NationStates Jolt Archive

In plain words, Axis Nova will hit any and all hostile "super-dreadnaught"/"super battleship" class targets with tactical nuclear weapons should they threaten this nation or any of our allies under any circumstances. Said ships take an unreasonable expenditure of life, equipment and munitions to remove in a conventional attack, and furthermore, since their stated purpose and capabilities allows them to destroy an entire city easily, they can be viewed as a weapon of mass destruction. As a matter of fact, a recent super dreadnaught design outright BOASTS of this capability.

The designers and deployers of super dreadnaughts boast of their prowess vs conventional weapons, and of their prowess in bombarding shore-based targets and being able to shrug off almost any fire from anything but another super dreadnaught's main batteries; why should this nation and others have to waste men and equipment attacking something in a fashion it is specifically designed to defend against?

The problem grows more severe with small nations that cannot afford such a conventional attack, or to build their own super dreadnaught to fight back with; if such a vessel were to approach such a small nation, they may have no way to fight back EXCEPT to use nuclear weapons, as that would be the only means they possess capable of defeating one of these vessels.

Super dreadnaught users be warned: World War II has been over for a long time, and so is the honeymoon of your vessels. Do not expect to deploy an 'invincible' ship and then expect it to remain so simply because of an artificially maintained taboo.

[OOC: Not making an IC post because this isnt something my government would respond to. Just posting my public policy concerning the use of nuclear weapons against SDs:

1) If nuclear weapons are used to destroy a Praetonian superdreadnaught, a blanket attack against the entire enemy fleet will be launched in responce.

2) Should the enemy retaliate with a similar fleet wide attack on Praetonian assets, a full strategic responce will be provoked.

Basically my policy is that if you use nuclear weapons against an SD it rather rapidly escalates and so it probably isnt worth nuking the SD.]

Any and all usage of nuclear weapons against assets of the Omzian Republic, including military vessels, will be dealt in a manner of total retaliation including the usage of nuclear weapons. Though we are indeed concerned with the rather dangerous and reckless idea drafted among the ranks of the Axis Nova government, not only are we much in doubt that many - if any other significant groups of nations at all - will welcome such policy, but the usage of nuclear weapons against Omzian heavy command battleships will result in a swift retaliation.

Signed,
Omzian Ministry of National Defence

So, Praetonia, your fleets all carry multiple nuclear weapons? That would almost seem to imply that you're attempting to place small nations in a no-win situation where they either get destroyed by a ship they can't stop, or nuked to death :)

Omz, I recommend you consult this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=348674) thread; your attitude is rather 'out there' and unrealistic, and would be ignored-- no nation would flush their entire arsenal over the use of a tiny 1.5kt nuclear warhead, that would destroy the Earth. :)

So, Praetonia, your fleets all carry multiple nuclear weapons? That would almost seem to imply that you're attempting to place small nations in a no-win situation where they either get destroyed by a ship they can't stop, or nuked to death :)
[OOC: Ah no the weapons arent carried by the fleets per se. They are carried by SSBNs, like my entire nuclear deterrent. And basically yes, when I go to war I do try to put nations in a no-win situation. That's the general point of warfare. Then again, would I deploy an SD against a small nation? Almost certainly not. These things are really expensive to operate. Im not going to use them unless it's absolutely necessary.]

Then what is the point of having them? A large nation would be able to negate them through other technical means.

OoC: Kinetic kill weaponry is much more effective against SDs on a geopolitical scale. Just make a revolver type weapon that, along with replacing the slug the rail-weapon fires, it also replaces to rails. That way you don't have to worry about someone screaming that it isn't MT, considering the USN operates an experimental naval railgun.

You could mount it on a modified 747 or something and fire it from outside retaliation range.

Then what is the point of having them? A large nation would be able to negate them through other technical means.
[OOC: I hesitate to say "such as" because I really cant be bothered to have that debate again, but I can say categorically that every easy way of destroying an SD that Ive seen suggested (and ive seen most if not all of them) has been destroyed. In all honesty, if both RPers in the RP with SDs are good RPers, then the SD will be possible to destroy but most certainly not easy. The problem is that most people Ive seen who argue against SDs say either:

1) They are PMT and therefore IGNORED.

2) They're really easy to destroy and therefore a waste of money.

Well yes, they are expensive etc etc and very impractical, but definately possible in MT however expensive they are (and people should RP this. I for one have never put my entire navy to sea at the same time). On the other hand, they are very difficult to destroy. Enough firepower will destroy an SD. A number of large calibre torpedo impacts will destroy an SD. This is by no means an easy feat to achieve, however, when fighting an SD and the accompanying fleet. I would appreciate it if people (not just / mainly you) accepted that fact and stopped looking for "Get out of jail free" cards so they dont have to grapple with complex tactical problems. Now Im leaving this thread before loads of people arrive and start another bloody SD viability debate.]

your attitude is rather 'out there' and unrealistic, and would be ignored
It's in no way unrealistic, and you must also face the fact (aka deal with it and face the reality) that peopel will not just sit there and lick their wounds when someone else uses a weapon that can cause great destruction against them in whatever way it may be. However, if you are unwilling to face the reality and prefers to ignore it, then *shrugs*

I guess that people plays the game differently, I must say.

Official Response from the Credonian Secretary of State Lauren R. Smith

While Credonia operates two of its very own Credonia-Class Super Dreadnoughts, we feel that such a response to the thread posed by such large and excessively armored and armed naval war ships is more than adequate and levels the playing field. Therefore, I will call upon President Sutton to adopt a similar foreign policy regarding hostile Super Dreadnoughts.

Note that Credonia continues to deem you an ally and would be more than glad to give you a couple export version Credonia-Class Super Dreadnoughts (to be appropriately renamed) when made available.



Sincerely,

Lauren R. Smith
Secretary of State
Department of State
United States of Credonia

Axis Nova thanks President Sutton for his kind words, and while we would love to accept your offer, our lack of a significant blue-water navy would mean that we would not properly be able to maintain your fine vessels.

We will, however, gladly extend coverage of our SDI network to cover your nation if you wish.




(OOC: I really need to get a few actual characters going instead of RPing in the third person all the time :p)

OOC: Well, if I have to war someone, i'm just going ignore SDs because they are blatant PMT.

The Dominion has long considered concentrated, high-value enemy military assets to be valid targets for low-yeild, low-fallout, tactical nuclear weapons during times of open war, provided that they are sufficently removed from civilian population centers.

Regaurding those who would instantly respond with the full-bore wave of strategic warheads against civilian targets and major population centers, well, these people are either unfamiliar with the concept of a proportional response and thus unqualified to run a military operation, or dangerously unstable psycotics.

In either case, we would recomend a policy of regime-change.



(OOC: Of course, I haven't played modern-tech in over two RL years, but some things never change)

The Concordiat regards a nuclear attack upon either its Space-faring superdreadnoughts or its surface SD's as a nuclear attack upon it self, not to mention foolhardy.

((I'm FT, but in case someone gets the idea that a superdreadnought refers to the spaceship))

[Official Statement]

We have heard of your problems with superdreadnoughts of other nations, and are sending one of these missiles (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9088536&postcount=37) as a sign of goodwill. While we field several of our own superdreadnoughts, they are frequently outnumbered in a battle, and will soon be mothballed, replaced by weapons such as these. If you would like to buy more of these, or any other of our fine weapons, drop a line in the Bargain Basement (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425779), where a nation's military needs can be entirely met.

Good hunting.

[signed]Alles Oberkonsuln

Official Response of the Bonstocknian Department of Defense

If any nation were to utilize a tactical nuclear device on one of our ships at sea, we will consider it an attack on sovreign Bonstocknian territory, and treat it as such. Such an attack would be the grounds for a full-scale retaliatory nuclear strike against the nation launching them, as standard strategic Bonstocknian protocol dictates.

We hope that this possible response will deter any possible use of weapons of mass destruction against Bonstocknian ships at sea. However, we are sure that our good relations with Axis Nova would preclude the use of our ships against them, so it is unlikely this doomsday scenario would ever play out. But other nations be warned to be more careful with their use of nuclear weapons.

OOC:
Uh, guys, if someone breaks out an itty bitty tactical nuke to bust an entirly military target, during the course of an ongoing war, what's the big deal?

If you respond by breaking out the strategics and blitzing their cities, they'll only respond in kind; you'll just be signing your own death warrent by escilating the conflict from a limited exchange to the level of total nuclear war - MAD.

