Jump to content

Custom Military Technology


Voodoo Nova
 Share

Recommended Posts

This has become a mess of GM piecemeal approvals for canon recognition and it's time to change it.

 

What should we do about custom military technology?

 

 

I believe all custom military technology should be optional recognition. There are too many what-if's in their creation and use. They've caused nothing but trouble and no one can agree on where the line should be drawn in their creation.

 

 

Side note: I also believe that as long as if people use strictly RL stats, they can use whatever imagery they want for their equipment. Want your air force to look like it's from 300 years in the future? Go for it, but the stats will still be a RL aircraft. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree to get rid of custom equipment with one exception for aircraft. If a certain missile realistically could be put on an aircraft but isn't due to the originating nation of either the aircraft or missile rather than some actual physical limitation(Meteor on a F-22 or Storm Shadow on a B-2 for example) it should still be allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well like I said in the GM hall I'm a supporter of reasonable custom military technologies.  I feel that we could cut down on issues if we formalized a process for approval.  As I suggested, such custom equipment should approved based on its feasibility, usage, and its effect on gameplay. 

 

1)  Feasibility - Are there real life examples of what you're proposing?  Has the concept or capabilities inherent to your custom design been applied to real life usage and exists within the technology time frame allowed in cnrp2.

2)  Usage - On what scale do you plan to implement this custom design?  If it doesn't fall into defined categories with limits (aka troops, planes, ships) does it fall within the standards of "common sense"

3) Gameplay - Does the custom design break the game?  Does it provide an inherent and generally unfair advantage that is unable to be countered?  Custom tech should not be able to win a war on its own.

 

An application including the specifics of the design as well as addressing the three issues raised above should be submitted by the player in a approval thread for review by the GMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings on it is the following.

 

Problem #1 is that its not followed uniformely.  I don't want to say what GMs have done for what motives, but incontrovertably is that the standards have not been applied the same to everyone. 

 

An example given is apparently FHIC was told she could modify an air to air missiles wih seekers that were outside what was originally intended for the missile design.  I was told I could not do so with a warship.  

 

Another example is that Mael has apparently had space tech approved by GMs that without a doubt is no in service today and custom, however some prototype systems may exist at varying degrees of effectiveness and space assets are certainly outside the number of common sense numbers, yet the same situation with my drones got struck down.

 

I'm not blaming those players for GM rulings, but I am saying we're not applying the custom tech rule equitably, and giving players different information for force planning choices, then asking them to play against each other armed with those different sources of knowledge which gives some players IC advantages over another.  That's simply not acceptable.

 

I think in wars unless they are preplanned we need clear rules on what players can do IC, what technologies they can build, how much of non-IG units they can build, what they can modify etc.  

 

The point of rules should be to dictate everyone starts at the same starting line, not to try an influence who finishes the race first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the no-custom rule kind of disappointing, given people might know that I do like making my own custom army stuff, but it's not that much of an issue really. It only became an issue, when we started deviating from it and selectively approved tech.

 

That is not to say custom stuff is bad, because, it can help avoid uniformity and give some sense of individuality, but it would need an organised and clear process with criteria. In this sense, I think MGL's idea is a good start, because it actually does differentiate between just a custom design and a pretty game-wrecking BS.

 

For example (and I know it comes of very egocentric to use my own example, but I think it's less of a point of contention than F-23s and space planes), if one looks at the Ardeal-class battleship, I think it's actually something that could pass the criteria. I mean, I made the design, partly to test how far one could take Zoot's argument of "but if they had kept it in service and modernised it further" could be taken, partly, because Hereno was ranting about closet Nazism on the boards, and I felt like throwing in a joke weapon. But ok, in principle, you can apply pretty much the three criteria of MGL there:

 

Feasability: The Iowa got modernised to about the same degree. Both ships belong to the latest line of fast battleships of the 30s/40s. I mostly tried to apply the same principles as were used on the Iowa when replacing stuff, removing secondary weaponry for missiles and CIWS.

