Triyun Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1358345456' post='3077498'] What can possibly weird you out about how far tech debates have gone? Seriously though, stick 14,000 tech with 2013 tech and work down from there. When it comes to space, we follow IG and the wonders.[list] [*]14000 - 2013 [*]13000 - 2012 [*]12000 - 2012 [*]11000 - 2011 [*]10000 - 2010 [*]9000 - 2009 [*]8000 - 2008 [*]7000 - 2007 [*]6000 - 2005 [*]5000 - 2004 [*]4000 - 2001 [*]3000 - 1998 [*]2000 - 1995 [*]1500 - 1992 [*]1000 - 1989 [*]500 - 1983 [*]200 - 1974 [*]100 - 1968 [*]50 - 1962 [/list] [/quote] I'm in favor of this, with the caveat for diversity sake you should be able to have prototypes equivalent to already operational units done. For example if the F-22 works in 2012, someone can use the prototype russian stealth fighter with assumed similar capability to the F-22 for the sake of a more diverse battle field. Also 17th Century + Conan. Nukes can be balrogs. Edited January 16, 2013 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseida Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1358350656' post='3077527'] If you use all aid slots for tech deals, at a rate of 3/100, you can get up to 500 tech a month, 600 if you got a DRA. So, two months for 1000 tech, once one starts buying. The greatest problems are to get to buyer status and to survive the months ICly. [/quote] It takes months to get to the point where you're not a seller anymore, and even then you get hundreds a month only at completely optimal buying, assuming you have no alliance obligations, raids, wars, real-life driven inactivity periods, etc I honestly just don't see why we can't have a much more level playing field, or why we can't just have everyone at almost the same level. If everyone has access to roughly the same stuff, the only issues are numbers and strategy rather than who played the game for four years and who joined three months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) I personally favor the current tech scale as it is and just make the cap the rl year, that way people will get modern military tech on a reasonable gradual scale. Edit: That being said and for the sake of continuity I don't believe we should pass these measures for any existing rp's but rather for future rp's. Also civilian developments that add flavor(holographic communications, space colonies, etc.) shouldn't fall under this new scale. Edited January 16, 2013 by Centurius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseida Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1358357838' post='3077587'] I personally favor the current tech scale as it is and just make the cap the rl year, that way people will get modern tech on a reasonable gradual scale. [/quote] If anything, this is pretty much the best solution as is and I support this fully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Personally I don't mind the current scale all that much. I just feel we need to address these tech issues before a war occurs so its not one giant cluster $%&@ of !@#$ like whats happening now. Like when someone makes a new toy for their military they submit it to a new tech thread or something so the whole community can examine it and approve of its feasibility. On the other hand I don't really mind this new tech scale either. I might get bumped down but then everything is kind of grounded in reality so that's always a plus. If it were me I'd start the tech scale post WWII, not many nations have equipment from WWI. Hell most nations don't have stuff from WWII either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1358357838' post='3077587'] I personally favor the current tech scale as it is and just make the cap the rl year, that way people will get modern military tech on a reasonable gradual scale. [/quote] Here's a couple of modifications to the current tech scale: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AppNyVNBkaLddGR4VkV3Z1MzTUwyS3dSSGVVYTFPN0E After playing with the spreadsheet a bit, I like the bottom-most Log Scale to Present option best. It increases the log base from 1.12 to 1.18 so the effects of very high tech are reduced and leaves the starting tech levels in the Vietnam war era. (Bonus options: there's a few more more tech scales on the second sheet for the adventurous among us.) Edited January 16, 2013 by iKrolm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I approve of the 18th century one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 [quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1358363377' post='3077635'] After playing with the spreadsheet a bit, I like the bottom-most Log Scale to Present option best. It increases the log base from 1.12 to 1.18 so the effects of very high tech are reduced and leaves the starting tech levels in the Vietnam war era. [/quote] My name is Centurius and I approve this message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I like Voodoo's idea. This is something [b]vital[/b] that I think we should look at though: If we make the tech scale to [b]stop[/b] at 2013 (for example the tech scale would be January 16, 