If you respond by breaking out the strategics and blitzing their cities, they'll only respond in kind; you'll just be signing your own death warrent by escilating the conflict from a limited exchange to the level of total nuclear war - MAD.
OOC: It's all a matter of the difference between different nations' policies. If you fire a nuke against a ship flying the flag of a nation that has a strict nuclear deterrence policy, wouldn't you be also signing your own death warrant? You are right that both parties are going to sign death warrants, but at the same time if you don't want this turned to something resembling carpetnuking on two sides - then don't fire nukes at the nation's superdreadnaught. It is that simple. I see nothing wrong with an all-out retaliation as a deterrence to such threat.

OOC:
Uh, guys, if someone breaks out an itty bitty tactical nuke to bust an entirly military target, during the course of an ongoing war, what's the big deal?

If you respond by breaking out the strategics and blitzing their cities, they'll only respond in kind; you'll just be signing your own death warrent by escilating the conflict from a limited exchange to the level of total nuclear war - MAD.

In my case, being a FT nation entirely of war-machines, it is unlikely they could destroy my entire nation, while I possess more nuclear weaponry than most of my rivals.

Omz22 is right, though. A nuclear attack upon a nation is a nuclear attack. If the Russians nuked an American ship with a crew of over 1000 and 250 million-dollar cost, then America would not shrug and say "Oh, well, it wasnt a TOTAL loss..."

They would most likely retaliate

OOC: Note that I do not practice an all-out, carpet nuking, "turning every city into mushrooms" myself and will not practice such as the Omzian Republic's military lacks the strategic nuclear capabilities ourselves (let alone strategic nuclear weapons). However, what I'm pointing out is that an all-out retaliation for such nuking should be expected and far from illogical - it's how nuclear deterrence works. As a side note, not retaliating in an all-out way when your policy and capabilities certainly permits you to so will make you look foolish on the negotiation table.

OOC: It's all a matter of the difference between different nations' policies. If you fire a nuke against a ship flying the flag of a nation that has a strict nuclear deterrence policy, wouldn't you be also signing your own death warrant? You are right that both parties are going to sign death warrants, but at the same time if you don't want this turned to something resembling carpetnuking on two sides - then don't fire nukes at the nation's superdreadnaught. It is that simple. I see nothing wrong with an all-out retaliation as a deterrence to such threat.

OOC:
The fact is that it's pointless escilation in hopes of deterant, a deterant which will do you no good if it's called and the enemy resorts to a tac-nuke when pressed, because, in proving that you're not bluffing, you will all be killed.

And that's not even touching on situations where an enemy's only chance of leveling the conventional battlefield is to ablate the other guy with a properly-placed nuke or two; if he expects to loose anyway, he's going to pull out all the stops, short of total nuclear war, even if that means risking full-scale retaliation - they've nothing to loose, afterall.

Really, threatening total nuclear war for using a tac-nuke or two is fine, ICly, but actually carrying it out is insane.

All right, gents. Let's knock on the door, and ask for Ronnie Real. As I have said at least thirty-seven hundred times, the man who uses nuclear weapons first merely sows the seeds of his own nuclear annihilation. You might say (and mean) that you'll only use them against super-dreadnoughts, and only when necessary, but how can we know? If one of my warships suddenly disappears beneath a big mushroom cloud, how can I trust you? After all, you're willing enough to use nukes against my battleships; how long before you use them against my ground forces, or on SAMs, or perhaps in cruise missile attacks against my home territory? Don't you see? By using nuclear weapons you create a climate of immense uncertainty, in which the other nuclear power is quite likely to feel that you're going to use nukes against him more and more widely. Net result? The guy you attacked hits back harder, and you hit him harder still, and the responses keep getting bigger 'til eventually everyone ends up dead. And don't give me SDI bullshit here. No SDI is going to stop several tens of thousands of warheads, plus hundreds of thousands of decoys, in multiple waves from multiple trajectories.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you're foolish to use nuclear weapons so glibly, and will likely pay the ultimate price for it.

OOC:
The fact is that it's pointless escilation in hopes of deterant, a deterant which will do you no good if it's called and the enemy resorts to a tac-nuke when pressed, because, in proving that you're not bluffing, you will all be killed.
OOC: And wouldn't nuking the SD from start, as Praetonia suggested a page ago, do virtually the same except in a way that will guarentee not only an angry response, but even more anger diplomatically and internationally?

And that's not even touching on situations where an enemy's only chance of leveling the conventional battlefield is to ablate the other guy with a properly-placed nuke or two;
...and this is why people think tactically and skillfully, to come up with solutions as opposed to finding an easy way and "a solution to all problems" way by mindlessly throwing around nukes. This is why good RPs involves tactics, not another missile-spam contest to see who can throw around 20,000 missiles the fastest, or a nuking contest of a similar nature.

Really, threatening total nuclear war for using a tac-nuke or two is fine, ICly, but actually carrying it out is insane.
Insane on what terms? Insane just because you've just backed up your words?

As well, generally to make it clear - I'm not arguing against the concept of nuking a SD itself as different nations has different policies, but it is greatly flawed to assume that someone isn't going to retaliate in an all-out way and/or won't get popular support for such actions. The ball is in the strategist's courts, regardless of whether he or she is capable of seeing the consequences. If you want to carpetnuke someone to start a war, that's fine, but don't forget about the consequences.

In my case, being a FT nation entirely of war-machines, it is unlikely they could destroy my entire nation, while I possess more nuclear weaponry than most of my rivals.

Omz22 is right, though. A nuclear attack upon a nation is a nuclear attack. If the Russians nuked an American ship with a crew of over 1000 and 250 million-dollar cost, then America would not shrug and say "Oh, well, it wasnt a TOTAL loss..."

They would most likely retaliate

FT, especially space FT, is a whole different kettle of fish - nuclear scale weapons there are the norm, atleast star-side.

As for your scenario, if the US retaliated, it would be by nuking Russian military targets - likly a ship, or maybe three, at most.



OOC: Note that I do not practice an all-out, carpet nuking, "turning every city into mushrooms" myself and will not practice such as the Omzian Republic's military lacks the strategic nuclear capabilities ourselves (let alone strategic nuclear weapons). However, what I'm pointing out is that an all-out retaliation for such nuking should be expected and far from illogical - it's how nuclear deterrence works. As a side note, not retaliating in an all-out way when your policy and capabilities certainly permits you to so will make you look foolish on the negotiation table.

A nuclear deterant isn't an all or nothing affair; if the enemy breaks out tac-nukes, you break out tac nukes, not strategics. If the enemy only nukes nulitary targets, or, say, those naval assets engaged in operations against his nation, you do likwise.

It's called a proportional response.

I find it utterly stupid that nations would nuke the homelands of other nations should a tactical nuclear weapon be used.

It's just an excuse used to deter people from getting the thrill of a crushing victory.

In all honestly, I think it depends on the situation the SD is being encountered in. I wouldn't use tactical nukes if we were fighting in the middle of the ocean over a 3rd party nation. But if it was up to invasion of my homelands I would probably employ tactical thermonuclear ordnance to ensure no troops landed on my shores.

The use of nuclear weapons in response to that, IMO, is utterly selfish and egomanical. How many sailors could POSSIBLY be in a fleet? They are military personnel on top of that.

Nuclear response against a homeland means the deaths of MILLIONS of civilians plus future hardships caused by the land being saturated by radiation.

When it comes right down to it; if i'm being invaded by some self righteous 5 billion population nation with a few SD's i'm going to use nuclear ordnace. If i'm being invaded by a multi billion population nation that DOESN'T have SD's i'm going to use tactical nuclear ordnance.

People who want to destroy a nation utterly at the sheer thought of the playing field being the least bit should get off their high horses and realize this isn't real. It's a game. No real lives are on the line. This is about a story, not bragging rights for the next 10 years.

/rant

...and this is why people think tactically and skillfully, to come up with solutions as opposed to finding an easy way and "a solution to all problems" way by mindlessly throwing around nukes. This is why good RPs involves tactics, not another missile-spam contest to see who can throw around 20,000 missiles the fastest, or a nuking contest of a similar nature.


OOC:
I never said anything in favor of carpetnuking - quite the opposite, in fact; I'm talking about the strategic use of a very limited number of tac-nukes against high-value military targets. Nominally in a situation where you're already looking at probally loosing the war, or atleast looking at a long, hard fight with a highly questionible outcome - one you can improve dramaticly by taking out a few high-value military targets.

