CNRP OOC Thread

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1284139571' post='2448912']
Would he though? Why would Participant X attacking Y have to wait on the Y and Z front when that doesn't effect his front?

In other words: Say Kitex decided to attack Louisianan Manitoba while I was invading the Sarnungian Republic. Obviously, what happens an ocean away doesn't affect the N. American front, so why should Kitex be forced to wait on Sargun and my conflict if Sargun was the one away? I know traditionally, that's been the way it's done, but why? I'm not saying I support changing it, I'm saying there is an adequate argument for why another attacker doesn't have to wait - thereby putting the original attacker at more risk because of an OOC absence.

[/quote]
CNRP does not have a distinct timeline, normally this causes a lot of trouble, yes, but in this instance, CNRP's erratic existence allows for two choices.

As I have said earlier, and using your terms now, assume Y and Z are fighting a war, a war which displaces a number of Y's forces overseas.

As per the unwritten customs of CNRP, or from what I have seen through experience, assume X wishes to war Y. Mind you, this is all in OOC terms, X,Y and Z are rpers, not nations.

If X wishes to invade Y during a point in canon (the Y-Z war) where a bulk of Y's forces are overseas, [b]X MUST POST IN THE Y-Z WAR THREAD.[/b] [b]X would be subject to the same limitations Y is suffering, namely, waiting for a stalling Z.[/b]

If X wishes to invade Y, but does not wish to wait for Z, or contribute to the Y-Z war as an RPer, [b]X MUST CREATE A NEW WAR, THE X-Y war. Y may choose/request that the X-Y war thread take place in a different point in canon, usually after the Y-Z war.[/b]

It is for this same erratic canonity that people have the same roving ambassador in two-to-ten places at once, individual characters age at extremely different rates, etc. OOC'ly, this is done because, ironically enough, not everyone has time to post at every moment, yet everyone wishes to get their licks in some way or another. Until the time that CNRP has an established, concrete, and enforced timeline, your issue number one is non-existent.

[quote]
I'm not sure you understood what I was getting at: What I meant was, how long is too long before it becomes necessary to bring in a GM? Is it seven days, five days, ten days, etc...? Without a ruling on when it becomes too long, the system is just too prone for potential abuse and confusion.
[/quote]

It was my understanding that as long as the RPer does not get wiped due to inactivity, the war is obviously frozen, or opponents do not take extra 'turns' until the RPer posts again. Ie: 25 days. This was the understanding that Mudd apparently abused multiple times, which has created a profound hostility against the concept, and rightly so. Everyone seems to be bitter about Mudd's apparent dishonesty, and as a result, everyone has become tarred with the same brush. This concept is therefore unworkable for the meantime... perhaps later on in the future, when this sentiment has boiled over, shall we return to simpler, sweeter times (take that with a grain of salt).

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1284170809' post='2449367']
From the wiki article you cited.



Isn't 2020 the tech limit? Cutting it a bit close.
[/quote]
It's taking them a long time to slap the railguns on their ships because of one problem...

Money

It doesn't matter if you have the tech to develop a railgun that has the range to shoot shells across the globe at the rate of over 1,000 per second without blowing itself up, but if you can't afford it and the maintenance requirement is very high compared to other weapons that can do similar amount of carnage, you can't/won't implement it into your military anytime soon. Especially when your country is over $13 trillion in debt and is planning on slashing budgets everywhere, including the military.

In CNRP, economics is non-existent.

Edited September 11, 2010 by HHAYD

[Captain Enema]

[quote]It was my understanding that as long as the RPer does not get wiped due to inactivity, the war is obviously frozen, or opponents do not take extra 'turns' until the RPer posts again. Ie: 25 days. This was the understanding that Mudd apparently abused multiple times, which has created a profound hostility against the concept, and rightly so. Everyone seems to be bitter about Mudd's apparent dishonesty, and as a result, everyone has become tarred with the same brush. This concept is therefore unworkable for the meantime... perhaps later on in the future, when this sentiment has boiled over, shall we return to simpler, sweeter times (take that with a grain of salt). [/quote]

Be nice to see things simmer down a bit.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284175233' post='2449437']
CNRP does not have a distinct timeline, normally this causes a lot of trouble, yes, but in this instance, CNRP's erratic existence allows for two choices.

As I have said earlier, and using your terms now, assume Y and Z are fighting a war, a war which displaces a number of Y's forces overseas.

As per the unwritten customs of CNRP, or from what I have seen through experience, assume X wishes to war Y. Mind you, this is all in OOC terms, X,Y and Z are rpers, not nations.

If X wishes to invade Y during a point in canon (the Y-Z war) where a bulk of Y's forces are overseas, [b]X MUST POST IN THE Y-Z WAR THREAD.[/b] [b]X would be subject to the same limitations Y is suffering, namely, waiting for a stalling Z.[/b]

If X wishes to invade Y, but does not wish to wait for Z, or contribute to the Y-Z war as an RPer, [b]X MUST CREATE A NEW WAR, THE X-Y war. Y may choose/request that the X-Y war thread take place in a different point in canon, usually after the Y-Z war.[/b][/quote]


So what if X and Y are at war, and Z and Y are war, and all authors agree that the X-Y war happens first, then the X-Y wars ends, and Y cedes the territory Z-Y are fighting on to X?



