The GMs Court

[Biohazard]

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 June 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1275527519' post='2321392']
We have 20 nuclear missiles in-game, meaning we have 20 nuclear missiles in RP.

(or 25)

KISS
[/quote]
Multiple guidelines have violated KISS already.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 June 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1275526320' post='2321329']
Or, you can attach giant wings on them and let them glide. Just pray that the wings don't get shot off...
[/quote]
Wouldn't work. The tank isway too heavy.

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 June 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1275526320' post='2321329']
I wish that the nuke system was adjusted to be more realistic. I say instead of capping everyone on the amount of nukes they can have, rather, the total payload of all of the nukes combined and cap that. That way, a person can either use 250 one MT nukes or a single 250 MT nuke if he/she has 25 nukes IG.
[/quote]
It's been proposed before, and I have always been in favor of it.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Biohazard' date='02 June 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1275529161' post='2321462']
Multiple guidelines have violated KISS already.
[/quote]

So we shouldn't be violating any more.

We have a reasonable cap, we stick to in-game numbers, and now nobody can just use nukes (and their emp effects) as spam.

[Biohazard]

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 June 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1275530300' post='2321497']
So we shouldn't be violating any more.

We have a reasonable cap, we stick to in-game numbers, and now nobody can just use nukes (and their emp effects) as spam.
[/quote]
People do use nukes as spam, though. Maybe not recently, but it's still happened post-guideline creation.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 June 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1275530300' post='2321497']
So we shouldn't be violating any more.

We have a reasonable cap, we stick to in-game numbers, and now nobody can just use nukes (and their emp effects) as spam.
[/quote]
So if I had 25 nukes IG, why can't I have one freaking giant 250MT nuke instead of 25 10MT nukes? The giant nuke would make a decent demoralization tool.
[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='02 June 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1275529376' post='2321465']
Wouldn't work. The tank isway too heavy.
[/quote]
There are aircraft that weight over 100 tons. Are you telling me that they can't take off either?

Tanks can fly as long as they have large enough wings.

Edited June 3, 2010 by HHAYD

[Sargun II]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 June 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1275531875' post='2321567']
So if I had 25 nukes IG, why can't I have one freaking giant 250MT nuke instead of 25 10MT nukes? The giant nuke would make a decent demoralization tool.
[/quote]

Because you don't have one giang nuke, you have 25 smaller ones.

[b]That's why.[/b]

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 June 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1275531941' post='2321569']
Because you don't have one giang nuke, you have 25 smaller ones.

[b]That's why.[/b]
[/quote]
This is partially CN+ partially RP. If we fully stick with CN's limitation, then the top aircraft we can only have are F-22 and can not RP the creation of our own, that includes RPers with over 4000+ tech.

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 June 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1275530300' post='2321497']
So we shouldn't be violating any more.

We have a reasonable cap, we stick to in-game numbers, and now nobody can just use nukes (and their emp effects) as spam.
[/quote]

People are still going to spam with 25 nukes, and there will always be a check and control of them, retaliatory nuclear strikes.

Edited June 3, 2010 by HHAYD

[Sargun II]

Then stop complaining. You have nukes, stop trying to get more of them. There's no need to have a system that will end up being abused. Having so many nukes means using them in more ways, and despite their smaller nature they can be used in a much more effective way than with the 25-max.

Next you'll be !@#$%*ing about how we can't mount lasers on pure carbon-nanotube tanks and have them fly out from underwater submarines BECAUSE I HAVE TEN THOUSAND TECH!!111

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 June 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1275532326' post='2321580']
Then stop complaining. You have nukes, stop trying to get more of them. There's no need to have a system that will end up being abused. Having so many nukes means using them in more ways, and despite their smaller nature they can be used in a much more effective way than with the 25-max.

[b]Next you'll be !@#$%*ing about how we can't mount lasers on pure carbon-nanotube tanks and have them fly out from underwater submarines BECAUSE I HAVE TEN THOUSAND TECH!!111[/b]
[/quote]
That isn't realistic, having 250 mini nukes are. If the cap of 25 nukes stay, why can't I reduce the amount of nukes and increase the payload of each one?

[Sargun II]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 June 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1275532466' post='2321585']
That isn't realistic, having 250 mini nukes are. If the cap of 25 nukes stay, why can't I reduce the amount of nukes and increase the payload of each one?
[/quote]

Because we have a cap of 50 specialty cruise missiles. If I need to explain more, you don't deserve your 250 nukes.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 June 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1275532734' post='2321595']
Because we have a cap of 50 specialty cruise missiles. If I need to explain more, you don't deserve your 250 nukes.
[/quote]
But do I deserve my single 250 MT nuke?...

[JerreyRough]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 June 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1275532466' post='2321585']
That isn't realistic, having 250 mini nukes are. If the cap of 25 nukes stay, why can't I reduce the amount of nukes and increase the payload of each one?
[/quote]
Because you don't truely need to; will it make you a better RP'er if your throwing around different numbers? Will having more/less nukes of different payloads really change the future of CNRP in a month? Six months? A year?

We don't need realism. We need roleplaying, and nukes are just a device for an explosion that could change nothing - or change the world. Nukes have their purposes; more nukes or more powerful nukes doesn't mean better roleplays.

Now, could we move from politics and get on with the roleplaying?

[Captain Enema]

There is a certain amount of logic to Hhyad's point. More nukes with lower KT damage means different applications on a tactical or strategic level. A single KT nuke can easily be used as a fleet killer in confined waters making a smaller country a force to be reckoned with in naval engagements.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='02 June 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1275531875' post='2321567']
There are aircraft that weight over 100 tons. Are you telling me that they can't take off either?

Tanks can fly as long as they have large enough wings.
[/quote]
No, they cannot. A big, [color=red][b]BIG[/b][/color] reason is the tank itself is not aerodynamic.

Another. The sheer [i]size[/i] of the wings needed to make it capable of gliding from being dropped would limit to the point ofimpracticality how many you could put a single (large) cargo plane.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Sargun' date='03 June 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1275532326' post='2321580']
Then stop complaining. You have nukes, stop trying to get more of them. There's no need to have a system that will end up being abused. Having so many nukes means using them in more ways, and despite their smaller nature they can be used in a much more effective way than with the 25-max.
[/quote]

So tell me why that is a reason for not changing the system? Right now its pretty much the incentive is just don't use nukes or throw the monopoly board across the room (massive nuclear holocaust). More flexibility in this case means less !@#$%^&*. But no matter, enjoy your world of 19 MT nukes.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 June 2010 - 05:05 AM' timestamp='1275559494' post='2321930']
Another. The sheer [i]size[/i] of the wings needed to make it capable of gliding from being dropped would limit to the point ofimpracticality how many you could put a single (large) cargo plane.
[/quote]
There are always foldaway wings that use space more efficiently. Though I do agree that dropping 100+ ton tanks wouldn't be a smart idea unless if you really wanted some seriously bashed enemy skulls.

[Zoot Zoot]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='03 June 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1275584789' post='2322221']
There are always foldaway wings that use space more efficiently. Though I do agree that dropping 100+ ton tanks wouldn't be a smart idea unless if you really wanted some seriously bashed enemy skulls.
[/quote]

Never mind the enemy wtf about the crew inside it?
U drop the crew seperatly theyre gonna be quite a way away from a perfecty good tank... which the enemy are gonna find

[Fizzydog]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='03 June 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1275602069' post='2322517']
Never mind the enemy wtf about the crew inside it?
U drop the crew seperatly theyre gonna be quite a way away from a perfecty good tank... which the enemy are gonna find
[/quote]
Why not drop them in the tank? A couple of loss brain cells and broken bones won't hurt anyone.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='03 June 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1275603515' post='2322554']
Why not drop them in the tank? A couple of loss brain cells and broken bones won't hurt anyone.
[/quote]

Brb, dropping a tank on your house.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='03 June 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1275603515' post='2322554']
Why not drop them in the tank? A couple of loss brain cells and broken bones won't hurt anyone.
[/quote]

Yeah, who needs dead crew members?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' date='03 June 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1275608067' post='2322684']
Yeah, who needs dead crew members?
[/quote]
Those who use prisoners sentenced to death as tank crew members? Hey, it kills the prisoners, right?

[Fizzydog]

I just want to say something about the abundant amount of AC-130s: Keep the amount realistic. I only have 2. 1 More is to be built.
Look at how many are made in history: about 20 something. I don't want to see someone flying 20 ACs, or 50, or even ten. Keep it realistic and to a low amount. Your military budget would be empty if you built a ton of those. The missiles for them aren't cheap.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='03 June 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1275614473' post='2322857']
I just want to say something about the abundant amount of AC-130s: Keep the amount realistic. I only have 2. 1 More is to be built.
Look at how many are made in history: about 20 something. I don't want to see someone flying 20 ACs, or 50, or even ten. Keep it realistic and to a low amount. Your military budget would be empty if you built a ton of those. The missiles for them aren't cheap.
[/quote]
What abundant amount? I personally only field 5. Plus, economy doesn't matter in CNRP to most people; it's like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway?

[Zoot Zoot]

Missiles?
on an AC-130?
lolno

its all projectile weaponry.
and a damnsite more than 2 have ever been made.

More than two got shot down in vietnam =/.
I personally field 25 and 20 FB-32's which are a custom ground support craft.

[Fizzydog]

Yep, cause I put 2. Oh wait, ever heard of a zero? It puts a number a whole place up.


But I put it wrong: It says 43, not 20. I read the active ones.

Now I am talking about the big guns in the sky. The one every person and his mother has in this RP. I am bugged by this, but as long as people have low numbers they are fine.