And, say, if you'd just sank my navy and start shelling my cities with virtual impunity, you can sure bet I'll nuke the sucker if it's the only way I can stop it.

Now, if someone uses a tac-nuke on a city or other large civilian population center, they've crossed a line, and are asking to be slagged.

OOC: You can't just idly use a tac-nuke to destroy a Super Dreadnought and not expect some kind of response. It's like someone breaking into your home, stealing your posessions and assaulting your spouse and kids and expecting you not to do something.

Axis Nova, I find your brush off of Omz appalling and hope that someone does take you to task for it, after which I pray like hell you learn what "humility" means.

The point is, such policy in which the destruction of a ship with nuclear weapons is replied by the systematic destruction of the enemy homeland - regardless of whether people finds it concerning or not - is a feasible and logical response as part of a nation's nuclear deterrence policy. While it might result in a great difference between the deaths in each respective nations involved in such nuclear exchange, it's still irrelevant considering that a nation has the full right to enforce such nuclear deterrence policy (i.e. replying the tactical use of a nuclear weapon with a strategic, full scale response) to prevent such nuclear exchange from happening in the start, especially considering - as DPUO and Praetonia previous said - that a tactical use of nuclear weapon as a first strike will sooner or later evolve into an all-out use of such weapon. However at the end, it all depends on how a nation tries to enforce its nuclear deterrence policy - but since nuking a superdreadnaught is after all, a way to use nuclear weapons, then the opposing side is most likely going to reply in an all-out manner if their policies and capabilities permits. Shall we get into whether we should or shouldn't sink someone's destroyer just because the other side sank your missile boat?

In regards to the other remarks. Yes, it is a game. Yes, it is a story. You can take the sabre-rattling way or the "ultimate solution to x problem" way out, but at the same time, you also must fully expect the consequence. If you nuke someone, someone will nuke back. If you blanket someone's airfield with small ball-sized submunitions, they will most likely reply by bombarding your forces with thousand-pound bombs. But at the same time, this is also why you have to use your creativity, imagination, and your capacity to think to come up a way of defeating a threat - that is part of a game afterall. Surely, you can just nuke someone's superdreadnaught as opposed to coming up with another set of solutions to, say, render it ineffective until it could be destroyed completely, but that would make you the bragger, correct? NS warfare is far more than wielding nukes as the way of solving all problems, or wielding your destroyer-of-doom or invisible-submarine-of-terror and not acknowledging the limitations (and yes, superdreadnaughts has a lot of limitations).

Allow me to depart from this thread. Interesting points and views, all!

It really just depends on the situation.

I would believe that if someone got air superiority over an enemy fleet, as it would if it was off the coast of said nation, it might be fairly simple to drop a few big bombs on the sucker.

Then, there's always the chance of putting a few hundred supercavs in the water from a well hidden submarine force...

That or a raingun bombardment from the homeland.

OOC: You can't just idly use a tac-nuke to destroy a Super Dreadnought and not expect some kind of response. It's like someone breaking into your home, stealing your posessions and assaulting your spouse and kids and expecting you not to do something.

Axis Nova, I find your brush off of Omz appalling and hope that someone does take you to task for it, after which I pray like hell you learn what "humility" means.


OOC: You make it sound like they'd resort to nuking during peacetime! Hello, this is during wartime we're talking about, and the target is a big, fat military asset that'll kill, atleast, thousands of your personel, and sevearly ablate your military, if you don't nuke it - heck, you might not have anything short of a nuke that can stop it.

Between roughly equal combatants, there's no need to resort to nukes; it's when you're already at a disadvantage that you pull them out, and even then use them very, very sparingly unless I'm looking at total defeat otherwise.


And if someone nuked my SD, well, I might just cry foul and garner international sympathies, or I might choose a nice, juicy target well away from any cities and drop a single nuke of the same yeild on him - a proportional response, an eye for an eye, a tac-nuke for a tac-nuke.

While we're on the subject is there any good dealer for SD's on here? I know i'm probably a little small to buy one, and i'm not looking to yet, but I was just wondering. Do people buy domestic ones or just produce their own?

Yeah, carpet-nuking is a perfectly feasible response - but if the other side also had strategic nukes, it is not a logical one; it is an immensly stupid one, because you'll only get carpet-nuked back.

Your argument seems to be that, once someone breaks out a nuke, no matter how small, that escilation is inevitible, and so you basicly thing 'What the hell; it's inevitible anyway, right?' and make with the nuke-spam.

Instead, the logical answer is to try and limit the use of nuclear weapons on both sides; just because they have been used, doesn't mean they'll be used more frequently - he tosses a nuke, you toss a nuke back at him, then you both get a taste of the reciving end and think very carefully befor consideringthe using them again.

And, again, I'd like to note that I'm only talking about the limited employment of nukes as part of a combined-arms stratedgy, not using them as a crutch for all your needs.

OOC: You make it sound like they'd resort to nuking during peacetime! Hello, this is during wartime we're talking about, and the target is a big, fat military asset that'll kill, atleast, thousands of your personel, and sevearly ablate your military, if you don't nuke it - heck, you might not have anything short of a nuke that can stop it.

Between roughly equal combatants, there's no need to resort to nukes; it's when you're already at a disadvantage that you pull them out, and even then use them very, very sparingly unless I'm looking at total defeat otherwise.


And if someone nuked my SD, well, I might just cry foul and garner international sympathies, or I might choose a nice, juicy target well away from any cities and drop a single nuke of the same yeild on him - a proportional response, an eye for an eye, a tac-nuke for a tac-nuke.

I agree using full scale nuclear weapons is a bit harsh, unless it was a "to the death" conflict and only as a last resort. I just had issues with how Axis Nova just brushed it off with "Meh. I'll just tac-nuke you and get away with it."

Of course, you'd generally ask for it if you vaporise the pride of your enemy's fleet with something so blatant, as if you went up and slapped your enemy's leader across the face with a glove. I guess all I was trying to say is, don't posture without expecting to piss off someone...

Awww, isn't it cute? Now I wonder how long it takes the SD people to realise that their full retaliation ideas mean that they cannot use their dreads, as they are now included in full scale MAD scenarios resulting in real 'No win' situations.

Although, to be fair, this is true for essentially any and all conflicts in NS (If the OMG NUKES! GRODLOAD! people would realise that a full scale invasion requiring surrender FORCES a full scale strike, this making full scale invasiosn pointless, anyway). Just more so for this version.

Nevermind that even NATO (The RL one, genius) was aware of the problem and intended appropriate responses, and not a full scale strike as answer to a weee little tacnuke.

But then, NS doesn't seem to have the same level of sanity NATO has, all 'realism' claims be damned, does it?

... And then there is the problem of SDs being firmly located in a timeframe of effective NMD, so MAD scenarios wont scare anyone, and full scale nuclear retaliation is essentially laughed away.

But nevermind that not only ships develop, but other things, too. Apparently the SD nation out here forgot this little detail XD.

Edit: And really, I love the argument 'All easy ways of killing an SD have been destroyed'. One obviously hasn't, and to protect the soap bubble of OMG INVINCIBILITY, batshit insane MAD scenarios are created. Too busy testing the PPMs (Pulls per minute) your wrists can manage?

OOC: http://home.iprimus.com.au/quincyw/dwlaugh.gif Oh, Der Angst, that made my day. http://home.iprimus.com.au/quincyw/dwlaugh.gif Of course, then there's the big ships/vehicles and... http://home.iprimus.com.au/quincyw/dwhuh.gif

Why nuke it when you could just flood it with nerve toxins?

Why nuke it when you could just flood it with nerve toxins?

Because modern warships are enclosed environments? :rolleyes: Almost every ship nowadays deals with NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) by enclosing and overpressure to blow out anything. In particular, the Wasp class LHDs as used by the Americans are like fully environmental controlled and can effectively separate the outside atmosphere and the inside environment of the ship.

All right, gents. Let's knock on the door, and ask for Ronnie Real. As I have said at least thirty-seven hundred times, the man who uses nuclear weapons first merely sows the seeds of his own nuclear annihilation.
All I can say is that Ronnie real must be on crack cocaine. so I'll let my good friend Reggie Reality take the question

Reggie says: Even in the famously nuclear Warsaw/NATO (Russia/America for jackarses) Cold War both sides were well aware that in the even of hostilities the other would use tacnukes, Neither one had a policy of escalation in ANY nuclear conflict, simply proportional respons. in a tactical situation that means that if Russia took out an American carrier, america would take out a similar russian force (russias carrier did not match up evenly to americas).