[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1284177844' post='2449496']
It's taking them a long time to slap the railguns on their ships because of one problem...

Money

It doesn't matter if you have the tech to develop a railgun that has the range to shoot shells across the globe at the rate of over 1,000 per second without blowing itself up, but if you can't afford it and the maintenance requirement is very high compared to other weapons that can do similar amount of carnage, you can't/won't implement it into your military anytime soon. Especially when your country is over $13 trillion in debt and is planning on slashing budgets everywhere, including the military.

In CNRP, economics is non-existent.
[/quote]

I see. Very interesting. So what you're saying is you're using experimental technology that won't be in use until after the technology cut-off date. Fascinating stuff.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1284179873' post='2449525']
So what if X and Y are at war, and Z and Y are war, and all authors agree that the X-Y war happens first, then the X-Y wars ends, and Y cedes the territory Z-Y are fighting on to X?
[/quote]

Well then it looks like we have high school algebra all over again. Ask me later when i'm less tired.[sub] Somebody save meeeeee[/sub]

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1284179873' post='2449525']
I see. Very interesting. So what you're saying is you're using experimental technology that won't be in use until after the technology cut-off date. Fascinating stuff.
[/quote]
I'm saying that if researchers indicate such technology is almost ready to be deployed and/or will be deployed within 2020, then we should be able to RP it.

Almost ready to use =/= Will be used on (insert noun)

The railgun's major problem is short barrel life, but that can be solved by designing the railgun to eject the worn out barrel after a few shots and switch in a new one. I wonder why railgun researchers haven't tried that concept.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1284180792' post='2449544']
I'm saying that if researchers indicate such technology is almost ready to be deployed and/or will be deployed within 2020, then we should be able to RP it. [/quote]

But that isn't the case with the railgun. It won't be deployed until after 2020.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1284181076' post='2449552']
But that isn't the case with the railgun. It won't be deployed until after 2020.
[/quote]
It won't be deployed since they don't have the cash to refit their ships. Do you know how expensive it is to redesign a ship without compromising its structural strength or building nuclear powered ships?

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1284181915' post='2449561']
It won't be deployed until after the CNRP technology cut off date.
[/quote]

Fix'd that for ya.

[Sal Paradise]

So I looked up some things on the rail gun.

Fascinating stuff this.

[quote]If the rail gun passes its planned 2009 review, and the technology is deemed mature enough to continue, Phase I is expected to end in 2011. Phase 2 would end in FY 2015 if all goes well thereafter, and will focus on developing the projectile. Test sites that might work for that effort are being scoped out, with White Sands Missile Range, NM, and Army Yuma Proving Ground, AZ as top candidates. The hope is that the rail gun can switch from a science and technology effort to full research and development under Naval Sea Systems Command in FY 2015, with “sea demos” of a tactical system with 64 MJ of muzzle energy in FY 2016 and fielding during 2020-2024 – [b]but those dates will likely prove challenging, barring some breakthroughs over the next decade.[/b][/quote]
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bae-producing-scaleddown-rail-gun-naval-weapon-01986/

[quote]Effective rail guns will require a major breakthrough in materials between now and 2020, to keep the guns themselves from being shredded by each high-velocity barrage. Which means that for now, rail guns are precisely like lasers in one crucial way: They're Holy Grails, irresistible precisely because they're out of reach. [/quote]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4231461


Can we RP scientific breakthroughs? Because I think my time machine just had a major breakthrough.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[iamthey]

Personally I agree with Sal on Railguns, I think it's junk tech and I don't think its going to be possible by 2020. I had originally used them to stay competitive, and I still have them in my navy for the time being, but I intend to eliminate them. There are better and more realistic alternatives.

Edited September 11, 2010 by iamthey

[Captain Enema]

Considering the suicidal charge right into a kill zone that NReeki just performed the point is entirely moot. Unless his converted cruise liners can grow wings and fly at warp speed, they are more or less defenseless sitting ducks to the anti-shipping missiles babyd just unloaded on them.

If it was me, I'd just rewrite the posts to exclude all mention of railguns as they aren't particularly useful at this juncture and start demanding NReeki start rping a sea full of dead and dying soldiers.

I suggest machine gunning them in the water, cheaper that way.

[Lynneth]

I for one like using railguns because goddamned railguns, shooting tungsten rods at your enemies and killing them with pure kinetic power.
Though I'm mostly moving on to rockets and missiles. More effective, cheaper, et cetera. A missile cruiser could easily destroy a railgun-equipped Battleship.

Also, 240 MW is way too little for a BShip with 50 railguns. To achieve a somewhat decent distance, one Railgun required at least 20 MWatt.
HHYAD, I doubt you'll be able to put more than, say, 3 turrets with 2 barrels each onto a Battleship, simply because of the energy requirements. You don't have nuclear fusion, which makes more railguns feasible.

