On Efficiency

[Owned-You]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='06 June 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1275850451' post='2326543']
2015... 2020... 2025... 2030... 2035... etc.
[/quote]

Yeah, but who's to say what we'll be able to do by 2035...We could have mechs for all I know.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='06 June 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1275851513' post='2326566']
Yeah, but who's to say what we'll be able to do by 2035...We could have mechs for all I know.
[/quote]

My point was to point out the inherent flaw. We need to rely more so on creativity instead of what is/isn't foreseen in the next decade. Of course this needs to be within the realms of scientific limit, but (for instance) auto-loading rail guns are already currently used. The application of said weapons won't be seen on a large scale until (earliest) 2020-2025. Yet we use it now, all the while people (or at least some) consciously RP out their development; I am of the thought process that if it is feasible, and it is RPed out, it should be allowed. The higher your tech, then, the higher your ability to customize certain aspects of different technologies (military isn't the only RP you know).

[Owned-You]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='06 June 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1275854181' post='2326641']
My point was to point out the inherent flaw. We need to rely more so on creativity instead of what is/isn't foreseen in the next decade. Of course this needs to be within the realms of scientific limit, but (for instance) auto-loading rail guns are already currently used. The application of said weapons won't be seen on a large scale until (earliest) 2020-2025. Yet we use it now, all the while people (or at least some) consciously RP out their development; I am of the thought process that if it is feasible, and it is RPed out, it should be allowed. The higher your tech, then, the higher your ability to customize certain aspects of different technologies (military isn't the only RP you know).
[/quote]

I see your point, but that raises the question. When does creativity bleed into nonsensical fantasy, and when does it stay within reality. I think we'd be treading a tight-rope between the two if we leave to eachother to think of new things. For instance, Auto-loading rail-guns is a realistic concession but at what point do these auto-loaders begin to become a bit to quick to load? That's the gray area and the problem...as then we'll have to begin defending and debating a plethora of creations with capabilities outside our RL tech level. Meaning, we'd argue in circles about what if's and could be's as opposed to cold hard facts.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='06 June 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1275868288' post='2326955']
I see your point, but that raises the question. When does creativity bleed into nonsensical fantasy, and when does it stay within reality. I think we'd be treading a tight-rope between the two if we leave to eachother to think of new things. For instance, Auto-loading rail-guns is a realistic concession but at what point do these auto-loaders begin to become a bit to quick to load? That's the gray area and the problem...as then we'll have to begin defending and debating a plethora of creations with capabilities outside our RL tech level. Meaning, we'd argue in circles about what if's and could be's as opposed to cold hard facts.
[/quote]

Well, in this example basic physics can be argued that the natural limitations, given a simple system, would be less than ten per minute. An auto-loading system would be able to (approx.) double it so that you could have a rate of 20 shots per minute. For these types of these things, I know there are many people who play CNRP that know basic limitations of these sort of things. Already we have the tech thread which gets used, just to point out how this is already working to a sense. Most of the theoretical stuff has physics regardless, so you couldn't (for instance) have a flying tank or a jet fighter moving at M10. People would be limited to the resources currently known (since making some material up would be inherent God-modding unless the community were to completely accept it).

[Owned-You]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='06 June 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1275875670' post='2327134']
Well, in this example basic physics can be argued that the natural limitations, given a simple system, would be less than ten per minute. An auto-loading system would be able to (approx.) double it so that you could have a rate of 20 shots per minute. For these types of these things, I know there are many people who play CNRP that know basic limitations of these sort of things. Already we have the tech thread which gets used, just to point out how this is already working to a sense. Most of the theoretical stuff has physics regardless, so you couldn't (for instance) have a flying tank or a jet fighter moving at M10. People would be limited to the resources currently known (since making some material up would be inherent God-modding unless the community were to completely accept it).
[/quote]

Aye, I suppose your right that we can create some things as long as there within some reason.

[Triyun]

Not too beat a dead horse, but.... I would like to point out that the B-52 is scheduled to be in service in 2040. The big problem I have with moving the tech scale forward is people base it on what technology could theoretically be in the prototype stage if cost was not an issue, rather than what one can practically expect. I personally think that by increasing the tech scale your inviting more and more abuse of technology, while not seeing its practical limitations.

My view is that this is inherently unfair, as that people who use technologies that are somewhat proven today, people can find weaknesses, theoretical tech involves mere speculation and can well devolve into he said she said. Everyone remembers LVNs !@#$ which was based pretty much on theory and the ability to say "this may work" without any real appreciation for what is practical. This leads to arguments over whether you can have ships that travel 300 km/h while shooting unstoppable kinetic energy missiles, rather than "is it at all likely these would be built?"

[SpacingOutMan]

Again, I said feasible and within reason; that doesn't necessarily include strictly theoretical stuff, which is also why I duly noted the example of futuristic materials. If it doesn't exist today, or the development of said idea has little to not practical research done, then it shouldn't be allowed. How does one check to see if something has any practical research? It's called google, or wikipedia if you'd prefer that. I, for one, pride my self on my knowledge of shipping since, well, I grew up on large craft boats for my entire life. I even dedicated my summer when I was 16 to helping out on my uncle's ferry service, along with building a few boats with my uncle (family friend, not a blood uncle) who was a naval engineer for the Coast Guard for a good amount of time.

