Jump to content

Leave your Fantastic Sci Fi Weapon systems at home


Gunther

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' date='05 April 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1270428184' post='2248083']
Sounds to me like it is technological claptrap> storyline.

How dull.. learn to be creative people and actually use your characters. It won't kill you.
[/quote]

This...if this is the case then why even bother to write wars. Honestly, I think its funny how much people want to have wars and stuff but when it comes down to writing it, there's nothing but numbers behind it. If what TBM is saying is true, I think we need to being thinking of how to redo war in CNRP so that this isn't the case anymore. Cause otherwise, why should we have to RP war in the first place if we already know who is going to win and who is going to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The idiocy behind that statement is baffling. Roleplaying is simply assuming a role different from the person you already are. Whether RPing war or characters doesn't matter - in both cases you're taking the role of somebody, in the case of the former you are the head of the armed forces you command. Unlike the stereotypes you fail at using, there are many of us who are creative when RPing war, and use characters while doing it. I find it suitable ironic that it is [b]Kaiser Martens[/b] who says that there are two completely different settings in CNRP despite his past writings.

[quote]I think we need to being thinking of how to redo war in CNRP so that this isn't the case anymore.[/quote]
I think this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Are you seriously suggesting that we take soldiers, tanks, ships, aircraft, and guns out of war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two problems with the OP

One, the examples given are both from the same person, who tends to overexaggerate at times anyway. Few, if any, others tend to overdo anything to that extent, and use stuff that [i]can be backed up with science that exists today.[/i]

Two...railguns are [b]NOT[/b] sci-fi. They are in existence [b][color=red]TODAY[/color][/b].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='04 April 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1270438124' post='2248317']
Two problems with the OP

One, the examples given are both from the same person, who tends to overexaggerate at times anyway. Few, if any, others tend to overdo anything to that extent, and use stuff that [i]can be backed up with science that exists today.[/i]

Two...railguns are [b]NOT[/b] sci-fi. They are in existence [b][color="red"]TODAY[/color][/b].
[/quote]
Two problems with your post

One, the examples given are both legitimate, so what you're saying here is "yes you're right but I refuse to allow you to be right so here's a weak attempt at deflecting your point".

Two...he raised a [b]LEGITIMATE[/b] question. Just because they are in existence [b][color="red"]TODAY [/color][/b][color="#000000"]d[/color][color="red"][color="#000000"]oes[/color][/color] not mean that they are actually workable on a military ship [b][color="red"]TODAY. [/color][/b][color="red"][color="#000000"]Testing builds and research that has produced positives results =/= they are capable of being used widely and in such a manner that we do now. We can't see the future and as no navy in the world has a battleship with a railgun mounted on top of it, his assertion that the railguns are impossible requires [i]actual, legitimate[/i] debate instead of childish yelling in bold and different colors.
[/color][/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='04 April 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1270438092' post='2248316']
The idiocy behind that statement is baffling. Roleplaying is simply assuming a role different from the person you already are. Whether RPing war or characters doesn't matter - in both cases you're taking the role of somebody, in the case of the former you are the head of the armed forces you command. Unlike the stereotypes you fail at using, there are many of us who are creative when RPing war, and use characters while doing it. I find it suitable ironic that it is [b]Kaiser Martens[/b] who says that there are two completely different settings in CNRP despite his past writings.


I think this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Are you seriously suggesting that we take soldiers, tanks, ships, aircraft, and guns out of war?
[/quote]
Way to take something she said completely out of context... <_<

Sargun, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. She is not saying that you take those things out, or that you completely remove the numbers. She is saying it needs to contain more, not less. In other words, numbers should have their part, but so too should the character aspect play a role. The story of the grunt, etc, like how SOM and EM did in their old war. Tell the story from the people on the front lines as WELL as the generals behind the overarching strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='04 April 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1270438720' post='2248338']
Way to take something she said completely out of context... <_<

Sargun, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. She is not saying that you take those things out, or that you completely remove the numbers. She is saying it needs to contain more, not less. In other words, numbers should have their part, but so too should the character aspect play a role. The story of the grunt, etc, like how SOM and EM did in their old war. Tell the story from the people on the front lines as WELL as the generals behind the overarching strategy.
[/quote]
If she doesn't want it taken out of context, she shouldn't say things and not clarify them.

And if we don't want to? Are you saying that because she personally likes RPing characters better, that we should force others to RP characters too?

