NationStates Jolt Archive

What Godmoding Is (New Version)

Euroslavia

23-10-2004, 06:41

NOTE: This, like all stickies, does not represent 'the rules.' If you and the people you RP with enjoy yourselves outside these rules and within the game rules, good for you. This is an attempt to compile general rules as used by the 'mainstream' RP community. In other words, if you follow these rules more people will accept your RP.

Definition of Godmoding
1) Saying what happens to other people's stuff.
2) Refusing to take any losses. Or lose. Ever.
3) Having übertech armies that are too large, etc.
4) Having your nation’s geography to your extreme advantage.

1) Example: "Okay, I just blew up 300,000 of your troops!"

Why this is Godmoding: Because in freeform role-play, it's up to the person being attacked to determine their own losses. This leads to OOC bickering which in turn, ruin the entire RP. Trust me, it’s happened many times. Don’t let it happen.

2) Example: "Oh, well, my soldiers had personal forcefields so none of them were actually hurt. "

Why this is Godmoding: This is probably where godmoding gets its name (from God Mode in Doom, where you were invincible after typing IDDQD). Naturally, if nobody ever takes a hit, the fight degenerates into "I HIT YOU!" "NO YOU DIDN'T!", etc. Remember now, roleplaying isn’t about winning or losing, it’s about telling a story. A nation who is willing to accept defeat gains a lot of respect from others, in turn. Refusing to lose could permanently damage your reputation, making not too many people not want to RP with you.

There is no device known or yet to be invented which is perfect. There is no perfect stealth, there is no perfect radar, there is no perfect acoustical protection, there is nothing which cannot be defeated.

Therefore you cannot tell someone what their results are in trying to find you! You can tell them how your system works, but you can't off and say "you can't see me nyah!".

3) Example: A 2 day old nation with a population of 6 million posts "My 6 billion man army invades u with NUKES!!!!1"

Why this is Godmoding: Okay, little guy nations, I know you're anxious to start throwing your weight around, but let's be honest; you are piddling nothings when you first start out in the world. To get specific with the logistics of your military, check this thread out: What Logistics Is (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275828)
Also, check this thread out to get examples of how other nations in real life deal with their logistics: Economy, Militaries, and Invasions - More things to know (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=297064)

Note: Nothing stops you registering a group of nations and RPing each as a different but allied entity, or any other reasonable method of levelling the playing field you can come up with. Age should NOT bring with it arbitary RP advantage.

3.5) Example: 'Ok, I'm going after your major cities with cruise missiles.'
'Aha! My EMP defenses short out your missiles and defeat you!'
'But...Don't they destroy every electronic device in your cities, too?'
'No, because they're...Shielded. Yeah.'
'But then why couldn't I just send a spy to buy, say, a calculator or trouser press which would allow me to learn your secrets?'

Why This is Godmoding:
EMP isn’t magic. If you're a nation which has EMP devices and uses them regularly, it'd be ridiculous to think that in all that time nobody would have come up with an effective defense. Same goes for most technology, in fact: you should at least allow for the possibility that a nation which has faced your mighty ubertech on the battlefield has gone off and built something to counter it.

4) Example: “My territory is completely surrounded by mountains, and I have every possible missile defense system that works 100%, so all of your planes will be shoot down, and all of your troops will die trying to get over the mountains!!”

Why This is Godmoding: It is possible to have terrain like this, but there are different ways of showing it. You can’t just up and say, after the war already began, that this is your nation. It also goes a little bit into the first example in that you can’t claim other peoples’ losses. Firstly, it is strongly recommended that you make a map of your nation. If you really don’t want to, then adapt the geography of a Real Life nation. Also, if you do want to RP your nation as having such a rough terrain, you need to enforce it within your nations. For example, the soil probably won't be the best in your nation if you have all rugged terrain.

Not Quite a Godmode, but...
Separate Example of Weaponry
“My tanks go 1044054650mph, and they can fire 100 missiles!!! My ships go 235436 knots, and can avoid your attacks no matter what!!

Explanation:Ultimately, no weapon is a godmode in and of itself, it may be unrealistic and therefore abuse-worthy if it's creator tries to imply it could really be built, but until you do something technology has no effect on anyone else and therefore does not qualify for the high and supreme definition of Godmode, namely:

A Godmode is an arbitary statement of superiority detrimental to good RP.

The aforementioned ridicu-tank / ship would make a difference if used as such in a military RP without any related problems RP'd [in fact I personally believe most techno-sillyness isn't that bad as long as you don't start dodging the natural drawbacks of weapon types], but having a character RP party on a million-mile-per-hour ship shouldn't be a problem because the ship's existence and performance confer no advantage to the owner in that scenario. Everything is relative; you can Godmode just as well with a T-72 as with any ridicu-tank design.

However, abusing higher tech for arbitary advantage [i]is Godmoding. For example, using FTL cold fusion-powered spaceships with ultrashields against a modern nation would be godmoding if the modern nation did not agree to their existence beforehand; in other words, you can't force a higher tech level on another player.

__________________

**Re-edited since the creator of the thread became inactive.**

Table of Contents
1. Logistics
2. Troops and Godmoding
A. Stealth Troops
B. Invisible Troops
C. Very Fast Troops
D. Military Involvement with Nations NOT Bordering You
3. Acts of God
4. The Space Time Continuum
A. Future Tech vs. Present Tech
B. Future Tech vs. Past Tech
C. Present Tech vs. Past Tech
5. Guide to New Players Definitions and Explanations
6. Creating a New Region
7. Country Ratings
8. The Effects of War
9. Weapons In Your Nation
10. Economy vs. Military
11. Government Ideals
12. The Indefatigable Army
13. Completely Discounting an Opponent
14. Nothing is Perfect
15. Untraceable

1. Logistics
Also, everybody's happier if you pay attention to logistics. And if you don't know much about Role Playing, there are people willing to teach you.

2. Troops and Godmoding

A. Stealth Troops
"Stealth" is a cool word, but it doesn't mean "invisible". A stealth bomber is just harder to detect than an ordinary one is on radar - ditto stealth fighters. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "stealth tank", "stealth rocket launcher" or anything else like that.

B. Invisible Troops
The temptation with magic (of any description) is to make people and things invisible. Thus, "my invisible tank has driven into the middle of your city. HA HA."
Think about this for a minute. Invisibility only extends to sight - an "invisible tank" would still make noise, especially when it shot you. "Invisible troops" would be even harder to work with, doors would open by themselves and all those orders of the sergeants would be very audible. This doesn't mean you can't have invisible tanks / ships / planes, it just means that not being seen doesn't make you undetectable.

C. Very Fast Troops
NationStates is a big place. You might have a large army, but if it's all on one side of the world fighting in one war, it can't suddenly appear on the other side of the world fighting in another war. In other words, your battalions can only be in one place at once. Transporting troops takes time, moving ships takes time, setting up bases and moving supplies takes time.

As a random note, war threads where troops are being deployed should ideally start with troops being readied for combat rather than departing [or worse, arriving] on the first post. It gives your opponent time to prepare, spy on you, and do all those other things that happen in real-life.

D. Military Involvement with Nations NOT Bordering You
You cannot directly invade a nation that doesn’t border you. There has to be a way to get there, whether it be with transports, airdrops, or permission to march through another nations’ territory. You cannot just say that your troops arrived at their border and are invading. That, in itself, is a godmode, coinciding with the “Very Fast Troops” explanation.

3. Acts of God
The cheapest godmode tactic of them all -- invoking God. Surely there is nothing more repugnant than that, especially to those of us who -are- religious. This is a game. God has better things to do with His time than intercede in someone's RPing. This doesn't mean you can't have characters who are minor or even major Gods, it means you cannot simply say 'God smites you because he's on our side!' as a response to an attack. 'S cheesy beyond mortal comprehension.

The Space-Time Continuum and God-Moding
Just because your country zips around in flying saucers and comes from another planet doesn't mean it's invincible. Despite the fact that there are multiple techs, it is still possible to have a war between such nations. It’s going to be a lot harder than having a war with someone within your tech range, but if you can pull it off, it’ll look great.

Future-tech vs. Present-tech
What's to stop an M-16, well-aimed, from knocking out all sorts of important bits of androids?

Future-tech vs Past-tech
Even a catapult could do some sort of damage. Ditto a crossbow bolt - they're still effective murder weapons today.

Present-tech vs Past-tech
If your castle's being shelled by tanks, try to tip some boiling oil over them. Crude, and only successful if the tank is charging your castle, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. Again, bow and arrows on the castle walls is very effective, although, the armor that present-tech may have could probably stop majority of the shots. Just aim for the head *wink*. It’s still very possible though, especially when it comes to close combat.

Guide to New Players

Definitions and Explanations
There are many many terms in Nation States that may look confusing, as if we made up our own language of some sort. Well…we did, and here’s a link to it. Sirocco did an amazing job in creating it. It wouldn’t feel right copying and pasting, because I’d feel like I’m taking all of that work as mine, so here’s the link:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=281050

Creating a New Region
To create a new region, log in to your nation and go the current region page. Near the top of this page it says "Tired of life in [region]? Move [nation] to a new region today." or something to that effect. Click that link. This will take you to a new page, with two fill in boxes. The first is for finding an existing region to move to. In the second, you type the name for your region you wish to create, and hit the create the region button. The region will be created and your nation will be moved to it. For more on regional play, see the 'Gameplay' forum.

Country Ratings
These are intended as a guide so you know about where your country stands, as far as its laws are concerned, in relation to other countries only.

UN Categories

Left-Wing Utopia
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
Iron Fist Socialists
Civil Rights Lovefest
Left-Leaning College State
Liberal Democratic Socialists
Libertarian Police State
Democratic Socialists
Corrupt Dictatorship
Anarchy
Capitalizt
New York Times Democracy
Benevolent Dictatorship
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy
Tyranny By Majority
Father Knows Best State
Authoritarian Democracy
Psychotic Dictatorship
Corporate Bordello
Capitalist Paradise
Conservative Democracy
Compulsory Consumerist State
Moralistic Democracy
Iron Fist Consumerists
Free Market Paradise
Right-Wing Utopia
Corporate Police State

(RT)Economic -----------Political Freedoms----Civil Rights(-- )
(15)Frightening---------Corrupted------------Widely Abused
(14)All-Consuming-----Widely Abused-------Frightening
(13)Powerhouse-------Excessive -------------Excessive
(12)Thriving-------------World Benchmark----World Benchmark
(11)Very Strong--------Superb-----------------Superb
(10)Strong--------------Excellent---------------Excellent
(09)Good----------------Very good-------------Very Good
(08)Fair------------------Good-------------------Good
(07)Reasonable--------Average---------------Average
(06)Developing---------Below Average------Below Average
(05)Struggling----------Some------------------Some
(04)Weak----------------Few--------------------Few
(03)Fragile---------------Rare-------------------Rare
(02)Basket Case-------Unheard Of-----------Unheard Of
(01)Imploded-----------Outlawed-------------Outlawed

The Effects of War
Wars on your soil damage your infrastructure and economy in ways not quantified by the game in NS1. Wars abroad typically cost lots of money. Keep that in mind, for those of you who are frequent warmongers. Mobilizing troops, tanks, artillery, planes, etc, takes a surprising amount of money each time you do it. Be careful about how you do it as well, especially for you younger nations out there. Your first action being a mobilization, is definitely not recommended. Other things that’ll cost you money is keeping your mechanized military up-to-date, and refurbished. You can’t just let it sit in the shop, its gotta be checked every now and then for problems, and tested out. Don’t forget the amount of supplies each soldier will need too. They’ll obviously need food, water, and for those of you out there who take things safe, gas masks, and things like that [do not mistake this for needing to KNOW the exact amounts].

Weapons in Your Nation
When selling/inventing weapons... keep the specs reasonable, as well as the cost.

Example: If you claim you can sell a fighter jet for around $1M USD at any sort of profit, it obviously can't be a topline modern fighter... small old fighters like the F-5 Eagle come to mind.

If your equipment is 'cutting edge' - ie it's at the very top of whatever tech bracket you place yourself in - then you need to boost how much it costs you. Also note that how much the contracting costs your government will vary according to the cost of labor in your country; the rate at which you can build new weapons will vary according to how much industry your country has. For some countries, particularly a number that have no close real world equivalent and few factories, manufacturing may be largely done by humans, or sometimes even individual craftsmen; in others, it is entirely mechanized. The most efficient method varies wildly from state to state.

When buying weapons... remember the above, and additionally remember that the manufacturer may be over-reporting the specs slightly. That top speed of 700mph for your new bomber may have been clocked relative to the ground with a hurricane strength tail wind, and only the pilot and a quarter tank of fuel on board - no cargo, no payload, no copilot, no guns, etc. In other words, feel free to scale down other people's ludicrous specs when you buy their equipment if you're not happy using it 'as-is.'

When selling supplies try to keep in mind real world prices. You may be able to undersell this by a significant amount, or oversell to gullible or desperate countries, but it's a good marker to look at.

Even if they gave it to you... it still costs money to maintain. It may be dirt cheap to man it if you're a communist state, and easy to find skilled operators if you're well educated, but the nuclear subs won't work if you don't have a source of uranium, which is expensive. So is new ordinance to replace the stuff you fired off during the last war on Tuesday.

Stealth matters: the F-22 is much less visible to other aircraft, BUT IT IS STILL VISIBLE ON RADAR, much like the way the B-52 Stratofortress is very visible but a B-1 Lancer is LESS visible.

The F-117A is slow (sub-Mach 1), carries no gun, has no radar (it can only pick up fighters with IR sensors maybe 5 miles away), and carries maybe two reasonable-sized laser-guided bombs.

The F-22 is nowhere near as stealthy. For one, it has that massive heat signatures from the engines- the F-117A has cooling jets to reduce the signature. It has a radar and gives off a big electromagnetic signature, and enemies can know there's an F-22 around from the radar signature. The shape, while stealthy, is not perfect at all and is only moderately stealthy to radar. And it carries just 8 missiles.

Economy vs. Military
Sometimes, a lousy economy is entirely due to too much military spending. When in doubt, refer to (if possible) a nation's per capita military spending ranking. Poorer nations often have armies that are more effective for their money, but typically less potent in absolute terms. This means you cannot simply say 'I have a bigger economy, so my army should be bigger than yours.'

As an extreme example, an entire population could have cheap assault rifles, have no permanent home, and exist as nomadic raiders. In which case, you don't have much of an infrastructure to manufacture stuff with.

Try to stay in line with your government type. A democracy would be allowed to do a war every week, but don't expect that candidate to be elected when the next elections come. A oppressive psychotic dictatorship would not have its citizens willingly marching into someone else's country with AK-47's just because the Grand Poobah said so. An anarchist government would not even have an organized military, seeing as there isn't anyone to oversee it. It would be composed of militias, created by the people themselves.

Government Ideals
Democracy- Form of government in which government officials are elected by the people.
PROS: Tends to have high evils of political freedoms, good but privately owned infrastructure, moderate sized volunteer armies.
CONS: The people can remove people they don't like from office. People tend to be leery of war and grow ever more dissenting the longer the country is in a state of war.

EX: United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, ect.

Theocracy- Government by the religious institutions of the country.
PRO: Populace tend to have fanatical dedication to the government, large military force.
CONS: Tend to be monarchies or puppet democracies. Secular governemnts tend to frown upon them as terrorist or irresponsible states..

EX: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Kuwait, Iraq, ect...

Dictatorship: The people are ruled by a single person or group of persons. Is often the most versatile form of government as it can include elements from any other forms of government. Can have elected dictators ((think of Naboo from SW:TPM)) or a dictator which appoints a council to aide him, ect.
PROS: Can have high levels of population support [unlikely for non-benevolent dictatorships], low to no unemployment, Huge militaries (you're a dictator, the people do what you say or else.. mwhaha.. anyway percents vary here depending on the size of your country, economic and infrastructure base, and amount of populace in the acceptable age range.
CONS: Can have low levels of population support. Can have bad infrastructure and high crime ((depending on how well the populace like you)).

Of course that is simplified but most of the governments ((except anarchy)) are some form of those three or a combination of them. Notes on why I gave the percents for fighting force:

Democracy: Military is volunteer based and populace grows disconcerted at huge numbers of military. Although, if the large force still consists of all volunteer forces, it isn't likely that the populace will get upset. It's when a draft is instated, that the people get uneasy.

