lack of ressources (and the realisation carriers were a better investment) prevented it being built. What if someone's crazy enough to build it?

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339025916' post='2978455']
What if said reason was simply lack of funds? Or reorganising of priorities? E.g. the A-150, which was a feasable design, just that a lack of ressources (and the realisation carriers were a better investment) prevented it being built. What if someone's crazy enough to build it?
[/quote]

I would have to say unfortunally no. I am not saying this to be evil or a pain in the neck but even though it might have been feasable we don't know if it actually was. After all looking at the A-150 the wiki for it only gives a probale armour for the boat and details that it has many 100mm guns. Without actual figures for us to know it is easy for people to make their own figures up which could affect the actual feasability of the design.

So in general I would have to say no to prototypes that were not introduced.

[Aiden Ford]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1339026193' post='2978459']
I would have to say unfortunally no. I am not saying this to be evil or a pain in the neck but even though it might have been feasable we don't know if it actually was. After all looking at the A-150 the wiki for it only gives a probale armour for the boat and details that it has many 100mm guns. Without actual figures for us to know it is easy for people to make their own figures up which could affect the actual feasability of the design.

So in general I would have to say no to prototypes that were not introduced.
[/quote]

Boeing X-32 vs Lockheed X-35

Northrop-Grumman YF-23 vs Lockheed YF-22. YF-23 was the superior design but was not adopted due to the fact that the YF-22 was more easily adapted to the NTF Program, which was cancelled 2 years after the YF-22 was selected

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Aiden Ford' timestamp='1339026436' post='2978460']
Boeing X-32 vs Lockheed X-35

Northrop-Grumman YF-23 vs Lockheed YF-22. YF-23 was the superior design but was not adopted due to the fact that the YF-22 was more easily adapted to the NTF Program, which was cancelled 2 years after the YF-22 was selected
[/quote]

Let me clarify. What I meant was if a prototype was produced and yet not introduced and you can't find the details on it then my response is a negative. If a prototype was produced and details are avaliable then go ahead and use it. That clear things up.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1339026193' post='2978459']
I would have to say unfortunally no. I am not saying this to be evil or a pain in the neck but even though it might have been feasable we don't know if it actually was. After all looking at the A-150 the wiki for it only gives a probale armour for the boat and details that it has many 100mm guns. Without actual figures for us to know it is easy for people to make their own figures up which could affect the actual feasability of the design.

So in general I would have to say no to prototypes that were not introduced.
[/quote]
The Sovietsky Soyuz? It was mainly that the USSR faced a land war and predicted correctly that a greater number of tanks would be decisive, not a better battleship. Also, Soviet Industry failed to produce the armor plates, not because the armor plates were unfeasable though, but because the naval industry of the USSR was not up to par with what was needed for such a design.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339027176' post='2978472']
The Sovietsky Soyuz? It was mainly that the USSR faced a land war and predicted correctly that a greater number of tanks would be decisive, not a better battleship. Also, Soviet Industry failed to produce the armor plates, not because the armor plates were unfeasable though, but because the naval industry of the USSR was not up to par with what was needed for such a design.
[/quote]

As I mentioned above give us specifications for these prototypes and I would be fine with people using them. However, one thing I want to point out is that the armaments that go with these prototypes would have to match up. For example Aiden is using the Blackbird as a fighter by detailing that it has three air to aair missiles in an internal launch bay. Maybe this is possible maybe it isn't and that is what sometimes bothers me though not in a way that would make me demand he change it. After all as long as something isn't a gamebreaker then a few concessions can be allowed I feel.

[Isaac MatthewII]

It was actually planned to have some made in 2000, the main problem with the F-22 was the funding not the technology. Since we dont have an economy I could say I funded my military to do it. The date of production means absolutely nothing and I am not even arguing 1997, I am arguing 2001.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII

[MostGloriousLeader]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1339027509' post='2978479']
As I mentioned above give us specifications for these prototypes and I would be fine with people using them. However, one thing I want to point out is that the armaments that go with these prototypes would have to match up. For example Aiden is using the Blackbird as a fighter by detailing that it has three air to aair missiles in an internal launch bay. Maybe this is possible maybe it isn't and that is what sometimes bothers me though not in a way that would make me demand he change it. After all as long as something isn't a gamebreaker then a few concessions can be allowed I feel.
[/quote]

This is one thing I kind of had a question on. I can accept Aiden using the Blackbird fighter that he has because it was actually attempted (bearing prototypes and resulting in an active duty aircraft based on the design, the SR-71). The same with him using his XB-70 Valkyrie. I feel the gray area is stuff that hasn't been really developed for whatever reason. An example is Aiden is using the F-108 fighter as an aircraft. While the aircraft has stats available for it there was never a working prototype created that I've heard of and I doubt many aircraft have performed exactly as their initial stated abilities. I honestly have no real problems with him using it but I do want to know how stuff like this factors into what you can and can't have.

I also have a question as to the particular variants of equipment. Are we supposed to use certain versions of equipment when they specifically came online or would having the base equipment suffice for having everyhing? Example: The M1 Abrams was introduced around 1980, the M1A2 variant came about mid 90s I think. Would you be able to use the M1A2 only when you get to the mid 90's tech level or would you have it at the 1980s tech level?

[Aiden Ford]

[quote name='MostGloriousLeader' timestamp='1339047356' post='2978657']
This is one thing I kind of had a question on. I can accept Aiden using the Blackbird fighter that he has because it was actually attempted (bearing prototypes and resulting in an active duty aircraft based on the design, the SR-71). The same with him using his XB-70 Valkyrie. I feel the gray area is stuff that hasn't been really developed for whatever reason. An example is Aiden is using the F-108 fighter as an aircraft. While the aircraft has stats available for it there was never a working prototype created that I've heard of and I doubt many aircraft have performed exactly as their initial stated abilities. I honestly have no real problems with him using it but I do want to know how stuff like this factors into what you can and can't have.

I also have a question as to the particular variants of equipment. Are we supposed to use certain versions of equipment when they specifically came online or would having the base equipment suffice for having everyhing? Example: The M1 Abrams was introduced around 1980, the M1A2 variant came about mid 90s I think. Would you be able to use the M1A2 only when you get to the mid 90's tech level or would you have it at the 1980s tech level?
[/quote]


You dare compare YF-12s with their less advanced brothers the SR-71

[Captain Enema]

[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]


Been too drunk to give a damn.

[Captain Enema]

And having read over this thread, can't say I care enough to even get worked up.

GMs, you got voted in to do a job. Make a decision so the rp can move. Voting on crap like this is absurd. It's common sense that even you pinheads should be able to figure out.

First flight is not a full on warbird that has been improved through deploying into the field and adding to it's capabilities through evolving technology and upgrades. If they don't have the tech to build, unassisted, planes of a certain year of deployment, they don't get them.

WTH.. why is this question even being brought up?

Seriously, we voted on you losers to be able to make intelligent decisions and not bring piddling crap to a damn vote. GROW BALLS the lot of you cry baby hankey stomping lamers.

You wanna vote on something, vote on a new tech scale.

Further, for the rest you losers whining about junk that has never flown or sailed,it's up to you to rp out the entire development and deployment of the vehicle to justify it's capabilities. It's not a short process either.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1339010851' post='2978346']
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]
I would say you could equip them and teach them to operate it, to a degree. And if they have the tech equivalent to the prototype year, they can maintain it. But they can't build it until they get to the point of main introduction.

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1339012803' post='2978374']
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]Hmmm...not a bad suggestion.