I.I Cuts back in with: In NS, lots of people harp on the RP killers, things that end the fun for everyone, interestingly, no one ever mentions strict excalation as one of them and it is. In real life if a nation was faced with overwhelming odds they could toss a tacnuke or two around and not expect ot be blown out of the water, prolonging the conflict (or in nationstatesian KEEPING THE RP GOING) however, in the current NS nuclear culture, in the same situation, the defending nation can't even toss a nuclear firecracker at his enemy without an immediate launch of a nationglassing nuclear barrage. Which, contrary to the wish to keep the RP fun and continuos ENDS THE RP, however if the attack were to be treated proportionally, a long and fun RP can flourish. I'm not saying that nuclear crutches should br smiled at but if someone is using nuclear weapons to accomplish everyhtin then chances are very quickly they will escalate the conflict without anybodies policy being escalation.

Admittedly, that could be a slight problem. But when you simply shoot a bunch of holes in the thing first, things get much simpler. While you can't kill the thing in one go, you can kill off each compartment with relatively little effort.

Admittedly, that could be a slight problem. But when you simply shoot a bunch of holes in the thing first, things get much simpler. While you can't kill the thing in one go, you can kill off each compartment with relatively little effort.

Sorry, Otagia, try again. It's a simple mathematics exercise. Let's say, you were the defender (with an Air Force), up against a Super Dreadnought, which itself has a whole fleet around it.

Say you send three hundred (300) aircraft in. Half (150) manage to break through the Combat Air Patrol set up by their carriers while the rest get mauled, have to turn back, are escorts etc. Half of that (75) manages to break through the escort ships' surface to air missile batteries and gun mounts. Half of that (say 35 this time) manages to get into range of the SD. Half of that (say 18) manages to evade the SD's own self defense and point defense weapons and successfully launches onto their targets.

The above numbers are somewhat skewed, but the principle stands. You'll lose a lot of aircraft trying to fight their way in before they can drop and you can bet an SD would have more defensive measures than just about anything else imaginable.

Let alone the fact that it's armored to all heck and you have to break through each compartment. Even the most advanced conventional weapons we have today probably can't breach more than three layers' worth of compartmentation and each ship has dozens, hundreds or even thousands of them.

Do you really want to send (and lose) three hundred aircraft in just to perforate three measley layers' worth of compartments and have the rest of the ship intact?

The simple truth is, you need lots of firepower and a lot of warheads. Forget this "pricking of the thumbs" approach. You'll bleed yourself dry before you even harm the SD.

It has long since been Special Weapons policy regarding defensive nuclear deployment against enemy Naval assets to be a last resort. Such an option, regardless of wether the target be a Carrier, Carrier Battle Group, or one of these wasteful Super Dreadnaughts, may only be employed under Sumerian tactical nuclear docterine after all other methoeds of defence have been exhausted or otherwise ruled out of posibility.
We find Axis Nova's imediate jump to the employment of nuclear weapons in such a role to be alarming, and urge the nations military planners to reconsider other options before the nuclear option.

- Commanding Officer of Special Weapons,
General Dr. Gilga Banada

------------------------

OOC: I do believe that Praetonia, DontPissUsOff, and I are still bound under the Treaty of Praeton, which specificly dictates proportional response among signatory nations in regards to nuclear deployment. Now, this has no effect on Axis Nova. But if I were to be in his case, or something like that, and I nuked a Praetonian SD, I would expect the treaty to be followed. Of course, I don't even bother acknowladging SD's most of the time anyway, and have no reason to be fighting with anyone who owns them, so I don't see that ever happening.

Number 1!

[OOC: I hesitate to say "such as" because I really cant be bothered to have that debate again, but I can say categorically that every easy way of destroying an SD that Ive seen suggested (and ive seen most if not all of them) has been destroyed. In all honesty, if both RPers in the RP with SDs are good RPers, then the SD will be possible to destroy but most certainly not easy. The problem is that most people Ive seen who argue against SDs say either:

1) They are PMT and therefore IGNORED.

2) They're really easy to destroy and therefore a waste of money.

Well yes, they are expensive etc etc and very impractical, but definately possible in MT however expensive they are (and people should RP this. I for one have never put my entire navy to sea at the same time). On the other hand, they are very difficult to destroy. Enough firepower will destroy an SD. A number of large calibre torpedo impacts will destroy an SD. This is by no means an easy feat to achieve, however, when fighting an SD and the accompanying fleet. I would appreciate it if people (not just / mainly you) accepted that fact and stopped looking for "Get out of jail free" cards so they dont have to grapple with complex tactical problems. Now Im leaving this thread before loads of people arrive and start another bloody SD viability debate.]
^^ Does no one ever read?

How about you all think up some tactics for destroying or taking an SD out of action, or just build some yourself rather than crakin' out da n00kz as soon as you face a problem you can't solve just by spamming someone with t3h mizzilezz0rz!1!!1111!!1. It's pathetic.

Number 2!

My nuclear policy stands:

[OOC: Not making an IC post because this isnt something my government would respond to. Just posting my public policy concerning the use of nuclear weapons against SDs:

1) If nuclear weapons are used to destroy a Praetonian superdreadnaught, a blanket attack against the entire enemy fleet will be launched in responce.

2) Should the enemy retaliate with a similar fleet wide attack on Praetonian assets, a full strategic responce will be provoked.

Basically my policy is that if you use nuclear weapons against an SD it rather rapidly escalates and so it probably isnt worth nuking the SD.]
Therefore, if you really want, then you can nuke my SD. But then you have to accept that your fleet is dead. Then if you want to retaliate in kind, then you have to accept that your nation is also dead. Mine is probably dead as well.

Now, what was the point of all this? There was no point. The simple message is that if you want to use nukes, you have to accept the consequences. I am willing to accept that my nation will die if this happens and I expect whoever nukes the SDs to accept the same thing. And no, it isn't a bluff, I will actually do it and there are important political, social and historical reasons why which I wont go into now.

Basically - If you are willing to risk losing your nation, then by all means use nukes. If you have some semblence of sanity, then dont. Nothing in my policy is godmodded. Nothing in my policy is n00bish. In reality, you cannot use nukes against my SDs. Accept it, move on and develop some actual tactics.

OOC: I do believe that Praetonia, DontPissUsOff, and I are still bound under the Treaty of Praeton, which specificly dictates proportional response among signatory nations in regards to nuclear deployment. Now, this has no effect on Axis Nova. But if I were to be in his case, or something like that, and I nuked a Praetonian SD, I would expect the treaty to be followed. Of course, I don't even bother acknowladging SD's most of the time anyway, and have no reason to be fighting with anyone who owns them, so I don't see that ever happening.
Indeed. However SDs are somewhat of a special case. Should I lose an SD to nuclear attack, it would inevitably escalate to full scale nuclear war. Therefore the sanctions imposed by the treaty (explusion and cutting off of diplomatic ties) are fairly meaningless, since all my citizens are dead. In all other circumstances, my nation would adhere to the treaty.

EDIT: More to the point, the treaty only applies when it involves two parties who are both signatories. As I do not have any enemies with SDs who have signed the treaty, it is somewhat irrelevent.

Indeed. However SDs are somewhat of a special case. Should I lose an SD to nuclear attack, it would inevitably escalate to full scale nuclear war. Therefore the sanctions imposed by the treaty (explusion and cutting off of diplomatic ties) are fairly meaningless, since all my citizens are dead. In all other circumstances, my nation would adhere to the treaty.

EDIT: More to the point, the treaty only applies when it involves two parties who are both signatories. As I do not have any enemies with SDs who have signed the treaty, it is somewhat irrelevent.


OOC: Yes, that was My point. You and DPUO are the only two SD owners I know who have signed the treaty, and I don't see a war between myself and either of you as a possibility. So it's pretty much a null and voind idea. I was stating it hoping that either you could elaborate upon anything specific to SD's, or acknowladge it's existance. And you did both, so I'm happy.

It is worth noting that "well they used tac nukes so they might use strategic nukes" theory of deterrence is a load of crap when aimed at a nation that ONLY USES TACTICAL WEAPONS.