[Sargun II]

Officially I never liked railguns in the first place, and I have always agreed with Sal. Just saying.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1284170107' post='2449358']
If you want mathematical proof...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Mathematical_formulae

I'd be surprised if you understood it.
[/quote]
Please don't insult my intelligence. I don't do it to you, don't do it to me.

[Captain Enema]

Hey there dude, he's not the one who screamed, "Cry havoc and let slip the Cruise Liners of War!"

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1284196933' post='2449691']
I for one like using railguns because goddamned railguns, shooting tungsten rods at your enemies and killing them with pure kinetic power.
Though I'm mostly moving on to rockets and missiles. More effective, cheaper, et cetera. A missile cruiser could easily destroy a railgun-equipped Battleship.

Also, 240 MW is way too little for a BShip with 50 railguns. To achieve a somewhat decent distance, one Railgun required at least 20 MWatt.
HHYAD, I doubt you'll be able to put more than, say, 3 turrets with 2 barrels each onto a Battleship, simply because of the energy requirements. You don't have nuclear fusion, which makes more railguns feasible.
[/quote]
The only reason I have more than two barrels are to give time for the cooling system to remove the heat. One barrel is used, and instead of waiting for it to cool down, you simply switch it out of firing position and switch it back in when an acceptable amount of heat had been removed. The firing rate per barrel is very low even for railguns, but combine the firing rate and it will be similar to the single barrel railguns, except with a slightly longer lasting barrel.

I have two five-barreled railguns on each battleship, [i]that fires at the same rate of a standard single barrel railgun.[/i]

[Sargun II]

Where do you store those barrels and put the extra personnel?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1284213032' post='2449793']
Where do you store those barrels and put the extra personnel?
[/quote]
They are arranged in a way like the mini-guns' barrels, except with only five barrels. Additional barrels are stored underneath and in front of the railguns. What do you mean "extra personnel"?

Edited September 11, 2010 by HHAYD

[Sargun II]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1284213189' post='2449795']
They are arranged in a way like the mini-guns, except with one barrel missing. What do you mean "extra personnel"?
[/quote]

Like what miniguns?

Extra personnel. As in you have all the people needed for the regular operation of a battleship, and then the specially trained sailors who know how to switch the barrels properly (without damaging them, etc.). Or if you don't have specially trained sailors, then the sailors who will replace the ones who are going to be switching the barrels out so that the battleships are staffed.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1284213276' post='2449796']
Like what miniguns?

Extra personnel. As in you have all the people needed for the regular operation of a battleship, and then the specially trained sailors who know how to switch the barrels properly (without damaging them, etc.). Or if you don't have specially trained sailors, then the sailors who will replace the ones who are going to be switching the barrels out so that the battleships are staffed.
[/quote]
I have it automated, computerized machines do the work while very few sailors operate them. It would take large amount of men to lift a barrel, push it into place and it would take too long.

[Sal Paradise]

I don't see why you people keep talking about how HHAYD has his railguns. He doesn't have them. Unless we're allowed to god-mode scientific breakthroughs, railguns don't work well enough until after the tech cut off.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284175233' post='2449437']
It was my understanding that as long as the RPer does not get wiped due to inactivity, the war is obviously frozen, or opponents do not take extra 'turns' until the RPer posts again. Ie: 25 days. This was the understanding that Mudd apparently abused multiple times, which has created a profound hostility against the concept, and rightly so. Everyone seems to be bitter about Mudd's apparent dishonesty, and as a result, everyone has become tarred with the same brush. This concept is therefore unworkable for the meantime... perhaps later on in the future, when this sentiment has boiled over, shall we return to simpler, sweeter times (take that with a grain of salt).
[/quote]

Thank you for the clarification

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1284213276' post='2449796']
Like what miniguns?

Extra personnel. As in you have all the people needed for the regular operation of a battleship, and then the specially trained sailors who know how to switch the barrels properly (without damaging them, etc.). Or if you don't have specially trained sailors, then the sailors who will replace the ones who are going to be switching the barrels out so that the battleships are staffed.
[/quote]
It's probably based on a revolver-like principle. Gun fires, next barrel rotates automatically into position. Something like that.
Unlikely to work, due to the massive magnetic fields in each shot. The adjacent barrels would be heated as well.

[The FSM]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1284212872' post='2449791']
The only reason I have more than two barrels are to give time for the cooling system to remove the heat. One barrel is used, and instead of waiting for it to cool down, you simply switch it out of firing position and switch it back in when an acceptable amount of heat had been removed. The firing rate per barrel is very low even for railguns, but combine the firing rate and it will be similar to the single barrel railguns, except with a slightly longer lasting barrel.

I have two five-barreled railguns on each battleship, [i]that fires at the same rate of a standard single barrel railgun.[/i]
[/quote]


The problem with railguns (from my understanding) is not the heat generated by the weapon, it is the fact that the speed of the projectile moving through the barrel generates so much friction that it will physically destroy the interior of the barrel. The focus of railgun R&D is not developing better cooling systems, but in inventing a brand new metal alloy that can withstand the friction generated by firing a round. Regardless of the rotating barrel concept you would still need to have a large reserve of extra barrels sitting around to replace the ones that get damaged over the course of routine firing.

Unless you invented a new metal alloy.