Jump to content

Reality Appeal II

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What do you refer as uber weapons developments? If you are refering to planes like i have published today I can tell you that it is a fact that the US government is experimenting with this kind of planes in co-operation with Boeing since 1996

Link to comment

Maybe, but all I every said was I had a large navy. I do not use nuclear weapons (nor ever threaten them. Actually, I never make quite clear whether I have them or not, I don't think), and I do not have a large standing army or air force.


I haven't really noticed any uber weapons recently (no large nuclear threats, or massive missile attack, or anything like that). Just large military powers. Perhaps that is where we, as a region, should tone it down.

Link to comment

I have a small nuclear threat to the north of my natiosn with my phalkland threats thing, but so far it's only roumers and sightings. In the end there are no actual nuclear warheads. Incase your woundering.

Link to comment

Alright, I admit my company may be researching some minor future-tech. Once in a while I notice something new, and if I think it fits my nation then I say I'm either producing or developing it.


But that doesn't mean I'm actually going to use it on a large scale. I don't see anyone attacking someone else with a massive fleet of stealth ships, or filling the sky with mach-10 superfighters.


I think there is a little bit of a problem with what some of the players want, and what they are actually doing/using.

Link to comment

Italgria, in the past, there have been some cases of "uber weapons" buildups that have all of a sudden come out and the scale of things getting drastically blown up.


I hope no one then minds my next RP. I was thinking of some future-tech. It was supposed to be a leak of a project, and then I'm supposed to work out some of the problems. One of which is that it is highly unrealistic to carry out on any huge scale. Like Orioni said...

Link to comment

The only really super modern weapon I have is this and it's not really all that futuristic, just big.


user posted image


It's a large scale transport/bomber, but all its really doing right now is sitting in hanger near the Accran border. And before anyone asks, I have mentioned that it was under development and that I had Ide Jiman assitance in making it.


The only other thing that you might consider too future tech is the Wyvern fighter I've mentioned in a few threads, really nothing more than a ultra streamlined fighter craft.


user posted image

Edited by Vocenae (see edit history)
Link to comment

Well, my guess would be that Aki didn't only think about super-tech like the mentioned mach-10-fighters but the amount of nations that have a better military than the current superpower of this planet: The United States of America.


As far as I know, only a tiny number of F/A-22s have been deployed within the USAF. The F-35 is still not ready and only 21 or so B-2 bombers have been built. The number of F-117 is also not very high, deployment of troops take months and I guess that there are less than 20 supercarriers operational on this planet.


If we look at the nations in our region, many outnumber and outperform the US. Fleets of F/A-22s and F-35s dominate the sky, dozens of supercarriers are swimming on our oceans and extreme numbers of troops are deployed within days.


I don't have a problem with future tech, I really don't. The Tamurin Luftwaffe has a couple of X-45 unmanned bombers in service which aren't operational in the real world either. But the point is, I only have a couple of them, like twenty or so - not several dozens or hundrets of them, and they have weaknesses because they're so new.


I urge everybody to step on the breaks regarding such modern/post-modern technology. Limit the use; decrease the numbers; add problems that come with new technology, weaknesses; specialize the use for one purpose and decrease the effectiveness for another (for example: My X-45s have limited range and are only useful for tactical bombardment with conventional weapons; they can't be used for nuclear weapons or for strategic bombardement).

Link to comment

I only have one of the bomber I posted, makes it unique, which is sorta the way I wanted it. Most likely I'll never use it for military purposes, more or less just for show and intimidation tactics. As for the Wyverns, I have sixteen of those. two four man squadrons on my Tinian carrier and two squadrons at my airbase near the Accran border.


The rest of my airforce is made of of mostly old Eagles and similar older aircraft.


But I see your point, Tam. Perhaps if we re-define and place more limits on the use of tech levels? And I think having a pro/con list on new weapons and tech is a good idea.

Link to comment

Indeed, I have recently been changing my order of battle as the old one is too heavily reliant on uber developments.


Whilst F-22s (there's no /A any more, they changed the designation) serve in my airforce, along with several other indigenous developments of a similar calibre, they only do so in very small numbers. When it comes to fighter aircraft, my nation is now mostly reliant on F-5Es and F-15s.


I'm thinking about introducing a new aircraft which is similar in performance to an F-16. So that it can have a cool new name, but not be a godmod.

Link to comment

That's the spirit, guys!


Super-weapons with limits are really fun. I don't think we need to add new rules, just remember to open a possibility for your opponents. Something like this:


- My X-45 bomber has stealthy appearence, but is still visible. If you know what to look for, you'll find it. It's only useful for short-range tactical bombardement. Something far out won't be harmed. It's unmanned, thus meaning very, very bad in air-to-air-combat. Even a F-86 "Sabre" would easily win this.


