Machiabelly Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Going by the guidelines 600 tech is modern first world nations. I am over four times that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted September 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 About 12,000 NS is the average NS, so I picked 600 tech for modern first world nations, which is usually more than what a 12,000 NS nation would have (dur). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Ah. D'oh. So hand-held laser weaponry would be possible...? Hm. Brb, Imperial Guardsmen (WH40k ftw) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 About 12,000 NS is the average NS, so I picked 600 tech for modern first world nations, which is usually more than what a 12,000 NS nation would have (dur). Guess my nation's pretty much in the future, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Yeah. The really sad thing is I have the same tech-level as you, but 3000 Infrastructure less. And no wonders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranather Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Y'all are making me feel smaller and smaller with every post /me looks at my 135 Tech and 739 Infra and cries lulz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Where am I with 3,15K tech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 I have under 400 infra. LOL my nation is just one high tech hi-rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Y'all are making me feel smaller and smaller with every post /me looks at my 135 Tech and 739 Infra and cries lulz *pats Ranather on the back sympathetically* Dont worry, you'll get there, you'll get there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNA Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 afaik, the USA are already using laser weaponry (stationary) to defend themselves against rockets. And artillery shells. Seeing as they're pretty much the most modern country today, I'd see them somewhere near 2.3k tech or something. But that's only my estimate. Edit: I have no idea if the lasers are still prototypes. I think they're still experimental. MTHEL The Israelis could really use this. That way the terrorist across the border can lob mortars and rockets that just get shot down What do you think the tech requirement to have this in a HUMVEE mounted version be here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Just look around a Popular Science. There's the "Airbourne Laser Cannon", which is a big jet with a giant, 24-inch diameter (something like that) laser on the front; its for killing tanks/hard-to-kill things with computer-coordinated attacks. So basicly, in probebly 3 seconds, could take out 6 tanks. Its extreamly costly to make, but easy to maintain & re-arm. Who needs Battleships when you could just build one of these & just cut the ship's hull... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Hm, in order to avoid creating a new thread, I'll address two concerns in regards to some practices in RP'ing. 1) "He's my ally, so he's got the exact technology as myself and can handle it the same way." - I've already made an address to this, just posting here to allow it to get some more attention: It's still very silly. A nation will not instantly be as technologically advanced as his ally just because he's feeding him some technology. Of course, he'll have more a more advanced arsenal, better ships and planes, etc. Industries can benefit as well. But naturally, the society at large will very likely not embrace technology at a quick pace, if they'd be able to handle/afford it at all.OOC: Think in RL terms; even if the US allies itself to, say, Ghana, the country will very likely be as technologically backwards as before, although it will probably have a finer military (but not that fine, as the military itself needs to be trained over the years to adapt to new technology.) 2) Nuclear weapons ownership. The general consensus is that RP nations cannot own nukes until they've got them in game. However, I've observed this thread and noticed non-nuclear nations, in theory, were getting hold of nukes. Sincerely, I think this is pushing things way too far. A nation that has no nukes and is either out of the top 5% or does not own a Manhattan Project does not have the capability of owning and maintaining a nuclear warhead. Also, if such is gone unnoticed, then we're setting a precedent where pretty much any RP nation can own a nuclear weapon by merely approaching a larger nation and buying them with their infinite national treasury. In short, ownership of nukes by non-nuclear nations oughtn't to be recognized, as they're decimating the "RP by your in-game nation's means" rule by having something you should have in-game before being able to role play it (akin to RP'ing a navy when you don't have any ships), and making it banal to be a nuclear nation. Unless, of course, those warheads happen to be extremely primitive, but even so, it's still bending the established by a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 I just came in here to say the same thing about nukes V the King. These nations are no where near the capability without a manhattan project for nukes. You shouldn't get a free pass because one nation chooses to hand them out like children's play toys. Regarding nukes in general unless you are basically way ahead of everyone else, you should try to keep a limited Arsenal. Having huge arsenal is pretty unrealistic unless you are massive, the nation in question selling them off hardly qualifies as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 They could say that they got them through the Black Market, but then that would give them a bad RP-international standing. But I think smaller nations (like mine) should not be able to get nukes; other than the Black-Market way. If they do RP nukes & are too small for it (and/or no Manhattan project), then it should be assumed that they got them through the black market. ***I am assuming that the people in the Black Market got the weapons from deceased nations, like the RL