 

Usage: It's clearly a battleship, limited by battleship slots.

 

Gameplay: It's a modernised battleship, comparable to the Iowa, but with half the amount of Tomahawks. It does have a slightly better CIWS protection, but I would never think of calling it game-breaking. Also, naturally less armour and main battery caliber (also 8 guns, not 9), because the basis was a smaller ship.

 

It practically is a less capable design, because the defensive capabilities of a battleship in modern times are poor to begin with. The minor upgrades I made there shouldn't outweigh the fact I halved the Tomahawks (space issue, not conscious choice) and if anyone would try call the ship BS, it'd happen out of principle, because I'm frankly putting a handicap on myself for using this (just like how I'm using a lot of RL Romanian crap, instead of opting for better systems).

 

And honestly, if someone makes a good and honest effort to make a concept of a weapon system that is analogous to RL systems, has no major advantages and is pretty much feasable, I'd not complain. I know why I kept this class and I'm thinking overall, the idea of MGL is a good one.

 

[spoiler]

I love holding monologues on these things, to the point I may have missed the topic even...

[/spoiler]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modular tech is not the same as custom technology. Example, my space plane, all the parts work individually, I just bolted them together in a way they wil not interfere with each other and compliment each other. No different than mounting a missile on an aircraft or a cannon on an aircraft's hard point, yet people complained about it anyway. The space plane is nothing more than another aerospace craft like an f-22 or a b2, but people chose to gripe about it anyhow. This was even simpler. It was a gun in a cargo/bomb bay that would be deployed on a few hydraulically powered steel beams in space where there was no atmospheric resistance. People complained anyway.

 

Current system works fine, it's the players and gms who want to exploit a situation to their side's advantage which are the problem.

 

Also, we have some really dumb players who don't do research to know what actually is in use today, so their lack of an education as to current military tech standards and how physics works will often lead to inane and incorrect rulings and complaints. See Triyun and his complaints about my satellites. Which more people and gms than him have agreed exist and are perfectly fine as is. It's a real shame he won't move on from that old argument.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modular tech is not the same as custom technology. Example, my space plane, all the parts work individually, I just bolted them together in a way they wil not interfere with each other and compliment each other. No different than mounting a missile on an aircraft or a cannon on an aircraft's hard point, yet people complained about it anyway. The space plane is nothing more than another aerospace craft like an f-22 or a b2, but people chose to gripe about it anyhow. This was even simpler. It was a gun in a cargo/bomb bay that would be deployed on a few hydraulically powered steel beams in space where there was no atmospheric resistance. People complained anyway.

 

Current system works fine, it's the players and gms who want to exploit a situation to their side's advantage which are the problem.

 

Also, we have some really dumb players who don't do research to know what actually is in use today, so their lack of an education as to current military tech standards and how physics works will often lead to inane and incorrect rulings and complaints. See Triyun and his complaints about my satellites. Which more people and gms than him have agreed exist and are perfectly fine as is. It's a real shame he won't move on from that old argument.

You mean like the dumb players who don't even read their own sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mael, you just called people uneducated for lacking information pertaining to the military. I'm a fucking graphic design graduate, why in holy hell should I know if your damnb spaceplane works? Your argument is that we should all read military journals and shit when in reality we spec in different things. Idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely, we do. That's why those that do not know should perhaps reconsider and stop being as critical. If I create my space plane and provide documentation that all the parts work, and you cannot prove otherwise and by the laws of physics there's no reason they should not work..... then don't contest them. It's really that simple. I don't expect you to know this !@#$.. unless you're raining on my parade with your ignorance.

 

Truth is the motivations behind shooting down my aircraft and my satellites (with gm rulings) are purely political. I am fighting my angle on this global war in an unexpected way that provides me a fairly gained advantage. Should I apologize for being aware of the power of intelligence on the battlefield and seeking to strike my enemy's eyes out before there is even a war with me?