Theocracy: military is both volunteer AND forced, people however are fanatically devoted to cause and are often willing to declare holy war against their enemies. However, the belief in holy blessing for their cause may lead to poor tactics in combat, since their Generals may believe they will win regardless of what they do or that their enemy are weak from corruption and will fall easily.

Dictatorship: Military is forced or selected so it's at will, populace can either be fanatically devoted or not or somewhere in between. What really counts here is how much importance you place in other areas and you could put the leftovers into military ((note the term military THROUGHOUT this post is defined as: combat troops, offices, pilots, naval officers/crew, support personnel, relevant government officials, anyone employed in the sole manufacture, storage, or transport of military goods, an anyone working for the military as defined.)) and then use real word statistics to figure out the individual areas so overall combat troops might only be like 4-9% depending.

Again, the key to not godmoding is to be consistent, think about your form of government AND use your country (give it a history where it came from ect..). Your country is an advantage. If you mix fantasy with role-playing and say your populace JRR Tolkiens' Elves then your military numbers could get a boost (Tolkiens; elves can't die or be affected by disease or old age) and effectiveness increases because of their natural abilities. Just remember to be consistent and within the bounds of the RW or the world you set your nation in. Some people will ignore anything out of the ordinary, but that's something you'll have to live with.

Deploying huge fleets at a moment's notice is one of the more bizarre feats of wankery a player can do, because it involves assuming that your fleet is at DEFCON 1 at all times. Care to say how long the economy of a developed nation could stand up to that?

The Indefatigable Army.
Ok, so you've just conscripted your huge (but not too huge) army from your reservists. You've sent them to fight, they arrive in reasonable time, and then you go and screw it up by having them all act like Space Marines. Think about it: how much of your army is career soldiers and how much is petrified civil servants who just want to go home? Your army will start to lose hope if they're being absolutely hammered in some foreign land for reasons they can barely remember. Writing from their perspective makes RP more interesting to read.

Completely Discounting an Opponent
'I attack you. You're small, I'm big. I win.'
'That was fun...'

Ok, with superior numbers and weaponry you'll probably have a fairly one-sided fight, but you shouldn't just assume your enemy will be a walkover. Remember, you're on your enemy's home turf and they're fighting for their homes and families. They won't roll over and die just like that. SPR is not real and you can't beat an enemy by throwing troops at his machine gun nests in the hope he'll eventually run out of ammunition. Anything can happen really, when it comes to role playing. A smaller nation can drive out a larger nation through superior tactics, and overall superior role playing. It's difficult and horribly costly, but it can be done.

Nothing is Perfect
That goes for your tanks that never break down, your troops that never give up, your NMD that never misses. Adding in things like this during a battle/war would make it much more realistic.

Not Looking Before You Leap
Ex: 'I send a fleet to your nation.'
'Err...The only port we have comes in bottles...'

ASK. If you're going to war with someone, ask for a basic breakdown of their nation's appearance, size and military strength. It is understandable for a nation to have classified information when it comes to military, but all of it shouldn't be. One thing that needs to be stressed is the fact that in order to set up an aggressive war with someone, both nations need to know the other nations’ terrain [or the area of operations if the war isn't fought on either country's home soil]. Without that, then how will you know where to invade?

Untraceable (Terrorist Nation/Group)
It’s one thing to make your nation into an organized terrorist organization, and have cells around the world that are hard to detect [assuming that the nations the cells are in agree to the presence of your terror cells beforehand], but when it’s a nation itself that is hosting this terror org, it’s not impossible to see.

[EDIT: GMC Military Arms Minor edits to fix some contentious issues]

Aztec National League

23-10-2004, 06:50

When I first saw this thread, I was skeptical, I couldn't think how the old one could be expanded upon...

However, I must say, this is very well thought out and planned. While it does indeed use elements from the old "What Godmoding Is", it expands on it.

¡Muy bueno!

Euroslavia

23-10-2004, 06:53

Vastiva

23-10-2004, 06:58

You might mention the "magic item" problem under ubertech.

There is no device known or yet to be invented which is perfect. There is no perfect stealth, there is no perfect radar, there is no perfect acoustical protection, there is nothing which cannot be defeated.

Therefore you cannot tell someone what their results are in trying to find you! You can tell them how your system works, but you can't off and say "you can't see me nyah!".

Dr_Twist

23-10-2004, 07:01

Well done Euroslavia, great work there, you are a very dedicated person to this game.

Aztec Lands

23-10-2004, 07:09

I have a big beef with the F-22: it is much less visible to other aircraft, BUT IT IS STILL VISIBLE ON RADAR, much like the way the B-52 Stratofortress is very visible but a B-1 Lancer is LESS visible.

The F-117A would probably go as 90% stealth. Assuming that the area is at night, the aircraft is at high altitude, and fair weather, the Nighthawk has a very good chance of getting in, dropping its bombs, and getting out.

However, people never realize that stealth aircraft suck in one major regard- they sacrifice everything for stealth.

The F-117A is slow (sub-Mach 1), carries no gun, has no radar (it can only pick up fighters with IR sensors maybe 5 miles away), and carries maybe two reasonable-sized laser-guided bombs.

The F-22 is nowhere near as stealthy. For one, it has that massive heat signatures from the engines- the F-117A has cooling jets to reduce the signature. It has a radar and gives off a big electromagnetic signature, and enemies can know there's an F-22 around from the radar signature. The shape, while stealthy, is not perfect at all and is only moderately stealthy to radar. And it carries just 6 missiles.

I would give it maybe 40% stealth.

Euroslavia

23-10-2004, 07:14

all suggestions/writings added, and taken into notice.

Vastiva

23-10-2004, 07:23

Euroslavia

23-10-2004, 07:27

And it's all because I've become...

A Galaxian Warrior!

Sorry, 2,500th post.

Kryozerkia

23-10-2004, 07:29

I totally agree with you on future tech.

I use it myself, but, having it makes me look like a godmodder because I have weaponry capabilities that others don't. Of course, they conveniently forget that nothing is perfect, and that they've likely never been in the same RP as me.

So, good job! Keep up the good work!

DemonLordEnigma

23-10-2004, 07:34

I find future tech to be comical in how people treat it. Like I have a fleet of 38 ships for my military, and typically have at least part of it guarding convoys of around 60 ships. Why is this closer to modern tech than futuristic? My largest ship is 500 feet long and its weaponry isn't anywhere close to actually advanced.

Vastiva

23-10-2004, 07:45

Its all in how the other RPers discuss it out.

Personally, I accept lots of strange things from people if done realistically and respectfully. And here is the separation of IC and OOC.

I might not like "GeneralZarkov", but as players we should be able to discuss why his battlearmor shrugs off normal bullets (and subsequently, why my bullets go through his battlearmor).

Kriegorgrad

23-10-2004, 07:45

Excellent thread, it hits upon many issues that plague NS but I believe certrain things can be classified, but when I classify things, I don't tell everyone it doesn't exist, I simply say it's hidden, that doesn't mean it can't be found, its just that it is trying to be hidden.

E.G Death Camps, genocides ect. ect.

Sileetris

23-10-2004, 07:52

Actually the F-22 is just as stealthy as the F-117a, but its nothing(or rather something) compared to the B-2. The F-22 is based on a newer generation of technology than the F-117a and it is more perfected. But we're only talking radar stealth here.

Euroslavia

23-10-2004, 17:15

.:BUMP:.

GMC Military Arms

23-10-2004, 17:28

5) Creating things (tanks, ships, etc) that are logistically not possible.
5) Example: “My tanks go 1044054650mph, and they can fire 100 missiles!!! My ships go 235436 knots, and can avoid your attacks no matter what!!

Why This is Godmoding: Whoa there, whoa. Calm down. Logistically, tanks and ships cannot go as fast as the speed of light, even though I admit, that would be cool. You need to be realistic when it comes to this sort of thing. Again, check out the Logistics thread that I posted in Example 3.

Um, I think you mean logically as opposed to logistically, and FTL ships are a staple of futuretech nations. Ultimately, no weapon is a godmode in and of itself, it may be unrealistic and therefore abuse-worthy if it's creator tries to imply it could really be built, but until you do something technology has no effect on anyone else and therefore does not qualify for the high and supreme definition of Godmode, namely:

A Godmode is an arbitary statement of superiority detrimental to good RP.

The aforementioned ridicu-tank / ship would make a difference if used as such in a military RP without any related problems RP'd [in fact I personally believe most techno-sillyness isn't that bad as long as you don't start dodging the natural drawbacks of weapon types], but having a character RP party on a million-mile-per-hour ship shouldn't be a problem because the ship's existence and performance confer no advantage to the owner in that scenario. Everything is relative; you can Godmode just as well with a T-72 as with any ridicu-tank design.

Euroslavia

23-10-2004, 17:32

My bad, I did mean to put logically, rather than logistically. It happens that I was taking care of the logistics category at the time, and wrote that on accident. Thanks for the input though.

Euroslavia

24-10-2004, 04:23

.:BUMP:.

Al Naseria

24-10-2004, 04:40

DemonLordEnigma

24-10-2004, 04:44

Balance. Just like why it is most modern nations don't fight futuristic ones.

Pacitalia

24-10-2004, 04:45

Excellent work, Euroslavia. This is a great reference to have.

Euroslavia

24-10-2004, 04:52

I'm still curious as to why it's a godmode for a nation of single figure millions to have nukes. Israel has nukes and I doubt there is a any more than 20 million people living there :P

So please, enlighten me as to why small nations cant have nukes. I'm really interested. Excluding economies cause we all know that's flawed by North Korea owning nukes.

There are a few reasons why.

1) Israel didn't have nukes within the first few years of its existance. Your nation is just coming into existance, and I don't see how developing a nuclear program should be at the top of your list. Staying as an independent nation should be top priority as well as helping your citizens.

2) Majority of nations, who are very young, and get nuclear weapons are looked down upon because of the simple fact that they rushed to get them. Again, there should be more priorities on your list, rather than quickly arming yourself with nuclear weapons. It's more, "You shouldn't have nukes" rather than "You can't have nukes."

If you can RP it very well, then I suppose it could work out, but its just that majority of nations don't like to see very young nations armed with nukes. A lot of them will develop nukes for the wrong reasons.

So in conclusion, you aren't banned from getting them when you're young, but its is strongly recommended that you wait.

Vastiva

24-10-2004, 04:55

Al Naseria

24-10-2004, 05:05

it's just amusing the utter hypocrisy of things. 'oh it's a free form RP site so we cant all say who we kills. But wait! We expect young nations to NOT HAVE NUKES UNTIL THEY ARE A CERTAIN AGE'

Really, I'm not even gonna bother giving this topic a serious consideration anymore. I'm going to RP how I like 'cause it's a free form site. So good luck trying to impose your silly notions cause you lost this one.

DemonLordEnigma

24-10-2004, 05:15

Go ahead. Just don't expect much if you vary too far from these rules.

Al Naseria

24-10-2004, 05:32

they are not rules. There are no rules on nationstates. I didnt click yes I accept these terms of godmodding and will not do them. When I signed up to this place, so go shove these rules up your backside.

DemonLordEnigma

24-10-2004, 05:42

No, you didn't. Never intended you had to comply by these. Just saying you may be in for a shock at people's reactions to someone going against them too much.

Vastiva

24-10-2004, 05:46

Its simple.

There are no "rules". You can decide to do whatever you like.

However, if you want to play with others, here's some things some do expect from other players.

Simple.

Nianacio

24-10-2004, 22:05

That's long. O.o It's mostly fairly good, I think.
4) Having your nation’s geography to your extreme advantage.I don't think that's godmoding, but claiming there are no drawbacks to the geography would be. For example, your nation could be surrounded by mountains and no one can get in by land, but that'll reduce the amount of trade your nation can be involved in. Your nation could also be covered with swamps, but that'll affect the buildings you can build and what transportation your people can use.
your army shouldn't ever be more than 5% of your population[...]Manpower available for your military forces should typically run to around 1-3% of your population (on the higher end for smaller countries) unless you have a really good reason.[...]I would say here effective deployment force no more than 2-3% of populace.[...]I would guess anywhere from 4-8% would be reasonable[...]Though for most dictators around 9-15% is pretty good once you have over 100 millions population[...]overall combat troops might only be like 4-9% dependingRead this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=297064) thread.
Ultimately, no weapon is a godmode in and of itselfI think technology can definitely be a godmode. Using FTL cold fusion-powered spaceships with ultrashields against a modern nation would be godmoding, not because the modern nation will have trouble fighting back, but because the ships are impossible within the framework of the RP (the modern nation being modern).
Besides the whole orbital bombardment thingI think orbital bombardment can be acceptable modern tech (dropping hunks of metal from a satellite...or even using suicide satellites).
The only difference is Future-Tech has spaceships and multiple planets.It doesn't have to have either.
If your castle's being shelled by tanks, try to tip some boiling oil over them. Crude, but effective.I don't think boiling oil will hurt a tank (nor will a tank go that close to a castle unless it's storming inside).
When in doubt, check prices online of comparable stuff.Military aircraft prices (http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/military_aircraft_prices.htm)
The F-117A would probably go as 90% stealth.(Radar) stealth reduces how large the object appears on a radar screen, so you can't use percentages to describe stealth unless you're comparing it to something else. For example, I read in a fairly old publication (and I don't know if this is at all accurate) that compared to the F-15 (It's equal to 100%), the YF-22 would be 50% and the YF-23 40%.
And it carries just 6 missiles.It can carry eight.
toad[...]high evils of political freedoms[...]show him a think or twoYou might want to change these.
A democracy would NEVER be allowed to do a war every week!Until the next elections, why not?
A fundamentalist government WOULD NOT call god a bunch of BS.What if it's fundamentalist atheist?
An anarchist government would not have much of a military IF it even had one at all.Anarchy means there's no government.
Atheist or free religion nationsPerhaps secular government would be a better description?
Democracy: military is volunteer based and populace grows disconcerted at huge numbers of military.As long as the people decided to join the military and it's not used to oppress, would they?
SPR is not real and you can't beat an enemy by throwing troops at his machine gun nests in the hope he'll eventually run out of ammunition.Well, they WILL eventually run out of ammunition. :D It's not a good idea to try, though.
God knows that 100% of your mechanized military isn’t going to work perfectly.None of it will not work perfectly?
And if they go in for all that 'CLASSIFIED' rubbish, it means they're either a Godmoder or they're terrified of being called one.Military strength could be classified.
One thing that needs to be stressed is the fact that in order to set up a war with someone, both nations need to know the other nations’ terrain. Without that, then how will you know where to invade?Not all wars involve invasions.
Yeah, sure your opponent has no chance of finding out it's you when you send six humans to infiltrate a country which turns out to be elves / sentient mice / dragons / psychic hamsters.There are too many human nations out there to know they came from a certain one (if that's the only giveaway that they're foreigners).
I'm still curious as to why it's a godmode for a nation of single figure millions to have nukes. Israel has nukes and I doubt there is a any more than 20 million people living there :PIts population is around 6 million...I think it's because Israel has received a lot of military assistance over the years. If you're a new nation and find someone to help you out, I think it's okay if you get nukes.

DemonLordEnigma

24-10-2004, 22:18

Actually, a modern nation can take out those attempting orbital bombardment if they have enough nukes. And it's amazingly hard to shoot down an ICBM with missiles, as the U.S. has repeatedly found out with that folly called the Missile Defense System.

One other thing to think about: Shielded ships will not be taken down by a single missile. But if you concentrate missile fire, the shields will fall quickly. Once the shields are down, the ship's pretty easy to blow apart. The big advantage of modern tech nations is that their technology costs less than future tech, meaning they can have more of it. So, they should use that advantage.

I'll go with an old saying to sum this up: Even a tank will fall in battle if you throw enough guys with pointy sticks at it.

GMC Military Arms

24-10-2004, 22:25

I don't think that's godmoding, but claiming there are no drawbacks to the geography would be. For example, your nation could be surrounded by mountains and no one can get in by land, but that'll reduce the amount of trade your nation can be involved in. Your nation could also be covered with swamps, but that'll affect the buildings you can build and what transportation your people can use.

I believe a rather better example [which I've seen] is when nations actually change their nation's description to match the attack; one minute they're an island so your troops can't attack overland, a week later a fleet attacks and they're landlocked. That's an extreme example, but the spirit of it [creating your nation purely to screw an attacker over without bothering with the consequences for yourself] is definately Godmoding.

I think technology can definitely be a godmode. Using FTL cold fusion-powered spaceships with ultrashields against a modern nation would be godmoding, not because the modern nation will have trouble fighting back, but because the ships are impossible within the framework of the RP (the modern nation being modern).