On the other hand, ask me about aircraft and I can only tell you the common knowledge stuff; Sargun (I believe) knows much more about it than I do, save for maybe the physics, but the physics I understand are theoretical and not application-based in terms of practicality.

And then Lynneth knows his tanks and weaponry, so he'd be another good person to go to.

There is ITDA, who has time and time again shown he knows a !@#$load of stuff, especially the inner-workings of certain Californian cities.

And I could keep going with a compiled list of people who have a good grasp of different venues of 'guides', per se. I would like to see more involvement and innovation come from the actual community as opposed to wiki-regurgitating, and I know I am culpable of doing this as well.

[Triyun]

LVN's stuff was based in large part on wiki. No offense, I would bet I have the best IRL contacts as far as defense industry and government goes here. I can tell you that much of this stuff is based on pure speculation and research is often done not based on what is practical but rather on what congressional district a project is located in (yes a lot of this is done outside silicon valley too). Anyone can throw names around and pretend to have some insiders knowledge. I've seen the procurement process first hand, I can tell you that you can find research going on anywhere into these technologies. That does not mean that they are anywhere near being implemented.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Triyun' date='07 June 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1275940597' post='2328025']
LVN's stuff was based in large part on wiki. No offense, I would bet I have the best IRL contacts as far as defense industry and government goes here. I can tell you that much of this stuff is based on pure speculation and research is often done not based on what is practical but rather on what congressional district a project is located in (yes a lot of this is done outside silicon valley too). Anyone can throw names around and pretend to have some insiders knowledge. I've seen the procurement process first hand, I can tell you that you can find research going on anywhere into these technologies. That does not mean that they are anywhere near being implemented.
[/quote]

I understand that (amidst the debate on IRC as well), and that's why I specifically states application practical; being solely theoretical and being in the blueprint stage, for instance, is not application practical. That's my point. As I said, there a bunch of people who have some sort of skill sets or knowledge of a wide range of subjects, so even if you get politically charged research in one area, if it hasn't been adequately tested with results, then it is still a moot point. Likewise, if you taken modern specs and make those a maximum (perhaps), that would allow for more customization and optimization as well, but that deters creativity nonetheless because you have an ultra-limit that, to be perfectly honest, leaves modern optimization not possible. It also deters creativity on a whole: "hurr durr I have F-22s like everyone else". Yea, that's [i]real[/i] exciting.

[Triyun]

I think fielding other stealth fighters on or slightly above par of the F-22 is fine. I have that myself. I do not necessarily though think that one should go too out of what is proven. One should think what is actually serviceable in 2025, not what is in the prototype phase in 2025. Maybe it is because I've been in more CN RP wars than almost anyone else, so I know what it looks like when people abuse the system and use plenty of references to claim god weapons. There was a time when people had a lot less restrictions on tech, and things ended up getting way out of hand.

[Silhouette]

I on the other hand like to mix it up, and don't include F-22s at all. If i have to explain my tech advantage, I will simply put it down to better training, or improved sensory equipment, etc etc. The F-22 is a good plane for sure, but it is not a catch all solution to the variable situations in modern combat. sometimes, the simpler option is required. Not to mention the cost. Of course, when we don't have economies, nobody puts in any effort. perhaps instead of having numbers, people could just say 'what can my nation reasonably support at its current size and development' and act appropriately. I also know some people neither have the time nor the inclination to research, and that is fine sometimes too. In closing, I just wish people used a bit more imagination, as opposed to the current approach of using what is considered to be the best fighter aircraft in the world by many. (I dispute that personally, but w/e)

You may have noticed that my rant had very little objective purpose, which was in fact the point. It was simply a rant for the sake of ranting.

Enjoy your day.

[Subtleknifewielder]

heheh, eloquent as always, Sil.

[Triyun]

Your point is correct as far as non-traditional and low tech long wars Sil. Thats why I invest in a larger AC-130 fleet which is incredibly effective in loitering and providing fire support for troops. In high tech, stealth is 95% probably the game changer, even non-stealth fighters are focusing on reduced cross section profiles. Levels of stealth vary depending on whether your seeking an expeditionary capability or defensive.

Personally as far as training goes, I recognize people who use their airforces and RP exercises as being better trained, rather than tech alone. I would rather have an Israeli F-16 as my wingman or American F-15 C pilot than a Typhoon pilot from some European countries.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Triyun

[Silhouette]

To be fair, the Luftwaffe and the RAF have fantastic training, even if they lack some experience. I do understand what you are getting at, I'm just pedantic

In my case, I am in the top tech tier, and make said choices wilfully, in pursuit of realism.

[Triyun]

I'd like to push for some sort of resolution on Tech Efficiency. Perhaps a referendum of sorts to resolve this issue.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I do not feel a change is needed. It is [i]supposed[/i] to allow for good RP to get around tech. Anyone who uses 'loltech' as justification to ignore the RP is abusing the system.