*would be willing to submit to inspections to prove this, but god forbid someone threaten your precious SDs :rolleyes: *

It is worth noting that "well they used tac nukes so they might use strategic nukes" theory of deterrence is a load of crap when aimed at a nation that ONLY USES TACTICAL WEAPONS.

*would be willing to submit to inspections to prove this, but god forbid someone threaten your precious SDs :rolleyes: *
The problem is that this is a moral argument. "I only fired tactical nuclear weapons therefore it's unfair that you fire strategic weapons in responce." Well yes, you're right, it is unfair, but Im going to do it anyway, because the deterrant protects my interests. This isnt about morality, or proportionality, it's about not having trillions of Praefelis worth of military kit wiped out in a few minutes.

Therefore, if you really want, then you can nuke my SD. But then you have to accept that your fleet is dead. Then if you want to retaliate in kind, then you have to accept that your nation is also dead. Mine is probably dead as well.
Of course, since the difference between losing a fleet through conventional weapons and losing a fleet through tacnukes is negligible, this means that you will nuke as soon as you lose. This does, of course, mean that your opponent can ignore all of this problems and glass you from the very beginning, since it is obvious that your intend to force your opponent into a no win situation means that he has no other choice.

This means that Praetonia is essentially incapable of fighting a conflict, as doing so would mean its immediate and total elimination.

Well... Is it just me or is this doctrine actually fucking stupid?

(And this is once more disregarding the effective NMD systems of the SD age, meaning that you will FAIL and that you don't actually have the means for proper deterrence against tacnukes)

Basically - If you are willing to risk losing your nation, then by all means use nukes. If you have some semblence of sanity, then dont. Nothing in my policy is godmodded. Nothing in my policy is n00bish. In reality, you cannot use nukes against my SDs. Accept it, move on and develop some actual tactics.Basically - If you're willing to risk losing your nation, then by all means use SDs against Axis Nova. If you have some semblence of sanity, then don't. Nothing in AN's policy is a godmode. Nothing in AN's policy is noobish. In reality, you cannot use SDs against Axis Nova. Accept it, move on and develop some actual tactics instead of waving floating penises around.

Funny how this works, ne?

Well, then, I guess it's a good thing my nation uses a very extensive SDI network.

This isn't a treaty, it's a policy statement; I suppose I could try for something more formal that would allow use of small tactical weapons but ban escalating to a full scale exchange.

The point here is, a tac nuke can be used without ruining an RP. If, however, your response, every time, no matter what the use of the tac nuke for any reason, is to launch a full-scale strategic strike, then you're doing nothing but chopping off a potentially valuable RP.

Not even the Russians in the Cold War would have launched a strategic strike over the use of a tactical weapon on a military target.

In this case it is obvious that your MAD doctrine falls through; I am willing to use tactical weapons because I believe I am able to do so without serious effect from your strategic arsenal.

If you people were really holding to the MAD doctrine, you'd also be threatening a full-scale strike on anyone who implements an SDI system or missile defenses; as these would possibly prevent your nuclear weapons from affecting their nation, they would have the effect of an indirect attack on them.

As it is though, to let people do SDI systems but cry foul at the use of a tactical weapon and claim to follow the MAD doctrine is hypocrisy of the highest order.

It is also worth noting that it's quite unlikely a small tactical weapon of the type I described would outright SINK a super dreadnaught, or even a more ordinary ship such as an aircraft carrier; what it would do is seriously damage the external parts and render it incapable of combat until repaired.

I suggest you people look up the US's tests of nuclear weapons against ships.

The problem is that this is a moral argument. "I only fired tactical nuclear weapons therefore it's unfair that you fire strategic weapons in responce." Well yes, you're right, it is unfair, but Im going to do it anyway, because the deterrant protects my interests. This isnt about morality, or proportionality, it's about not having trillions of Praefelis worth of military kit wiped out in a few minutes.

*Hands you a beer and year-long free passes to any sporting event you like* Couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course, since the difference between losing a fleet through conventional weapons and losing a fleet through tacnukes is negligible, this means that you will nuke as soon as you lose. This does, of course, mean that your opponent can ignore all of this problems and glass you from the very beginning, since it is obvious that your intend to force your opponent into a no win situation means that he has no other choice.

This means that Praetonia is essentially incapable of fighting a conflict, as doing so would mean its immediate and total elimination.
I have never said, nor will I, launch a nuclear attack upon the conventional desturction of a naval asset. The purpose of this doctrine is to prevent hugely expensive fleets being simply nuke spammed via deterrant. I have no intention of forcing a MAD situation.

Well... Is it just me or is this doctrine actually fucking stupid?
No. Maybe if you swear some more then it will be. :rolleyes:

(And this is once more disregarding the effective NMD systems of the SD age, meaning that you will FAIL and that you don't actually have the means for proper deterrence against tacnukes)
SDs are modern technology, and so I see no reason why you must assume that everything is "SDI +++" (especially without explaining exactly how your missiles are better (something known as "godmodding")). However, asssuming that it is, by the same logic nuclear weapons and decoy technology has also advanced, meaning that there isnt actually any difference between when it comes to nuclear interception. If you have learnt biology, then this is comparable to the fairly simple example of the rabbit and the fox constantly evolving yet not gaining an advantage used to explain evolution.

Basically - If you're willing to risk losing your nation, then by all means use SDs against Axis Nova. If you have some semblence of sanity, then don't. Nothing in AN's policy is a godmode. Nothing in AN's policy is noobish. In reality, you cannot use SDs against Axis Nova. Accept it, move on and develop some actual tactics instead of waving floating penises around.
I think you fail to understand the actual argument in your rush to be faceisious and rude (one of the reasons I originally intended to leave this thread before this particular debate began, but it's too late now). Using a superdreadnaught allows a way out, ie. a non-cheap way to destroy it. Nukes are just "You're nuked; you're dead; I win." That's cheap. Im not one to ignore legitimate attacks, however, and so I present a deterrant. If I were to go to war with AN (unlikely) and he nukes me, then we are both dead. What fun. On the other hand, AN could just choose not to nuke, and could instead try to destroy the SD in a way that requires just a little more thought that typing "*n00k*".

Super Dreadnaughts cost hundreds of billions of dollars. They are not modern tech, simply because no modern nation could ever afford to build one. Only a postmodern economy is large enough to allow for the neccesary funds for their construction.

While building an SD is 'technically' possible using modern technology, so is a space ladder, and everyone considers THOSE post modern technology.

Please do not insult my intelligence by insisting that one of these SDs could ever be built by a nation in the real world.

The sheer myopia here is breathtaking. Newsflash: In wartime, people don't think and act as rationally as in peacetime. Hell, the entire act of war is an enormous and usually unnecessary risk, is it not? But anyway - a few salient points, which I hope I can hammer home.

1) No SDI network is going to stop a large nuclear attack - say, 8,000 warheads and 12,000 decoys. This is gratifying for those of us who're not keen on wanked SDI systems, but also means that the only method by which nuclear wars are avoided is deterrance.

2) The use of a tactical nuclear weapon creates critical uncertainty as to future intentions. For all their oft-spoken doctrines of "limited nuclear war" and various other rubbish, none of the nuclear powers has used a nuclear weapon in anger since the yanks did it back in '45. The single very sensible reason for this is that everyone looks at people who've used nuclear weapons in an entirely different way. A nation using a tactical nuke has still crossed the great demarcation line that marks out "conventional" warfare, in which divisions can be wiped out in days, from "unconventional" warfare, in which they can be wiped out in seconds. Do you not see? By using tactical nukes, you've suddenly opened the possibility that every missile attack that can mount a nuclear warhead will. In the face of such uncertainty, the thinking that will almost certainly prevail is that the best defence is a good offence.

3) All this talk of "only battlefield nukes" is nonsensical. Your definition of a battlefield weapon and mine can be vastly different things, as can be our definitions of valid targets for battlefield munitions. Our doctrines for responding to nuclear use, even if they're intended to limit the escalation, will probably be at odds, too. The idea that a nation that's just seen a couple of trillion quid's worth of ship hit by a nuclear warhead and turned into a lump of melted steel is going to cheerily sit down and discuss with the military of the other side which targets they can reply against, with what weaponry, is a lovely image but hardly a realistic one. Aside from simple divergences in doctrine, don't forget the exigencies of fortune, and wartime necessity. If you've hit an SD of mine, then the gloves are evidently off, so why not break out the nuclear-tipped GLCMs? After all, you won't miss a division or two, or that supply dump (whoops, bye-bye allied town)...and hey, that HQ looks inviting, so might as well have a go at that too. Do you see what I'm saying? By using nuclear weapons, you take the uncertainty always present in war over what the enemy will do, and you toss into the mix an authorisation to use weapons that can wipe out vast concentrations of important units, personnel etc. That is not a good combination.