Ultimately, no weapon is a godmode in and of itself, it may be unrealistic and therefore abuse-worthy if it's creator tries to imply it could really be built, but until you do something technology has no effect on anyone else and therefore does not qualify for the high and supreme definition of Godmode[...]

Your example involves the ships doing something. If a minister from a modern nation was greeted with a 21-gun salute from those self-same ships, it would have no real impact on the RP and therefore would not be a godmode. To be considered such the item / action must have an adverse effect on the RP, simply being there doesn't stop anything. Even 'a bomb that blows up the world' isn't really a Godmode until you actually set it off.

Also, why must 'the framework of the RP' be taken from the perspective of the modern nation rather than the future nation noting a modern nation is perfectly plausible within the framework of their RP?

Military strength could be classified.

True [if fairly difficult] but there's still absolutely no reason not to tell your opponent what you're deploying OOC.

Nianacio

24-10-2004, 22:31

I believe a rather better example [which I've seen] is when nations actually change their nation's description to match the attack; one minute they're an island so your troops can't attack overland, a week later a fleet attacks and they're landlocked. That's an extreme example, but the spirit of it [creating your nation purely to screw an attacker over without bothering with the consequences for yourself] is definately Godmoding.O.o I think both examples are good. A similar thing would be jumping through several regions and claiming your enemy can't find you. I saw this around the time of the original invasion of Magic China.
Your example involves the ships doing something. If a minister from a modern nation was greeted with a 21-gun salute from those self-same ships, it would have no real impact on the RP and therefore would not be a godmode. o be considered such the item / action must have an adverse effect on the RP, simply being there doesn't stop anything. Even 'a bomb that blows up the world' isn't really a Godmode until you actually set it off.Hmm...I think a great RP could be full of godmodes. I consider the godmode to be the unrealistic item/action, regardless of how it affects the RP.
Also, why must 'the framework of the RP' be taken from the perspective of the modern nation rather than the future nation noting a modern nation is perfectly plausible within the framework of their RP?Unless they can time travel, they're IMO separated by eras. (Yes, the era theory strikes again!)
True [if fairly difficult] but there's still absolutely no reason not to tell your opponent what you're deploying OOC.Yea, OOC you should be willing to tell the person, unless perhaps that person has a history of abusing OOC information IC.

DemonLordEnigma

24-10-2004, 23:06

Unless they can time travel, they're IMO separated by eras. (Yes, the era theory strikes again!)

Nope. I travel to a planet that has not yet reached the capacity to travel through space. They could be modern, I futuristic, and both in the same era.

Then again, different nations develop at different rates, so there is that possibility as well.

Scandavian States

24-10-2004, 23:35

Just thought I'd correct a small and really irrelevent error. There are in fact stealth tanks, the French built several stealthed versions of its AMX-30 MBT, but AFAIK they're still prototypes. Of course, as you said, nothing's perfect and the problems with a stealth tank should be obvious.

Nianacio

25-10-2004, 00:22

They could be modern, I futuristic, and both in the same era.I know that. I said future, not futuristic.

In addition to my era, I have a realism level, which still prevents me from accepting people flying here from a distant planet.

Notquiteaplace

25-10-2004, 00:35

I think its up to the RPers, but dont expect your spacedy nation (or mine for that matter... one of my other nations) to be accepted by MT players.

Alternatively, if they attack you (even with help from other FT nations) they are accepting you, and therefore cant legitimately ignore you.

Then there is post modern tech, ie would require small advances that havent happened yet in technology but arent too far ahead. Most "modern" NS nations go a little way that way creating tanks with better than modern specs and advanced assault rifles.

Again its up to your opponent, but if you are doing something and claiming it modern consider the cost.

It would not be a godmode to claim that after 20 years of research your nation had crude but effective powered armour. HOWEVER to then state that you still have a 1 million man army and they are now all wearing powered armour, would be. As the armour probably at least doubles the cost if training equipping and supplying even the best infantry. (and probably more than doubles in most cases) as a walking suit of armour isnt going to be as cheap as some kevlar and an assault rifle, and is going to be harder to train in the operation of.

Though the most important thing is what your opponent will accept, and actually having that tech, rather than just making it up as soon as you go into battle.

You dont really need to post your reasearch, but just be honest. You can tell someone who made it all up on the spot instantly 90% of the time, and the rest come undone soon after.

Scandavian States

25-10-2004, 00:49

Notquiteaplace: I'm going to have to concur with you, at least up to a point. I do have, as you put it, crude but effective battle armour. Also, I will agree with you that it is extremely unlikely that anyone could equip all of their troops with power armour. It would be stupid to equip a cook, for example, with power armour because doing so is an overly expensive exersize in futility that would probably interfere with the cook's job. However, I say to you that numbers are relative; I know I have over a million infantry in my armed forces and whenever they're in battle or in a wargame they're wearing BA.

GMC Military Arms

25-10-2004, 00:51

Scandavian States

25-10-2004, 00:57

GMC: That's also true. Not everything should take a set number of years to research. A nation might have an advanced nuclear power industry but when it comes time to develope an efficient turbine power plant for a smaller town, it take 25 years to get it right. Again, things are relative and fluid, which is the beauty of FFRP.

Notquiteaplace

25-10-2004, 01:02

The whole 'after 20 years of research' argument for postmodern tech assumes that everyone starts at 'modern' tech, which isn't true given that their history and technical developments might be totally different. Not everyone will be at the same stange of developing technology X at any given time.

yeah thats true.

On the other hand if you do research gradually and so on, its more likely to get you recognised in MT, as you are working with the same raw materials as them, so to speak.

But if you arent interested in MT, why start there? :)

The Lightning Star

25-10-2004, 01:04

Good Job! This LOADS better than the old one.

DemonLordEnigma

25-10-2004, 01:44

I know that. I said future, not futuristic.

In addition to my era, I have a realism level, which still prevents me from accepting people flying here from a distant planet.

Which, ironically, is not realistic. There is nothing stopping an alien race interested in this region of space from stumbling across Earth. Not accepting the idea some more advanced civilization from another planet may find you, accidentally or not, is like saying you won't accept a more advanced civilization from another continent. The only difference is how they got here and how far they travelled. Want a real-life example of this happening? The finding, and subsequent colonization, of the Americas by Europeans demonstrates one of the ways this can happen. What you have is a level of accepted technology, not of accepted realism.

But, I'm not saying you should change. This is a game that has people ranging in technology from having bows and arrows rubbing shoulders with nations exploring space, at least one of which is building a Dyson's Sphere just because he can. It's your RP.

Nianacio

25-10-2004, 01:48

There is nothing stopping an alien race interested in this region of space from stumbling across Earth.Other than them not existing, no.

Euroslavia

25-10-2004, 05:57

[Insert lots of suggestions for editing]

Goodness, that took forever to edit, but I'm finished. Thanks for looking it over! I very much appreciate the time you took out to read it and come up with ways to make it better.

P3X1299

25-10-2004, 06:44

This was excellent and well worth reading. :)

I just have a little problem, like a few other people with the idea that the future-tech nations can't have a war with modern nations. If they have each other's consent, then I don't see any problem with it.

Then again, I've been reading those John Ringo novels too. :p

Euroslavia

25-10-2004, 17:30

why thank you!

disguised bump

Praetonia

25-10-2004, 17:36

Quite a nice collection of all of the pre-Jolt and sadly de-stickied threads.

Euroslavia

25-10-2004, 19:38

bump

Wolfchester

25-10-2004, 19:49

I'm pointing out Militiary Doctrines...well..no..screw that..

Fascist Governments etc... They have a military socities..like Wolfchester, its all military based..which means...percisely, a fair larger then average military...

Israel can field a Nation sized army :P Remember, every one there has mandatory MILITARY SERVICE <last time I checked>

Nianacio

25-10-2004, 19:57

Thanks for looking it over! I very much appreciate the time you took out to read it and come up with ways to make it better.You're welcome.
Israel can field a Nation sized army :P Remember, every one there has mandatory MILITARY SERVICE <last time I checked>Its economy would be ruined if it did that. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=297064

Euroslavia

26-10-2004, 16:48

bump

Euroslavia

28-10-2004, 06:52

bump

GMC Military Arms

03-11-2004, 08:48

Re-edited to clear up a few items and remove some unnecessary repetition and sticky'd. Kitsy's thread is now in the Archive.

Military percentages still seem a little suspect...

Vegana

03-11-2004, 12:28

Re-edited to clear up a few items and remove some unnecessary repetition and sticky'd. Kitsy's thread is now in the Archive.

Military percentages still seem a little suspect...

Agree with that. People tend to forget that the biggest part of a military is logistics and Supplies. The larger the army the more people is needed.

If you have mandatory military training, that personell can be used for defense in the form of Guerilla warfare etc.. Being soft military, not being used in big encounters. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc.. But using it for an assault at another nation is simply silly since it takes so much logistics, supplies, planning and coordination. Not to mention the cost of taking out a nations productive force to go to war with another nation.

Percentage can be used to approx armies, but then you have to work with training etc. So when you become big, say 4 Billion a percentage of 5% would be ludicrous, While keeping your army the same actual size from 2 to 4 billion might be pretty doable.

Euroslavia

03-11-2004, 16:51

Also agreed. Edited out.

Kaukolastan

03-11-2004, 21:58

Nice to see an update. Good work, Euroslavia.

Meriadoc

05-11-2004, 03:06

Meriadoc

06-11-2004, 19:45

As for the godmoding codes, I guess they are like the Pirates' Code in POTC: more guidelines than actual rules. Now I feel like Geoffrey Rush, Keira Knightley, and Kevin R. McNally all rolled into one. Arrrrrrgh!

Jonothana

13-11-2004, 00:26

Congrats on your sticky.

NO! Euroslavia has an evil plan to take over every sticky.

Seriously though, congrats once more.

Nieder Ostland

18-11-2004, 23:16

As a newbie to this game, and even this type of games, (thou not to RPG's in general. Was a RP fanatic when i was younger, but.. backj then it was more like D&D and that sort of games) i must say this thread have served it's purpose. have learned quite a few things, and have had some laughs while learning "not how to play NS"
(Why couldnt school have been that? Then i might have enjoyed it! Of course. In school ya couldnt pretend that ya sent an army to blow up some city in a different, and in every way, inferior country)

Euroslavia

18-11-2004, 23:31

Congrats on your sticky.
NO! Euroslavia has an evil plan to take over every sticky.

You know too much... ;)

The SARS Monkeys

20-11-2004, 18:04

Would this be considered God-Moding:

I want to make a force field/shield. This force field will have weaknesses though and it can be made with near future tech. It will still stop any bullets fired at it but anything with a radius blast it cannot handle.

Nianacio

20-11-2004, 22:22

If it really could be made with near future tech, I would say it's okay, assuming your nation isn't in the past (where it would be far future tech).

GMC Military Arms

21-11-2004, 02:44

If the weaknesses are reasonable it should be fine, regardless of the explaination [or indeed the tech level, psychic / magic shields are fine in any tech level if your opponent agrees]. But some people will call it a Godmode anyway because hell, some people just like calling stuff Godmoded. Hence, anything really out-of-ordinary [shields, exotic weapons etc] should be cleared with your opponent prior to use, or ignoring may result.

Notquiteaplace

21-11-2004, 14:14

IDont forget it would cost money to use, and maintain, ie you cant just have a normal army and then give them those sheilds. Youd probably have to pay more, so youd either have l.ess of them, or less of something else.

I am moving to post modern, meaning that Im still using modern tech, just applied a little harder. I am having power armoured troops with simular sort of strengths gained. I am also halving (well cutting off more like 55-60% actually) the amount of infantry in using in my army now as they are much better equipped.

The SARS Monkeys

21-11-2004, 17:03

Well yes those are som,e weaknesses it use s elec so it would haver to have a pack. And if you hit the generators on the sides it will go kaboom. Plus I can clearly explain how to make it.

Nianacio

22-11-2004, 00:27

But some people will call it a Godmode anyway because hell, some people just like calling stuff Godmoded. Hence, anything really out-of-ordinary [shields, exotic weapons etc] should be cleared with your opponent prior to use, or ignoring may result.I consider a lot of stuff godmoding that other people don't, but that's not why I call stuff godmodes...I do it because it could not exist. Out of the ordinary is fine; I have out-of-the-ordinary things such as light tanks and self-deploying structures, and certain kinds of shields are real technology.

GMC Military Arms

22-11-2004, 10:24

Aye, but NS isn't RL, so what could exist in real life becomes less important because NS-world itself [a world the size of Sol with Earth-gravity and travel times in which nations have multiple conflicting and mutually exclusive histories] is impossible IRL. Anyway, you already know what I think of your policies on Godmoding, so no point digging that up again.

Xenonier

22-11-2004, 13:33

Alrighty then. So nobody has a problem with using futuristic technology as long as sufficient sacrifices are made?

An example I'm thinking of would be my nation. Now, although I'm still undecided on whether to get into Rping here, but I could use this without breaking any rules?

My Example.

My nation has a small, elite military with a heavy focus on energy weapons. In particular, energy shields and othersuch technology protect them from the majority of Combat weaponry. Heavy weapons kill them, but you'd need to unload a ton of bullets into them to kill just one.

However, their low numbers mean they have difficult in protracted campagins, where they struggle to cover flanks and frontlines in massive numbers (Ie, a smart RPer could beat them with flanking manouvers, artillery as heavy shells overcome the shields, etc). The advanced nature of their technology also means replacing losses, maintennance and training is a slow and painful process (and can cripple the countries economy).

They are easily very powerful soldiers, the sort that can masscare entire enemy armies with only a few squads, (Ie, think Space marines) but due to the sheer size of my Nation and their low numbers they will always be horrible outnumbered and relying on defensive tactics, and unable to contest large areas (Although this weakness will dissolve as my nation grows in number)

I have a population ofaround 26 million, I'm thinking my army is around 500 000 - 650 000, which is pretty small considering. Would using an army decked out this way be Godmodding?

Nianacio

24-11-2004, 06:28

NS-world itself [a world the size of Sol with Earth-gravity and travel times in which nations have multiple conflicting and mutually exclusive histories]I don't subscribe to that theory.
Anyway, you already know what I think of your policies on Godmoding, so no point digging that up again.I believe you are correct.
So nobody has a problem with using futuristic technology as long as sufficient sacrifices are made?If you use it in a setting appropriate to the technology, I'm okay with it.

Hotdogs2

10-12-2004, 17:02

Alrighty then. So nobody has a problem with using futuristic technology as long as sufficient sacrifices are made?

Different people say different things, i wouldnt RP you as im in a different tech age at the current time, tech like that is great, if you RP people then make sure they agree with that type of tech and then you will be fine, just dont take any notice if a nation says its godmoding(as long as its in the future id say its fine...25years maybe? less or more too)

ONI Concordiat

15-12-2004, 20:57

Robaria

15-12-2004, 21:46

Is this godmodding?

A large, manned tank, very slow but with very thick armor, big guns (to say the least), and, say, maybe having 80 of them?

They are slow (around 10 mph), but their armor is thick (About 16 inches and sloped all round 'cept for turret side and rear, and of course, top) and their guns are big (2x 12.8cm cannons in turret, 1x 20mm cannon, 2x Browning .50 cal.). The armor on the turret sides is thinner because of the space taken up by the two big guns, and the rear armor on the turret is just as thin, and the top armor of the tank is only about 3 inches thick, at the most.

Is it godmodding for a nation of 600-million, benevolent dictatorship, with Arms Manufacturing as primary source of economic GNP?

Definitly not godmodding, I can point out a few flaws in your tank right here:
1.) VERY heavy, will sink if it encounters any soft ground. (like marshes.)
2.) Slow speed makes it more of a defensive or artillary unit.
3.) It would use a TON of fuel. A hit in the right spot with a heavy or anti-tank weapon could blow up the whole thing.
4.) 16 inch armor is VERY thick, and (once again) VERY heavy. If the tank is positioned wrong, it could tip forward.
Overall, this tank sounds more like a mounted artillary turret than an actual tank.

Vast Principles

16-12-2004, 17:15

Definitly not godmodding, I can point out a few flaws in your tank right here:
1.) VERY heavy, will sink if it encounters any soft ground. (like marshes.)
2.) Slow speed makes it more of a defensive or artillary unit.
3.) It would use a TON of fuel. A hit in the right spot with a heavy or anti-tank weapon could blow up the whole thing.
4.) 16 inch armor is VERY thick, and (once again) VERY heavy. If the tank is positioned wrong, it could tip forward.
Overall, this tank sounds more like a mounted artillary turret than an actual tank.