Edited by Sargun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Subtle said...I'm not saying anything of taking out numbers or any of that, you need numbers to fight a war, you need planes and tanks and soldiers and ships. But why should I bother to fight a war when even if I use my numbers, it doesn't matter because someone can just say, I have more numbers, I have more tech, etc. and you lose. This is why I believe in planned warfare or at least semi-planned warfare so that people can concentrate less on making sure they have enough allies in a war so the odds stack up and more on creating something that people will actually want to read. To be honest, I don't really give a damn about how many men you have in your army, or how many planes you can field or any of that !@#$. I care about how the war is effecting your nation, how emotionally torn soldiers are as they fight a war. I realize that RP cannot expected to be written like that. But hey I'm agreeing with what TBM said, didn't say you didn't need numbers, just putting my opinion on paper and would find such change enjoyable. Do I think anything is going to change?. No, not at all, but it would be cool thing to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] But why should I bother to fight a war when even if I use my numbers, it doesn't matter because someone can just say, I have more numbers, I have more tech, etc. and you lose.[/quote]
Numbers and tech don't mean everything, and for the most part don't mean anything if you use them wrongly:
See: Sarnungian Republic vs. Canada and Rockport
See: Sarnungian Republic vs. Nod

[quote]To be honest, I don't really give a damn about how many men you have in your army, or how many planes you can field or any of that !@#$. I care about how the war is effecting your nation, how emotionally torn soldiers are as they fight a war.[/quote]
Good. While you're busy writing about the sob story of an emotionally torn soldier (which I've done three times already, by the way), I'll capture your capital. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='04 April 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1270438499' post='2248328']
Two problems with your post

One, the examples given are both legitimate, so what you're saying here is "yes you're right but I refuse to allow you to be right so here's a weak attempt at deflecting your point".

Two...he raised a [b]LEGITIMATE[/b] question. Just because they are in existence [b][color="red"]TODAY [/color][/b][color="#000000"]d[/color][color="red"][color="#000000"]oes[/color][/color] not mean that they are actually workable on a military ship [b][color="red"]TODAY. [/color][/b][color="red"][color="#000000"]Testing builds and research that has produced positives results =/= they are capable of being used widely and in such a manner that we do now. We can't see the future and as no navy in the world has a battleship with a railgun mounted on top of it, his assertion that the railguns are impossible requires [i]actual, legitimate[/i] debate instead of childish yelling in bold and different colors.
[/color][/color]
[/quote]
Yes, the examples are legitimate. Did I ever deny that? Read my post again, you'll find I did not. What I am saying is that if he wants to prove his point, he needs to find examples from several different people, not just concentrate on one guy. Learn to read.

Two, I never said his question wasn't legitimate...but I never said the tech that exists TODAY is workable on a military ship TODAY. Again, learn to read. We are operating on slightly future tech, meaning we are going to be operating slightly (gasp) in the future tech-wise. It is perfecly plausible to assume something that works today will have a lot of the kinks worked out by 2020.

And the only one who is yelling childishly here is you. Not IAT, not Gunther, not me, but you. Unlike you I am trying to engage in debate, not insult the other person's intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps RPing actual characters is not for everyone. What I would suggest instead (and what I thought Sarah was getting at) is having more depth to your 'numbers' posts. In many cases wars and battles are fought by saying how many troops you move where and how many missiles etc you fire during a battle. There isnt alot there that makes for an interesting read to uninvolved members of the community.

I dont RP from the perspective of individual soldiers often (though I will if my opponent does) but I do try and include more detail about what Im doing in my movements and battles, be that providing snapshots of what is happeneing in the field or giving the reader a seat at the general's table as he discusses the coming battle and strategy with his or her commanders.

While some people like Sarah may enjoy telling the story of a private or lieutenant as they progress through a campaign, that is not the style of RP that everyone enjoys. What I think everyone can do is include more detail, or just put more thought and effort into their war posts. Barebones war posts are dull, but even just a little detail can liven the whole thing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='04 April 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1270439442' post='2248355']
Yes, the examples are legitimate. Did I ever deny that? Read my post again, you'll find I did not. What I am saying is that if he wants to prove his point, he needs to find examples from several different people, not just concentrate on one guy. Learn to read.

Two, I never said his question wasn't legitimate...but I never said the tech that exists TODAY is workable on a military ship TODAY. Again, learn to read. We are operating on slightly future tech, meaning we are going to be operating slightly (gasp) in the future tech-wise. It is perfecly plausible to assume something that works today will have a lot of the kinks worked out by 2020.

