Aotearoan and Greater German project.

[Tahsir]

OOC: okay I just thought of a better idea to bollox all of this, and set a better precident. LVN gave me the numbers for it and it seems to work under theory, however without an actual sized test we can't know how it handles.

So for CNRP we consider the gun as thus.

Every shell is a cruise missle IG. That means you don't have a lot of shots, and you're giving up missles. So like mael's stonehenge which will be three wonders to make this will use something IG as a baseline.

So if you want a big gun instead of any missles. Then I will accept this, and gloss over any physical problems the gun may or may not have. I will not however, accept an endless supply of shells for a super gun.

[Vasili Markov]

OOC: These are examples of planes, flying in air, battling air resistance, There is no air resistance in the tube, and indeed the fluid in there provides more energy. The impact speed will not be 12km/s, there are two lots of air resistance to go through (launch and re entry), so it will hit a bit slower, however, it will still be devastating. I am not claiming this weapon travels through air under its own power at 12km/s, just that thats the exist speed.

Um this is firing a small, 50L volume projectile, with a estimated bore of 60cm. The nice thing about scram cannons is that you do not need more pressure for a larger projectile, it is a engine, not an explosion. It will just accelerate more slowly, so a longer tube is needed, and we do have a longer tube.

I think I answered all you other problems on IRC.

Umm there is air resistance for anything travelling through air. unless you have discovered a frictionless surface (a physical impossibility).

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

And funnily enough planes and missiles have similar drag coefficients. they are both streamlined objects, compare the shapes of an X-15 (a hypersonic aircraft) and a hypersonic missile, they are both basically darts, and have similar amounts of streamlining.

[Tahsir]

OOC: Vasili, consider my alternative, and limiting this weapon to IG cruise missles. That way when it gets bombed its useless and he's out of missles.

[Vasili Markov]

OOC: That is basically what I am saying, this weapon is basically a expensive cruise missile.

[LeVentNoir]

Umm there is air resistance for anything travelling through air. unless you have discovered a frictionless surface (a physical impossibility).

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

And funnily enough planes and missiles have similar drag coefficients. they are both streamlined objects, compare the shapes of an X-15 (a hypersonic aircraft) and a hypersonic missile, they are both basically darts, and have similar amounts of streamlining.

OOC: or send the object you are moving outside the atmosphere..... you know, like ICBMs and this scram cannon does....

[King Kevz]

OOC: Let him build it guys. Then just pound the hell out of it with your weapon systems until its a floating/sinking wreck. Think about it are any of you going to be happy with such a powerful weapon IC? I know im not plus you could always trying spying to uncover the plans and release them to the world etc. Once its starting to be built of course.

[Vasili Markov]

OOC: Let him build it guys. Then just pound the hell out of it with your weapon systems until its a floating/sinking wreck. Think about it are any of you going to be happy with such a powerful weapon IC? I know im not plus you could always trying spying to uncover the plans and release them to the world etc. Once its starting to be built of course.

OOC: I wish people would stick to using things that actually exist in the real world. It makes proving that they work so much easier, you can point to a working RL version and just say that your weapon is identical to it. And you get instant undeniable proof that it physically possible as an advantage. Its when people start to try and make sci-fi super-weapons that the trouble begins.

[King Kevz]

OOC: I wish people would stick to using things that actually exist in the real world. It makes proving that they work so much easier, you can point to a working RL version and just say that your weapon is identical to it. And you get instant undeniable proof that it physically possible as an advantage. Its when people start to try and make sci-fi super-weapons that the trouble begins.

OOC: Maybe so but people like being creative and so thats why they make these things now if it is unfeasible then yes argue against it and try to work out what they want but don't just restrict them to current stuff.

[Triyun]

OOC: I wish people would stick to using things that actually exist in the real world. It makes proving that they work so much easier, you can point to a working RL version and just say that your weapon is identical to it. And you get instant undeniable proof that it physically possible as an advantage. Its when people start to try and make sci-fi super-weapons that the trouble begins.

OOC: like fleets of merchant ships that act as guided missile destroyers, or submarine merchant ships that act like guided missile destroyers?

This weapon system is a bit much, but its more likely that they have the resources to do this, than what some on the "other side" have been rolling out.

[Tahsir]

OOC: like fleets of merchant ships that act as guided missile destroyers, or submarine merchant ships that act like guided missile destroyers?

This weapon system is a bit much, but its more likely that they have the resources to do this, than what some on the "other side" have been rolling out.

OOC: Actually we've been casually avoiding how malatose has the resources to afford this and his other grandiose land cannon. Wasn't he nuked in the last war too?

Edited March 9, 2009 by Tahsir Re

[Centurius]

OOC: I wish people would stick to using things that actually exist in the real world. It makes proving that they work so much easier, you can point to a working RL version and just say that your weapon is identical to it. And you get instant undeniable proof that it physically possible as an advantage. Its when people start to try and make sci-fi super-weapons that the trouble begins.

OOC: There is a reason the tech chart allows future technology.

[LeVentNoir]

OOC: I wish people would stick to using things that actually exist in the real world. It makes proving that they work so much easier, you can point to a working RL version and just say that your weapon is identical to it. And you get instant undeniable proof that it physically possible as an advantage. Its when people start to try and make sci-fi super-weapons that the trouble begins.

OOC: Tech year = 2023.

Or do you want me to rework it, to a much smarter system, something linear from 1945 to 2012?

Either accept that people with lots of tech get to make future stuff or ask for a rework, and accept you will be Rping in the seventies.

Edited March 9, 2009 by LeVentNoir

[Maelstrom Vortex]

ooc: Suggestion, get supreme ruler 2020 and rip the 2020 tech off them! :-P

And personally, I favor the latter.. which would put me in the cold war era.... which happens to be right about where my equipment is IG!

Edited March 9, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex

[LeVentNoir]

ooc; MV, it would be linear, not logarithmic, 250 tech might get you into the 50's

[Vasili Markov]

OOC: I do not care what weapons you come up with so long as they can be backed up with at least three references to respectable peer reviewed journals that agree that such a technology will be available when you say it will.

And alternatively we can just cap the tech equation at 2020 (which is about as far as most respectable analysts are prepared to make projections to) with excess tech just being used to cut the time needed to do research projects.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Vasili Markov

[LeVentNoir]

OOC: I do not care what weapons you come up with so long as they can be backed up with at least three references to respectable peer reviewed journals that agree that such a technology will be available when you say it will.

And alternatively we can just cap the tech equation at 2020 (which is about as far as most respectable analysts are prepared to make projections to) with excess tech just being used to cut the time needed to do research projects.

OOC: Congratulations, lets just cap everything as present. I will guarantee that 99% of all made up tech will not be able to be cited like that.

You are just derailing this, so please, leave this thread.

[Bacharth]

OOC: I do not care what weapons you come up with so long as they can be backed up with at least three references to respectable peer reviewed journals that agree that such a technology will be available when you say it will.

And alternatively we can just cap the tech equation at 2020 (which is about as far as most respectable analysts are prepared to make projections to) with excess tech just being used to cut the time needed to do research projects.

!@#$%^&*. I'm a high school student. I'm not going to do that kind of research out of school. If you want to do that, you can go to your little gaylord happy !@#$@#$ CNRPR. Quit trying to ruin CNRP. Why don't people stop !@#$@#$ complaining about minor !@#$%^&*.

A gun is a gun. It kills people.

A plane is a plane. It flies around and goes pewpew. There is no reason that a plane should be that much more advanced than a normal plane.