Triyun Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 The Kinetic strike is not in long term orbit around the Earth, and thus can be intercepted as well as tracked by DSP surveillance. A rod from god is attached to an orbital space station and can be sort of a phantom global prompt strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted September 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 A Rod from God is a form of Kinetic Strike. To say they're different is like saying vanilla ice cream is not ice cream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1346556532' post='3027300'] The Kinetic strike is not in long term orbit around the Earth, and thus can be intercepted as well as tracked by DSP surveillance. A rod from god is attached to an orbital space station and can be sort of a phantom global prompt strike. [/quote] So it's pretty much an ICBM with a big chunk of metal instead of a warhead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 Well the angle of descent is straight down if you do it the way I do, but yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1346561086' post='3027346'] Well the angle of descent is straight down if you do it the way I do, but yeah. [/quote] Then I would suggest we count them as IG cruise missiles, since they are non-nuclear and do not do nearly as much damage as a nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted September 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 It depends on what kind of weapon. Depending on how you use them, they can be as strong as a mini-nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346565346' post='3027367'] It depends on what kind of weapon. Depending on how you use them, they can be as strong as a mini-nuke. [/quote] The ones that the US planned to use originally had a yield of around 10-11 tons of TNT for the largest ones. In WWII, the British used bombs dropped from airplanes of around the same size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1346566477' post='3027369'] The ones that the US planned to use originally had a yield of around 10-11 tons of TNT for the largest ones. In WWII, the British used bombs dropped from airplanes of around the same size. [/quote] Comparing the poorly aimed crude British devices to an ICBM delivered weapon that can be placed with far more precision is a bit much. An ICBM is not a Cruise Missile, personally, I'd be all for some sort of infra scale on ICBMs myself. Further, I've often thought ICBMs ought to be the byproduct of having a space program in game, though I do recognize that not all ICBMs exit the atmosphere, my knowledge on them is limited. Though plonking whatever you want on them whether that be a big piece of iron or a toilet is your own business. Edited September 2, 2012 by Tidy Bowl Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1346588909' post='3027392'] Comparing the poorly aimed crude British devices to an ICBM delivered weapon that can be placed with far more precision is a bit much. An ICBM is not a Cruise Missile, personally, I'd be all for some sort of infra scale on ICBMs myself. Further, I've often thought ICBMs ought to be the byproduct of having a space program in game, though I do recognize that not all ICBMs exit the atmosphere, my knowledge on them is limited. Though plonking whatever you want on them whether that be a big piece of iron or a toilet is your own business. [/quote] Historically, the space rocket was developed out of the ICBM, not the other way round. Though, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka"]what is credited as first ICBM[/url] already had a variant to get into space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 You're actually a bit wrong on your history there Eva. The technology was dual use. Delivering nuclear weapons was a top priority, but the ability to put an object into space predated ability to actually mesh a nuclear warhead to an ICBM and have it be able to re-enter and hit anything. That fact of the matter is for it to be an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile and not a Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile the weapon must move through space to a limited extent. Not all ballistic missiles reach space but its uniformly true as far as I am aware that the ICBM does. Now in regards to reaching space, the argument that you seem to be suggesting that the missile programs were about developing ballistic missiles is niave. The space programs on both sides were about winning nuclear war, however you're ignoring the equally key aspect of nuclear war which is reconnaissance to develop a decapitating first strike capability. This is somewhat downplayed because aside from heavy lift booster technology soviet space technology lagged behind America's in operational capability to they had a tendency to reach mile stones of transit first but lag a few years in being able to turn that into something useful, but those things were developed just as much to build spy satellites to give each other views of strategic bomber air fields and later submarine and nuclear missile silos so we had targeting data for our strategic bombers as they were for throwing ballistic missiles around which were not even really all that operational yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1346588909' post='3027392'] Comparing the poorly aimed crude British devices to an ICBM delivered weapon that can be placed with far more precision is a bit much.