2013 today) then I think we need to make sure that there are no exceptions to this rule. Like.... we can't use this, "super awesome ion-canon that is 25% done in present day so I am just going to develop one and say it malfunctions ever other shot...." No... Just don't use tech that does not exist or has not already been invented. I think if we can do [b]that[/b] than everything will work out perfect. But if we make exceptions and let people use half-finished devices or ships or missiles or guns then the whole idea of this falls apart. In short, I agree TBM; this is dumb and we need reform. And I think you have the right idea and I think Voodoo has an attractive looking tech-scale. Just please make sure if you or if someone gets someone to propose a resolution, make sure there are no exceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Andres Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 The "Log Scale to Present" Timescale looks good to me. I'm glad we are discussing this, I've never been a fan of futuristic technobable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1358357838' post='3077587'] I personally favor the current tech scale as it is and just make the cap the rl year, that way people will get modern military tech on a reasonable gradual scale. Edit: That being said and for the sake of continuity I don't believe we should pass these measures for any existing rp's but rather for future rp's. Also civilian developments that add flavor(holographic communications, space colonies, etc.) shouldn't fall under this new scale. [/quote] If any modification must be made, then this proposal gets my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 If the people wants the tech scale to be capped at current year, then the people shall get. Although really, waiting more than two years for this has been annoying to the max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Why does noone even consider my proposal for a tech scale (apart from Sarah)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1358376542' post='3077722'] Why does noone even consider my proposal for a tech scale (apart from Sarah)... [/quote] Because not everyone enjoys giving their modern soldiers French rifles from 1919. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm fine with either Cent/iKrolm, Voodoo, and Sarah/Eva's proposal. Personally I wouldn't mind making tech a thing that should also be looked at by mutual consent. But I guess that'd probably be impractical. ATM I wouldn't mine doing a sword sandals tech thing, but others probably wouldn't want to do it. I will repeat my cosmetic request for modern stuff, I'll restate that as: [quote]One can have custom aircraft or versions of yet unfinished/cancelled units, but these capabilities cannot dramatically exceed existing units and if they marginally exceed an existing unit they must be taken from another area proportionally[/quote] Example: If you want to do an alt history where you have developed the F-23 instead of the F-22 you can, but the F-23 while it may have better stealth has to suffer in agility. That way we don't have ALL F-22s, Nimitz Carriers, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 We could elect a "technology committee" to look over new tech stuff, but that might be burdensome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 No. We need to end the politicization of tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1358378545' post='3077734']Example: If you want to do an alt history where you have developed the F-23 instead of the F-22 you can, but the F-23 while it may have better stealth has to suffer in agility.[/quote] This is what I was talking about when I addressed exceptions. In my opinion, doing things like this will make everything more confusing and defeat the purpose of what we are trying to do here: make technology simple and not as confusing as before. From what I understand, according to a proposed time-scale of 2013 or "present day", your example would not work because we would not be working on an alternate history where someone could have developed the F-23 instead of the F-22. If there is no (as of January 16 2013) F-23 that exists in that state, then it can not be used at all because it has not been made by 2013, but is only speculated by a player that it could be made in that state by 2013. So yes you can use the test-model of the F-23 that exists, but you can not add substantial upgrades or abilities to the craft that have not already been done or planed and proven to work at a level of at least 90%. That said, I am not trying to instigate a fight but I don't really see what's wrong if the best airplane everyone can have if the F-22. Makes it less confusing, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I just think it'd be kind of lame if the top 10 air forces all were the exact same thing. I'd rather have about equal capability but different looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1358379855' post='3077747'] I just think it'd be kind of lame if the top 10 air forces all were the exact same thing. I'd rather have about equal