And the only one who is yelling childishly here is you. Not IAT, not Gunther, not me, but you. Unlike you I am trying to engage in debate, not insult the other person's intelligence.
[/quote]
I'm going to request this only once: calm down or stop replying to me. Your nasty tone is really rude.

I did read your post, and not anywhere did you ever say anything that you have said in this post. All you said was that his examples (which you acknowledge were legitimate) came from one person. Yes, they did, because those were the two examples that were on his doorstep ready to engage his troops. There have been many examples from many different people (myself, Sumeragi, LVN, Lynneth) of things being used or developed that are impossible, and you should know that better than most people as you've been here a very long time.

If it's workable on a military ship today, why has it never been done?

Edited by Sargun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A war may be composed of the stories of various characters, but the outcomes of the war is always dependent on numbers, tactics and technologies used. The story of a grunt in the front line, though with immense character RP potential does not usually affect the outcome of a war. Some people like to RP it, well and good, their choice. That does not mean that has to be the rule.

As regards the present RP war, I can only stress that tactics need to be given more predominance than sheer numbers or tech. Just because a nation has 1/10th the NS, and 1/100th tech does not mean it would be trounced in a war. Case in point : Teutoburg Forest Disaster.

As regards points Gunther raised, valid or not valid, there is a community oriented system here in CNRP. For any change that has to be effected, it has to be a community decision. You cannot just demand and claim for one thing to be changed because you do not like it. Campaign for it amongst the community, argue it, rise it as an issue (like this) and try to get a consensus.

As regards railguns and futuristic systems, I refuse to have them deleted. It is an existing technology, and we are not following max 2010, we are following a max 2020 timeline. Like Lynneth, almost all of my systems have extensive RP backgrounds, in fact I am one of the few people here who have technologically elaborated on my rail guns, putting in hours of research to devise a good configuration, and not just going, "LOL dongs, 3000 tech and now I have rail guns. Whooosh!!!"

There are people who do that, well they cannot be blamed for not having the necessary technical expertise. Not everyone has a science / military background.

So as regards your neighbor's unreasonable weapons, talk to them, perhaps you can convince them of their technologies, if they refuse you can always approach a GM and inform about your neighbor's impossible weapon systems. I am sure that they would only be elated to shoot down instances of Mach9+ manned bombers with tonnes of ammunition!! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='04 April 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1270438499' post='2248328']
Two problems with your post

One, the examples given are both legitimate, so what you're saying here is "yes you're right but I refuse to allow you to be right so here's a weak attempt at deflecting your point".

Two...he raised a [b]LEGITIMATE[/b] question. Just because they are in existence [b][color="red"]TODAY [/color][/b][color="#000000"]d[/color][color="red"][color="#000000"]oes[/color][/color] not mean that they are actually workable on a military ship [b][color="red"]TODAY. [/color][/b][color="red"][color="#000000"]Testing builds and research that has produced positives results =/= they are capable of being used widely and in such a manner that we do now. We can't see the future and as no navy in the world has a battleship with a railgun mounted on top of it, his assertion that the railguns are impossible requires [i]actual, legitimate[/i] debate instead of childish yelling in bold and different colors.
[/color][/color]
[/quote]

There is only one problem with your post. Forget about [b][color="#ff0000"]TODAY[/color][/b]. There never was a limit in CNRP up until [b][color="#ff0000"]TODAY[/color][/b], it is up until 2025. While it would be somewhat easier gauge one's military capabilities via real world machines and technologies, this board will undoubtedly contain a 'fantasy' element to it being the kind it is. The question is whether or not extreme technologies and machines like the ones mentioned above should be allowed. While Gunther will shoot down super flying fortresses, he has openly evidenced that he 'allows' (this does not imply he has authority one way or the other, however) things that are 'based' (I use that sparingly) on real world contemporary examples, my Ripper, for instance.

There is a fine line between plausible and retarded. We must work together as a community, <insert inane hippy-speak here, etc, etc> to define these boundaries. Again, with my Ripper.
Sure, I've based it off of components and characteristics present in real life, but i've also taken liberties with it. Liberties that I openly (well, if I haven't displayed it now, consider it open) attributed to advancements in technology that would 'theoretically' be present some 15 odd years or so from now. For instance, I've RPd the rifle is heavy, comparable to a squad automatic weapon, but that is to counteract the cartridge it fires and the RPM the weapon achieves. Nevertheless, there's a reason there is no weapon on the market the supposed size of the Ripper that fires 7.62 x 51mm, and at the RPM I've posted. While heavier weapons negate recoil somewhat, you'd need a really heavy one to counteract the recoil my baby's got, definitely too heavy to be a standard issue assault rifle. Ergo, that's where I take my liberties.

