CNRP OOC Thread

[Lynneth]

Not even I have soldiers that can throw cars. Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.

[HHAYD]

Correcting the god-mode...

EDIT: Done

Edited July 2, 2010 by HHAYD

[Shatner]

My question is, why do you think that your military is undefeatable? Someone brings up a point that defeats your border wall (impossible considering the length of your borders and the terrain of Western Alberta), and you just say 'nuh uh, I have ridiculous amounts of AA guns and artillery, oh and my vehicles all have AA cannons, oh and some of my soldiers are Master Chief.'

You have modern tier tech, you have to use stuff they use now.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1278085320' post='2357733']
Ever heard of AA missile launchers and 40mm cannons? Stack plenty of them that any helicopters flying over it would get shot down. As for the APC and MBT, they still need traction to keep on going. Ever seen one trying to climb up a slope covered with deep mud? How did that work out? Not so well. I am not believing that tanks can climb up a smooth surface with no freaking traction.
[/quote]

Do you really think any airborne assault would be conducted in helicopters without suppressing these AA missiles and 40 mm cannons? Also tanks and APCs are designed to fight in muddy gradients. It is to gain the traction that they have tracks instead of wheels. Tracked vehicles need far fewer traction than wheeled vehicles.


[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1278085320' post='2357733']
Air strikes: They get to have fun dealing with the sheer number of AA missiles being fired from missile launchers, flechettes from rail guns, powerful light generating explosive missiles to stun/blind enemy pilots, and of course, my aircraft. Plus, some of their missiles and bombs would get shot out of the sky with the 40mm defensive turrets.
[/quote]

Sheer numbers? How many are you talking about here? And what ranges? What service ceiling for the missiles? Also flechettes from railguns? What can railguns do against aircraft? What rate of fire are you talking here, what power rating for the railgun?


[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1278085320' post='2357733']

Artillery strikes: Given the amount of shells they are firing from the same place, their location can be tracked and be met with counter-artillery and missiles. My fortification might take a beating, but they will lose a majority of their artillery guns.

My artillery: I won't be solely using large artillery guns, I mentioned that there would be 20mm, 40mm, 80mm, and 120mm cannons, including rocket/missile launchers.
[/quote]
Did I not mention mobile warfare? "Shoot, Shoot and Scoot". Also the counter-artillery and missiles also work against you. But since your systems are more stationary as you seem to be implying against a mobile enemy, you would be getting more beaten up, if you stick to static defensive plans.


[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1278085320' post='2357733']
Plus, the higher height allows my men to see farther and engage the enemy earlier. Its still a valuable tactic to camp on the high ground or buildings to shoot your enemies out of their range. Ever wonder why when a battle is taking place in a valley that the weaker army camping on top often brutalizes the stronger one that is sitting on the bottom of the valley floor? Because you can aim down with the gravity on your side and the enemies have to aim upward (which is harder) and the gravity is against them.
[/quote]

This is why I asked repeatedly what is the size and angle of your concrete banks.

Of course units on higher elevation aka Mountaintop/valley top have decisive advantage against those on lower elevation. So how high is your concrete embankments? 10 meters? 100 meters?

[HHAYD]

...

Brb, redoing my border defenses...

[HHAYD]

So, would this work?:

(near to the enemy to the far):

No-man's land: Filled with barbed wires, landmines, bear traps, remote controlled explosives, dragon teeth (made of three steel beams welded together to stop vehicles), and other fun stuff.

Frontal bunkers: Consists of inexperienced "cannon fodder" soldiers and flamethrowers. All of the weapons used are mounted with transparent aluminum shields attached to protect the soldiers. It is elevated about 1 meters off the ground and lots of reinforced concrete (with Kelvar between the concrete and soldiers to prevent spall) instead of sandbags.It would be very hard to throw grenades into the bunker.

Rear bunkers: Same design as the Frontal bunker but is filled in with more experienced/valuable soldiers and has better protection. It is three meters off the ground. It also has some automated 40mm cannons and other automated weapons.

Cannon field: 20mm, 40mm, and 80mmm cannons, all are automated.

Sandbagged tanks: Precise close artillery support.

Artillery: 120mm-400mm artillery guns.

AM/AB: Consists of 20mm-80mm defensive turrets that targets enemy missiles and bombs.

AA field: Consists of AA missile launchers and radar stations.

Fortified towers: Filled with snipers, additional AA missile launchers, artillery guns, and 20mm-30mm rail guns.

[Zoot Zoot]

it looks good apart from railguns mate, as much as they are wideley used, all it takes is a well placed bullet/bomb to take out the power generator or its power lines.

Id personally use shoulder mounted AA launchers and keep the static ones mounted onto trucks/jeeps for fast mobility.