 

If you want a fair war, a good war, with an enemy who knows his talents, then stop trying to handicap me because you do not understand my methods. You will come to know just how tactically minded I am. Anyone who has played a war sim with me or a tac sim knows I'm a very dangerous individual to be in contest with. I will strike from angles you have not even contemplated.. sometimes it'll work.. sometimes I'll blow myself up, but it will be one hell of a fight in the process.

 

And yes, lets not pretend.. this entire discussion from its beginning has been mostly about me.

 

The X-37B is a known craft. With a known capability to carry cargo and to remain stabilized in orbit. I it can open a cargo bay to deploy payloads designed for its current mission. It can mount a boom the length of its bay easily. It can mount the cannon I've sited in its bay easily. It can mount ammo for that gun in the remaining space. The gun functions independently on the boom arm when it is deployed and has been tested in the air and in space BOTH. There is no reason my sky wardens should not work.

 

Anyone denying the above is ignoring the laws of physics to suit their own needs. It is not a custom craft. Is is a craft like any aircraft capable of deploying its payloads and using a variety of mission packages. It is not sci-fi.. it is real.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely, we do. That's why those that do not know should perhaps reconsider and stop being as critical. If I create my space plane and provide documentation that all the parts work, and you cannot prove otherwise and by the laws of physics there's no reason they should not work..... then don't contest them. It's really that simple. I don't expect you to know this !@#$.. unless you're raining on my parade with your ignorance.

 

Truth is the motivations behind shooting down my aircraft and my satellites (with gm rulings) are purely political. I am fighting my angle on this global war in an unexpected way that provides me a fairly gained advantage. Should I apologize for being aware of the power of intelligence on the battlefield and seeking to strike my enemy's eyes out before there is even a war with me?

 

If you want a fair war, a good war, with an enemy who knows his talents, then stop trying to handicap me because you do not understand my methods. You will come to know just how tactically minded I am. Anyone who has played a war sim with me or a tac sim knows I'm a very dangerous individual to be in contest with. I will strike from angles you have not even contemplated.. sometimes it'll work.. sometimes I'll blow myself up, but it will be one hell of a fight in the process.

 

And yes, lets not pretend.. this entire discussion from its beginning has been mostly about me.

 

The X-37B is a known craft. With a known capability to carry cargo and to remain stabilized in orbit. I it can open a cargo bay to deploy payloads designed for its current mission. It can mount a boom the length of its bay easily. It can mount the cannon I've sited in its bay easily. It can mount ammo for that gun in the remaining space. The gun functions independently on the boom arm when it is deployed and has been tested in the air and in space BOTH. There is no reason my sky wardens should not work.

 

It's not about you. Enough people have complained about the F-23. I've complained about the Iowa's and Kirov's (Didn't know Eva's stuff existed, honestly). It's about custom military tech as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Voodoo: I don't mind the F-23s or the modified iowas and kriovs as long as they publish their load outs well in advance and it's not anything the ship could not handle by its displacement. You should see the variation ships I'm using in other rps.. this is my mine layer/pt boat. Note, it's loaded out for cold-war specs.
 
Torpedo Boat/Minelayer: Crayfish Class
[spoiler]
Picture:
[spoiler]
PT%20Boat%20Pic.png
[/spoiler]
Design:
[spoiler]PT%20Boat%20Specs%20(1).png
[/spoiler]
Loadout:
[spoiler]PT%20Boat%20Specs%20(2).png
[/spoiler]
Systems:
[spoiler]PT%20Boat%20Specs%20(3).png
[/spoiler]
Class Notes:
[spoiler]
The Hull and Bridge have integrated Radar and Sonar systems in their superstructure  and hull giving this ship long range spotting capabilities, particularly by Sonar.
 
