Subtleknifewielder Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Actually, sovereign waters are a grey area...especially for someone like, say, IAmThey, for obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Martin Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 IMHO Navies should not have SDI protection. It makes for abuse by allowing players to put a single ship in another player's city and say "lookm my SDI covers that city too!" I support SDIs being activated over all missiles that goes over a country's land and territorial waters (12 nm from the shore). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 [quote name='Karl Martin' date='08 June 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1276041817' post='2329326'] IMHO Navies should not have SDI protection. It makes for abuse by allowing players to put a single ship in another player's city and say "lookm my SDI covers that city too!" I support SDIs being activated over all missiles that goes over a country's land and territorial waters (12 nm from the shore). [/quote] That's not going to happen because the city isn't the players. If the city was the player's being nuked it would be covered. What if I claim my territorial waters 200 nm from the shore? Basing it off an easily changeable number is silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Martin Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='08 June 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1276041982' post='2329332'] That's not going to happen because the city isn't the players. If the city was the player's being nuked it would be covered. What if I claim my territorial waters 200 nm from the shore? Basing it off an easily changeable number is silly. [/quote] I said navy. Yes, if the owner of the city had an SDI it would be covered, but I was discussing the limited occasion where Country A (who has a SDI) has a navy stationed in the capital of Country B (who does not have a SDI) which was attacked by a nuclear decaptitation stike by Country C. In this occasion, the captial should not have any SDI cover. Your point on the territorial water is valid. I submit to your wisdom. Edited June 9, 2010 by Karl Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Karl Martin' date='08 June 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1276042179' post='2329336'] I said navy. Yes, if the owner of the city had an SDI it would be covered, but I was discussing the limited occasion where Country A (who has a SDI) has a navy stationed in the capital of Country B (who does not have a SDI) which was attacked by a nuclear decaptitation stike by Country C. In this occasion, the captial should not have any SDI cover. [/quote] That's the rule now. I fail to see the issue. Edited June 9, 2010 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 So wait... can navy block a nuke if a nuke is targeting the fleet. Yes or no. [Just want clarification because it seems people are saying different things]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' date='10 June 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1276231686' post='2332865'] Classified: Below ground: "These TUO folks are tunnel lovers." President HI stated as he entered the tunnel. "Well, they figured it was the only way to catch GLS off guard." a construction supervisor replied. ------------ Map of the tunnels: [img]http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/7125/27355443.png[/img] Red: mostly completed, just need touch ups and some upgrades Brown: planned to be completed Light blue: TUO's planned tunnels but will not be completed The purpose of the tunnels are to provide safe transportation while undetected in times of war. Even if all of our rail lines and highways are blown, we still have a high speed underground railroad connected to various underground bases located underneath innocent seeming buildings such as underneath abandoned factories, hospitals, office buildings, apartments, farm houses, suburbs, parks, and etc. The underground bases' entrances are located far away from the above ground buildings. It will also provide us an option to surprise USA if we ever get in a war with them... [/quote] I don't know if HHYAD and Mael have anything worked out or what, but: Mael doesn't have to follow continuity of actions/events set down by HHYAD as GLS. Since the land is now mael's, can mael say the tunnels under his land don't exist & that HHYAD needs to rebuild them? Just curious for my own knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) [quote name='iKrolm' date='10 June 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1276232046' post='2332874'] I don't know if HHYAD and Mael have anything worked out or what, but: Mael doesn't have to follow continuity of actions/events set down by HHYAD as GLS. Since the land is now mael's, can mael say the tunnels under his land don't exist & that HHYAD needs to rebuild them? Just curious for my own knowledge. [/quote] I have talked to Mael about this and he agreed to it, but he warned that if I RPed any tunnel construction under his land he would ICly figure out who was behind the drilling and declare war on me. The only thing I can do under his country without detection is refurnish abandoned tunnels and bases without any giant drill bits or explosives. Edited June 11, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' date='10 June 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1276232358' post='2332885'] I have talked to Mael about this and he agreed to it, but he warned that if I RPed any tunnel construction under his land he would ICly figure out who was behind the drilling and declare war on me. The only thing I can do under his country without detection is refurnish abandoned tunnels and bases without any giant drill bits or explosives. [/quote] Ok, still curious about if you hadn't agreed beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='08 June 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1276047643' post='2329464'] So wait... can navy block a nuke if a nuke is targeting the fleet. Yes or