Yep, if i were you i could cut down the armour to about 10cm max? and have a larger weapon, 12.8cm is 128mm, only 3mm larger than what the soviet T-90 carries, and much lower than what the T-94 may possibly carry. With a larger weapon(e.g. 140mm/155mm? Maybe ETC type, ask if you want to know more about them) and a higher top speed you could have a pretty good tank. It would weight less, need less fuel and still be more than good enough for a heavy tank(i should say). if you do use an etc gun then that would take its tech age up to around 2015, although that varries from person to person.
Check out http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html, that is basically a list of all US landwarfare systems, see the M1 and M-60, under direct fire, those are the main two US tanks, search on google for other types, or check out other parts of the site.

Andians

16-12-2004, 21:34

Thanks for all of this. I have a couple friends at school that would definatly not want to hear about this!

Robaria

16-12-2004, 21:51

Tiborita

17-12-2004, 09:50

I have an example that should be added to the list. Time Travel.
Why this is Godmodding
Time travel, no matter what time period you are in, is never acceptible, even if you know how it works. All it does is start a series of stupid posts that reach further and further back in time until you reach the point where you say, "I kill the amoeba that would eventually lead to your evolution." There is no "undo" or "rewind" button on nationstates, deal with your mistakes and losses.

If ONE MORE of my friends uses time travel I will destroy them.
I wouldn't say "is never acceptible". In the example you gave, sure you have grounds to ignore. When Fascist White States traveled back in time to avoid a woopin' from Automagfreek, he did enter godmode. But if players agree to ways they could have a RP with time travel, they shouldn't be limited. If players wanted to have a RP where one is say RPing a criminal who travels through time to avoid another player who is trying to to capture them, why would the RP fall under being unacceptible? If a player is making outlandish claims, then yes, other players have the right to ignore. Saying something is not acceptible because it may be used incorrectly does nothing but stifle creative freedom.

Robaria

17-12-2004, 19:52

I wouldn't say "is never acceptible". In the example you gave, sure you have grounds to ignore. When Fascist White States traveled back in time to avoid a woopin' from Automagfreek, he did enter godmode. But if players agree to ways they could have a RP with time travel, they shouldn't be limited. If players wanted to have a RP where one is say RPing a criminal who travels through time to avoid another player who is trying to to capture them, why would the RP fall under being unacceptible? If a player is making outlandish claims, then yes, other players have the right to ignore. Saying something is not acceptible because it may be used incorrectly does nothing but stifle creative freedom.

Hmm... This is acceptable, but after the RP, (or mabey during), SOMEONE would abuse the tech. If and ONLY IF people agreed this time travel is a one time thing, it would be alright. Still, it's better not to use it at all.

Euroslavia

17-12-2004, 22:42

Time-travel, despite not being possible on Real Life, can definitely be used for a good roleplay. The only way it could really work is if the person RP'ing it, was better than a decent RP'er. I can honestly say that only a few people would be able to pull it off, but if they do, it'll look really good.

Decisive Action

19-12-2004, 10:08

You left out one:

Declaring war on a nation, making it invite only, when they try to reply to your attacks, shouting, "You're not invited!!!1111"

Decisive Action

19-12-2004, 10:15

Praetonia

19-12-2004, 13:32

DemonLordEnigma

19-12-2004, 21:14

Now this is godmodding:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382562

And it's fun because I honestly doubt it's a serious RP at this point. I know I'm not taking it seriously.

RevertRomance

20-12-2004, 17:32

WHAT IS GOD MODDING the intire WW2 IC Thread is bullshit puska hasnt learned to roleplay and people dont take anything seriously :headbang:

Nianacio

20-12-2004, 20:46

You might want to mention in the "Untraceable" section that jumping through several regions does not make it impossible to attack your nation.

Hotdogs2

23-12-2004, 19:28

OOC: the whole regions thing is weird, i mean, if you want to attack someone and you are in a region of 150 nations etc, and you are in the centre of them all, you cant be attacked. Thats one problem that could well happen if people arent careful....lol. i myself arent that good an RPer, but i understand the basics of it, and in the end, its just a bit of fun. A godmoder can just be ignored.

Ronius Vigilantes

31-12-2004, 11:06

Would you consider it a GodMod to change your military spending for roleplay purposes, such as a case where one of those stat websites says military spending is 0%, but you want to be able to roleplay so you call it 10%. It's not like the player is making themself overpowering, they're just attempting to let themselves be included.

Euroslavia

31-12-2004, 17:53

Praetonia

31-12-2004, 20:46

Afslavistakistania

31-12-2004, 20:49

North Korea has a crap economy but a massive percentage military spending, so they aren't really a standard case. It should also be noted that North Korea does not have ICBMs, and has no way of launching their weapons beyond the range of SCUD-like missile.

As for small nations having nukes, I say nothing wrong with that. [b]If[/i] they RP their nuclear program and actually spend time and money on it, rather than saying "Well I have nuclear weapons you die now." which is just irritating.

Uh, North Korea's missiles are suspected of being able to hit Seattle. :) It is surprising though that they have missiles capable of that. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/td-2.htm

Range of 4,3000 kms

Euroslavia

31-12-2004, 21:39

"The Taep'o-dong-2 (TD-2) is said to be a two or three stage missile with a range estimated at approximately 3,650-3,750 km with a 700-1,000 kg payload. Other sources credit the TD-2/NKSL-X-2** with a range in excess of 4,000-4,300 km."

Depending on the source that you trust, it could vary by a longshot. I can't remember exactly where I read it, but I believe Praetonia is right about North Korea only being able to hit Alaska. Accuracy is another story, however, along with the strategic location to launch it at, seeing as North Korea isn't quite a dominant naval power in the Pacific Ocean.

Brandoniats

01-01-2005, 00:45

Afslavistakistania

01-01-2005, 01:01

Nianacio

01-01-2005, 02:52

I don't think it should be considered godmodding to have some elite or super unit, as long as they're rare. I use Spartans from Halo, but I only have a fw thousand of them, out of my few million strong army.How "super", though? Would you mind if I had a single teleporting invincible soldier with a personal superlaser?

DemonLordEnigma

01-01-2005, 03:47

I have an example that should be added to the list. Time Travel.
Why this is Godmodding
Time travel, no matter what time period you are in, is never acceptible, even if you know how it works. All it does is start a series of stupid posts that reach further and further back in time until you reach the point where you say, "I kill the amoeba that would eventually lead to your evolution." There is no "undo" or "rewind" button on nationstates, deal with your mistakes and losses.

That is why I keep all time-related things that involve my nation to a special NPC I have named Nergal. He's not on the nation's side and is mostly around to cause trouble, meaning he'll pull things that are not in the nation's favor.

He usually one comes out as my IGNORE cannon (what better way to deal with godmodders than have a god erase them from history?) or to alter the timeline of my nation when an RP in its past takes an unexpected turn and I'm suddenly forced to change my nation's history while still preserving the integrity of its RPs.

Praetonia

01-01-2005, 12:48

I don't know about you, but I'd consider the FAS a pretty good source. Even if it's off, 250 km isn't much for an ICBM. It is still intercontinental if it can hit Alaska. ;)
To be honest, who really cares? There is hardly anything in Alaska. It's unlikely to kill anyone really because the pop density is so low. NK cant really do anything to the US. People in the US are worried because they're in range of Japan, China, S Korea, the first two of which are nuclear powers themselves. I should also point out that there is no way they can know for sure that those stats are accurate, and they most likely arent.

Hotdogs2

01-01-2005, 12:59

To be honest, who really cares? There is hardly anything in Alaska. It's unlikely to kill anyone really because the pop density is so low. NK cant really do anything to the US. People in the US are worried because they're in range of Japan, China, S Korea, the first two of which are nuclear powers themselves. I should also point out that there is no way they can know for sure that those stats are accurate, and they most likely arent.

True in some ways, false in others. To be quite honest, if you just say to your fellow RPing naion, this is what i RP like, if you like it then stay, if not then go.

Just because you have a super army doesnt mean you godmode, as long as you arent attacking someone who has a military that they have put more money and effort into...and they arent Using M1 carbines and the other people OICW, unless its part of the prearanged RP. Its up to them, these can be guidelines for newbs, to get used to RP, but once they get it, the realms of imagination rule!

Rottweilan

16-01-2005, 21:28

First of all, if you are to develop nuclear weapons/defences within a region, the Region should have the resources necessary in their industry to develop it. Depending on your foreign relations with other countries you could develop trade relations with other countries for a mutual exchange of technology...which is how it happens in real life.

If your region's primary, secondary or tertiary industries does not involve one of the following, Uranium/Plutonium mining, Arms Production, or Technology. I'm sorry, but despite being a noob, I'm logical, YOU DON'T HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL or TECH/SUPPLIES to develop NUCLEAR weapons OR a military defence system. If your primary industry is Retail, your secondary is sheep farming, and your third is gambling, YOU ARE SCREWED!!! Your next option is to look outside your nation and develop trade relations. If you don't develop trade relations...with another country in order to expand your resources, then you're up a creek without a paddle very quickly. That is WHY we have regions in this simulation. So that we can develop a way of advancing our situation. Sorry to say, even if you have a population of 300 million or 6 billion, if you're a bunch of sheepherders...TOUGH. YOU GOT NO DEFENCE. Hate to drop a dose of reality into this.

Notquiteaplace

16-01-2005, 21:58

What if you have a load of strng industries?

No, if you have had the rainforest and nukes issue, and allowed some mining you are probably okay for nukes. Or if you chose to develope nukes in the other issue.

A nation with an economy could have a monster nuclear power industry and it could be their weakest.

Perhaps for weaker economies, a non existant nuke industry might occure if it isnt the fifth strongest, but its always case by case. I think saying anything other than that is godmoding in itself.

Rottweilan

17-01-2005, 02:18

What I'm trying to say, is that logically, you need uranium from somewhere to develop a nuclear industry, which means you either have uranium mining in your primary, secondary or tertiary industry...You either have to form an alliance with a country that has arms development, or if you have the luck to have both uranium and arms development, you can do it yourself. When I came into this game...I banded with a bunch of my friends in the region to form a Mutual Aid Region, which means we banded together to protect ourselves. Each one of us has a certain industry that supports our actions...my country has Uranium mining and is allied with two others who have Arms Development, other countries in our alliance (MAR) have other resources...that contribute to the economy and the defence aspect of our region. None of us are creating crap out of mid-air and saying "We got this...now..."

Logically, if you have arms development, you have conventional weapons...

I have uranium mining, and cheese...as well as retail industry, so if I stand alone, I'm a SITTING DUCK. You gotta think on your feet in this. Now if I had Arms Development and Cheese...guess what...BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. What's the prime thing which happens to TOO OLD CHEESE???? MOLD!!! MOLD which forms the basis for a biological weapon...send the mold to Arms development and you've got a WMD there in a couple of weeks. So nobody is GOD-moding here, unless you pull some new-fangled weapon out of mid-air...and say. "I got this now...none of you can attack me...ha ha ha." Understand me?

Notquiteaplace

17-01-2005, 02:24

Ah, but it doesnt, that's what Im saying, it needn't be an industry that dominates, it merely has to exist. I mean I can understand someone who refused to allow uranium mining in the rainforest not having uranium. But every nation that gets that issue found uranium anyway. So even if it isnt a big industry might have a little uranium. And like I said, you may have a powerful uranium industry, but if your cheese export, beef based agrigculture and woodchipping are bigger you don't have nukes? I doubt it.

Rottweilan

17-01-2005, 02:28

Hence...the breakdown of how we're doing this...in logical step by step process.

As of now, the total population of the Nation of ARC is 71 million, with 42.6 mill of those in the various branches of the military. (this was before the inclusion of another friend newly joined with a population of 5 million to boost the regional population to 76 million. So we're only working with what we've been given and logically producing stuff, NOT superweapons, like Gundams, and other stuff like that...which technologically we can't even come up with in RL.

These are the tasks that each country is to be concerned with:

Contrails & Windolene:
1) Uranium enrichment & weapons manufacturing
2) cruise & ballistic missile development
3) development of naval, airforce & army equipment
4) weapons triggers

Kunkelstania:
GPS and computer programs for the guidance systems as well as developing computers

Hartonia, Douglessaria, Manopolis, St. Cleer & Rottweilan:
Will provide food and food supplies for the citizens and members of the armed forces

Rottweilan & P-40 Aces:
mine Uranium for Kof C & Windolene to refine

Hesinq:
develop tanks & personnel carriers as an offshoot of automobile manufacturing

New Henderson:
RETAIL (duties- CLASSIFIED)

Queendom of Briellan:
GAMBLING (duties - CLASSIFIED)

Each one of these is a step-by-step logical process...

When you say that you have a three superior industries, but you can possibly have uranium...welllll, it's not a given...is it. Uranium is found in pockets in certain countries in RL, Those are the powers...the others have to find some other way of trading for it. This means that NOT all nations will or should have uranium. P40Aces and I have uranium, but our resources have NO means of uranium enrichment which is a prime step in the purification of uranium into U235 for Nuclear weapons. We don't have that, so all we have is a stockpile of UNENRICHED uranium with no way of purifying it to weapons grade material...so we ship it off to Windolene and Contrails to purify it...hence the reason why we have a Mutual Aid Region, which is in essential situation, an alliance of states, we have a combined military, and a combined research and development situation, which allows us the facile ability to quickly make weapons. And it improves our situation because we can devote more populace to certain tasks which will decrease the amount of time to research and develop weapons, and other necessities of national defence.

Notquiteaplace

17-01-2005, 02:33

Now while I disagree with your theory, to the level you take it, I like your regional plan, it forces you to protect one another too.

I mean a nation with a weak economy and no strong uranium mining may not mine it on the other hand. I mean if your strongest industry is weak, imagine the weak ones!

Though 71 million and 46mil in military? At most if you want an advanced and high tech military you want .5% at most including logistics. And judging by things thats how you are playing it.

I mean my nation has less than 5 million in military roles, including research and logistics, and it's 1.5 billion ish.

I could have a 50 million army, but they would be clutching sticks and pistols. And wouldnt be able to travel anywhere. Instead I have tonnes of ships and aircraft and very well equipped (near future) infantry.

Hakurabi

17-01-2005, 02:36

Actually, just because companies don't mine the uranium or make the arms, it doesn't mean you don't have them. For example, your government could be producing the arms on it's own. The uranium could be imported. The tech could be researched by the government.

Rottweilan

17-01-2005, 02:39

Hakurabi, where is the international relations that allows internation trade to come in? You have to have friends who will supply you the uranium...you can't supply yourself uranium out of thin air.

If you take a look at the Region, Nation of ARC, then you will see that the weapons industry countries, such as Rottweilan's, Kunkelstania's, Windolene's and p40aces' economies range from GOOD to STRONG. The majority of our nations protect each other, because we have a peace treaty with each other. We have a MUTUAL defence armed forces, combined like the former Soviet Union without the corruption and economic problems. :D

We just welcomed the Federation of Overhawkster to our Nation of ARC and now we have 14 nations under our umbrella plus another GOOD economy and another source of URANIUM...plus another 5 million people.

The only reason why we have conscripted 60% of our populace is because of the threat of Nuclear attack from a upstart young dictator by the name of Roman Republic.

Hakurabi

17-01-2005, 03:08

There is always assumed to be neutral nations, as not all people RP on the forums. Then again, the uranium topic doesn't really apply to me, as a FT nation using primarily hydrogen fusion tech.

Notquiteaplace

17-01-2005, 03:13

Seriously, you need to feed and supply them, and it takes a lot of people to supply, and transport and feed an army, as they have to do the same for themselves. 6% would be more than enough, and a large army is useless against nukes. Your economy, being good, is not some sort of giant, it's more like an ex communist nation or something at best. I mean good is about 9/15 possible ranks. (gloat mode: mine is frightening, which is 15, the highest any RL nation would make on any rating is about 13).

You dont have that much money for weapons. If 60% of your pop is armed, you need to spend $1000 arming them,let alon anything else, so about 5% of your GDP (and more than 10% on military spending and you are pretty much taking things like food and housing from your people) just goes one half arsed assault rifles and clips...

The best defence against nukes is a nuclear defence system of some sort. Reduce your armed forces by a factor of 200 and buy one. 350,000 men with tanks, aircraft, naval protection and nuclear defence will fare much better in war than your 46 million men with cheap guns and no armour and few vehicles.