Torpedo is a larger variant of the MK 32 or MK 46 mod 0. The US navy would actually prefer a 30 inch diameter, but cannot upscale because the mk 48 became so broadly in to use. The extra size can house additional sensor types. Right now, other than acoustics, the world isn't aware of many other sensor types. So the extra space is being used for more explosives until it is.
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
 
Destroyer: Manta Ray Class
[spoiler]
Picture:
[spoiler]
Manta%20(1).png
[/spoiler]
Design:
[spoiler]Manta%20(2).png
[/spoiler]
Loadout:
[spoiler]Manta%20(3).png
[/spoiler]
Systems:
[spoiler]Manta%20(4).png
[/spoiler]
Destroyer Class notes:
[spoiler]
The Flag and Bridge have integrated Radar and Sonar systems in their superstructure and hull giving this ship long range spotting capabilities, particularly by Sonar.

Cruise missile is the Regulus 1.

Anti-Air/SAM is the RIM-24 Tartar

Anti-Ship missile is the Peregrine Falcon

Torpedo is a larger variant of the MK 32 or MK 46 mod 0. The US navy would actually prefer a 30 inch diameter, but cannot upscale because the mk 48 became so broadly in to use. The extra size can house additional sensor types. Right now, other than acoustics, the world isn't aware of many other sensor types. So the extra space is being used for more explosives until it is.

The guided mines are technically daisy-chain capable mines until something better comes along to replace them. (Daisy chain just means chain lined so they pull together if a ships hull runs into the chain.)

The 127mm High Velocity Flak Gun has been in use since WW2.
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
 
The above is my destroyer. You'll note.. you know exactly what it is capable of. Nothing hidden, all out in the open.
 
If they could provide specs details like that above to the GMS and players so a real discussion can be made as to what the ship is and how it works and how well balanced it is, I say that'd make for a good submission for custom designs.
 
Unfortunately, most of the fact books here are garbage, so people just pull crap out of their rumps and say they have it to use. Again, the problem is a few select players trying to manipulate the interpretation of technology and physics to suit their whimsy.. not the custom designs or even the modular ones.
 
@Triyun: Nice straw man Triyun.. which is why I'm going to ignore your commentary entirely. You say they get defeated. Yet I have ARES satellites, the only other argument I have made for a system other than the Sky Warden system. So.. so far.. I'm batting 1/1.. sky warden still pending. That said.. no more responses to you from me... it is literally a waste of my breath. You're no more than a troll when you make such useless statements.
 
In summary, and to no one in particular. I think the demands for custom or modular tech can be handled. Two simple rules and one requirement: 1. It must be detailed in advance and its full capabilities revealed. 2. It must rp'd out its creation and research. 3. A somewhat mature player base.
 
I think publishing load outs would also be a good thing for us to start asking for all navies and multi-role capital weapons systems. Aircraft are so modular it's not as much a concern. We know a plane can change bombs. Long as you're not trying to mount Tsar bomba to a fighter.. should be fine long as you announce the load out before engagements begin.
 
Sample post from initial combat in another RP I play in which laid out the battlefield as jointly approved by both combatants:
 
 
[spoiler]
Rules: 1 Post per 30 minutes per participant describing the actions during that period. Each set of 2 posts will advance time 30 minutes from the initial encounter time frame.
Participants: UCT vs NCE
Combatants: 1 Cherokee Tank Battallion, NCE Las Vegas Defensive Garrison
Time of day battle begins: 6:15 AM Chosen by Cherokee on grounds of peacetime deployment times (Company starts out from Hoover Dam around 6 AM) (estimated drive time from hoover dam to first encounter 15 minutes)
Initial Encounter Point: Highway 93 / Temple rock Junction just outside of BoulderCity
Weather: Clear Skies: Chosen by battle initiator (Cherokee) on basis of why the advance was occurring: relief mission.
 
**Special notes on Cherokee tanks. The Chieftain MK1 which is the basis for the Spearhead is an experimental model. The crews are green.. which will account for some of the mistakes that will come out in the rp. They're actually trialing the tanks right now in the field and there are only a few of them, the rest of the tanks are (Knifes) conquerors. But right now the conquerors are being slated for replacement by the (Spearhead) Chieftain series. At least 5 operational chieftains are in the head of the column sporting 120 mm guns. At most 10. Reason the relief column is armed: Prevent the aid train from being raided.
 