no. [Just want clarification because it seems people are saying different things]. [/quote] No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Yes it can subtle. The only strategic defense initiative which exists IRL is becoming Sea based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' date='11 June 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1276288837' post='2333628'] Yes it can subtle. The only strategic defense initiative which exists IRL is becoming Sea based. [/quote] But it [i]is[/i] against the rules. Edited June 11, 2010 by Il Terra Di Agea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Its against to have a seaborne strategic defense initiative based on IRL technology rather than theoretical technology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='Triyun' date='11 June 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1276289250' post='2333643'] Its against to have a seaborne strategic defense initiative based on IRL technology rather than theoretical technology? [/quote] The rulings have ALWAYS been for protecting fixed targets, nothing mobile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='Triyun' date='11 June 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1276289250' post='2333643'] Its against to have a seaborne strategic defense initiative based on IRL technology rather than theoretical technology? [/quote] It's an issue of balance. Striking up a balance between IG and RP to maintain a balence to keep things reasonable. As it has been, to my memory ruled on in the past, SDI covers your country, not things outside it, even if they do exist. it's the same reason you can't build a fifty megaton Nuke even though it has existed in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 So why can't navies be protected by SDI? There's no balance issue there; in fact, it's unbalanced because you're now leaving navies more vulnerable than things like aircraft, which typically don't operate in international space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='Sargun' date='11 June 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1276290310' post='2333689'] So why can't navies be protected by SDI? There's no balance issue there; in fact, it's unbalanced because you're now leaving navies more vulnerable than things like aircraft, which typically don't operate in international space. [/quote] How do you explain that your SDI can shoot down a nuke that is aimed at your navy 1000km away but you can't shoot said nuke at the same range if it is heading for your capital? Unless of course you RP as if the Navy shot down the nuke itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 What does that even mean? There are ships/systems in real life capable of shooting down ICBMs, so I'm suggesting that an SDI should cover your navy. There's no disadvantage into this, only an evening of the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='Sargun' date='11 June 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1276291707' post='2333769'] What does that even mean? There are ships/systems in real life capable of shooting down ICBMs, so I'm suggesting that an SDI should cover your navy. There's no disadvantage into this, only an evening of the field. [/quote] Yeah I can't see a problem with that ,again you thwart me grrr, I can't see any reason why navies can't be protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='Sargun' date='11 June 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1276291707' post='2333769'] What does that even mean? There are ships/systems in real life capable of shooting down ICBMs, so I'm suggesting that an SDI should cover your navy. There's no disadvantage into this, only an evening of the field. [/quote] That opens it up to a world of possible abuse. What's to stop a person from stationing one of these ships in the port of an ally who has no SDI, in order to protect that port? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='11 June 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1276293752' post='2333854'] That opens it up to a world of possible abuse. What's to stop a person from stationing one of these ships in the port of an ally who has no SDI, in order to protect that port? [/quote] If by "opens up abuse" you mean "opens up people asking stupid questions", then yes. Simple answer: If the nuke is aimed at the port, then the port will be hit. If the nuke is aimed at the ships, then the ships will have a roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Use your brains, I know you have some in there somewhere. In such a case, the ship wiuld be IN th port, and as such, occupying some of the same space. Physics would mean it either stops the nuke in both cases, or it does not. We already bend reality enough as it is. It's not a stupid question, just one I think you don't want to acknolwedge as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) Cry more about your complaint being shot down, Subtle. If the nuke is aimed at the port the ships are docked in, then the nuke will have a roll because that's where the ships are. If it's aimed at the city, then there will be no roll. The obvious way to avoid this is to simply nuke the city, which makes the port useless. Edited June 11, 2010 by Sargun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 KingChris: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=87380&view=findpost&p=2334171 It's not entirely in Spanish, it's a mix. The team, being immigrants, would do better to represent the minorities of Tahoe - those being the American (ie non-Western European) and Spanish minorities. But thanks for cluttering up his thread, KingChris. I'm [b]sure[/b] you couldn't just PM me or put it in the OOC thread or just leave it completely alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Sargun, nuking a city will sink the ships if they're in port at the city. What is to stop someone from simply nuking a block away from from the ships where it's the city, not the ship? Are you saying ships are nuke proof? 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.