Rottweilan

17-01-2005, 03:53

On-call status of Def Con2..., now we're back down to 8% of our population in uniform.

Rottweilan

17-01-2005, 03:56

Seriously, you need to feed and supply them, and it takes a lot of people to supply, and transport and feed an army, as they have to do the same for themselves. 6% would be more than enough, and a large army is useless against nukes. Your economy, being good, is not some sort of giant, it's more like an ex communist nation or something at best. I mean good is about 9/15 possible ranks. (gloat mode: mine is frightening, which is 15, the highest any RL nation would make on any rating is about 13).

I got a few questions to ask you. My population starts out at 5 million, then goes up by 2 million for every day that I remain on this??? How do you stimulate your economy from good to better? Negotiate international trade? There doesn't seem to be any rules at all governing how to improve your national situation, so I'm playing it by ear...and so are the rest of my friends in our little-model-building board.

Notquiteaplace

17-01-2005, 16:01

Okay, one day is a period of time much longer in NS. In RP situations it's a year for budget purposes. Normally.

However it could be more of less. Issues happen at a frequncy that contradicts itself.

Time is elastic, which suits this, as this board and NS are both Roleplaying ones. Time is arbitary.

However we do like to keep semi realism, people must be fed. Bills must be paid, advances in technology should be feasible by science.

We have different tech levels that interact differently (past, magic, near past, modern, post modern, future and space) My nation is post modern, it uses technoloigy that exists refined to a level not yet acheived on Earth, but that could be with enough budget. More advanced and magic tech levels tend to keep among themselves, though sometimes they don't.

The rule is, it's up to you to stick to reality,as long as your partners in RP don;t mind, but the further you go, the less likely they are to accept it.

Up to a certain point, people have no right to ignore your attacks suddenly, but after that it's arbitary.

True godmode is the changing of your reality and rules on the spot, to win, or just being stupid and unreasonable. Even in future tech there is some realism.

The Eastern-Coalition

17-01-2005, 16:27

I got a few questions to ask you. My population starts out at 5 million, then goes up by 2 million for every day that I remain on this??? How do you stimulate your economy from good to better? Negotiate international trade? There doesn't seem to be any rules at all governing how to improve your national situation, so I'm playing it by ear...and so are the rest of my friends in our little-model-building board.

So far as improving your economy goes, the easiest way is when you get an issue, select a response which favours businesses the most.

Roman Republic

21-01-2005, 21:37

Who the hell created the IGNORE cannon. It sound like a person cannot handle getting beaten by another.

Kyanges

22-01-2005, 03:55

Who the hell created the IGNORE cannon. It sound like a person cannot handle getting beaten by another.

When it means the difference between victory, or losing to someone who just made 2346523452345 tanks appear on the spot where 2365345 nukes had just detonated over, but only his troops were fine because they wore nuke proof shields, well, then I'm sure someone can't handle something. But it sure as hell isn't losing.

Praetonia

23-01-2005, 17:56

Euroslavia

01-02-2005, 21:32

Removed a few inactive links.

Footpads

02-02-2005, 13:29

I would say not a population limit for nuclear weapons, but an economy limit. I'd think that thriving or above would allow you to build nuclear weapons yourself

Thriving in a North Korean way you mean?

GMC Military Arms

02-02-2005, 13:41

I would say not a population limit for nuclear weapons, but an economy limit. I'd think that thriving or above would allow you to build nuclear weapons yourself, otherwise you have to buy them and spend ages paying off debt. It gets a little annoying that no one ever RPs having an economy difference to other nations.

So it's impossible for someone to start out playing as part of a collapsed superpower and thus have a hand-me-down nuclear arsenal AND a shattered economy?

Like, say, Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union?

Sorry to say, even if you have a population of 300 million or 6 billion, if you're a bunch of sheepherders...TOUGH. YOU GOT NO DEFENCE. Hate to drop a dose of reality into this.

Speaking as a moderator here: No, NS doesn't work like that at all. You are not 'defenceless' if arms manufacture isn't one of your displayed industries. If you want to play NS in the manner you described, nobody will stop you, but nobody else has to play by those rules, and given how restrictive [and unrealistic given that NS nations are supposed to be nations and should therefore be assumed to be relatively self-sufficient bodies rather than broken collections of a maximum of three industries] they are it's doubtful many will.

The line of thinking you promote here is actually a logical fallacy called the black / white fallacy or a 'false dilemma': The reasoning that an industry is either one of the nation's main industries or doesn't exist at all would mean that if a nation has no book publishing industry listed it has no books at all therefore everyone is illiterate, or if it has no farming listed there is nothing for anyone to eat. You're ignoring the vastly more logical third option that a nation can have three main industries but may have other smaller industries that don't make the list.

Speaking as a game moderator, I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is the case, being as statistics still exist in the nation stat listings for industries that aren't listed on the nation page. These are calculated in the regular UN reports, and I've seen nations with only one listed major industry rank in the top ten for others before.

In any case, many players treat the nation page as an exaggerated form of their nation in RP terms, rather like a newspaper satire of it. Hardly anyone doesn't ignore at least one of the given stats because it contradicts their previous roleplay or makes no sense.

Freedom Exterminated

02-02-2005, 14:03

It gets a little annoying that no one ever RPs having an economy difference to other nations.I beg to differ.

Falcania

04-02-2005, 18:06

Who the hell created the IGNORE cannon. It sound like a person cannot handle getting beaten by another.

Ah, the subtleties of the ignore cannon. The most useful weapon I have ever used, save perhaps the anti-godmod defense network.

Notquiteaplace

04-02-2005, 19:13

GMC:

I agree, but I'd like to add that some industries get destroyed don't they?

However, that supports my arguement a few posts back, you use common sense. If you have supported your uranium mining industry, you will have some nuclear capacity, even if it is tiny. Just say the UK mined uranium, it's defense spending is tiny, even if it made it's own nukes, it's largest sector would be retail. Nukes wouldn't show, but they would be there.

In short, though if you selected enough anti weapons choices you might need imports... though as far as Im aware there is no "dismantle the army" option, just ones that don't allow weapons... wait there is a no guns at all choice... but there is a "limited use" one in the same issue.

Provided in issue terms you didn't decide to have no defence, you have defence.

Do you agree with me?

The dead and dying

20-02-2005, 00:45

Howdy, is MagiTek (Magic technology) considered god moding when used in non fantasy RPG's

GMC Military Arms

20-02-2005, 07:02

Howdy, is MagiTek (Magic technology) considered god moding when used in non fantasy RPG's

It largely depends how you use it. If it's used unfairly [all your infantrymen have magical nuclear powers of DEAT] sure. Otherwise, not really, though most modern-only RPers won't accept it.

Southrall

20-02-2005, 20:57

Originally Posted by The dead and dying
Howdy, is MagiTek (Magic technology) considered god moding when used in non fantasy RPG's
If a past-tech nation is at war with a future-tech nation, isn't MagiTek the only way they can really defend themselves? E.g. if a medieval nation is suffering orbital bombardment, isn't MagiTek their only option?

Kyanges

21-02-2005, 02:43

If a past-tech nation is at war with a future-tech nation, isn't MagiTek the only way they can really defend themselves? E.g. if a medieval nation is suffering orbital bombardment, isn't MagiTek their only option?

I would say that it might be their only option if they want to have any chance at all.

Pheanix

22-02-2005, 19:59

Interesting.

Fessel

26-02-2005, 23:21

I agree. If they didn't use MagiTek they'd surely be hammered into the ground.

Praetonia

27-02-2005, 10:54

GMC Military Arms

27-02-2005, 11:40

"MagiTek" is godmodding when used against any nation other than another MagiTek nation. Of course, on a case-by-case basis the other player may allow the MagiTek nation to use MagiTek, but that's entirely up to them.

1. Godmoding. Do not continue the legacy of Pure Evil screaming that typo at anything he didn't have.

2. Magic can be used in any situation where both players agree to it. A sorcerer on board an aircraft levitating ball bearings over a circular map with the same performance as a radar might as well be a radar, there's really no point in screaming ZOMG MAGIC just because it isn't one.

3. Why is it up to 'the other [modern] player?' Both players should agree to any use of technology [preferrably by telegram] before any situation where it may become contentious.

Southrall

28-02-2005, 23:01

Originally Posted by Praetonia
"MagiTek" is godmodding when used against any nation other than another MagiTek nation. Of course, on a case-by-case basis the other player may allow the MagiTek nation to use MagiTek, but that's entirely up to them.

All a MagiTek user is doing is using the technology available to him. This is no different to using spaceships or Nukes.

Kyanges

01-03-2005, 02:24

All a MagiTek user is doing is using the technology available to him. This is no different to using spaceships or Nukes.

The only difference is that there is no real set limit to the power a user of Magic can claim to have. Nukes and space ships at lesat generally have some real science behind them, and therefore set limits. Those who go beyond them, are not typically respected, and are generally ignored anyway.

Southrall

01-03-2005, 19:17

Originally posted by Kyanges
The only difference is that there is no real set limit to the power a user of Magic can claim to have. Nukes and space ships at lesat generally have some real science behind them, and therefore set limits. Those who go beyond them, are not typically respected, and are generally ignored anyway.

With regard to, "Those who go beyond them, are not typically respected, and are generally ignored anyway.", the same would apply to MagiTek. Magic, though powerful, would not be invincible. As GMC Military Arms said
A sorcerer on board an aircraft levitating ball bearings over a circular map with the same performance as a radar might as well be a radar, there's really no point in screaming ZOMG MAGIC just because it isn't one.

Fessel

02-03-2005, 19:21

I see no problem with using anything as long as all the participants agree to its use beforehand. Whether it be magic, nukes or space ships. It all depends on the time period the nations are at anyway. If they're medieval nations then using nukes is just as crazy as using magic.

Kyanges

03-03-2005, 17:23

[/I]
With regard to, "Those who go beyond them, are not typically respected, and are generally ignored anyway.", the same would apply to MagiTek. Magic, though powerful, would not be invincible. As GMC Military Arms said

I saw that, but I'm refering to those Magic users who do use uberpowerful magic, and refuse to accept limitations. Obviously, they are ignored.

But like someone else already mentioned, as long as both RPers have agreed to whatever is being used, it's fine.

Praetonia

03-03-2005, 20:29

1. Godmoding. Do not continue the legacy of Pure Evil screaming that typo at anything he didn't have.
Thanks a lot for the semantics, it really furthers your argument.

2. Magic can be used in any situation where both players agree to it.
Yes, I said that.

3. Why is it up to 'the other [modern] player?' Both players should agree to any use of technology [preferrably by telegram] before any situation where it may become contentious.
I think it's clear from my post that I was refering to the use of MagiTek in a Modern Tech environment, as that is the base environment for International Incidents (ie most people play Modern Tech).

All a MagiTek user is doing is using the technology available to him. This is no different to using spaceships or Nukes.
Spaceships are also godmodding in a modern tech environment, to which my post (as I have already stated) was obviously refering. I'm not saying that MagiTek should be banned and that ban enforced by the mods, I'm just saying that it isnt acceptable in modern tech without prior permission.

GMC Military Arms

04-03-2005, 08:45

Thanks a lot for the semantics, it really furthers your argument.

'Semantics' refers to word meanings, not bad spellings that have somehow become accepted. Like, say, pointing out what 'semantics' means. =^_^=

I think it's clear from my post that I was refering to the use of MagiTek in a Modern Tech environment, as that is the base environment for International Incidents (ie most people play Modern Tech).

I'd love to see some evidence that 'most people' play modern tech [most people play modern + whatever, actually; there are STAGGERINGLY few genuine modern-era RPers, and that type of RP is actually at odds with the reality of NS anyway]. In any case, modern-tech RP is no better than any other kind and nobody has to justify their RP on the basis of arbitary tech levels.

Spaceships are also godmodding in a modern tech environment, to which my post (as I have already stated) was obviously refering. I'm not saying that MagiTek should be banned and that ban enforced by the mods, I'm just saying that it isnt acceptable in modern tech without prior permission.

Um, no. Spaceships are wank in a modern setting, but perfectly acceptable as plot devices or if the spacedyship owner is prepared to play nice. There is NOTHING in this game that is acceptable without permission because NS operates on the principle of consent; invading someone with a division of T-72s requires the exact same level of permission as invading someone with an army of fire-breathing dragons. Singling out magic just because it doesn't fit your ideas of proper RP is just, well, silly.

After all, if you walk to the restaurant and I teleport there, we're both still having lunch.

Sarzonia

04-03-2005, 15:36

'Semantics' refers to word meanings, not bad spellings that have somehow become accepted. Like, say, pointing out what 'semantics' means. =^_^=You know what? I'm getting really sick and tired of reading people raking other gamers throught the coals because they spell "Godmodding" instead of "Godmoding." Arguing over which is the correct spelling for a word that isn't part of the standard English lexicon doesn't advance your argument and only makes you look bad. That's what he's saying and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

I think what Praetonia is complaining about is the fact that a SIGNIFICANT number of people use MagiTek as an invincible be-all and end-all against a modern tech opponent the same way some people use spaceships, shields, and mega advanced lasers against modern tech opponents and try to force the MTers to accept them. Make it a fair fight or don't play the game.

GMC Military Arms

05-03-2005, 09:15

You know what? I'm getting really sick and tired of reading people raking other gamers throught the coals because they spell "Godmodding" instead of "Godmoding." Arguing over which is the correct spelling for a word that isn't part of the standard English lexicon doesn't advance your argument and only makes you look bad. That's what he's saying and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

If it's wrong it's wrong. 'Godmode' refers to the IDDQD God Mode cheat in Doom and compares abuse of freeform RP to using that cheat. 'Godmod,' on the other hand, means nothing.

I'm getting 'really sick and tired' of people using a word based on posters persistantly typo'ing the correct form. Strange fate, isn't it?

I think what Praetonia is complaining about is the fact that a SIGNIFICANT number of people use MagiTek as an invincible be-all and end-all against a modern tech opponent the same way some people use spaceships, shields, and mega advanced lasers against modern tech opponents and try to force the MTers to accept them. Make it a fair fight or don't play the game.

Much the same way as a fair number of modern-tech players use 'modern' as an excuse to ignore anything that can defeat their stuff because it's 'futuretech' [in a manner where in WW2 America would have pointed out their economy was bigger and they had a bigger population, so there was no way German Tigers could be better than the crappy Sherman]. Wankers come in all colours, and magic is just as able be played straight-up and fair as modern-tech is able to be played '45% enlisted' grade stupid.

Nianacio

05-03-2005, 20:36

Howdy, is MagiTek (Magic technology) considered god moding when used in non fantasy RPG'sIt depends on who you ask. While some people state their opinions on godmoding as facts, there is really not a consensus. My opinion is yes, it is godmoding.
Much the same way as a fair number of modern-tech players use 'modern' as an excuse to ignore anything that can defeat their stuff because it's 'futuretech'Or maybe they do it because they're modern and the other stuff is future?

GMC Military Arms

06-03-2005, 04:45

Or maybe they do it because they're modern and the other stuff is future?

Did the Japanese complain about America's futuristic battleships in 1854?

The Macabees

06-03-2005, 06:30

Did the Japanese complain about America's futuristic battleships in 1854?

You're taking it out of context - as a modern tech nation I'm not going to allow a battlecruiser galactica blow it out of the water without me able to lift a finger..that's just absurd..I do agree that if someone has a tank, and an enemy comes out with a tank with 2x the armor value and the statistics look proven enough, then there's no grounds for ignore.

GMC Military Arms

06-03-2005, 11:15

You're taking it out of context - as a modern tech nation I'm not going to allow a battlecruiser galactica blow it out of the water without me able to lift a finger..that's just absurd..I do agree that if someone has a tank, and an enemy comes out with a tank with 2x the armor value and the statistics look proven enough, then there's no grounds for ignore.

Obviously if someone is simply abusing a technical advantage to not give you a chance then it's grounds for ignore, but really in that instance either the futuretech-owner shouldn't be doing what they're doing [techwank] or the modern-tech owner shouldn't have got himself into a situation where he had a spacetech nation after him , depending on what led up to the event.

But think of a different scenario; rather than a head-on war, what if your modern forces found themselves up against, say, a [i]crashed space battleship? Such a fight would be relatively even and an interesting RP event to deal with, with the 'future'-ness balanced out. The fact that a modern-tech nation would find it very difficult or impossible to beat a futuretech nation in a straight-out war shouldn't totally stop you interacting with them.