Railguns may damn well be impossible 15 years from now, but they're not in CNRP. People have taken liberties, liberties that have been accepted by the community for some reason or another. Extending the limitations to the future gives people a bit of leeway, like this. Gunther's issue seems to be a reflection of the status quo we have going here, only with a particular reference to railguns. Both are subject to a 'referendum' if opponents of these things really must press the issue further.

Edited by Executive Minister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='04 April 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1270439419' post='2248354']
Numbers and tech don't mean everything, and for the most part don't mean anything if you use them wrongly:
See: Sarnungian Republic vs. Canada and Rockport
See: Sarnungian Republic vs. Nod


Good. While you're busy writing about the sob story of an emotionally torn soldier (which I've done three times already, by the way), I'll capture your capital. :P
[/quote]

Sorry for double post.

Care to elaborate on that? While I did try to maintain my norm with regards to warring with you, I definitely tried your 'throwing numbers around' approach.

EDIT:

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1270440515' post='2248471']
There is only one problem with your post. Forget about [color="#ff0000"][b]2025[/b][/color]. There never was a limit in CNRP up until [color="#ff0000"][b]2025[/b][/color], it is up until 2020.
[/quote]

[quote]
...the examples given are both legitimate, so what you're saying here is "yes you're right but I refuse to allow you to be right so here's a weak attempt at deflecting your point".
[/quote]

Edited by Executive Minister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='04 April 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1270440650' post='2248482']
Sorry for double post.

Care to elaborate on that? While I did try to maintain my norm with regards to warring with you, I definitely tried your 'throwing numbers around' approach.
[/quote]

For part one: I didn't use overwhelming numbers, and you were so annoying I ended up not destroying you utterly.

For part two: You said 2025 when the real number is 2020. That's not a weak attempt at deflecting your post, that's a direct, factual refutation of your false assertion. If you think that the date is 2025, you're absolutely wrong. If all of your things are based off of 2025 tech, none of them are allowable because the real number is 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='04 April 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1270439665' post='2248365']
I'm going to request this only once: calm down or stop replying to me. Your nasty tone is really rude.

I did read your post, and not anywhere did you ever say anything that you have said in this post. All you said was that his examples (which you acknowledge were legitimate) came from one person. Yes, they did, because those were the two examples that were on his doorstep ready to engage his troops. There have been many examples from many different people (myself, Sumeragi, LVN, Lynneth) of things being used or developed that are impossible, and you should know that better than most people as you've been here a very long time.

If it's workable on a military ship today, why has it never been done?
[/quote]
I did not say it is workable today, I said it's is plausible that it wold be workable in the future.

As for your earlier paragraph, point, i didn't say that, but neither did I say what you implied I had with your previous post.

As for being nasty, I'm sorry if you interpret my words as rude...but you do the same thing to others. How does it feel, hmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1270438499' post='2248328']
Two...he raised a [b]LEGITIMATE[/b] question. Just because they are in existence [b][color="red"]TODAY [/color][/b][color="#000000"]d[/color][color="red"][color="#000000"]oes[/color][/color] not mean that they are actually workable on a military ship [b][color="red"]TODAY. [/color][/b][color="red"][color="#000000"]Testing builds and research that has produced positives results =/= they are capable of being used widely and in such a manner that we do now. We can't see the future and as no navy in the world has a battleship with a railgun mounted on top of it, his assertion that the railguns are impossible requires [i]actual, legitimate[/i] debate instead of childish yelling in bold and different colors.
[/color][/color]
[/quote]

It's a long established precedent that first world tech can utilize technologies presently in testing and experimental phases. So while yes its debatable whether rail guns will actually be mainstream in 2020, thats overridden by the unwritten exception to the rules.

