sir jesus Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 So as soon as I downgrade my technology like everyone asks, you do an entire paragraph about how crappy my airforce is. Oh my god, the majority of my military funding goes towards my aircraft. The MAJORITY. How are they still this useless? This seems an awful lot like god-moding. Can't we pretend my IG tech level is 4,400 and at least my airforce reflects this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 So as soon as I downgrade my technology like everyone asks, you do an entire paragraph about how crappy my airforce is. Oh my god, the majority of my military funding goes towards my aircraft. The MAJORITY. How are they still this useless? This seems an awful lot like god-moding. Can't we pretend my IG tech level is 4,400 and at least my airforce reflects this. Your IG tech level gives you your C tech level if you have inferior aircraft then you have inferior aircraft thats just how it goes. Be glad you have an airforce some of us , me included, have none and so must rely totally on inferior infantry and to be honest comparing the technology about half of us fighting for Slavorussia shouldn't even bother clearly w ecan't do anything to the attacking NC forces so whats the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 So as soon as I downgrade my technology like everyone asks, you do an entire paragraph about how crappy my airforce is. Oh my god, the majority of my military funding goes towards my aircraft. The MAJORITY. How are they still this useless? This seems an awful lot like god-moding. Can't we pretend my IG tech level is 4,400 and at least my airforce reflects this. I'm sorry that you're getting boned. Still, even though you have a high tech level you have to specify things. Putting in an inferior jet against a superior one still produces the same results - remember, Triyun has an insanely high tech level too. And Harriers, from my understanding, aren't exactly great air-to-air fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir jesus Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 No, they certainly are not. Your fighters have enjoyed that discrepancy. I think I'm beginning to understand how things work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Woah, look what I found. Over-the-horizon radar is a design concept that increases radar's effective range over conventional radar. It is claimed that the Australian JORN Jindalee Operational Radar Network can overcome certain stealth characteristics.[12] It is claimed that the HF frequency used and the method of bouncing radar from ionosphere overcomes the stealth characteristics of the F-117A. In other words, stealth aircraft are optimized for defeating much higher-frequency radar from front-on rather than low-frequency radars from above.There are unsubstantiated rumours that Australian civilian air traffic controllers have tried to contact, in-air, high-altitude, F-117A pilots crossing the Australian continent without airspace clearance due to datafeed from the JORC. Apparently there was no response from the pilots. That means my huge low frequency over the horizon radar complexes can see stealth aircraft, and guess who is getting that radar feed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Woah, look what I found.That means my huge low frequency over the horizon radar complexes can see stealth aircraft, and guess who is getting that radar feed? Its claimed Uber not proven so it can't be said you can or can not detect stealth its only a possibilty need to do a 50-50 chance flip or some system to decide whether it can or cant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Its claimed Uber not proven so it can't be said you can or can not detect stealth its only a possibilty need to do a 50-50 chance flip or some system to decide whether it can or cant. It might work on older stealth like the 115, but it wouldn't work on a F-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malatose Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 It might work on older stealth like the 115, but it wouldn't work on a F-22. A Russian S-300 and S-400 can detect an F-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 A Russian S-300 and S-400 can detect an F-22. Seriously? Stealth is overrated. Then again I should know that seeing all the times my dad has told me that and he works on that kind of stuff, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) So as soon as I downgrade my technology like everyone asks, you do an entire paragraph about how crappy my airforce is. Oh my god, the majority of my military funding goes towards my aircraft. The MAJORITY. How are they still this useless? This seems an awful lot like god-moding. Can't we pretend my IG tech level is 4,400 and at least my airforce reflects this. Paying for a !@#$%* airforce is something countries do all the time. The US pays for half the worlds total defense budget, but gets some !@#$%* stuff. The US has a long history of doing it, F-105 Thunderchief, F-111, and now the F-35. If you make fighter designed to do everything alright rather than one thing exceptionally well you tend to get some draw backs. Its a pretty well documented lesson from Vietnam that the assumptions that have now gone into the F-35 that you don't have to dog fight and can just kill from BVR with missiles is not born out. Had you decided to select the F-22, you'd have much less ground attack capabilities, but in air to air combat, I'd not be able to do what I did. Also Baron, I believe the newer generation of Stealth planes have better protection against that type of radar, F-117 is from the 70s. Although, many nations here are beyond present day tech so they too would have some detection against modern stealth. Edit: Stealth is overrated. Then again I should know that seeing all the times my dad has told me that and he works on that kind of stuff, lol. Exactly, which is why before you put your birds in the air, make damn sure they can dog fight, and not rely on shooting missiles without being seen. Edited April 11, 2009 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir jesus Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Paying for a !@#$%* airforce is something countries do all the time. The US pays for half the worlds total defense budget, but gets some !@#$%* stuff. The US has a long history of doing it, F-105 Thunderchief, F-111, and now the F-35. If you make fighter designed to do everything alright rather than one thing exceptionally well you tend to get some draw backs. Its a pretty well documented lesson from Vietnam that the assumptions that have now gone into the F-35 that you don't have to dog fight and can just kill from BVR with missiles is not born out. Had you decided to select the F-22, you'd have much less ground attack capabilities, but in air to air combat, I'd not be able to do what I did. Also Baron, I believe the newer generation of Stealth planes have better protection against that type of radar, F-117 is from the 70s. Although, many nations here are beyond present day tech so they too would have some detection against modern stealth. Edit: Exactly, which is why before you put your birds in the air, make damn sure they can dog fight, and not rely on shooting missiles without being seen. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Quick question and no this isn't aimed at the NC that just brought this to my mind. How do we do Spy Odds fairly. As recently shown almost everytime some one spy attacks the RP as successful even at 70% or 90% however, that still leaves that chance for failure but lets be honest if you were rping it you'd probally want it to suceed anyway so how do we do this fairly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Quick question and no this isn't aimed at the NC that just brought this to my mind. How do we do Spy Odds fairly. As recently shown almost everytime some one spy attacks the RP as successful even at 70% or 90% however, that still leaves that chance for failure but lets be honest if you were rping it you'd probally want it to suceed anyway so how do we do this fairly. Random number generator, 0-10, if it hits anything besides 0, it succeeds. For 90% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Random number generator, 0-10, if it hits anything besides 0, it succeeds.For 90% I would agree to this system but would the GM's need to run it to avoid any "bias" or "cheating"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir jesus Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Random number generator, 0-10, if it hits anything besides 0, it succeeds.For 90% uhh.... 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 I count 11 possible outcomes, so that would be a 1/11 ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 uhh....0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 I count 11 possible outcomes, so that would be a 1/11 ratio. Could do a random number between 1-100. Then for say 70% odds, any number below or equal to seventy is a success, any number above is failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 uhh....0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 I count 11 possible outcomes, so that would be a 1/11 ratio. Gud maths! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 uhh....0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 I count 11 possible outcomes, so that would be a 1/11 ratio. Gud maths! Since when have I claimed to be good at math? 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.