Super Dreadnaughts cost hundreds of billions of dollars. They are not modern tech, simply because no modern nation could ever afford to build one. Only a postmodern economy is large enough to allow for the neccesary funds for their construction.
It is not the time period or technology which prevents their consturction in real life, it is political will, lack of resources and lack of money.

1) I control my nation therefore political will is not a problem
2) NS is a huge planet. I have a huge nation, with RPed colonies. I can buy resources if I really need to.
3) http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Praetonia

1) No SDI network is going to stop a large nuclear attack - say, 8,000 warheads and 12,000 decoys. This is gratifying for those of us who're not keen on wanked SDI systems, but also means that the only method by which nuclear wars are avoided is deterrance.


This is a nice theory. Let's see you prove it.


2) The use of a tactical nuclear weapon creates critical uncertainty as to future intentions. For all their oft-spoken doctrines of "limited nuclear war" and various other rubbish, none of the nuclear powers has used a nuclear weapon in anger since the yanks did it back in '45. The single very sensible reason for this is that everyone looks at people who've used nuclear weapons in an entirely different way. A nation using a tactical nuke has still crossed the great demarcation line that marks out "conventional" warfare, in which divisions can be wiped out in days, from "unconventional" warfare, in which they can be wiped out in seconds. Do you not see? By using tactical nukes, you've suddenly opened the possibility that every missile attack that can mount a nuclear warhead will. In the face of such uncertainty, the thinking that will almost certainly prevail is that the best defence is a good offence.


This is why nations have such things as a stated use policy for how they'll use their nuclear weapons.


3) All this talk of "only battlefield nukes" is nonsensical. Your definition of a battlefield weapon and mine can be vastly different things, as can be our definitions of valid targets for battlefield munitions. Our doctrines for responding to nuclear use, even if they're intended to limit the escalation, will probably be at odds, too. The idea that a nation that's just seen a couple of trillion quid's worth of ship hit by a nuclear warhead and turned into a lump of melted steel is going to cheerily sit down and discuss with the military of the other side which targets they can reply against, with what weaponry, is a lovely image but hardly a realistic one. Aside from simple divergences in doctrine, don't forget the exigencies of fortune, and wartime necessity. If you've hit an SD of mine, then the gloves are evidently off, so why not break out the nuclear-tipped GLCMs? After all, you won't miss a division or two, or that supply dump (whoops, bye-bye allied town)...and hey, that HQ looks inviting, so might as well have a go at that too. Do you see what I'm saying? By using nuclear weapons, you take the uncertainty always present in war over what the enemy will do, and you toss into the mix an authorisation to use weapons that can wipe out vast concentrations of important units, personnel etc. That is not a good combination.

Reference my previous invitation of inspections; plus, also go do what I said and look up US nuclear tests against their ships during the Cold War. A tac nuke isn't going to sink an SD in all likelyhood, it's just going to damage it sufficiently that it will not be capable of achieving it's mission.

I note that the nations which design, deploy, and use super dreadnaughts insist that they only be attacked by conventional means, yet do their best to basically make this impossible for any nation that does not ALSO use SDs-- thus putting the rest of us in an untenable situation where tac nukes are the only recourse.

I note that the nations which design, deploy, and use super dreadnaughts insist that they only be attacked by conventional means, yet do their best to basically make this impossible for any nation that does not ALSO use SDs-- thus putting the rest of us in an untenable situation where tac nukes are the only recourse.
Poor excuse for the unwillingness to explore one's creative mind by coming up with conventional methods to destroy SDs. By the way, doesn't "improving the product so that it isn't easy to destroy" apply to almost all military products? Tanks? Ships? Fighter aircraft? Oh, so we need to nuke a M1A2 SEP IRL just because there are not much way of destroying it?

Mission kill. Is that a helpful hint for you?

Destroying a SD using conventional weapons is completely possible, albeit often costly because of the amount of protection people tend to put around them. I think whats annoying me most here is that the option is being bitched about so much and responded to with knee-jerk statements about how a single tactical nuclear weapon used in any circumstance will ultimately lead to the whole-sale destruction of both nations.

Lets take Praetonia's fun fun happy fun statements as an example here, a nation which will automatically escalate to a blanket attack on enemy vessel using nuclear weapons should their ship be destroyed by tactical nuclear means... even in a pissant skirmish which doesn't directly involve both nations.

Of course, the idea is to present a deterrance in the mind of the enemy that if they use tactical nuclears weapons they would loss their navy. However, the problem is that if the enemy, through ignorance or desperation does decideds to call their bluff then they have to launch or lose credability on their deterrant...

The problem here is that this escilated reason will likely result in a preportional responce from the enemy, or worse yet, a comple Strategic first stike because they know full well that Praetonia would do the same in an escilated responce to their returned fire.

So from square one we can see that the Government of Praetonia has little respect for the lives of their people, assuming they are actually willing to go through with this nuclear strategy... it's the unnessicary escilation from a SD lost in a minor skirmish to a all out mutually assured destruction scenario... all it takes is one plucky nation and they are completely destroyed or well good as.

Of course, we'll remember it as a great military strategy. The reason we have proportation responce is so that the enemy knows that it can escilate, but that they always have a chance to change their mind... if they know it will automatically escilate to much bigger stuff they may not take it completely serious (who would be that crazy) or they by simply be desperate or ignorant of the policy then both nations are locked in a MAD situation.

Personally, I think Iuthia probably isn't willing to get too friendly with nations who have crazy MAD policies which demand they escilate things at an excessive rate. Such nations show their disrespect for human life as much as though who would use tactical nuclear weapons.

OOC:Why waste a tactical nuke on a SD when you can use a T-00?

For those of you who dont know(which is pretty much everyone), the T-00 is basicilly a torepedo... a big, ugly, inaccurate, and slow(for a torepedo) torepedo. But it redeems all of these shortcomings with two things, 1. Cheap and easy to make, and 2. Has enough firepower to rip a hole in a SD.

The Red Tidean navies policy when confronting a SD is usually to lay down a HUGE blanket of T-00s. Up to like 200, or even more, of them. They can be delivered via Aircraft, Destroyers, or PT Boats. There will be those that miss, those that are intercepted, but still a fair number of which will hit and sink(or at least severly damage) the SD.

The Red Tidean navies policy when confronting a SD is usually to lay down a HUGE blanket of T-00s. Up to like 200, or even more, of them. They can be delivered via Aircraft, Destroyers, or PT Boats. There will be those that miss, those that are intercepted, but still a fair number of which will hit and sink(or at least severly damage) the SD.
Not much different from missile spam. I take it as if my hint is not helpful? ///Mission/// kill?

Not really. The T-00 is specifically designed to take out large, slow targets(IE:Anything bigger then a BattleCruiser), fast manueverable ships can dodge and outrun a wave of T-00. Also, unlike missiles, T-00s are NOT homing, also much cheaper.

Given that these Super Dreadnoughts take about twenty-odd years to build, anyone who has to face them can simply use some newfangled superweapon from the Space Year 2025, which will no doubt be able to cripple said superdreadnought without too much bother.

Not much different from missile spam. I take it as if my hint is not helpful? ///Mission/// kill?

maybe you missed my hint lets make it less subtle so people it will fit.

Strategic respnses to tactical strikes against SDs are what I and many other people woul normally call (but mysteriously don't) an RP KILLER!!!!!

My problem with most SDs is that most of those designed are illogical. Many weigh too much and would sink, many are way too expensive to maintain, many are topheavy, many would have no room inside after the "bazillionith" layer of reinforced titanium, and many would require massive amounts of resupply ships.

Nukes are just "You're nuked; you're dead; I win." That's cheap.

This is usually how I feel about SDs:

SDs are just "I used one; you're dead; I win."

That's cheap, too.