Special notes on NCE tanks: NCE is deploying the M6A01 variant of the M60 series.
 
This initial post is a joint status declaration by Jesbro/Maelstrom on initial combat rp rules and decorum. Brooklyn will have oversight over any contested actions or requested coin tosses.
[/spoiler]

But you insist on ruining the game. I have other means of enjoying myself if you guys screw it up again. You want a world devoid of player interest.. keep marching on your self-righteous path. In the meantime, I will carry on being awesome no matter what you do. :P My personal creativity and glory, reflective of my creator's spark, will never diminish.

In the mean time I'll just sit back and laugh while the lot of you bicker unable to figure out a way to play with each other in a respectful manner.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd support MGL's idea if we can also have a clear list of what is custom technology somewhere.

My feelings on it is the following.

 

Problem #1 is that its not followed uniformely.  I don't want to say what GMs have done for what motives, but incontrovertably is that the standards have not been applied the same to everyone. 

 

An example given is apparently FHIC was told she could modify an air to air missiles wih seekers that were outside what was originally intended for the missile design.  I was told I could not do so with a warship.  

 

Another example is that Mael has apparently had space tech approved by GMs that without a doubt is no in service today and custom, however some prototype systems may exist at varying degrees of effectiveness and space assets are certainly outside the number of common sense numbers, yet the same situation with my drones got struck down.

 

I'm not blaming those players for GM rulings, but I am saying we're not applying the custom tech rule equitably, and giving players different information for force planning choices, then asking them to play against each other armed with those different sources of knowledge which gives some players IC advantages over another.  That's simply not acceptable.

 

I think in wars unless they are preplanned we need clear rules on what players can do IC, what technologies they can build, how much of non-IG units they can build, what they can modify etc.  

 

The point of rules should be to dictate everyone starts at the same starting line, not to try an influence who finishes the race first.

Well this could all be done in a new separate thread for custom stuff, thereby ensuring transparency and providing a central area where you can view everyone's handiwork.  Details on their custom designs will need to be submitted by players to ensure clarity.  Such a repository will also allow players and gms to reference past decisions to determine approval for new designs, hopefully resulting in a generally fair system.

 

Modular tech is not the same as custom technology. Example, my space plane, all the parts work individually, I just bolted them together in a way they wil not interfere with each other and compliment each other. No different than mounting a missile on an aircraft or a cannon on an aircraft's hard point, yet people complained about it anyway. The space plane is nothing more than another aerospace craft like an f-22 or a b2, but people chose to gripe about it anyhow. This was even simpler. It was a gun in a cargo/bomb bay that would be deployed on a few hydraulically powered steel beams in space where there was no atmospheric resistance. People complained anyway.

 

Current system works fine, it's the players and gms who want to exploit a situation to their side's advantage which are the problem.

 

Also, we have some really dumb players who don't do research to know what actually is in use today, so their lack of an education as to current military tech standards and how physics works will often lead to inane and incorrect rulings and complaints. See Triyun and his complaints about my satellites. Which more people and gms than him have agreed exist and are perfectly fine as is. It's a real shame he won't move on from that old argument.

I'm pretty sure that getting a missile accepted onto an aircraft is more of a software issue than anything else.  Beyond that all you really need to do is make sure that the pylon/weapon interfaces are physically compatible which I'm sure can be done without too much difficulty.  What you've done is taken two systems nobody truly knows too much about and slapped them together to make some space superweapon.

 

First off, there are literally no official online sources of such a weapon existing.  The only things I could find that could be remotely be construed as being authoritative on your space gun are this website and an publication hosted by the US Air Command and Staff college, which is probably the more credible choice.  The latter indicates that very little is actually known about this space station mounted weapon other than it may have existed and may have been test fired.  They don't even know the exact caliber of cannon used.  In addition, I have seen nothing that indicates the success, accuracy or viability of this weapons system other than that maybe it was fired, and they don't even know how many times they've done that!  Beyond that, it was also mounted in a completely different way than you have..  The system was installed along the long axis of the station, and the whole damn thing had to be moved to aim it.  There are also supposed to be issues, according to the website, of the whole station shaking when firing the weapon.  The Salyut-3 is three times heavier than the X-37 and shook when the cannon fired, let alone just slapping it on a boom.