[Lynneth]

Fun fact, VDL/GDR railgun sizes:

Railgun sizes:
60 mm * 252 mm = heavy; 13 kg tungsten rods
50 mm * 210 mm = medium; 8 kg tungsten rods
40 mm * 198 mm = light; 4 kg tungsten rods

4 kg tungsten rods can, with the right amount of power, annihilate quite a lot of things. They also need a *lot* of power.
Railguns aren't a good weapon to be stationary. They need to be mobile - and thus only really useful on ships.

[The FSM]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1278085320' post='2357733']
Ever heard of AA missile launchers and 40mm cannons? Stack plenty of them that any helicopters flying over it would get shot down. As for the APC and MBT, they still need traction to keep on going. Ever seen one trying to climb up a slope covered with deep mud? How did that work out? Not so well. I am not believing that tanks can climb up a smooth surface with no freaking traction.

Air strikes: They get to have fun dealing with the sheer number of AA missiles being fired from missile launchers, flechettes from rail guns, powerful light generating explosive missiles to stun/blind enemy pilots, and of course, my aircraft. Plus, some of their missiles and bombs would get shot out of the sky with the 40mm defensive turrets.

Artillery strikes: Given the amount of shells they are firing from the same place, their location can be tracked and be met with counter-artillery and missiles. My fortification might take a beating, but they will lose a majority of their artillery guns.

My artillery: I won't be solely using large artillery guns, I mentioned that there would be 20mm, 40mm, 80mm, and 120mm cannons, including rocket/missile launchers. Plus, the higher height allows my men to see farther and engage the enemy earlier. Its still a valuable tactic to camp on the high ground or buildings to shoot your enemies out of their range. Ever wonder why when a battle is taking place in a valley that the weaker army camping on top often brutalizes the stronger one that is sitting on the bottom of the valley floor? Because you can aim down with the gravity on your side and the enemies have to aim upward (which is harder) and the gravity is against them.
[/quote]


I map out your defensive emplacements using satellite imagery or Blackbirds and high-altitude UAV's and proceed to destroy all your emplacements with cruise missile strikes and stand-off range munitions delivered from aircraft well out of range of your SAM's and other AA systems. Once I have sufficiently degraded your AA defenses then I come in with more airstrikes, or, if your aircraft come out to defend the line, I engage your fighters with my fighters and use my bomber force to launch dozens of precision munitions on your artillery emplacements. If I cannot maintain air superiority then I return to using standoff munitions on your artillery emplacements, with artillery strikes of my own then brought in to the mix. Throughout I will be using cruise missile strikes to target important airfields near the defensive line as well as transportation and rail links to degrade your ability to reinforce and resupply your defensive line and roll back the edge of your fighter screen.




.... It appears Im late to the game here

Edited July 2, 2010 by The Flying Scotsman

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='02 July 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1278089251' post='2357813']
Fun fact, VDL/GDR railgun sizes:

Railgun sizes:
60 mm * 252 mm = heavy; 13 kg tungsten rods
50 mm * 210 mm = medium; 8 kg tungsten rods
40 mm * 198 mm = light; 4 kg tungsten rods

4 kg tungsten rods can, with the right amount of power, annihilate quite a lot of things. They also need a *lot* of power.
Railguns aren't a good weapon to be stationary. They need to be mobile - and thus only really useful on ships.
[/quote]
What about railguns that use flechette rounds? The rail guns that I have in my defenses are only meant to blast enemy aircraft out of the sky.

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='02 July 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1278088850' post='2357804']
it looks good apart from railguns mate, as much as they are wideley used, all it takes is a well placed bullet/bomb to take out the power generator or its power lines.

Id personally use shoulder mounted AA launchers and keep the static ones mounted onto trucks/jeeps for fast mobility.
[/quote]
I would keep the power lines underground and armored, though a lucky bunker buster missile hit would cut the power line.

As for the shoulder mounted AA missile launchers, they can be be fired from the towers or bunkers.
-----------------
Redo:

No-man's land: Filled with barbed wires, landmines, bear traps, remote controlled explosives, dragon teeth (made of three steel beams welded together to stop vehicles), and other fun stuff.

Frontal bunkers: Consists of inexperienced "cannon fodder" soldiers and flamethrowers. All of the weapons used are mounted with transparent aluminum shields attached to protect the soldiers. It is elevated about 1 meters off the ground and lots of reinforced concrete (with Kelvar between the concrete and soldiers to prevent spall) instead of sandbags.It would be very hard to throw grenades into the bunker.
[b]
Secondary no-man's land: Same as the field in front of the frontal bunker except there are underground tunnels connecting the two bunkers[/b]

Rear bunkers: Same design as the Frontal bunkers but is filled in with more experienced/valuable soldiers and has better protection. It is three meters off the ground. It also has some automated 40mm cannons and other automated weapons.