The Macabees

06-03-2005, 18:23

I guess that makes sense, but, what I'm referring to is if let's say.... Nation A goes to war with Nation B in a perfectly RPd MT war, and then Nation C comes in with its Battlestar Galactica Super Stardestroyers.

So, I guess what I'm saying is if Nation A and Nation C agree to a FT war then that should be fine, however, if Nation A is intereted in having a solely MT war then he should be allowed that right and Nation C shouldn't intervene. Either that, or Nation C should moderate its tech to meet the MT standards - or at least, something around 2020 to 2050 standards.

Nianacio

06-03-2005, 22:16

Did the Japanese complain about America's futuristic battleships in 1854?The battleships were futuristic, not from the future. A battleship that's ahead of the times can sail across the ocean to get to me; a battleship that doesn't exist yet can't.

I know there are "future-tech" people who insist they're in the modern world, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen a "future-tech" nation who isn't breaking scientific laws, anyway. (And yes, people in Japan may have previously considered such ships impossible, but I don't think the ships would have gone against scientific 'laws' they already had.)

GMC Military Arms

07-03-2005, 04:46

The battleships were futuristic, not from the future. A battleship that's ahead of the times can sail across the ocean to get to me; a battleship that doesn't exist yet can't.

If, say, a Doujin class or one of the numerous knockoffs thereof sailed into New York harbour tommorrow morning, would you be able to tell if it had come from an inexpicable undiscovered nation or the future?

It's impossible to determine time period purely on the level of technology achieved; if one compared the horrendously primative M3 Lee / Grant [or the even more horrendously primative T-35, but that's a lil' too early] to the German Tiger I one would conclude on the basis of that comparison that WW2 Germany was in the future of WW2 America.

Further, what does it matter? As long as you're not fighting a head-on war the futuretech advantage can be worked around with creative RP, and some of the best stories consist of a force at a technical disadvantage using their ingenuity to win out. This, however, only really works in planned RPs where the technology acts as a plot device rather than a method of going 'RAWR! I'M HUGE!'

I know there are "future-tech" people who insist they're in the modern world, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen a "future-tech" nation who isn't breaking scientific laws, anyway. (And yes, people in Japan may have previously considered such ships impossible, but I don't think the ships would have gone against scientific 'laws' they already had.)

In terms of outright realism most of NS breaks at least some scientific laws; our population growth is constant and there is no disadvantage built in to having a nation of billions, there's the issue of NS-nations having multiple conflicting backstories, and so on. Bending reality a little in the interests of a good story can be a positive thing [see the Ace Combat games for proof of this].

One might also consider that using 'modern' technology is actually highly [i]unrealistic for a nationstates nation, given that our real-life weapons and military theories are based on the experiences of real-life nations in real-life wars, including the parts of those theories that are obviously flawed [such as the theory that lead the US to develop a 'fighter' that can't fight, the F-117]. If you don't share that history, why would you arrive at the same conclusions?

More simply, if everyone's having fun and nobody's just using a tech advantage to avoid tricky things like actually RPing, I say yay for them.

Nianacio

07-03-2005, 05:36

If, say, a Doujin class or one of the numerous knockoffs thereof sailed into New York harbour tommorrow morning, would you be able to tell if it had come from an inexpicable undiscovered nation or the future?Those ships are godmodes, anyway...And, yes, I could. If I'm seeing it, it's from an undiscovered nation.
It's impossible to determine time period purely on the level of technology achieved; if one compared the horrendously primative M3 Lee / Grant [or the even more horrendously primative T-35, but that's a lil' too early] to the German Tiger I one would conclude on the basis of that comparison that WW2 Germany was in the future of WW2 America.I've pointed that out before, but you berated me for making that distinction...
Further, what does it matter? As long as you're not fighting a head-on war the futuretech advantage can be worked around with creative RP, and some of the best stories consist of a force at a technical disadvantage using their ingenuity to win out. This, however, only really works in planned RPs where the technology acts as a plot device rather than a method of going 'RAWR! I'M HUGE!'It has nothing to do with advantages. It's about the fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone in the future to talk to me.
In terms of outright realism most of NS breaks at least some scientific laws; our population growth is constant and there is no disadvantage built in to having a nation of billions, there's the issue of NS-nations having multiple conflicting backstories, and so on.Indeed; the game has some rather silly stuff in it. I wrote a long post examining things such as bits of the game and the chats with Max Barry 'proving' we should all be godmoders whose RPs depend on numbers instead of content, but I never posted it...
[see the Ace Combat games for proof of this]What are they like? *Is the type who wants crosshairs removed from America's Army*
One might also consider that using 'modern' technology is actually highly [i]unrealistic for a nationstates nation, given that our real-life weapons and military theories are based on the experiences of real-life nations in real-life wars, including the parts of those theories that are obviously flawed [such as the theory that lead the US to develop a 'fighter' that can't fight, the F-117]. If you don't share that history, why would you arrive at the same conclusions?Implausible, but not impossible. I make up most of Nianacio's stuff, though (not from scratch, but I doubt anyone will notice I borrowed from Japanese experiments with semi-automatic rifles from WWII and before). Also, even without specific wars actually happening, the occurence of other wars during a time period may well lead to some of the same conclusions being made (it's a bad idea to run across a field when there are guys with machine guns on the other end, for example).

Jolt has been slow lately. :(

GMC Military Arms

07-03-2005, 06:07

Those ships are godmodes, anyway...And, yes, I could. If I'm seeing it, it's from an undiscovered nation.

Being as Freethinker is a maritime engineering student I'm confident that the Doujin class would at very least float, move and suchlike in the way he states it would. Translating that to what Doujin wanked it into [an invincible floating fortress where you had to 'sink all three hulls' in order to send her to Davey Jones' locker even though two are obviously smaller]...Well yes, that was a Godmode.

I've pointed that out before, but you berated me for making that distinction...

Because it's a rather bizarre attempt to justify the fact that you only want to play modern-tech. That's your choice, but there's no need for the whole weird 'era' justification of it. RPing at a fixed technology level rather than constantly developing at whatever time-speed you RP is as unrealistic as RPing at a silly technology level.

Compare, for reference, the amount of technological progress made in either world war to the amount of technical progress not made in modern-tech NS wars.

It has nothing to do with advantages. It's about the fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone in the future to talk to me.

Einsteinian physics does not rule out time travel as a possibility. And above you state quite clearly that if someone is talking to you, you know they're not from the future. Why override this conclusion and assume that if the person talking to you claims to be from the future they don't exist?

What are they like? *Is the type who wants crosshairs removed from America's Army*

Series of fun arcadish flight-sims basing their 'realism' around realistic visuals and a good story instead of realistic weapon loads. '84 missiles and sink this fleet' rather than 'two missiles and fly ten miles from a target you never see to drop them.' I'm the kind of whimsical bastard who appreciates things like that.

Implausible, but not impossible. I make up most of Nianacio's stuff, though (not from scratch, but I doubt anyone will notice I borrowed from Japanese experiments with semi-automatic rifles from WWII and before). Also, even without specific wars actually happening, the occurence of other wars during a time period may well lead to some of the same conclusions being made (it's a bad idea to run across a field when there are guys with machine guns on the other end, for example).

Some, but not all; certainly not to the extent that, as some modern nations do, they would be using the NATO / Warsaw Pact standardised ammunition without ever being a member of either organisation.

The Macabees

07-03-2005, 06:15

Einsteinian physics does not rule out time travel as a possibility. And above you state quite clearly that if someone is talking to you, you know they're not from the future. Why override this conclusion and assume that if the person talking to you claims to be from the future they don't exist?

Actually, string theorist believe that 'time travel' into the future is possible, and that has been actually proved, as we've sent a clock into orbit, and matched it with a clock on Earth, and it turns out that the clock in orbit runs slower because it's moving faster - it is to say, if the laws of gravity were ruled out, or a man in space was able to exercise for most of the day and eat the rest, that man would age slower than a man on Earth and when he returned he would remain at a fairly young age while those around him would be older - in that sense time travel is possible.

However, time travel into the past is not possible since there's no trick of time to do such a thing... but I have a feeling this is off topic.

The Macabees

07-03-2005, 06:16

Sorry to double post but I didn't see this:

Being as Freethinker is a maritime engineering student I'm confident that the Doujin class would at very least float, move and suchlike in the way he states it would. Translating that to what Doujin wanked it into [an invincible floating fortress where you had to 'sink all three hulls' in order to send her to Davey Jones' locker even though two are obviously smaller]...Well yes, that was a Godmode.

The Doujin was conceivable enough. It was the fact that Doujin failed to take damage that was the godmod, as you have most aptly put. It would be consedirably hard to sink it, but in truth everything has its limits, and I believe, unlike Doujin, that if forty anti-shipping missiles hit it that thing is going down.

Nianacio

07-03-2005, 06:41

Being as Freethinker is a maritime engineering student I'm confident that the Doujin class would at very least float, move and suchlike in the way he states it would. Translating that to what Doujin wanked it into [an invincible floating fortress where you had to 'sink all three hulls' in order to send her to Davey Jones' locker even though two are obviously smaller]...Well yes, that was a Godmode.It's more the weaponry than the ship; while The Freethinkers likely knows more about maritime engineering than anyone else here, that doesn't also make him an expert on naval weaponry. As for claiming it's invincible...A long time ago Doujin admitted to me that you could sink one of the ships (quite easily, actually) in one way...If you drop a chunk of metal at it from a massive height (think ortillery or SLBM/ICBM with a chunk of metal instead of nuclear warheads)...Expensive, but a lot cheaper than replacing a single ship destroyed by a Doujin.
Because it's a rather bizarre attempt to justify the fact that you only want to play modern-tech.Then why did you just make it?
That's your choice, but there's no need for the whole weird 'era' justification of it.It's not a justification...I'm willing to RP other time periods, but my nation will also have to be in them.
RPing at a fixed technology level rather than constantly developing at whatever time-speed you RP is as unrealistic as RPing at a silly technology level.I sort put my nation on pause between RPs (and it's been a long time since I RPed, to a large extent because my nation has become powerful enough to convince most people to do something with just one or two posts of intimidation, I can't do character RPs, and Nianacio is a mostly isolationist libertarian state, so it doesn't do stuff that'll get a big reaction).
Compare, for reference, the amount of technological progress made in either world war to the amount of technical progress not made in modern-tech NS wars.How long do NS wars usually last? The ones I've witnessed were short and brutal without much of a chance to progress.
And above you state quite clearly that if someone is talking to you, you know they're not from the future. Why override this conclusion and assume that if the person talking to you claims to be from the future they don't exist?I'm not overriding any conclusion. A person who claims to be from the future isn't. A NSer who OOCly says his nation is in the future is probably telling the truth.
Series of fun arcadish flight-sims basing their 'realism' around realistic visuals and a good story instead of realistic weapon loads. '84 missiles and sink this fleet' rather than 'two missiles and fly ten miles from a target you never see to drop them.'Ah...
Some, but not all; certainly not to the extent that, as some modern nations do, they would be using the NATO / Warsaw Pact standardised ammunition without ever being a member of either organisation.Oh, I thought you meant more general conclusions...Yes, that's unrealistic.

Coressimo

07-03-2005, 18:34

Thanks- helped me alot

GMC Military Arms

08-03-2005, 02:44

It's more the weaponry than the ship; while The Freethinkers likely knows more about maritime engineering than anyone else here, that doesn't also make him an expert on naval weaponry. As for claiming it's invincible...A long time ago Doujin admitted to me that you could sink one of the ships (quite easily, actually) in one way...If you drop a chunk of metal at it from a massive height (think ortillery or SLBM/ICBM with a chunk of metal instead of nuclear warheads)...Expensive, but a lot cheaper than replacing a single ship destroyed by a Doujin.

Yah; the trouble is that most ortillery in a modern context fits firmly in the 'strategic weapon' category of only really being accurate enough to target facilities or cities, and nobody would wait to find out the payload of an ICBM before retaliating with n00kz. So, while you'd sink the Doujin with said weapon, you'd get nailed with some form of EXCESSIVE RETALIATION[TM] in return.

Trouble with the ship and the cause of it's largely unjustified reputation as complete wank is that Doujin had a nasty tendency to ignore anything that looked like it would actually sink one of his floating shelltraps, and he did massively overstate its ability to absorb damage [the 'sinking all three hulls' is a direct quote, though I'll be DAMNED if I can find the post again] and generally waved it around like Steve Irwin with a particularly lethal snake.

Then why did you just make it?

Make what? I don't follow...I probably misinterpreted the point, was pretty vague.

It's not a justification...I'm willing to RP other time periods, but my nation will also have to be in them

But as stated already:

1. You can't determine time period purely from technology and:
2. When faced with technology that does not appear to be from your time period, suspension of disbelief [which in reality is sort of compulsory, as the Japanese found] demands you assume it exists somehow before you resort to the realm of out-of-game explanations ['it's not there because it's from the future / past'].

How long do NS wars usually last? The ones I've witnessed were short and brutal without much of a chance to progress.

The few wars that don't end in hideous ignore-spasms [mostly civil wars, it seems] can actually go on for quite a while. Nevertheless, the point is a nation that's grown from 5 million to >3 billion with numerous wars in between and yet has made little to no technical progress in that $timeframe is an interesting artefact to say the least.

I'm not overriding any conclusion. A person who claims to be from the future isn't. A NSer who OOCly says his nation is in the future is probably telling the truth.

The problem is that very few NS nations actually say 'I am in the future,' and so you're back to making judgements based on arbitrary tech levels [as you said yourself last time we went over this, if I recall]. While it's clear you're happy with your policy on technology, you unnecessarily limit the number of people you can potentially RP with this way. In a sticky, I'd prefer to encourage a policy among new players of only ignoring players who have demonstrated themselves to be unreasonable rather than blanket-ignoring entire groups of roleplayers right off the bat. Thus, technology in RP should be assessed by the criteria:

1. Is roleplaying with the player who owns this thingy going to be interesting, and will they play fair with it?
2. See 1.

This attitude broadly places NS as a game first and a simulation second, and I'd be arrogant beyond measure to say it's the only way to play the game, or even the best way to play the game. It is, however, a good way to start playing the game IMAO since it's far more forgiving than the 'simulation first and game second' opposite extreme of RP [where the question is generally 'regardless of what I think of this player's RP, would my nation be involved with them?']

Everyone in NS strikes a different balance between those two extremes, but I'd personally [as a player] like to keep the stickies setting people on the most open path available, as the old apparently-gone NS forum sticky did in the times known only to Creaky Old NS-Buggers. How they narrow things down to what they like to do after that is up to them. Hence, the sticky should encourage a loose definition of Godmoding ['forced roleplaying'] rather than your strong one ['something involving eras'], note that you shouldn't push roleplay on nations that obviously don't want it [the basic tenet of consent and universal Rule of Rules], and leave it at that.

If there's something drastically wrong with that, then I don't see it.

Praetonia

08-03-2005, 15:50

lol... I wish I'd never bothered to respond to this now.

Well "GMC Military Arms" you have fun playing in your multi-tech world if you want, but I'm just fine in a modern-tech only environment. I have RPed "with" future tech nations, and it's the most frustrating experience of my life. It's all:

"I want you to do this."

"No thanks."

"Then I'll invade you."

"I'll fight back!"

"But my ubert3ch pwns you."

"Oh yeah... ok. Actually, just have my password. It'll save you some time getting me to respond."

So anyway, have fun. And dont bother pointing out my spelling mistakes, I really dont give a damn.