I've never seen many people who have posted here use a superdreadnaught, such as Praetonia, so I cannot and will not judge how they use superdreadnaughts. But usually, on NS, the battle goes like this:

Nation X sends an SD, which is usually 1/4 the size and mass of earth with 300,000 missile launchers of every sort and 3 trillion layers of titaniuam, ballistic ceramics, and other junk.

Nation Y sends their whole air force, and missile stockpiles, and navy against the SD.

Nation X posts RP how he slaughtered Nation Y's attack and demands Nation Y posts their losses.

Nation Y, trying to make the best of it, posts horrendous losses, and then demands that Nation X post losses.

Nation X posts that the ship suffered very slight damage.

The End

I personally don't think that SDs aren't possible and I don't consider the idea godmodding, but I do consider how many people use them as godmodding. Many people who have SDs either heavily overestimate them, or are just really afraid to loose them, and then godmod until they win.

The fact is that many people who use them don't want to lose them, and that's when it gets unreal.

I know Praetonia has said earlier that it'd be better to think of tactics instead of just using nukes, but using SDs isn't very tactical, either. In many ways, its the same as using a nuke because the RPer sends a ship capable of destroying a country singlehanded in, and does not post any damage thus forcing the RPer to use nukes.

Again, Praetonia, as you said nukes are just "I win, you lose." Well, with many people that don't want to lose SDs and resort to godmodding, sometimes the only way to get through to the SD RPer is to fire a nuke, because it's absolute. It is "I win, you lose" and thus forces the RPer (grudgingly) to remove the SD from active combat.

If there were people who do RP honestly, and do realize they could lose their SDs, then I'd say Axis Nova should not and does not have a justifiable right to use tactical nukes against anyone who uses SDs against them.

Strategic respnses to tactical strikes against SDs are what I and many other people woul normally call (but mysteriously don't) an RP KILLER!!!!!
Regardless of it would degrade the satisfaction that both sides gains from the RP or not, it certainly deters the use of tactical nuclear weapons from the onset if the player doesn't want the usage of such weapons, doesn't it? Certainly, you will find people who responded porportionally, but it is far from a surprise if people will nuke you over ten thousand kilometers as a response to the use of nuclear weapons against a part of their navy. And since (unless the use of tacnukes is preplanned by both sides and/or both sides adopt a 'porportional response' policy) tacnukes will eventually evolve into the use of strategic nukes, wouldn't it make sense - in these instances - to avoid using tacnukes from the start if you don't want to face the use of stategic nukes?

This is usually how I feel about SDs:

SDs are just "I used one; you're dead; I win."

That's cheap, too.
Uh... When were or are SDs invincible, I must ask you? The point is that SDs themselves are far from invincible, but it is the proper usage of them that makes them somewhat harder to 'kill', thus requiring the use of tactics, knowledge, and creativity. Does that ring a bell? Yes, some imply as if SDs are invincible because of their OMG ARMOUR AND GUNS!!11, but are you just going to use flawed logic (from the people who does imply that SDs are invincible) to support a flawed point?

This is why warfare is much deeper than missile spam, people!

Uh... When SDs are invincible, I must ask you? The point is that SDs themselves are far from invincible, but it is the proper usage of them that makes them somewhat harder to 'kill', thus requiring the use of tactics, knowledge, and creativity. Does that ring a bell? Yes, some imply as if SDs are invincible because of their OMG ARMOUR AND GUNS!!11, but are you just going to use flawed logic (from the people who does imply that SDs are invincible) to support a flawed point?

This is why warfare is much deeper than missile spam, people!

I think you are a good RPer, and I trust you are better than the "OMG ARMOUR AND GUNS!!11", and thus if we do ever get into a war (which I hope is unlikely) that you would be better than that.

Most people who have SDs, however, think they are invincible and thus no matter how much creativity, skill, knowledge, tactics, and logistics you will ever use, they will continue to deny their beloved SDs were ever hurt, and then what?

I myself would not use tactical nukes first, but resort to other methods to knock out propulsion, sensors, weapons systems, etc. first to deny the ability to use the SDs in combat. When an SD is disabled, usually the fleet can be dispatched easily, since the fleet (and invasions) revolve around the SD.

I merely just support Axis Nova in the usage in tactical nukes, not that I would personally use it. It depends on the RPer, if the RPer is an idiot, than tactical nukes become more feasible since it is the only way the person will admit the ship is gone. However, if the person is experienced or at least smart in any respect, then I would think theat tactical nukes shouldn't be used because they ruin the RP.

Saying "Use better tactics! :D :D :D" is a slogan and nothing more. Clever maneuvers only help to a point-- you still need a weapon capable of doing the job.

Let's see. What conventional options do I have for destroying a super dreadnaught that attacks me or one of my allies?

1) Missile spam-- I fire ten bazillion cruise missiles. The SD's massive escort fleet shoots down 99% of them, the three that get through are blocked by the SD's armor. I've seen this happen.

2) Railguns-- I fire a linear gun shot at it from one of my gigantic fusion powered airships. The person using the SD, upon finding out that these airships are too tough to be damaged effectively via ordinary anti-air weapons, tries to insist that somehow their 25 inch gun turrets not only can elevate high enough to engage air targets, but the turrets are somehow capable of rotating fast enough and firing quick enough to track and destroy an aircraft. This has happened to me personally.

3) Submarines-- My nation, due to terrain limitiations is incapable of deploying submarines. There goes that idea.

4) Bombs-- See 2).

5) Air-dropped torpedos-- No matter how big the torpedo, "somehow" the SD's subsurface armor is too tough to be significantly damaged. Most are designed with subsurface armor tough enough to handle pretty much any torpedo in any case.

6) Another SD's main guns. See 3).

7) A small 1.5kt tac nuke deployed via a high-speed scramjet missile-- The nuclear explosion would kill all the sailors on deck on the SD and damage all the top surfaces, as well as render all the non-torpedo weapons and radars of the ship useless until they're repaired. However, given the resilience of your standard naval ship as well as modern damage control features, (even a WWII era battleship can and has survived much larger nuclear explosions in tests), it would be still capable of movement and thus would be able to leave the area and head back to port to be repaired, hopefully with the owner taking the hint and leaving me or my ally alone.

Really, Omz, saying "Use better tactics" is just a cop-out on your part.

I myself would not use tactical nukes first, but resort to other methods to knock out propulsion, sensors, weapons systems, etc. first to deny the ability to use the SDs in combat. When an SD is disabled, usually the fleet can be dispatched easily, since the fleet (and invasions) revolve around the SD.
This is exactly one of the methods (along with some other methods related to weaponry and coordination) of successfully defeating the SD's warfighting ability, to put it exactly, as it is both an economical and non-provocative (in a nuclear sense) to successfully diminish the danger posed by the threat of the enemy fleet. Remember, there's not much reason to expend so much effort to actually put it under the ocean - in most cases, either disabling the SD's ability to fight or battering it to a point where the hull would only worth to be sold as scrap, depending on the scenario, would suffice.

I merely just support Axis Nova in the usage in tactical nukes, not that I would personally use it. It depends on the RPer, if the RPer is an idiot, than tactical nukes become more feasible since it is the only way the person will admit the ship is gone. However, if the person is experienced or at least smart in any respect, then I would think theat tactical nukes shouldn't be used because they ruin the RP.
Good points. The use of tactical nukes against SDs - with the creativity and imagination factor aside - doesn't necessarily ruin the RP, but it is the assumption that the enemy will only return in favour with only tactical nuclear weapons (when his policies and capabilities already allows him to respond with strategic nuclear weapons) that is flawed. Now, I don't practice the "strategic nuclear weapon in response to tacnukes" policy myself, but is pointing out that it is a feasible, and logical solution to deterring the use of tactical nuclear weapons if the player does not want to confront the enemy under the presence of tacnukes.

Get to the SD via small submarines - ones that will be too small to really notice, weld through the hull and have fun with your boarding action. I would love to RP that but if all you're concerned about is winning fast...then nuke the ship and nuke the RP.

