SpacingOutMan Posted April 10, 2010 Report Share Posted April 10, 2010 (edited) Or... Take the initial 50 as "specialized" cruise missiles and make an equation it for normal cruise missiles. CM# = [Tech. Level]/([Citizen Pop.]/[Infra.]) For Lynneth, for instance, he has: CM# = [7625.29] / ([174476] / [17000.99]) CM# = 743.01 ~ 743 For me, CM# = [4,668.63] / ([110210] / [12000.00]) CM# = 508.33 ~ 508 The United States keeps something like 1500, but just an idea. (That number is based off of the cruise missile numbers from http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html). Edited April 10, 2010 by SpacingOutMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted April 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2010 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='10 April 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1270939142' post='2255860'] Or... Take the initial 50 as "specialized" cruise missiles and make an equation it for normal cruise missiles. CM# = [Tech. Level]/([Citizen Pop.]/[Infra.]) For Lynneth, for instance, he has: CM# = [7625.29] / ([174476] / [17000.99]) CM# = 743.01 ~ 743 For me, CM# = [4,668.63] / ([110210] / [12000.00]) CM# = 508.33 ~ 508 The United States keeps something like 1500, but just an idea. (That number is based off of the cruise missile numbers from [url="http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html%29."]http://nuclearweapon.../Wpngall.html).[/url] [/quote] We don't need more formulas that people will just ignore. Most people won't use 500 cruise missiles at once, which is why keeping normal cruise missiles at the vague "reasonable" level just fine. Besides, we're good about keeping that together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted April 11, 2010 Report Share Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) Yeah no more formulas, no one pays attention to them. Edited April 11, 2010 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted April 13, 2010 Report Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Here's an idea, do what I did for sea crawlers and RP their manufacture at a realistic arms production rate. I assumed 50 sea-crawlers per day through mass production/assembly and produced them for well over a year straight. That's why there is such an immense number of sea-crawlers in the Australian sub-continent region making any real invasion in the region against friendlies of their controllers a bit on the suicidal side. Sea Web initial creation date: (12/13/2008 realtime). Initial Deployment Location: Tasmania. Later Launch sites: India, Antarctica (south of S.America). Current Potential Perimeter size: National waters of the Queendom of Australia Current Deployment size: 5625 Missiles ##At least, this is the # known to the public## Deployment and manufacture rate: 50-75/day during the implementation phase. Torpedo Stage Range: Unlimited at 5knots or by magnetic tow. Mind you these were produced at the height of the Dragon Empire when industrial limitations weren't such a concern. Right now it'd be hard to produce more than 5-10/day given current conditions of Tasmania. Mind you these are all conventional arms used for multiple purposes. You're not going to have nowhere near the same production capability for non-conventional arms. This is why I favor the 50 'special warhead' limit based on IG limitations for non-nuclear WMD. Edited April 13, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted April 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) edit for a moment Edited April 14, 2010 by Voodoo Nova 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.