Nianacio

08-03-2005, 23:33

the trouble is that most ortillery in a modern context fits firmly in the 'strategic weapon' category of only really being accurate enough to target facilities or citiesGot any citations for that?
nobody would wait to find out the payload of an ICBM before retaliating with n00kz.Some nations have publically stated they don't have nukes. While it's impossible to keep track of them OOC, it's probably known IC who's a nuclear threat and who isn't.
Trouble with the ship and the cause of it's largely unjustified reputation as complete wank is that Doujin had a nasty tendency to ignore anything that looked like it would actually sink one of his floating shelltraps, and he did massively overstate its ability to absorb damage [the 'sinking all three hulls' is a direct quote, though I'll be DAMNED if I can find the post again] and generally waved it around like Steve Irwin with a particularly lethal snake.Ah...I ignored Doujin and thus didn't pay much attention.
Make what? I don't follow...I probably misinterpreted the point, was pretty vague.The distinction you've berated me for making.
1. You can't determine time period purely from technology and:
2. When faced with technology that does not appear to be from your time period, suspension of disbelief [which in reality is sort of compulsory, as the Japanese found] demands you assume it exists somehow before you resort to the realm of out-of-game explanations ['it's not there because it's from the future / past'].So?* Also, some things are just so out of the realm of possibility ("My civilization always made the right choices when it came to scientific progress, which is why I had fighter jets in 1000AD.") that they can be ignored OOC.
*"So?" as in "I don't see the point", not "Your point is incredibly stupid".
The few wars that don't end in hideous ignore-spasms [mostly civil wars, it seems] can actually go on for quite a while.Hmm...The conflicts I've been in were rather short, but there were serious problems with at least some of them that made them difficult to be in. ("I had that border secured, y'know...Here's the post...You couldn't have just marched right in like that." "Well, I forgot. Too bad for you." or "My weapons are RUSSIAN. You can't beat them." *Nianacio provides technical reasons why he can* "Oh...Well, I guess I'll post a few casualties.")
Nevertheless, the point is a nation that's grown from 5 million to >3 billion with numerous wars in between and yet has made little to no technical progress in that $timeframe is an interesting artefact to say the least.That falls in the "the game is silly" category. I'm not sure why I bother being realistic if the actual game isn't. :\
The problem is that very few NS nations actually say 'I am in the future,' and so you're back to making judgements based on arbitrary tech levels [as you said yourself last time we went over this, if I recall].I think if one found a realistic futurish nation, that nation probably would...But we're into the realm of conjecture.
In a sticky, I'd prefer to encourage a policy among new players of only ignoring players who have demonstrated themselves to be unreasonable rather than blanket-ignoring entire groups of roleplayers right off the bat."Unreasonable" referring to the attitude of the players and not what they RP?

The Macabees

09-03-2005, 02:29

Verdant Archipelago

09-03-2005, 03:02

It all depends if you can come to an agreement on how the RP will work or not. Frankly, I'd prefer fighting someone who had space ships and laser guns than someone with scramjets and gas-gun tanks... because at least with the laser guns you know where you stand. The scramjet person is liable to simply outfly all your fighters and yammer about hypersonic kinetic kill AAMs, while claiming to be modern tech. Modern tech is slowly creeping further and fuirther forward... It's time to take a stand!

The Macabees

09-03-2005, 03:42

I'm not a proponent of SCRAMjet propelled aircraft, just SCRAMjet propelled 'artillery' - missiles and such.

Ayaddha

09-03-2005, 04:01

"Future Tech is anything I don't understand." ;)

(Derived from the statement by Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss: "Any task I don't understand must be trivial.")

GMC Military Arms

09-03-2005, 04:29

Well "GMC Military Arms" you have fun playing in your multi-tech world if you want, but I'm just fine in a modern-tech only environment. I have RPed "with" future tech nations, and it's the most frustrating experience of my life. It's all: <snip>

Then the problem is you're playing with bad roleplayers. Bad roleplayers exist in past, present, and futuristic technology levels. As I said, in a head on war extreme technical superiority is likely to win out, which is why players who try to force people at much lower tech standards into wars with them just to wave around their big metal Johnsons and RAR CONQUER are wankers.

Got any citations for that?

Could probably dig some up if need be, though I'm quoting another player in just saying it. Anyway, lil' superflous to the discussion.

So?* Also, some things are just so out of the realm of possibility ("My civilization always made the right choices when it came to scientific progress, which is why I had fighter jets in 1000AD.") that they can be ignored OOC.

There is, however, the classic 'My civilisation has existed 1000 years longer, therefore...' variant, which isn't even that unrealistic considering the number of empires that have risen and then fallen into ruin during human history. Indeed, we still can't figure out OOPARTs like that Aztec crystal skull.

The point I was trying to make is that you yourself have admitted that when not given a future date you base era distinctions on technology level, even though you say that you can't determine era based on this. It's kinda confusing.

Something to consider re: 'is it possible?' versus 'is it fair?' here is that were I to discover a scientifically repeatable method of building an invincible force field using basic household products tomorrow morning, that would be a realistic thing to have. However, it would still be shitty RP to troll around with armies of invincible forcefield'd tanks going 'RAR! ME REALISTIC!'

That falls in the "the game is silly" category. I'm not sure why I bother being realistic if the actual game isn't. :\

The point of this is that since NS is fundamentally unrealistic in the way it operates it's all but impossible to create a nation that operates in a totally realistic manner without making some sacrifices to the nature of the game, therefore the only reasonable goal for a player is verisimilitude, not hard realism.

The natural conclusion is that players should be able to do whatever their RP-partner's ability to suspend disbelief will let them. In your case, that's modern or hard-science postmodern, in my case it's, well, not.

"Unreasonable" referring to the attitude of the players and not what they RP?

Yes.

It all depends if you can come to an agreement on how the RP will work or not. Frankly, I'd prefer fighting someone who had space ships and laser guns than someone with scramjets and gas-gun tanks... because at least with the laser guns you know where you stand. The scramjet person is liable to simply outfly all your fighters and yammer about hypersonic kinetic kill AAMs, while claiming to be modern tech. Modern tech is slowly creeping further and fuirther forward... It's time to take a stand!

Someone's been RPing with Sillytris...

Nianacio

09-03-2005, 08:09

I think that GMC is in the right when it comes to 2005-2015 technology, for in truth, if it seems feasible, the person gives you sources, and the technology is that close to realization in the real world then you should role play with it. However, should a star cruiser come in at lightspeed then I'm going to blast it with my handy-dandy I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon.That's basically how I feel (except I decided long ago to never again use an "ignore cannon").
Could probably dig some up if need be, though I'm quoting another player in just saying it. Anyway, lil' superflous to the discussion.Yeah, but I'm curious...Since I ignore the Doujins it's not important, though.
Indeed, we still can't figure out OOPARTs like that Aztec crystal skull.I wasn't familiar with that, so I did a quick Google...Is this (http://www.xispas.com/art/aztecskull/aztecskull.htm) what you're referring to?
The point I was trying to make is that you yourself have admitted that when not given a future date you base era distinctions on technology level, even though you say that you can't determine era based on this. It's kinda confusing.

Something to consider re: 'is it possible?' versus 'is it fair?' here is that were I to discover a scientifically repeatable method of building an invincible force field using basic household products tomorrow morning, that would be a realistic thing to have. However, it would still be shitty RP to troll around with armies of invincible forcefield'd tanks going 'RAR! ME REALISTIC!'I suppose I tend to dismiss problems that I don't think will ever come up...:\
The natural conclusion is that players should be able to do whatever their RP-partner's ability to suspend disbelief will let them. In your case, that's modern or hard-science postmodern, in my case it's, well, not.I agree...But everyone should suddenly agree with me. :p

GMC Military Arms

09-03-2005, 08:24

I wasn't familiar with that, so I did a quick Google...Is this (http://www.xispas.com/art/aztecskull/aztecskull.htm) what you're referring to?

Bah, Jan '05, should keep current on my examples of mysterious artifacts. The Wikipedia article OOPART (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOPART) has a list. Not say I necessarily believe they're all true, mind, the point is that societies have grown, fallen and grown back up again in our history and large parts of the knowledge forgotten, so one could theorise that a nation / empire which hadn't could potentially be far more advanced in the same period of time.

It's not very likely given this nation would almost certainly have taken time out to conquer the world, but possible.

Pirate Captains

10-03-2005, 20:59

Iraq, under Saddam, was not a theocracy, (nor is Israel) otherwise an excellent post with great idead.

The Macabees

11-03-2005, 02:53

Iraq, under Saddam, was not a theocracy, (nor is Israel) otherwise an excellent post with great idead.

Israel is considered a theocracy since it's 'official' religion is Judaism.

Pirate Captains

11-03-2005, 07:36

Israel is considered a theocracy since it's 'official' religion is Judaism.

Just because a country has an official religion, does not mean it is a theocracy. Italy, for example, had Roman Catholicism as its official religion post World War II. Many countries have an official religion, there are few theocracies however.

Czardas

13-04-2005, 20:08

Does it count as godmoding if you have a nation with a "Frightening" economy that spends 60% of its budget on Defense and a universal draft (from one of those issues) that conscripts everyone capable of pulling a trigger (i.e. everyone between age 18 and age 65)? That amount would be about 60% of the population. I have such a nation with a population of 1.6 billion, which would give me about 900 million soldiers. (I know, it's unrealistic. Let's say 600 million—counting out disabled people and those in fragile health—which is still about sixty times larger than the largest standing army in history, FYI Russia in WWII.) This is probably a pretty obvious question, but it's not mentioned anywhere that it's considered Godmoding if you have a universal draft.

Nebarri_Prime

13-04-2005, 21:01

you should use no more then 5% of your population during war and no more than 1% in peace the rest i would say is ok

History lovers

13-04-2005, 21:30

A theocracy means that the government is run by the religious leaders. Israel is not run by the religious leaders. Therefore, Israel is not a theocracy. And Germany has an official religion, as did the Soviet Union. Germany still provides funds to the Lutheran Church and the USSR's official religion was atheism.

NovaCarpeDiem

14-04-2005, 01:35

I suppose it would be "legal" to create a nation that isn't really a nation but just a huge mercenary army that travels all over the place and kills people. But, let's face it, introducing such a nation would take all the fun out of the RP, and it probably wouldn't be possible anyway as about half the populace would be children and unable to fight. Also, nations can't survive without an economy, political system, or anything else—they become, well, just huge armies that travel all over the place and kill people. (They're not a lot of fun to work with, either.)

--------

Note to moderators & other players who want to be helpful: This is not a question, just a statement. I do not have a nation that is just a huge army (although someone I know does, and that someone doesn't even know about the forums).

Pheanix

16-04-2005, 02:24

It may turn out to be an interesting RP, something along the lines of an army like Ghenghis Khan or Atila.

Gyrobot

22-05-2005, 17:18

I also have another form of godmoding, basically I challenged a nation to war but he said I was future tech and he was modern. He would challenge me however if he was future tech. The problem is that he has one too many allies and he fought another nation that has an lower class of technology and also horribly outnumber the nation. You could guess which one this is.

Emmitia

22-05-2005, 17:44

Atheism isn't a religion, History Lovers. It literally means "lack of religion." Plus, Israel was founded upon the fact that that area is the Chosen Land for Jews, and that was the very area that the Jews had lived in for centuries, or even millenia (Judea). Plus, the Jewish flag has a star of David on it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Israelite call to arms was based on defending the Jewish holy land.

If it's not complete theocracy, it's not far off. What would you think if you saw a nation with the Christian cross on it, and claims that their land is the one and only holy land for Christians?

Aust

22-05-2005, 17:58

Wow, euro thats one hell of a fact book!

Neerdam

12-07-2005, 13:45

This is my first post, just saying that that piece about Godmoding is simply brilliant and i completely understand and agree too it. Its not bulletproof though.

Thanks.

Aust

12-07-2005, 13:50

This is my first post, just saying that that piece about Godmoding is simply brilliant and i completely understand and agree too it. Its not bulletproof though.

Thanks.
Agreed, nice first post.

Abeir-Toril

24-11-2005, 06:36

I read the main post and a lot of the comments afterwards, but what I want to put in is that when RP'ing wars, knowing the actual capabilities of modern equipment these days is very helpful, and not everyone is tech savvy.

A suggestion I would like to put out is to research a few current aircrafts or whatever it is you are using in the war currently, and modify it to something that you are comfortable with and can modify to work accordingly. The plane has excellent armor perhaps but sacrifices speed due to weight. It could be your own aircraft based off of something else and making decisions are a lot easier. And if someone else is using modern aircrafts and are over exaggerating about their capabilities, just take the time to put in a little research if you feel they are munching and present a reasonable argument as to why they may not be able to do something to that extent.

One question i'm more concerned about is how you keep track of your money in a nation. For instance, my economy is strong right now, but what exactly does that entitle? Am I now capable of building a fleet of 50 F-15's without putting a dent in my wallet? I would appreciate some tips and ideas concerning this and how it works.

Oh, and try to learn from other people and improve upon your RP so you don't munch as much and can avoid godmode in the future. Saves other people a lot of time as well if you get into a war with them.

Warp and Woof

02-07-2006, 19:47

I see my country as a nanotech enhanced ai population that is trying to enhance its capabilities by absorbing as much thought as possible. Because of this it doesn't really have an economy or military as we know it. The people do not necessarily exist in "bodies" (and so cannot necessarily be "destroyed" per se) but rather, they are everything in the nation including the human beings, trees, mountains, animals, etc. How would I rp economic/military intervention with my nation w/o being lame/cheesy? My populace may start wars without intending to by "invading" the bodies of humans in other nations and enhancing their capabilities for mutual benefit for example. Would this be constituted as aggression? economic exchange?

Neo-Erusea

24-07-2006, 19:24

Not to be disrestepctful or anything, but past vs present tech, past v future, and present v future will almost always result in victory for the latter. Being the fact that castles were made obselete by mere cannons that propelled iron balls with gunpowder, why would a castle even have the most remote chance of defeating tanks. The tanks would just sit there beyond the range of the arrows so the commander isn't vulnerable, and they'ed be firing their 120mm guns (125mm if they are Russian) onto the castle. Or maybe the Empire invades earth, and while our tanks are wasting their time shhoting at AT-AT walkers they are blowing our cities to kingdom-come. Like war of the worlds or something. (But then they'ed die from germs, whoopie!) I'm just being honest. Please don't bite my head off.

GMC Military Arms

25-07-2006, 06:35

The tanks would just sit there beyond the range of the arrows so the commander isn't vulnerable, and they'ed be firing their 120mm guns (125mm if they are Russian) onto the castle.

You'd have to wonder why such a situation would come about to begin with, though, given the side with tanks could, y'know, trade with the side with castles, as the exchange rate would be ridiculously in their favour anyway.

If it came to war, sure, the castles wouldn't last long [assuming anyone's stupid enough to try to defend them to start with] but a man with a knife and knowledge of the land is dangerous no matter what the level of technology, and the tanks have to stop moving sometime. When they do, the guys inside would be vulnerable to sneaky attacks, even by guys with swords.

It'd be very difficult to win, but certainly possible; the modern enemy is likely to back off once they realise the country won't be the pushover they thought it would be. The Zulus in Africa are good evidence that tactics and numbers can make guns vs spears an actual battle, after all.

Or maybe the Empire invades earth, and while our tanks are wasting their time shhoting at AT-AT walkers they are blowing our cities to kingdom-come.

Again, the Empire would have no immediate reason to randomly atomise worlds that present no threat to it, and since this is a game rather than real life, it's bad form to do so just because you can. Diplomacy could make the Star Destroyers go away, or failing that find someone to help. If not, you can stop an AT-AT with a deep concealed pit, since we know if they fall they can't get back up.

Vodka-stonia

02-09-2006, 23:11

*gifts the maker of this thread with a case of the best vodka, as is customary
in big thanks in Vodka-stonia*

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 00:31

It largely depends how you use it. If it's used unfairly [all your infantrymen have magical nuclear powers of DEAT] sure. Otherwise, not really, though most modern-only RPers won't accept it.

My nation Kesshite, has a magical field around it that disables most 'high tech' devices, such as cell phones, engines, and synthetically made compounds. I have this in my factbook so other players know about it before they interact with me, I make certain that my nation doesn't get the benefits of high tech (no CNN 24 hour feed or shooting off encrypted e-mails, and this is only something that effects my nation.

If another player, for instance, tells me they bring a tank onto my land and I say, "the tank stops working," would that be considered godmoding as I'm controlling the other person's equipment?

Skgorria

17-01-2007, 00:36

Technically speaking, yes I'd call that godmoding. Just out of interest, does your nation have high-tech stuff that it just keeps outside of its main territory eg. on offshore islands, in space?

Atopiana

17-01-2007, 00:42

If another player, for instance, tells me they bring a tank onto my land and I say, "the tank stops working," would that be considered godmoding as I'm controlling the other person's equipment?

Yes, it's godmoding.

Also, you'd have to make sure that their tank wasn't entirely devoid of electricity...! :p

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 00:49

Are there tanks with no electricity?

I disagree with you on this point, for a number of reasons. However, as I posted my question because I wanted to know others' thoughts, I'll hold off on 'defending' my stance for now.

Thank you for answering.

Atopiana

17-01-2007, 00:52

Yep. Most of the early ones, in fact, and it's quite feasible to make an electric-less tank, plane, ship, or gun.

What you can say is "You do know that as soon as those tanks etc cross this line here you will encounter severe problems?"