Real-life examples:

- A B-2 bomber is stealthy and powerful. But it's so expensive that you can only buy a very limited number and that you have to cut back on other projects.

- B-2 bombers are very useful for strategic bombardement. However, their ability for tactical support is near zero. An ordinary F-16 or A-10 is much more useful in that role.

- B-2 bombers have high maintenance requirements.


- A supercarrier is a very powerful ship and can strike very hard with its Air Wing. However, it is very weak and vulnerable when attacked by another ship with anti-ship-weapons. It totally depends on its carrier group support vessels (cruisers, frigates, destroyers). Twenty old Exocet rockets would easily kill a lonely supercarrier. Their weakness lies in their dependence on other ships.

- A supercarrier is extremely expensive and has really high maintenance cost. It's also impossible to hide movements of supercarriers, because if they move, an entire fleet moves.




If we could incorportate such "weaknesses" and specializations to our super-weapons, there would still be a game balance.

Link to comment

My bomber has long range capability since it also acts as a transport, but it is a fuel hog and moneyhole, like your X-45 Tam, couldn't stand up to much if it was caught off guard without a strong escort contingent.


Wyverns are very fast and manuverable, but are only slight above average for combat and defense.


My naval and ground forces are similar to the U.S.'s, only minimalized. About if you'd reduced it by a third or so.

Edited by Vocenae (see edit history)
Link to comment

My main super weapon is probably the Basileus battleship, which is, to all intents and purposes, a huge missile cruiser. It was orginially designed to be an answer to the Akiiryan Titan-class battleship, which I gather is basically the same thing. It's a powerful ship, but the class has suffered computer glitches in the past which caused a Basileus to launch a missile at a friendly vessel, and could conceiveably feature them again. It's not as vulnerable to aircraft as the battleships of old, but that doesn't mean it's invulnerable to them. Basically, they can still be shot apart by aircraft and missiles. Loosing one of them would be a huge blow to the fairly weak Tagmatine navy.


My only fancy bomber is the "Hephaestus" bomber, a re-hash of the Arvo Vulcan, only newer so it won't fall apart when it takes off.


If I use a fighter, I'll probably give it a similar Greek/Latin name, but it would be a standard jet fighter of today.


I've no clue about the types of aircraft used in the modern day. Or any other time.

Edited by Tagmatium Rules (see edit history)
Link to comment

I use some hi-tech stuff in my military. But my excuse is my military is so tiny which alows it to pay for such elaberate stuff. Our docterine is. Have a small well trained, well prepered, and well equipt force. So with such a small combat force, it's easy for our larger supply and engineer branchs, to fix and maintain the cream of the crop.


It also slashes costs when you only have to cater for 80 fighter aircraft, rather than 500. Our most elaberate force is our tank corps, which is split into two sections, light and main battle tanks, each with a sizable number of tanks, 150 challanger 2's and 75 stingrays. but thats the largest part of our military, the armoured vehicle end of the scale.


He's another example, involving my air force. The US air force has put and order in for 350 F/A 22 aircraft. Yet my air force only has 80 fighter aircraft in total, that includes diffrent types, and my nations population is over 2 billion.


To be hounist, I realy can not see the need for masses of military. Due to the fact, only about 25% of it will be in action while th rest sitts and rots realy. You might as well only have the amount you need, and use it all, rather than have masses of stockpiled or extra military. I mean, if your over streached, thats were your reserves come in right?


Thats my view. Tiny military, with the best and most advanced equiptment, best training, and most supplies.

Link to comment

Yes. We have the Territorial Army, which acts as territorials/reservists. But we also have a reserve corps, for certin specialised regiments. But the reservists are only a small group, and they use similar equiptment to the front line troops.


While the terrirorials are more under equipt compaired to the front line troops. For example, the territorials use the IWS but not the MR-C1 and XM8 like the front line troops. The Territorials IWS is more similar to the german Infantryman of the Future system rather than the US Land Warrior system, which the IWS is based on.

Link to comment

Not to mention the fact that it would be incredibly expensive for nations to have sizeable deployments in more than one place at once - my main IC reason for not wiping Tarragat off the face of the planet wink.gif

Awww, is Haken Rider giving you a hard time. Boohoo.



I do have one objection to all this. You must not always compare to the exact real world. The USA may not have all the equiptment and manpower, but they do have the potential. Potential they aren't going to use entirely for fighting an enemy like Iraq, but they would use it when there is a real threat. A matched foe. And that's exactly what's happening in Europa. Everyone keeping big forces, because in europa, you actually use them, a lot. And many times fighting big nations.

Edited by Haken (see edit history)
Link to comment

  • Create New...