That being said, there is no way to really know what will come in the next ten years. The argument presumes that the United States (or really the alliance of western academics/scientific institutes/corporations/governments of the west) is the most efficient possible model for generating technological innovations and systems. In many cases however the political and economic system tends to discourage major of fundamental shifts in the status quo. Theoretically a devoted and intelligent regime could get development that would normally take 50 years done in 10 years. In the same way setting the tech cap at 2020 may be a bit outdated as CN wonders include mars/moon bases/colonies/mines which are all probably beyond what will be actually accomplished in the next 10 years. (At some point that will have to be pushed up 2-5 years anyway to preserve what it originally was).

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='04 April 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1270441861' post='2248545']
I did not say it is workable today, I said it's is plausible that it wold be workable in the future.

As for your earlier paragraph, point, i didn't say that, but neither did I say what you implied I had with your previous post.

As for being nasty, I'm sorry if you interpret my words as rude...but you do the same thing to others. How does it feel, hmm?
[/quote]

You said they exist today. Because they are not in use on military ships yet and we are [b]using fiction and science together to create a hypothetical scenario[/b], technically railguns are sci-fi. Your point is moot.

And I don't even know what your second sentence means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='iamthey' date='04 April 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1270441924' post='2248547']
Its a long established precedent that first world tech can utilize technologies presently in testing and experimental phases. So while yes its debatable whether rail guns will actually be mainstream in 2020, thats overridden by the unwritten exception to the rules.

That being said, there is no way to really know what will come in the next ten years. Development will obviously be more delayed IRL given than our economic and political systems discourage rapid change and fundamental shifts in the status quo, but theoretically a devoted and intelligent regime could get development that would normally take 50 years done in 10 years. In the same way setting the tech cap at 2020 may be a bit outdated as CN wonders include mars/moon bases/colonies/mines which are all probably beyond what will be actually accomplished in the next 10 years. (At some point that will have to be pushed up 2-5 years anyway to preserve what it originally was).
[/quote]
There is no precedent that technologies presently in testing and experimental phases can be used. There is a precedent that technologies presently in testing and experimental stages that we can reasonably guess can be effectively used by 2020 can be utilized. We're testing and experimenting with invisibility on tanks, but we can't use it because there is no reason, not a single shred of evidence or reasoning, that it can be done by 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was trying to say also is that, in the end, it doesn't matter if things remain as they are or are changed, in the end, nations with higher tech will always have stronger equipment even if they would RP having the same things others have when it comes to war, so discussing this won't probably change much, only that the troops that slaughter your guys will be less "flashy"...I guess I could argue that RP war should be RP'd better, and that as it had been mentioned in another thread, judges should exist, but there's so many opinions here that it seems not to worth the effort to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 05:37 AM' timestamp='1270442235' post='2248563']
There is no precedent that technologies presently in testing and experimental phases can be used. There is a precedent that technologies presently in testing and experimental stages that we can reasonably guess can be effectively used by 2020 can be utilized. We're testing and experimenting with invisibility on tanks, but we can't use it because there is no reason, not a single shred of evidence or reasoning, that it can be done by 2020.
[/quote]


Have we actually produced an invisible tank: not to my knowledge. Have we produced a working rail gun: yes. Is the current development of the rail gun such that an interested nation with the right resources could pour money into working out its bugs: probably. I'm not sure what the implication of your effort here is. If you are aiming to invalidate rail guns that is essentially wiping a weapon that has been in place for about a year and that over half of the community is engaged in, its probably not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='iamthey' date='04 April 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1270442620' post='2248588']
Have we actually produced an invisible tank: not to my knowledge. Have we produced a working rail gun: yes. Is the current development of the rail gun such that an interested nation with the right resources could pour money into working out its bugs: probably. I'm not sure what the implication of your effort here is. If you are aiming to invalidate rail guns that is essentially wiping a weapon that has been in place for about a year and that over half of the community is engaged in, its probably not going to happen.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you implying that I'm implying railguns should be wiped? Because that's not what I'm implying. I'm implying that just because something is in testing and we [b]think[/b] it can be done in ten years doesn't mean it can, and so Gunther has a legitimate right to question it. If he can prove reasonable doubt as to why something won't be used in the field by 2020 (note [b]in the field[/b]), and we cannot prove otherwise, it should not be used.

By the way, just because railguns have been in RP for a year and a half... well, it doesn't mean !@#$. We had Knightmares and Rods from God for at least a year before they got banned, probably two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of railguns either tbh. I am of the opinion that the people who operate such things should, at the very least, be plagued by accidents, misfires, and such, due to the experimental nature of such weapons. but that won't happen, because everyone rp's their tech as being perfect and flawless all the time.

*sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...