capability but different looks. [/quote] I mean one can argue that different aircraft have different and better abilities in different places than others. But any attempt to bend this proposed rule if put in place should not be allowed because it would be just as confusing as before. This way, it would be easier to understand and we could not bend the rules by doing things to vehicles and weapons that have not already been built and proven as of the moment you are typing your RP. To put it simply, you should not be able to use any craft or vehicle or weapon or technology (or the combination of the four) that has not already been built and proven to work. [u]Example: This means that even though the M1-Abrams tank exists, and even though stealth technology for the F-23 exists; you can not use F-23 stealth technology on a M1-Abrams tank [i][b]unless[/b][/i] it has been proven that a nation or a person or a scientist has already incorporated these two technologies together and[i] proven[/i] that it can work and how well it does work. [/u] [b]EDIT:[/b] This is of course regarding [i]warfare[/i]. We typically allow more creativity when it is in character or nation RP and not regarding warfare or fighting others. Edited January 17, 2013 by PresidentDavid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I'm inclined to agree with Triyun here, it'd hurt to see all people using Nimitz carriers, because it is the most modern supercarrier in service. Or like how everyone would use the Iowa, apart from the few crazies that want to use the Yamato or the Bismarck (though the Iowa was the only battleship ever to be having missile armament). [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1358378539' post='3077733'] Because not everyone enjoys giving their modern soldiers French rifles from 1919. [/quote] You do know, if the tech scale goes back, you can view this two ways: You equip 1919 soldiers with 1919 rifles or you equip modern (for 1919 standards) soldiers with modern rifles. The tech scale makes no exception for your soldier, so I don't know how you come to use modern and the date 1919 (as if it would mean it's not modern) in one sentence like this about the techscale. And not everyone enjoys giving soldiers an automatic firearm, just because the national security asks for it. What's wrong with non-automatic firearms for everyone or older? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1358382473' post='3077762'] You do know, if the tech scale goes back, you can view this two ways: You equip 1919 soldiers with 1919 rifles or you equip modern (for 1919 standards) soldiers with modern rifles. The tech scale makes no exception for your soldier, so I don't know how you come to use modern and the date 1919 (as if it would mean it's not modern) in one sentence like this about the techscale. And not everyone enjoys giving soldiers an automatic firearm, just because the national security asks for it. What's wrong with non-automatic firearms for everyone or older? [/quote] You do know I'm referring to the fact that nearly every one of your nations has had some variation of the Lebel or MAS-36 rifle as standard issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1358382993' post='3077766'] You do know I'm referring to the fact that nearly every one of your nations has had some variation of the Lebel or MAS-36 rifle as standard issue? [/quote] Wrong. Vicidalia: Standard issue was the Berthier rifle, not enough Swedish modern rifle had been procurred to replace it. Croatia: No defined standard rifle Biscotti: Custom Vic-2 rifle, which was a select fire for 7x57 mm Mauser ammunition, which I got promptly told was not a useful cartridge for this kind of rifle. Nouvelle Vicidalia: same France: Used first the Vic-2, then the Charleville musket, then the FAMAS Ontario/Faraway: Uses the Carabine de Tigre, a custom semi-automatic rifle chambered for 7x64 mm. I'd thus argue that while the Lebel was once in consideration for Vicidalia (but the Berthier was used instead), the MAS 36 was not used at all, both rifles therefore never saw service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Lithaen Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I'm not necessarily against bumping it down to modern tech levels, but it does kill a bit of creativity, especially when America has the biggest and baddest of absolutely everything. Unless you want to suffer a potentially catastrophic decline in capabilities by using something else - (or the J-20/Super Sukhoi, which are roughly F-22 capabilities), then the large nations will end up being homogenous. Also, if we're redoing the tech, then make it radically different - put everyone, regardless of tech, on the exact same level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted January 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I personally think the bottom of the tech scale ought to rest at 1975, but other than that, carry on. Prototypes would be ok, providing you have the stats, "roughly", of a currently deployed aircraft and the limitations thereof. I 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.