Cannon field: 20mm, 40mm, and 80mmm cannons, all are automated.

[b]Sandbagged tanks: Precise close artillery support and minor AA defense (they all have a basic AA missile launcher to keep enemy helicopters from blasting them).[/b]

Artillery: 120mm-400mm artillery guns.
[b]
AM/AB: Consists of 20mm-80mm defensive turrets that targets enemy missiles and bombs. Artillery shells can also be targeted but they are much less likely to be hit due to their speed.[/b]
[b]
AA field: Consists of static rapid firing AA missile launchers, mobile AA vehicles (slower firing), and radar stations.[/b]

Fortified towers: Filled with snipers, additional AA missile launchers, artillery guns, and 20mm-30mm rail guns.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1278090246' post='2357841']
What about railguns that use flechette rounds? The rail guns that I have in my defenses are only meant to blast enemy aircraft out of the sky.[/quote]
While flechettes [b]may[/b] be possible with railguns, I'd advise not to use them; I don't know the exact numbers or whatever (and nobody ever tried it, really), but it seems rather likely that the small rods would simply burn up in the atmosphere rather than hitting anything.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='02 July 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1278090538' post='2357845']
While flechettes [b]may[/b] be possible with railguns, I'd advise not to use them; I don't know the exact numbers or whatever (and nobody ever tried it, really), but it seems rather likely that the small rods would simply burn up in the atmosphere rather than hitting anything.
[/quote]
So I would be better off using 120mm artillery guns to fire the flechettes, right?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1278088701' post='2357799']
So, would this work?:

(near to the enemy to the far):

No-man's land: Filled with barbed wires, landmines, bear traps, remote controlled explosives, dragon teeth (made of three steel beams welded together to stop vehicles), and other fun stuff.

Frontal bunkers: Consists of inexperienced "cannon fodder" soldiers and flamethrowers. All of the weapons used are mounted with transparent aluminum shields attached to protect the soldiers. It is elevated about 1 meters off the ground and lots of reinforced concrete (with Kelvar between the concrete and soldiers to prevent spall) instead of sandbags.It would be very hard to throw grenades into the bunker.

Rear bunkers: Same design as the Frontal bunker but is filled in with more experienced/valuable soldiers and has better protection. It is three meters off the ground. It also has some automated 40mm cannons and other automated weapons.

Cannon field: 20mm, 40mm, and 80mmm cannons, all are automated.

Sandbagged tanks: Precise close artillery support.

Artillery: 120mm-400mm artillery guns.

AM/AB: Consists of 20mm-80mm defensive turrets that targets enemy missiles and bombs.

AA field: Consists of AA missile launchers and radar stations.

Fortified towers: Filled with snipers, additional AA missile launchers, artillery guns, and 20mm-30mm rail guns.
[/quote]

This is a more sensible static defense layout, IMO.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1278090598' post='2357846']
So I would be better off using 120mm artillery guns to fire the flechettes, right?
[/quote]
Probably. Might be hard to track the planes, depending on their speed, really. And it would be easy evading the AA fire. Missiles are better, really.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='02 July 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1278090538' post='2357845']
While flechettes [b]may[/b] be possible with railguns, I'd advise not to use them; I don't know the exact numbers or whatever (and nobody ever tried it, really), but it seems rather likely that the small rods would simply burn up in the atmosphere rather than hitting anything.
[/quote]


[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1278090598' post='2357846']
So I would be better off using 120mm artillery guns to fire the flechettes, right?
[/quote]

The forces involved in firing a railgun projectile could actually cause flechette to even explode within the barrel. Best to use flechettes as part of regular artillery shells.

Also railguns are essentially longer range artillery, they cannot be very effectively used as AAA.

[Vedran]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='01 July 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1278045163' post='2357424']
So I can RP flying saucers then? Sweet.
[/quote]

Suuuureee...and I will assume that, logically, since they were developed, reliable countermeasures were also developed and I'll make them and sell them to everybody.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Vedran

[king of cochin]

Flak cannons and flechettes for air defense are not all that useful against a fast bomber. Concentrate more on SAMs rather than AAA for long range air defense. Use AAA only for tactical air defense and CIWS.

[king of cochin]

Also if I may suggest another useful passive defense structure, Czech hedgehogs. Their advantage as a means to slow down an armored assault is still potent, IMO. Ultimately no static defense can keep out a determined enemy, only weak enemy. Planning your defenses against a weak enemy is pointless. A weak enemy would not dare attack you, only a strong enemy would attack you. So when planning for your defense, plan on a superior enemy with superior stats attacking you.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='02 July 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1278091429' post='2357860']
Also if I may suggest another useful passive defense structure, Czech hedgehogs. Their advantage as a means to slow down an armored assault is still potent, IMO. Ultimately no static defense can keep out a determined enemy, only weak enemy. Planning your defenses against a weak enemy is pointless. A weak enemy would not dare attack you, only a strong enemy would attack you. So when planning for your defense, plan on a superior enemy with superior stats attacking you.
[/quote]
Those are the same stuff that I was describing in my No man's land.

