Technology Stats Help

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1281963094' post='2417842']
Except that the armored aircraft carriers of the World Wars do exist. . . the easiest way to operate armored aircraft carriers is to play retrofitted World War designs.

A revolver style mechanism provides an initially high rate of fire in exchange for having to wait for reloads – that and any vehicle mounting it wouldn’t be very safe.
Just because it creates a variable deathtrap, HHAYD’s idea shouldn’t be discounted.

The initial barrage of fire would be overpowering, but reloading would leave the tank completely hapless, and in a close-combat vehicle that’s guaranteed death if the opposition wasn’t outright destroyed in the initial attack. It’s bad enough without accounting for the hazards of exposed munitions.

I can image, in character, soldier’s reactions to something so suicidal.
Any ground doctrine utilizing these weapons acknowledges the absolute expendability of the operators.

I you choose to use this weapon, remember to play it as a one-strike wonder, good for the opening volley but absolute rubbish against an enemy response.
[/quote]

Ohh that is a great idea for a penal/convict division. Expendable criminals used as tank fodder with maybe a chance of having their crimes dropped if they succedd. I need to look into this.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1281963094' post='2417842']
A revolver style mechanism provides an initially high rate of fire in exchange for having to wait for reloads – that and any vehicle mounting it wouldn’t be very safe.
Just because it creates a variable deathtrap, HHAYD’s idea shouldn’t be discounted.

The initial barrage of fire would be overpowering, but reloading would leave the tank completely hapless, and in a close-combat vehicle that’s guaranteed death if the opposition wasn’t outright destroyed in the initial attack. It’s bad enough without accounting for the hazards of exposed munitions.

I can image, in character, soldier’s reactions to something so suicidal.
Any ground doctrine utilizing these weapons acknowledges the absolute expendability of the operators.

I you choose to use this weapon, remember to play it as a one-strike wonder, good for the opening volley but absolute rubbish against an enemy response.
[/quote]
A point-blank shot in the rear or side by a 95mm-85mm shell will guarantee insta-disable/kill UNLESS if the opposing RPer sent tanks with much thicker overall armoring (but then they call in tanks with bigger cannons to deal with the enemy super tanks). Most RL tanks have thin armoring on the side and even thinner armoring on the rear and top. The close-combat tanks' operators are trained to shoot four times in the side or preferably in the rear of enemy tanks and then retreat while firing the last round at any surviving enemy tanks before hiding to reload. If there are more than five enemy tanks, they will call in support and try to reach a 1 to 5 ratio or higher if there are insufficient cover to buy time to reload while hiding from surviving enemy tanks.

The disadvantage are that the close-combat tanks are screwed if their cover is blown while reloading and bigger turret.

I could use the belt-fed ammunition clip instead, but that would require the tank to be turret-less (or if it did have a turret, it wouldn't be able to do a 360 degree turn) and would not allow the tank to switch to another type of ammunition unless if the belt is spent or replaced (which would take longer than the reload-shoot-reload-shoot concept).

Or, dual belt-fed ammunition clip, which would allow firing while replacing the dried clip and/or use two different types of ammunition at the same time. However, that would be harder to install inside a tank.

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1281971472' post='2417934']
Ohh that is a great idea for a penal/convict division. Expendable criminals used as tank fodder with maybe a chance of having their crimes dropped if they succedd. I need to look into this.
[/quote]
Those tanks better be also cannon fodder if you are jamming cannon fodders inside them. Such as cheap light tanks that have cardboard and aluminum foil armoring. Very cheap and effective in areas where there are plenty of cover. The good news is that you can crank out hundred after hundreds. The question is how much cannon fodder operators can you crank out?

Edited August 16, 2010 by HHAYD

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Drakedeath' timestamp='1281944503' post='2417716']
That's still not a burn.

The definition of burn is:
To be thoroughly humiliated or insulted to the point where you cannot return with a comeback.

courtesy of urban dictionary.
[/quote]
You'll forgive me if I don't take Urban Dictionary seriously...

[Generalissimo]

In Fizzydog's [i]Space RP Poll, Poll: Space RP allowance[/i] (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90665) thread I realized a possible form of battle technically allowed within the current CNRP rules of space combat.
[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1281942802' post='2417699']I’ve just got through with a double shift at work, but before I sleep it’s time to put forth an idea beginning at the end of my commute that may change how space and war are played in CNRP. The current rulings prevent weapons of any sort in space, but who says war requires weapons? So long as neither satellites nor the ground are influenced it’s entirely possible to engage in hand-to-hand man-powered space-combat while completely conforming to the current rule set. No lasers, guns, blades, or brass knuckles – not improvised weapons like chairs, bottles, or pillows – not even things an astronaut would logically already have like robot arms, tethers, or jetpacks – just good old fashioned fists.

Unarmed space combat without doubt is the future of warfare.[/quote] I imagine it would be difficult to inflict damage barehanded, as spacesuits are inherently protective and would likely nullify most such attacks.
What would it take to organize an effective squad of astronaut brawlers?