[/quote] I'm merely comparing payloads. The 22000 pound bombs were used to actually create a seismic blast comparable to an earthquake, and were used to destroy large bridges or heavily armored targets like sub pens. [quote]An ICBM is not a Cruise Missile[/quote] In CNRP, if an ICBM carries a non-nuclear warhead, it comes out of you IG CM count instead of your nuke count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1346596831' post='3027416'] You're actually a bit wrong on your history there Eva. The technology was dual use. Delivering nuclear weapons was a top priority, but the ability to put an object into space predated ability to actually mesh a nuclear warhead to an ICBM and have it be able to re-enter and hit anything. That fact of the matter is for it to be an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile and not a Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile the weapon must move through space to a limited extent. Not all ballistic missiles reach space but its uniformly true as far as I am aware that the ICBM does. Now in regards to reaching space, the argument that you seem to be suggesting that the missile programs were about developing ballistic missiles is niave. The space programs on both sides were about winning nuclear war, however you're ignoring the equally key aspect of nuclear war which is reconnaissance to develop a decapitating first strike capability. This is somewhat downplayed because aside from heavy lift booster technology soviet space technology lagged behind America's in operational capability to they had a tendency to reach mile stones of transit first but lag a few years in being able to turn that into something useful, but those things were developed just as much to build spy satellites to give each other views of strategic bomber air fields and later submarine and nuclear missile silos so we had targeting data for our strategic bombers as they were for throwing ballistic missiles around which were not even really all that operational yet. [/quote] tl;dr No, really, the further it goes on, the more it disconnects from what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1346597421' post='3027419'] I'm merely comparing payloads. The 22000 pound bombs were used to actually create a seismic blast comparable to an earthquake, and were used to destroy large bridges or heavily armored targets like sub pens.[/QUOTE] You are making this comparison at your own peril. The British devices, no matter what their force, were not able to be deployed without great risk to the crews of the aircraft and neither were they all accurate in nature. Yes, they made big explosions that knocked over the occasional damn or bridge and the explosion was so big the planes didn't really need to be accurate, but we are talking about a bombing technology that missed by entire miles not inches or feet. You can drop your big earthquake bomb a mile off and it's not really going to have the same effect that you hoped it would that is if your crew doesn't get shot down or blown out of the sky by AA fire. However, using the same explosive force on an ICBM gives you an extremely deadly precision weapon if used correctly against an enemy's CCC abilities. That's the point I'm attempting to make, the difference in technology and capabilities due to the technology demands approaching the payload and destructiveness of it from a different point of view. [quote]In CNRP, if an ICBM carries a non-nuclear warhead, it comes out of you IG CM count instead of your nuke count. [/quote] Who ever decided this is an idiot, but I'll go along with it, I'm fine with being able to spam 50 ICBM Rape Missiles everyday. Edited September 2, 2012 by Tidy Bowl Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 TBM sadly the fact is that was a marginal improvement we had to do. Prior to that ruling you could fire and regenerate hundreds if not thousands a day. I would agree the rule does not go nearly far enough and the 50 should be a long term stockpile cut down to less as they respawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted September 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 How about just make the 50 CM some kind of fixed rate to use during war, with slow replenishing rates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346611948' post='3027463'] How about just make the 50 CM some kind of fixed rate to use during war, with slow replenishing rates? [/quote] Maybe a replenishment of 2 a day per opponent (if you're fighting three nations, you regenerate 6 missiles a day), kind of how you can't CM someone more than twice in one day IG. Edited September 2, 2012 by KaiserMelech Mikhail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted September 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 That's actually quite sensible. Also, how about replenishing only happening between the time the player posts and the opponent posts, and is capped at a total of 10 replenishments? Also, no replenishment after autoadvances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346616288' post='3027475'] That's actually quite sensible. Also, how about replenishing only happening between the time the player posts and the opponent posts, and is capped at a total of 10 replenishments? Also, no replenishment after autoadvances. [/quote] That seems like it would encourage delaying the war down, if an individual may only be attacked again after posting a response. Keep it simple: two per day regardless of action (same as spy rolls and nukes with WRC). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted September 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Okay, then what about replenishing is reloaded after an autoadvance? That why, a person canno try to stall a conflict to dry out CM reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Ban all WMD, Nukes, and corresponding defensive super bunkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 I propose we reduce our technology to the level of the Neanderthals. Those with bigger nations will get bigger clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1346633627' post='3027530'] I propose we reduce our technology to the level of the Neanderthals. Those with bigger nations will get bigger clubs. [/quote] I think we should only allow feces-tipped spike bones on said clubs to be replenished with feces every few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1346633627' post='3027530'] I propose we reduce our technology to the level of the Neanderthals. Those with bigger nations will get bigger clubs. [/quote] Ugg [quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1346638045' post='3027542'] I think we should only allow feces-tipped spike bones on said clubs to be replenished with feces every few weeks. [/quote] Not gonna lie, I laughed quite hard at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Yeah, I snorted up a half a pint of water and spat it all over my floor laughing at Voodoo's quip as well. Quite witty that lad is, quite witty indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Yeah, I snorted up a half a pint of water and spat it all over my floor laughing at Voodoo's quip as well. Quite witty that lad is, quite witty indeed. 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.