USSR*** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 I just came in here to say the same thing about nukes V the King. These nations are no where near the capability without a manhattan project for nukes. You shouldn't get a free pass because one nation chooses to hand them out like children's play toys. Regarding nukes in general unless you are basically way ahead of everyone else, you should try to keep a limited Arsenal. Having huge arsenal is pretty unrealistic unless you are massive, the nation in question selling them off hardly qualifies as such. OOC: Exactly. While I do have some nukes in the RP, I have a small number. The main reason is because of a deal I had with Martens, in the RP I "happened" across a large stockpile of Uranium (mmm, small countries with natural resources), and handed it to him for processing. That, and I still have 2 halfnium bombs. He gave me 5, I used 2 in the proxian war, and "lost"* the other. * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibet Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 I just came in here to say the same thing about nukes V the King. These nations are no where near the capability without a manhattan project for nukes. You shouldn't get a free pass because one nation chooses to hand them out like children's play toys. Regarding nukes in general unless you are basically way ahead of everyone else, you should try to keep a limited Arsenal. Having huge arsenal is pretty unrealistic unless you are massive, the nation in question selling them off hardly qualifies as such. Agreed. Allies do NOT simply give nukes to each other, that doesn't happen in the Real World "to common knowledge" (*CLASSIFIED*), and we should do our best to RP in an acurate, feasible manner. Even sharing Tech is a little much. I would say again that allies should only be able to share technology with allies of equal level (C3 Stuff), but tech that is military in nature should be limited to 50% (not equal) due to simple national security concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 Well I believe the rules should be able to bend 5% is a very big rule I believe a better option would be that anyone under 20% should be able to buy a maximum of 20 nukes and Manhattan or 5% nations should have the option to have 10% of their NS in nuclear Weapons. Not to forget according to the establshed rules anyone above WW 2 should be able to have the most small and simple nukes.. In real life the US has around 7,000 Nuclear Warheads. The former USSR around 6,000. As the tech level of 20% nations generally is high enough for modern era it should be possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 Well, I don't have MANY nukes, just a few that my allies have given me during hostile situations. I didn't have to use them, so I still have them. I could come up with a concrete number if you guys want. That, and they arn't extremely powerfull nukes, most of them are just a bit more powerfull than the Hiroshima bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 As you can see, I've had uranium for a while but have only used it for power plants in-game because I've never been under 5%. Any nuclear weapons that Arctica might have (I've just been RPing without) would be developed by Arctica and not bought from foreigners. So what do you guys think? Big ones, small ones, that one that's fired from a cannon, nothing? Opinions plz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 I refuse to acknowledge the possession of nukes by nations that do not have them IG. I also do dot recognise the sharing the tech past 40% of the largest nations tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 (edited) I refuse to acknowledge the possession of nukes by nations that do not have them IG. What about nuclear capable? I have a MP and will be over 1K infra when I collect but due to strict surrender terms I doubt I'll see my green missiles of death anytime soon IG. edit: but it doesn't really matter. I don't really care for nukes Edited September 22, 2008 by Highbuzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 Well I believe the rules should be able to bend 5% is a very big rule I believe a better option would be that anyone under 20% should be able to buy a maximum of 20 nukes and Manhattan or 5% nations should have the option to have 10% of their NS in nuclear Weapons. Not to forget according to the establshed rules anyone above WW 2 should be able to have the most small and simple nukes..In real life the US has around 7,000 Nuclear Warheads. The former USSR around 6,000. As the tech level of 20% nations generally is high enough for modern era it should be possible. The US occupies a huge percentage of global GDP (and it was much bigger during the Cold War), and the Soviet Union and United States had huge industrial outputs (though monetary wise soviet GDP was considerably less) The costs to build and maintain those arsenals were huge. Also even the most advanced nations have to invest huge amounts into developing a nuclear program if they are small- medium sized nations. The Manhattan Project deals with this cost. Your argument here doesn't really hold water. Nuclear weapons I think we can all agree also make things significantly less interesting in terms of RPing wars. I do not see any benefit to be gained by making a nuclear loophole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibet Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 (edited) I refuse to acknowledge the possession of nukes by nations that do not have them IG.I also do dot recognise the sharing the tech past 40% of the largest nations tech. How about the ability to make nukes IG... Edited September 23, 2008 by Tibet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 How about the ability to make nukes IG... Isn't that what I meant by nuclear capable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibet Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Isn't that what I meant by nuclear capable? Sorry I got too busy and quoted the wrong post...fixed 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.