Edited August 17, 2010 by Generalissimo

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1282057255' post='2419617']
In Fizzydog's [i]Space RP Poll, Poll: Space RP allowance[/i] (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90665) thread I realized a possible form of battle technically allowed within the current CNRP rules of space combat.
I imagine it would be difficult to inflict damage barehanded, as spacesuits are inherently protective and would likely nullify most such attacks.
What would it take to organize an effective squad of astronaut brawlers?
[/quote]

A harpoon sort of thing ought to be handy, shooting a sharp and thick metallic object to puncture the other's suits, a squirt gun shooting some inky stuff to clog the other astronaut's visor etc.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1282058716' post='2419642']A sort of thing ought to be handy, shooting a sharp and thick metallic object to puncture the other's suits, a squirt gun shooting some inky stuff to clog the other astronaut's visor etc.[/quote] Any fighting in space would have to be done completely without weapons; unfortunately this ruling includes harpoons, sharp objects, squirt guns, and pillows.
I agree these items would be handly, but the rules are very clear about weapons in space (there can't be any).
I personally like the idea of suit-puncturing harpoons, it’s near the worst possible way to die in space.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Generalissimo

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1282059021' post='2419650']
Any fighting in space would have to be done completely without weapons; unfortunately this ruling includes harpoons, sharp objects, squirt guns, and pillows.
I agree these items would be handly, but the rules are very clear about weapons in space (there can't be any).
I personally like the idea of suit-puncturing harpoons, it’s near the worst possible way to die in space.
[/quote]

In that case, if it has to be hand to hand combat I would suggest using your momentum to fly past your opponent and yank away any exposed equipment of their suit, pull out their oxygen supply etc. More details I would come up with but let me study their suits first.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1282060815' post='2419703']In that case, if it has to be hand to hand combat I would suggest using your momentum to fly past your opponent and yank away any exposed equipment of their suit, pull out their oxygen supply etc. More details I would come up with but let me study their suits first.[/quote]Wouldn’t that give the advantage to whoever’s spacesuit has less exposed equiptment?
Expect an ensuing arms race of streamlined spacesuits as nations try to develop suits optimized for hand-to-hand combat.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Generalissimo

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1282061579' post='2419728']
Wouldn’t that give the advantage to whoever’s spacesuit has less exposed equiptment?
Expect an ensuing arms race of streamlined spacesuits as nations try to develop suits optimized for hand-to-hand combat.
[/quote]

Well, then there is still the possibility of a space based carrom games type of combat, where in each astronaut tries to propel the other in a direction towards some hazardous entity, maybe to the gravitational field of a planet, if they are in low orbit, exhaust plume of a space craft, because plain old fisticuff may not work as the suits are rather well armored as they are designed for protection against small meteorites.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1282062000' post='2419740']Well, then there is still the possibility of a space based carrom games type of combat, where in each astronaut tries to propel the other in a direction towards some hazardous entity, maybe to the gravitational field of a planet, if they are in low orbit, exhaust plume of a space craft, because plain old fisticuff may not work as the suits are rather well armored as they are designed for protection against small meteorites.[/quote] Are you suggesting space Judo? Tossing people toward the various hazards of space sounds brutal. Especially the atmosphere, if your goal is to throw someone towards a forced atmospheric reentry, no one could survive that.

[loannes]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1281984223' post='2418099']
You'll forgive me if I don't take Urban Dictionary seriously...
[/quote]

That's the definition, unless EM actually put a lighter on Triyun's arm.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

What about a hammer or a screwdriver? Those would be on board as regular tools, and you can go out and try to crack your opponent's visor with it.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1282064023' post='2419805']
What about a hammer or a screwdriver? Those would be on board as regular tools, and you can go out and try to crack your opponent's visor with it.
[/quote]
The problem is that you would fly off from the the swing, and if improperly, done, you could propel yourself into something hazardous such as a satellite or into an atmosphere re-entry.
[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1282062348' post='2419752']
Are you suggesting space Judo? Tossing people toward the various hazards of space sounds brutal. Especially the atmosphere, if your goal is to [b]throw someone towards a forced atmospheric reentry, no one could survive that.[/b]
[/quote]
A person [i]can[/i] survive an atmospheric reentry assuming their suit have very little drag and if the person fell in a correct position. Now the question is, does that person have a parachute? If not, that person is going to have to pray that he/she falls above a suitable location, such as an area with lots of snow, vegetation (not the wooden ones, those might impale you), thin glass, water, cars without reinforced roofs, and/or something that can cushion the fall.
--------
On my previous question, is it possible for my tanks to have belt-fed ammunition clips if their sole purpose is to swish-cheese enemy tanks?