How effective would bear traps would be? I plan on using ones that are strong enough to shatter a soldier's leg but not strong enough to remove the leg. As a result, the soldier's leg or the bear trap would have to be sawed off. Enemy soldiers stuck on bear traps would be purposely left alive and anyone that tries to help them would get shot at.

EDIT: Is it possible for a bear trap to reset itself once when it longer senses that the body is standing on it?

Edited July 2, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

They would be effective, but only lesser effective than an anti personnel mine. Place them in fields of fire so that they become effective during infantry charges channeled effectively by Anti Personnel Mine fields.

[Shatner]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 July 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1278091695' post='2357864']
Those are the same stuff that I was describing in my No man's land.

How effective would bear traps would be? I plan on using ones that are strong enough to shatter a soldier's leg but not strong enough to remove the leg. As a result, the soldier's leg or the bear trap would have to be sawed off. Enemy soldiers stuck on bear traps would be purposely left alive and anyone that tries to help them would get shot at.

EDIT: Is it possible for a bear trap to reset itself once when it longer senses that the body is standing on it?
[/quote]

As it stands, bear traps must be set manually.

[king of cochin]

Automatically resetting bear trap? That is an unnecessary complication IMO. The simpler a weapon is more effective it becomes. Over engineering anything is futile. For the cost of one resetting bear trap, you could have possibly 5 regular bear traps with greater attrition capability.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Vedran' date='02 July 2010 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1278091117' post='2357855']
Suuuureee...and I will assume that, logically, since they were developed, reliable countermeasures were also developed and I'll make them and sell them to everybody.


[/quote]

I can prove to you that militaries researched flying saucers. Can you prove they researched countermeasures?



Also, there is a theoretical time machine that can send messages back in time. The one limitation, and I think this is entirely fair for RP, is that it can only send messages back to any point where the time machine existed. Only electronic messages, not people or objects can be sent and so long as you're using the same machine and it's never turned off. So, if I built this machine now, and kept it on, my future self can send messages, say with future technology designs, to me in the present and I can then build these technologies. Technologies like photon torpedoes and death stars.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[Vedran]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='02 July 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1278092298' post='2357881']
I can prove to you that militaries researched flying saucers. Can you prove they researched countermeasures?



Also, there is a theoretical time machine that can send messages back in time. The one limitation, and I think this is entirely fair for RP, is that it can only send messages back to any point where the time machine existed. Only electronic messages, not people or objects can be sent and so long as you're using the same machine and it's never turned off. So, if I built this machine now, and kept it on, my future self can send messages, say with future technology designs, to me in the present and I can then build these technologies. Technologies like photon torpedoes and death stars.
[/quote]

No, no I can't prove that. But without knowledge of their capabilities and limitations, you wouldn't know what to do with them and anything you did with them would be outside of common scientific knowledge, so technically they would be impossible, and you can't prove otherwise because we don't know how they work.

And this time machine is like a reverse time capsule? What if the future you dies and someone else gains possession of the machine, and they send you information that can allegedly help you but in reality following the instructions has disastrous results? For example, I take over the world and use the machine to send back information that would create the conditions for me to take over the world in the first place. Time paradox.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='02 July 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1278092298' post='2357881']
I can prove to you that militaries researched flying saucers. Can you prove they researched countermeasures?
[/quote]
Saucers as of now are limited by these few problems...

1. Ionizing the air below it. It might not seem bad, but it converts O2 (the stuff that we need) into O3, an oxygen compound found in the ozone layer (the stuff that kills us if we breath it).

2. Friendly fire. Sometime it shoots arcs of high voltage electricity. You do not want civilians or friendly soldiers to be underneath the saucers even if it was 1km off the ground.

3. High energy consumption. As of now, attaching enough batteries to make it fly for a hour would prevent it from taking off. You would have to recharge it very frequently.

4. Severe weight restriction. You might be able to attach a tiny automated 9mm turret with some ammunition but that is pretty much it, and the grid underneath the sauser has to be very large. No, you can not attach a tank on it unless if you make it cover 4 square km and connected to a thick power cable, which would be begging the enemies to shoot it down or cut the power line.

5. Bullet magnet. The density of firepower taken is proportional to the curiosity of the object. If enemies never seen it before, they WILL concentrate fire on it.

6. Height restriction. It can only hover a small distance off the ground.

7. Intolerance of damages. Slightly break one of the grids and it goes crashing down

8. Horrible controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

Edited July 2, 2010 by HHAYD