 

Secondly, virtually nothing is really known about the X-37 other than that it exists and was up in low earth orbit for a long time.  Nobody knows its true intentions, its missions, or its full capabilities.  Looking at the X-37's USAF, NASA and Boeing websites, they mention absolutely nothing about any weapons capabilities or the intention to give it a weapons capability.  You also argue that you should be able to do this because "it'll fit" but 2.1 x 1.2 meters is small.  It may technically fit the gun but you also need to cram in the "boom", which looking at current designs are pretty heavy as well as larger than cargo bay, and while the gun may be light I doubt a boom small enough would be able to handle the recoil without shaking apart or fire accurately.  In addition to the boom you need the radar system, the fire control system, a stabilizer (I'd imagine) and ammunition.  Also, your usage of your sky wardens is technically unfeasible. "Over the course of 24 hours... the satellite networks of these nations would likely be utterly annihilated at all orbital levels starting at geostationary and working their way in, as they were literally.. defenseless".  One of the few things Boeing actually states is the orbit of the X-37 as low earth orbit (110-500 miles).

 

I use your space plane, not as a personal attack on you, but because it is the most visible example of the problems inherent in the usage of custom designs.  Custom designs should not be able to grant someone the capability to do something that doesn't exist irl.  It should not give them the capability to single handedly obliterate their opponents.  They should be there for people who want to do something different with their military, to personalize it and make it their own.  What you've done with your usage of custom designs is slap together something from individual systems that have never been tested together irl and, frankly, truly don't know if they would work together irl to make a single piece of equipment that you use to try gain a massive advantage over other players.  That isn't right.  I say this not as someone who is hounding you for some tricent axis of evil plot, but as a player who wants to actually play in an atmosphere that doesn't require me to escalate to super-techno-asshatery to fight a war.

 

Also "Modular tech is not the same as custom technology. Example, my space plane, all the parts work individually, I just bolted them together in a way they wil not interfere with each other and compliment each other." I'm pretty sure thats the definition of custom (made or performed according to personal order - meriam webster)  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MGL, polling options. Not long winded wall o' texts. 

 

 

 

Sorry, just outlining the reasoning for tech reform :P

 

also we know next to nothing officially about the... B-2, F-22. F-23, and multiple other aircraft designs.

We know much more about them than the X-37 satellite destroyer that doesn't exist in any form at all irl.  We know the B-2s flew non-stop from missouri to rain freedom down on the serbs, iraqis, afghanis and libyans with a 0% casualty rate.  We know the F-22 has been fully operational since 2006 (other than the oxygen issue which has been rectified according to US reports.  We also have reports of the Raptor's combat capabilities based on air combat exercises it has participated in as well as first hand accounts of both US and foreign pilots. I'd say we know more than nothing about these things. But I think thats besides the point considering the B-2 and F-22 exist irl and are within the tech frame and as such aren't considered custom designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-22s also have multiple reports that imply those kill ratios are inflated, and we've never used a B-2 vs a first world nation, if we drop bombs on Beijing or Moscow without them noticing is a bit different than a third world nation without any significant radar capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm mainly in favor of custom stuff because otherwise military equipment is gonna be bland and boring. Everyones gonna use US planes and ships and Russian SAMs and... well I don't really know what else they have going for them to be honest.  But I do believe that we should make the process standardized and fair for all players and I feel that what I've proposed ought to address these issues.

Edited by MostGloriousLeader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Voting poll options.

Should we allow custom military tech?
 

Yes.

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really do not think we need a polling option for allowing existing stats for designs with funky space agey pictures. That's a common sense thing and I don't see it needing a vote. 

 

Use whatever picture you want, just link the stats to a wikipedia page, or something like it, in your factbook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...