Edited August 17, 2010 by HHAYD

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1282064023' post='2419805']What about a hammer or a screwdriver? Those would be on board as regular tools, and you can go out and try to crack your opponent's visor with it.[/quote]It would be, without question, effective. That depends on the GM's interpretation of weapons in space, I don't know for sure, but a tool [i]might[/i] be considered weapon.
If screwdrivers turn out to be acceptable, soon nations will field armies of astronauts tying to crack their opponent's visors with screwdrivers.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Generalissimo

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1282064670' post='2419828']
It would be, without question, effective. That depends on the GM's interpretation of weapons in space, I don't know for sure, but a tool [i]might[/i] be considered weapon.
If screwdrivers turn out to be acceptable, soon nations will field armies of astronauts tying to crack their opponent's visors with screwdrivers.
[/quote]
Astronauts are a lot harder to field than standard soldiers, the cost to train them and equip them with those ultra expensive equipments is ridiculous.

If the GMs allow armed soldier astronauts, then can we allow the usage of landmines in the space?

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1282067433' post='2419930']If the GMs allow armed soldier astronauts, then can we allow the usage of landmines in the space?[/quote]I don’t think so, if they were in space they would no longer be 'land'mines.

[Zoot Zoot]

This entire damn discussion about space warfare is silly.
Guns wont work in space because of the guns recoil, which will send you whizzing off into the unknown.

Space is MASSIVE, so laying minefields in space would be stupid, not only that but when they fall back into the earth, if they survive reentry they will explode over people.

Humans cannot survive re entry.
take a look at the shuttle when it lands which is specially designed for it.
Now you tell me a person can survive that.

No you cannot use belt felt ammunition for your tanks unless your tank is ridiculously big.

Does that end this nonsense?

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1282068664' post='2419953']This entire damn discussion about space warfare is silly.
Guns wont work in space because of the guns recoil, which will send you whizzing off into the unknown. . .

. . .Does that end this nonsense?[/quote]Zoot Zoot, I'm afraid you were clearly not paying attention to the conversation on the previous page.
While deploying minefields in space might have hudge drawbacks, that's not what we were talking about.
The rules don't ban space warefare, merely weapons in space - therefore a valid topic of coversation in this thread.
Until mines were brought up the discussion was about unarmed space combat, something still technically acceptable within the rules of CNRP.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Generalissimo

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1282068664' post='2419953']
This entire damn discussion about space warfare is silly.
Guns wont work in space because of the guns recoil, which will send you whizzing off into the unknown.

Space is MASSIVE, so laying minefields in space would be stupid, not only that but when they fall back into the earth, if they survive reentry they will explode over people.

Humans cannot survive re entry.
take a look at the shuttle when it lands which is specially designed for it.
Now you tell me a person can survive that.

No you cannot use belt felt ammunition for your tanks unless your tank is ridiculously big.

Does that end this nonsense?
[/quote]
Guns do not require air to fire bullets, the bullets already have everything needed to ignite except for the hammer strike. Recoil would be a problem, but not if you shoot in the other direction to reposition yourself.

I meant laying mines on hardened space structures (not the flimsy ISS) to discourage enemy astronauts from marching in with drill and cutting tools. If the GMs allowed the usage of stationary weapons, then the mines would be useless.

Humans CAN survive reentry, you need the proper suit to accomplish such task though, and it will be a lot more expensive if a player combined a typical spacesuit with an space dive-suit, not to mention training would take years.

For the belt-fed ammunition, I am only using 95mm and 85mm shells and that I plan on the turrets not being able to turn in a full 360 degree.

Edited August 17, 2010 by HHAYD

[Uberstein]

I need to see proof that a human can survive reentry. Re-entry is VERY HOT.

[king of cochin]

Humans cannot survive reentry. Materials for that has not been invented and I doubt they are in the pipeline to be inducted any time soon.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1282070854' post='2420002']I need to see proof that a human can survive reentry. Re-entry is VERY HOT.[/quote][quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1282071020' post='2420007']Humans cannot survive reentry. Materials for that has not been invented and I doubt they are in the pipeline to be inducted any time soon.[/quote]Human Reentry = Death

At least with our current (and near future) technologies.

[HHAYD]

Nevermind about the reentry, the article of the "Space Dive" was misleading, the jump-off spot was nowhere close to the outer space.

Anyways, would the 95mm belt-fed ammunition clip system work in a tank assuming its turret can't spin in a full 360 degree?

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1282076331' post='2420143']Anyways, would the 95mm belt-fed ammunition clip system work in a tank assuming its turret can't spin in a full 360 degree?[/quote] If there was ground crew feeding it ammunition.
A tank that can't spin it's turret and requires a full (and exposed) ground crew doesn't seem very efficient - or combat worthy.
It’s possible, for both style and flavor, but it’s more a hindrance than an advantage.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Generalissimo

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1282076689' post='2420154']
If there was ground crew feeding it ammunition.
A tank that can't spin it's turret and requires a full (and exposed) ground crew doesn't seem very efficient - or combat worthy.
It’s possible, for both style and flavor, but it’s more a hindrance than an advantage.
[/quote]
I could have the loader feed the belt ammunition, kinda like the loader that tags along with the machine gunner in most MG teams during WWII. The tank would be able to spin its turret, but it can not spin in one direction constantly without spinning the other way or it will twist the ammunition belt to the point where the cannon becomes jammed.

Edited August 17, 2010 by HHAYD