Saying "LOL TANKS NO WORK" is godmodding. :)

British Londinium

17-01-2007, 00:52

Question:

Is it godmodding to continually wage a long, drawn-out war as a democracy with no sort of dissident from the people or pressure to withdraw from the occupied nation?

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 00:53

Technically speaking, yes I'd call that godmoding. Just out of interest, does your nation have high-tech stuff that it just keeps outside of its main territory eg. on offshore islands, in space?

How could we launch something into space? How could we maintain a facility if our citizenry has never dealt with anything of that nature before?

Those citizens and dignitaries who live in embassies in foreign nations can use their stuff though.

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 00:53

Saying "LOL TANKS NO WORK" is godmodding. :)

Again, I disagree with you.

Skgorria

17-01-2007, 00:53

Are there tanks with no electricity?

Possibly, but Skgorria has a far better counter to this: the Low-Tech Brigade!

It was designed to fight in areas where EMP weaponry would be heavily employed, and as such uses NO electricity. It consists of:

- mounted dinosaur cavalry for mobility
- infantry with assault rifles and body armour
- semaphore, smoke signals, and mirrors for comms
- towed artillery, again with dinosaurs
- Gliders and Hot Air Balloons for observation

Atopiana

17-01-2007, 00:55

Again, I disagree with you.

Why?

Whyatica

17-01-2007, 01:34

Question:

Is it godmodding to continually wage a long, drawn-out war as a democracy with no sort of dissident from the people or pressure to withdraw from the occupied nation?

I honestly wouldn't say the war in your nation has been going on for especially long - Maybe 8 IC months at the most, and the recent events tend to galvanize the population. After all, with so few dead it's a 'police action' at the moment, not so much a full scale war.

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 03:45

As it appears that no one else is commenting, I'd be happy to explain my position.

As I understand it, in NationStates, one can be whatever type of nation one desires. I could be a modern nation, a galactic colony, or a dwarven nation. No one has a problem with this. The problems begin when nations interact and disagree about what is possible and probable; especially when it comes to war.

For instance, two modern nations could disagree about the ability of a missile defense system to defend a nation. One says that they've put so much into their defense system that it's likely to destroy 80% of the missiles that enter their territory while the other says they've placed so much research into their missiles' homing system and their ability to scramble the computer networks of others that they think 50% percent of the missiles could get through.

This is an argument about probability.

On the other hand, two modern nations could disagree about ability of a navy to attack a nation. One nation says that their navy will surround the other nation and start firing. The other nation says it's land locked.

This is an argument about possibility.

I see my situation as one of possibility and not probability.

I'll give more examples. I have an underground dwarven nation chiseled from the rocks. The corridors in this nation are 6 feet by 6 feet. The person whose nation is attacking mine says, "I send 200 M1 Abrams into your nation." I can respond, "Your tanks can't enter." That's not godmoding, that's a statement of what is not possible in that nation.

I have another nation, it's a small planetoid with no gravity. The person whose nation is attacking mine says, "I send 200 M1 Abrams into your nation." I can respond, "Your tanks start floating as soon as they start moving."

I have another nation; it's all deep swampland. The person whose nation is attacking mine says, "I send 200 M1 Abrams into your nation." I can respond, "Your tanks begin to sink as soon as they enter."

Now, I have a nation, in it, high tech items *don't* work. If a person attacks my nation says, "I send 200 M1 Abrams into your nation." I can respond, "Your tanks lose power as soon as they enter."

I contend that the fact that magic disables technology of a certain level in my nation is no more godmoding than my nation being landlocked or swampland or underground or on a 0G planetoid.

This thread defines Godmoding as: an arbitary[sic] statement of superiority detrimental to good RP.

What magic does in my country is not arbitrary, not a statement of superiority, and not detrimental to good RP.

Skgorria

17-01-2007, 07:46

The reason I asked whether you had any of that stuff was I wanted to know whether you were trying to have your cake and eat it, i.e.

"my super modern army attacks you and conquers you"
"fine, I'll attack your homeland"
"LOL IT NO WORK"

Good to see you're keeping it consistent :)

As I understand it, in NationStates, one can be whatever type of nation one desires.

By and large, yes. We've got vicious corporations, do-gooder democracies, evil empires, at least one Nazi nation. Then there's the Blubs...

two modern nations could disagree about the ability of a missile defense system to defend a nation

That's why most war RPs tend to avoid ICBM slagging matches - they tend to be an RP killer. Believe me, I've killed a few

One nation says that their navy will surround the other nation and start firing. The other nation says it's land locked.

If that nation has always RP'd their nation as land locked, and doesn't go pretending they have a navy, then the attacker has to find an alternative solution. Again, I know about this as I'm landlocked, and I believe a similar situation happened during the current EVIL wars.

Your dwarven nation, zero-G nation and swampland nation all have a big difference from the "technology no work" nation - the other 3 have quantifiable terrain issues, whereas this vague "high technology doesn't work" is a different kettle of fish. Personally, I call it godmoding, but then again as long as the people you reach an agreement about the people you RP with then it's all good.

This thread defines Godmoding as: an arbitary[sic] statement of superiority detrimental to good RP.

I have never seen that definition before, but its a good one. However I think its more of a guideline (Kudos to POTC) and that godmoding can never be properly defined, otherwise we wouldn't have this thread :p

EDIT:

And seeing as though you're so keen to quote the official definition, allow me to quote back this. One of the things this thread defines godmoding as is:
4) Having your nation’s geography to your extreme advantage.

Says it all.

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 08:03

Skgorria
" Your dwarven nation, zero-G nation and swampland nation all have a big difference from the "technology no work" nation - the other 3 have quantifiable terrain issues, whereas this vague "high technology doesn't work" is a different kettle of fish."

It is a quantifiable issue; it's just an unusual terrain issue that doesn't happen in reality. Besides, it's not as though I'm going around forcing people to attack me or that the effect of magic is a "surprise."

I hope this doesn't sound pretentious but if a player *chooses* to attack a nation when that nation has stated high tech doesn't work in their territory then they've *chosen* to follow those rules. The only reason someone would bring a tank to my nation would be if they decided to ignore the part of my nation they don't like. To me, that's the same as saying, "I don't want to figure out a way of invading without tanks so your swamp isn't there."

Yes, I like that definition as well. It's at the very beginning of the thread in bright red text.

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 08:05

Says it all.

Except you're assuming this is to my extreme advantage; it has advantages and disadvantages.

Otagia

17-01-2007, 08:10

Skgorria

17-01-2007, 08:12

I hope this doesn't sound pretentious but if a player *chooses* to attack a nation when that nation has stated high tech doesn't work in their territory then they've *chosen* to follow those rules.

It does sound pretentious :p Seriously, I think the "technology no work field" is rather silly, but who am I to comment? I RP a Nazi nation for God's sake. As I said:

Personally, I call it godmoding, but then again as long as the people you reach an agreement about the people you RP with then it's all good.

Just remember there's a lot of long-range weaponry that doesn't need electricity ;)

Russkya

17-01-2007, 08:15

I can understand what Kesshite is saying here. It makes sense, he seems intelligent enough and enough of a good RP'er to pull it off easily. My question, what technology does it stop from working? I could rationalize something that fucks up electronic systems like fire control, optronics, that kind of jazz, but if it works off a brute force mechanical principle or chemical reaction, like... a flintlock musket, which is not that different from a bolt action rifle or even an assault rifle in concept, does that also screw itself?

And if the tank isn't designed to operate with electronics knocked out, bad tank design.

Jovian Empire

17-01-2007, 08:33

I'd have no problem with a null-tech field, as long as it was consistant. It gives him an edge, but it wouldn't stop me from shelling him from beyond his border, for example, and my tanks have far greater range than anything on Earth. It also wouldn't help him against a trained low-tech army.

I'd only have a problem if he WAS using it for extreme advantage, for example, claiming that he had tech that it didn't affect.

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 08:35

Thing is, you're left holding all the cards. You still have magic, plus all sorts of low technology stuff that actually works. Whoever invades has nothing. It's like telling anyone that brings a fleet near your shores that a hurricane automatically comes up and sinks it.

So, they don't have low tech now?

How about this, if I attacked a MT country with a troop of dragons, would it be within that MT country's right to say, "I don't care what you do most of the time, but if you attack me, no dragons, no spaceships, no psonics." Is that also godmoding as it gives them an extreme advantage against me?

Kesshite

17-01-2007, 08:58

Russkya:
"I can understand what Kesshite is saying here. It makes sense, he seems intelligent enough and enough of a good RP'er to pull it off easily."

Thank you. :)
(Yessss, my evil plot is working)

" My question, what technology does it stop from working? I could rationalize something that fucks up electronic systems like fire control, optronics, that kind of jazz, but if it works off a brute force mechanical principle or chemical reaction, like... a flintlock musket, which is not that different from a bolt action rifle or even an assault rifle in concept, does that also screw itself?"

I haven't actually figured it out. I came up with the idea of a null-tech field to explain why my nation would remain at a certain tech level when it was obviously in their best interest to 'upgrade.' I also did it because I wanted to do fantasy and interact with the other nations without having something 'elves with nukes.'

What I said in my factbook is, "Due to the enormous currents of magical energies in and around Kesshite, many technological objects malfunction or simply cease working. Cell phones go dead, engines sometimes explode before they lose power, and even simple timepieces may malfunction - randomly slowing down, speeding up, or running backwards."

However, going into details seems fruitless if the very idea of a null-tech field is gofmoding.

Russkya

17-01-2007, 20:53

I would argue that a "null tech field" especially for a fantasy-based nation is another feature of the terrain, and thus not god-moding. You're not forcing anyone to RP with you, and you'd probably make them well aware of it before they got in-depth with it.

A "null tech field" that shorts out electronics and that kind of thing I can understand, perhaps some more complicated machines that require electricity (Modern combustion engines would fit under that for example, as you do need the sparkplugs. Granted, I'm not a mechanic, but I'm pretty sure the battery in the car also helps the engine out, not just the comfort systems and lights) as well.

But look at the basic functions of a rifle. I'll start with a flintlock musket, which isn't really a rifle, but you'll get the idea. You've got the priming charge, frizzen, pan, cock, flint, priming-path, maincharge, wadding, projectile, barrel, furniture. Operation is simple from an unloaded state: Pull back the cock to half-cock, swing the pan open (the cover opens to one side or flips up depending on design), prime with a pinch of powder, close pan. Optionally lower the hammer carefully to "safe" the weapon while you're loading. Alternatively, maincharge first *then* priming, in which case reverse following steps. Ground musket butt, pour remainder charge down barrel. Paper cartridges are useful, shove the remainder of the cartridge into the barrel, spit the bullet into the muzzle, withdraw ramrod, spin between fingers, ram round and wadding down ontop of charge, withdraw ramrod from barrel, re-insert into ramrod housing loops, ready weapon by pulling back the cock to full-cock position. Shoulder, aim, pull trigger.

Trigger releases sear, cock slams forward into frizzen/pan-cover. Pan-cover causes spark to form off flint held in cock while exposing priming charge to the spark. Priming charge detonates, fire moves down priming-path to main-charge. Main charge detonates, weapon recoils into shoulder, projectile is propelled out barrel.

Simple, no? I can't really see how a null-tech field would interfere with that. Percussion cap weapons (I will use a bolt action rifle as an example now, though there are also percussion cap muskets and the like) are similar; pull bolt back to expose magazine, insert ammunition often contained in stripper clips of five rounds, withdraw stripper clip and pocket it for reloading with loose ammunition at a later date, alterantively discard clip. Cycle bolt forward. Depending on how the spring chooses to engage the firing pin and mechanism, the pull is harder on the back-pull or on the turn-up (Assuming rotating bolt) than on the fore-push, as the operator not only has to move the bolt but also ease (cock) the spring. Regardless, rotate bolt handle down (again assuming rotating bolt) so it locks into place. Weapon ready to fire. Remove safeties, shoulder, aim, pull trigger.

Sear releases, pin snaps forward into centerfire cartridge's primer (also works with rimfire rounds such as .22 Long Rifle, etc.), which proceeds to detonate and shove flame up the passageways into the main charge. Main charge detonates, propelling round down barrel. Rifling grooves in barrel grip round and impart slight spin. Round continues downrange, spinning, increasing accuracy and range. Spitzer-type (pointed bullet) ammunition offers increased ballistic performance, et cetera, et cetera.

Open bolt (rotate bolt handle upwards), ease spring with hand (cycling the bolt), which ejects the metal cartridge and prepares to feed a fresh one. Push bolt forward, bolt rotates down behind freshly chambered round of ammunition. Ready to fire once more.

Again, not much for a null-tech field to get in the way of.

Semiautomatics and automatics as well as selective-fire weapons (so now we've covered machineguns, assault rifles, submachineguns, etc.) are prettymuch the same, using a portion of expanding gas from the powder charge to operate the bolt independantly of the weapon's operator.

Things such as mortars, field guns, and the like, work off a pretty similar principle, though one would likely have to switch to horse-flesh to replace the prime mover if the null-tech field causes engines to explode. Et cetera, et cetera. Fire control electronics will screw up many gunners and reduce the rate of fire (for some pieces), the accuracy of that fire, and the responsiveness of the gun. Major issues for null-tech fields being encountered by a modern military force would be the destruction of their Communications gear and thus the destruction of their command and control capabilities. Given that many NS'ers seem to opt for a very strong central command instead of trusting their ficticious subordinates, that would be catastrophic - to the extreme, infact.

People have already made the point of unguided munitions flying on ballistic arcs and the like fired from outside the null-tech field. One example was a long-ranged artillery piece. Assume that it can reach the battlefield on which you are currently engaged with the enemy's forces. His units call for artillery fire to level your units or their positions depending on the tactical situation. The rounds are fired and come inbound. You're fucked, right?

Incorrect. If the units are inside the field and the artillery outside, there's no reason that shouldn't work. Except that the units inside the field still have to make the call for the fire-mission, and if their radios are out that becomes a whole metric fuckton harder. Modern artillery fires often focus on grid-squares or even portions inside grid squares. I do not want to imagine how to transmit JULIET-ECHO 39 / 4-3 (Grid Square JE 39, portion 4-3) via smoke-signal, mirror flash, et cetera. And that's just using a very simple grid square system too, modern military maps often work off numbers entirely; 3298-4385 / 4-3, for example. That's gonna be even more of a bitch, especially when you consider that an untimely bit of cloud or even wind could degrade your signal or even remove it completely.

--

If nothing else, the null-tech field poses some interesting tactical and strategic problems that would be very interesting to see solved by an RP'er. I still don't think that the NTF (Null-Tech Field) is a godmode, because you know it's there going in. If you didn't, you will proceed to acquaint yourself with this word: Reconnaissance.

Bertschland2

09-10-2007, 01:50

I just created a region called The Superbowl I'm thinking about having a regional football league over the forums. Football games would be sort of like wars, in my previous nation which got deleted (long story), I never got involved in forums. They seem to me like anarchy where you just type things like "My airplanes scrample and do an air strike on your city" and in response "My turrets respond with a barrage of heat-seeking missiles". How is a real victor detirmined?:confused: I mean those two nations above could go on and on fighting are there any rules, if so are they enforced at all? I wish to do this football league thing but theese forums confuse me.
Perhaps I'll write rules to the Football League and eject nations who break them, but how would all the rules like determineing who had the ball be determined? I need some suggestions look for The Superbowl and click the founder (The Republic of Bertschland2).

Sovereign Antarctica

09-10-2007, 02:11

Note: Nothing stops you registering a group of nations and RPing each as a different but allied entity, or any other reasonable method of levelling the playing field you can come up with. Age should NOT bring with it arbitary RP advantage.

so, if I have about 4 puppet accounts that it is really driving me crazy to keep seperate than, could I just say it is the combined empire of Sovereign Antarctica and such and such... an rp the combined population of about 1 billion as such without too much complaining as long as I don't godmode it to death?

Otagia

09-10-2007, 02:45

so, if I have about 4 puppet accounts that it is really driving me crazy to keep seperate than, could I just say it is the combined empire of Sovereign Antarctica and such and such... an rp the combined population of about 1 billion as such without too much complaining as long as I don't godmode it to death?

Sure, as long as I can combine my puppets into the Otagian Empire, for a grand total population of somewhere around 14 billion.

Sovereign Antarctica

09-10-2007, 03:44

thank god, guess it is now to reveal my puppet mastery! and get to work on the Antarctic Empire's factbook. New World Order ftw! :cool: