Prime minister Johns Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 1. That's why we invented SSBNs, also the moment you launch an ICBM the thing lights up like a christmas tree to anyone who bothers looking. Once you have launched the ICBM it does not matter if the launch platform and missile are lit up like Christmas trees, shooting the plane won't stop the missile and it has served it's function. And an ICBM will light up like a Christmas tree regardless of the launch platform it was launched from. 2. Unlike a SSBN however the plane is easier to detect and the speed advantage also counts for interceptor aircraft in the supersonic and hypersonic ranges whereas an attack submarine is much slower and ASW in general is not as quick. As you pointed out it also lacks the capability to stay in the air for longer durations whereas a SSBN can stay submerged for as long as it takes the crew to use up its resources. This is why I will also be using SSBNs as well, only one or two of my missiles will use this method so I can avoid the flaws of SSBNs I pointed out in my previous post. 3. They're however not protected against interceptor aircraft and fighters in general so the survivability is most likely smaller than that of a B-2. That is why it will have a fighter escort and fly with the support aircraft of my forces if it is deployed. And it will be able to mount countermeasures packages such as chaff & flares (I believe many C5's & C130s have these in RL). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 Is it realistic if I can RP a mach 5+ ramjet aircraft? It will have absolutely no stealth, even at around mach 1-2. All stealth has been sacrificed to reduce air drag, and no paint or other stealth material would withstand the air resistance and heat from flying at mach 5. To counteract the possibility of the airplane's airframe being melted, it would be made of ceramic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 Is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb"]gay bomb[/url] at all possible? If so, I have a great idea for some lulzy terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1316574715' post='2805052'] Is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb"]gay bomb[/url] at all possible? If so, I have a great idea for some lulzy terrorists. [/quote] Not sure, but it would be hilarious if you lighted one over a group of extremely religious people who strongly despise homosexuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) So Texas then? I would allow it if you're ever at war with me, just for the sheer comedy value it would add. Edited September 21, 2011 by King Timmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='King Timmy' timestamp='1316632258' post='2805392'] So Texas then? I would allow it if you're ever at war with me, just for the sheer comedy value it would add. [/quote] I can always do a terrorist attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1316634055' post='2805406'] I can always do a terrorist attack. [/quote] I think a terrorist attack on San Antonio that turns people gay would be hilarious. Not too big a bomb obviously and preferably not explosive, make it a test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Can I put a FOAB on an ICBM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 [quote name='King Timmy' timestamp='1318107726' post='2821074'] Can I put a FOAB on an ICBM? [/quote] I don't see a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy God Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 how much technology should i have to use armed suits seen in the movies Avatar and Matrix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Probably more than you have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy God Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Damn, then what about multiped tanks? [img]http://www.serenadawn.com/GITS-Vehicles_clip_image007_0000.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Let's see, tracks that can transform into legs? Maintenance nightmares? Arms? Firing cannon while in the "leg" mode? Recoil issues? A much simpler modern tank can eat those overly complex mechs for breakfast. Shoot the legs, easy mobility kill. That's not including the maintenance of such overly complex machines, something that Germany forgot about when designing their tanks back during WWII. Remember the KISS principle when RPing any vehicles, equipments, buildings and etc. Keep It Simple and Straightforward. The more parts something has, the more maintenance it needs. Now regarding the needed tech, you would need about 3k for the basic version of the mech, 9k for the actual mech that you want to RP, not including the weapons. Edited October 10, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Boy God' timestamp='1318208786' post='2821821'] Damn, then what about multiped tanks? [img]http://www.serenadawn.com/GITS-Vehicles_clip_image007_0000.jpg[/img] [/quote] You could use something like that but it'd be an extremely poor tank. The narrow separated tracks would hinder performance, additionally the tank is highly vulnerable to attack. There is no law against being dumb... but this would be dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1318215848' post='2821916']You can choose either a turbofan with its advantages of maneuverability, more efficiency, and low IR -OR- a faster turbojet and fit on the combo engine.[/quote]In-character observers will note that until recently some aircraft had turbofan and turbojet with the advantages of both systems. Technology in CNRP is continuously backsliding, the opposite of real-world technological progress! Does CNRP have bizarro world advancement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Boy God' timestamp='1318206745' post='2821794']how much technology should i have to use armed suits seen in the movies Avatar and Matrix?[/quote]Mecha and other assorted walkers (for the most part) no longer exist in CNRP. They once existed, but are mostly lost technology these days. There are, however, circumstances walkers can be canonically deployed; primarily in limited role-plays. Here’s a thread on the decline of walkers (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92880) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1318211004' post='2821842'] Let's see, tracks that can transform into legs? Maintenance nightmares? Arms? Firing cannon while in the "leg" mode? Recoil issues? A much simpler modern tank can eat those overly complex mechs for breakfast. Shoot the legs, easy mobility kill. That's not including the maintenance of such overly complex machines, something that Germany forgot about when designing their tanks back during WWII. Remember the KISS principle when RPing any vehicles, equipments, buildings and etc. Keep It Simple and Straightforward. The more parts something has, the more maintenance it needs. Now regarding the needed tech, you would need about 3k for the basic version of the mech, 9k for the actual mech that you want to RP, not including the weapons. [/quote] Muhahaha Ghost in the Shell tank. Here is a few things about that tank it only uses that main cannon in tracked mode which it usually stays in most of the time and only uses leg mode to cross barriers it is unable to do so when in tracked mode. Also those little spindly arms you see on the front are pretty much machineguns not arms no idea why Shirow designed them that way but I still like them. In fact the main point I thought you would all agrue over is that it has a crew number of one, yep just one and see those three round balls on the centre hull and top of turret those are the "eyes" so to speak which allows the pilot 360 degreee vision of ccourse this tank is for cyber brain people so I doubt it ould be used IRL for that reason alone. Of course I am afraid most of what I have said is purely speculation based on other similiar GITS mechs because that tank is destroyed before it ever goes into action. I have also ignore the part where the blooming tanks can connect to satelliates and throw off peoples/tanks aim though tat might be ue to the cyberbrain rather than the tank. Also I find maintainance a funny part of CNRP seeing as how it is never really mentioned and with the top tech nations designing tech about 20 years from now, with some IRL backing though, we have no idea what the proper maintainance needs will be for them so maintainance is a non issue. Edited October 10, 2011 by Kevin Kingswell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1318221100' post='2821979'] In-character observers will note that until recently some aircraft had turbofan and turbojet with the advantages of both systems. Technology in CNRP is continuously backsliding, the opposite of real-world technological progress! Does CNRP have bizarro world advancement? [/quote] Having twice the amount of engines doesn't really make sense to me. All advantages are lost by the increased weight, complexity and reduced storage space for other stuff. Now if the engines were truly combined with minimal weight and complexity increase, then I don't see a problem. Edited October 10, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) What do WW1-era vintage Messines Mines count as in CNRP statistics? Edited November 29, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Would an Antonov A-40 flying tank count as Tank or Aircraft slot? Edited November 29, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1322589793' post='2855914'] Would an Antonov A-40 flying tank count as Tank or Aircraft slot? [/quote] I would say tank, mainly because it was really designed to glide in and be used on the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1322592784' post='2855966']I would say tank, mainly because it was really designed to glide in and be used on the ground.[/quote]What if two combatants try throwing Antonov A-40 flying tanks at each other and try to fight while gliding? Meh, you're probably right. Edited November 29, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1322592933' post='2855971'] What if two combatants try throwing Antonov A-40 flying tanks at each other and try to fight while gliding? Meh, you're probably right. [/quote] I would guess that the force of the shots would shake the wooden wings apart, causing the tanks to plummet to their deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1322593051' post='2855973']I would guess that the force of the shots would shake the wooden wings apart, causing the tanks to plummet to their deaths.[/quote]Only if someone is dumb enough to fire the main gun mid-glide, they might be fine using machine guns only. Still a bad idea, but you might be right. Edited November 29, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1322595928' post='2856005'] Only if someone is dumb enough to fire the main gun mid-glide, they might be fine using machine guns only. Still a bad idea, but you might be right. [/quote] I was kind of hoping to watch the first main cannon air duel. 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.