Really, Omz, saying "Use better tactics" is just a cop-out on your part.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that there are better tactics (and there's a reason why I'm not using a loudspeaker to openly declare every method of defeating the SD's fighting capability, since it would ust ruin the creativity part of RPs) than taking the easy out with tacnukes and not willing to confront the consequences (will people accept the fact that not all are going to practice porportional response?). And since it seems that you are actually avoiding the usage of effective counter-SD platforms (for example, submarines, even though it seems that you did forget about some other ways and schemes to defeat the SD) as an excuse for your nuke-rattling, it is completely possible and feasible to say that you are unwilling to explore new ideas to defeat SDs without risking the nuclear wildcard.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that there are better tactics than taking the easy out with tacnukes and not willing to confront the consequences (will people accept the fact that not all are going to practice porportional response?). And since it seems that you are actually avoiding the usage of effective counter-SD platforms (for example, submarines, even though it seems that you did forget about some other ways and schemes to defeat the SD) as an excuse for your nuke-rattling, it is completely possible and feasible to say that you are unwilling to explore new ideas to defeat SDs without risking the nuclear wildcard.

IIRC, Axis Nova is landlocked, so he can't deploy submarines or SD's of his own. I remember Axis Nova saying that his nation is in the middle of a huge valley surrounded by giant mountains, like a donut of sorts.

So how many people with SD's are willing to admit that with one shot to the propeller sytem (whatever it may use) the ship could be literally stranded for weeks?

I completely agree with Omz222 on this one, RP is meant to be interesting and there is nothing interesting about having your flagship nuked by someone who lacks to skill to write about the mayhem of trying to take it down conventionally. If I were to meet an SD, I'd simply use a lot of insane but fun tactics. I.e paradrops onto the SD ( :p )

More sane tactics would be the aforementioned welding through the hull or insertion via helicopter, or (I've heard this from Vollmeria) napalming the ship, so the ammunition overheats and explodes.

I completely agree with Omz222 on this one, RP is meant to be interesting and there is nothing interesting about having your flagship nuked by someone who lacks to skill to write about the mayhem of trying to take it down conventionally. If I were to meet an SD, I'd simply use a lot of insane but fun tactics. I.e paradrops onto the SD ( :p )

More sane tactics would be the aforementioned welding through the hull or insertion via helicopter, or (I've heard this from Vollmeria) napalming the ship, so the ammunition overheats and explodes.

There's nothing interesting about fighting a ship that you have no good way to beat, either. Most tactics you people are suggesting tend to be useless on the grounds that SDs tend to be deployed while escorted by entire carrier battle groups.

There's nothing interesting about fighting a ship that you have no good way to beat, either. Most tactics you people are suggesting tend to be useless on the grounds that SDs tend to be deployed while escorted by entire carrier battle groups.

Take out the Carrier's planes, then taking down the SD and its escorts via airpower (Which you supposedly have with your AirShips) would be a cinch. :p

AC-130, anyone? :p

There's nothing interesting about fighting a ship that you have no good way to beat, either. Most tactics you people are suggesting tend to be useless on the grounds that SDs tend to be deployed while escorted by entire carrier battle groups.
Not entirely, and this is why counter-SD tactics also evolves around successfully reduce the threat of the escort fleet as well (and unless you are going to somehow have bombers penetrating dense fleet air defence nets, there's a high chance that you won't be able to get into range to launch your missile, either, despite the long range it may have due to the small size of the warhead). Further, as McKagan suggested, sufficient damage done to the propulsors of the ship can also be ahrmful, if not devastating.

Take out the Carrier's planes, then taking down the SD and its escorts via airpower (Which you supposedly have with your AirShips) would be a cinch. :p

How would someone else who isn't me do it?

Note that recommending BOARDING ATTEMPTS shall not be taken seriously-- this is not the Age of Sail.

Further, as McKagan suggested, sufficient damage done to the propulsors of the ship can also be ahrmful, if not devastating.

Would it be possible to ignite the ships fuel source that way?

If I was fighting out at sea that' what I'd do. Hoping that someone doesn't godmod and say they bring in another fleet to help that could technically seal the doom of an SD. Eventually their escort fleet would be deplenished and the SD itself would be open for Marines and/or your nations equivilant of an AC-130.

How would someone else who isn't me do it?

Note that recommending BOARDING ATTEMPTS shall not be taken seriously-- this is not the Age of Sail.

I believe ample usage of F-22's or upgaded F-16's can do the trick. Failing that, lure the enemy carrier planes over to your mainland then have your SAM batteries take the enemy planes down.

If you want to go and field modernized battleships of today, go and have fun, but when you get into the ridiculous 1km long SDs the naval battles change fundamentally for the worse, because SDs are 100% PMT. It's not the SDs themselves that are PMT, but the facility to build their hulls, to keep them in port, to keep them running.

Why wouldn't boarding attempts be taken seriously?

Land a few hundred Marines on the deck of it and BOOM, you might not take the ship over, but you could have your men do alot of damage to key systems before pulling out.

And how, precisely, do you get something close enough for the marines to board without already having the ability to negate the SD's escort fleet and it's own not insignificant antiship and antiaircraft firepower?

Whoa whoa whoa, I wasn't talking about just dropping marines on it in the middle of a battle!

In my solution the SD's propeller system has been shot to shit by submarines and i'm assuming that the strain of having to lay back to protect the SD because it can't move would eventually do the escort fleet it.

At this point I wouldn't consider the SD neutralized, and as an alternative to taking alot of ordance blowing it up one could just board it to take out everything possible and then leave it.

That, or... wouldn't supercavs be the IDEA way to destroy a stranded SD? Think about it. Supercavs are hard to target, but it's hard to miss an immobile SD. Methinks that would do the SD in easier than anything short of a tacnuke.

How would someone else who isn't me do it?

Note that recommending BOARDING ATTEMPTS shall not be taken seriously-- this is not the Age of Sail.

Well, I severely overrated you as an RPer, you have been adjusted as necessary. When a whole fleet is embattled, planes roaring overhead, delivering laser guided bombs on the ships below, battleship guns booming and the stench of sulphur thick in the air while super-cavitating submarines wreak havoc with your own subs: you aren't going to notice a few small submarines filled with crack commandos welding into the hull from under water.

Also, who said they had to take the ship? They easily just neutralize a large section of the crewmen below deck and plant numerous explosives and *BOOM*, there goes alot of your hull.

Get more creative, stop bitching about SD's being strong and get used to finding interesting and fun ways to fight them - they're a part of NS now, whether you like it or not.

Well, I severely overrated you as an RPer, you have been adjusted as necessary. When a whole fleet is embattled, planes roaring overhead, delivering laser guided bombs on the ships below, battleship guns booming and the stench of sulphur thick in the air while super-cavitating submarines wreak havoc with your own subs: you aren't going to notice a few small submarines filled with crack commandos welding into the hull from under water.

Also, who said they had to take the ship? They easily just neutralize a large section of the crewmen below deck and plant numerous explosives and *BOOM*, there goes alot of your hull.

Get more creative, stop bitching about SD's being strong and get used to finding interesting and fun ways to fight them - they're a part of NS now, whether you like it or not.

:rolleyes:


I have three words for you.


Anti-submarine warfare.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that such a large battlegroup would not take extensive anti-submarine measures?

e: Also, must you really type ALL YOUR POSTS in size 1? I hate having to squint to read things.

Your own subs could be pinned down by Anti-Sub helicopters.

:rolleyes:


I have three words for you.


Anti-submarine warfare.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that such a large battlegroup would not take extensive anti-submarine measures?

e: Also, must you really type ALL YOUR POSTS in size 1? I hate having to squint to read things.

I didn't say that it didn't have anti-submarine measures, I did say they were engaged in the louder and immediately more dangerous super-cavs. Seriously, it seems all you can do is cry and moan about big battleships that are a creative RPers dream to work with.

Also, it appears you must RP with pretty bad RPers if they are that caught up in not letting a really fun RP take place aboard their flagship.

If you want an easy way to harm an SD, use a concrete submarine - they lie in wait at the bottom of the ocean (way belong normal crush depth) and pepper the SD with very fast torpedoes.

First off, I don't type all my posts in font size 1, only OOC posts. Secondly, get your eyes tested or wear your glasses if you can't read this; seriously.

EDIT: Your own subs could be pinned down by Anti-Sub helicopters.

Seconded

It would also be possible for the same commando's that were mentioned to place charges on the underside of the ship, sure, it would take a few, but it would eventually start to flood the lower decks.

Meh. I'm not going to jump through ten million hoops and employ ridiculous strategies such as boarding or frogmen (in the middle of the ocean!? get real!) or submarines that somehow don't get noticed by ships in the fleet that have presumably, highly trained crew that are supposed to be watching out for subs at all times and not distracted by the rest of the battle.

Easier by far to just throw a tac nuke-- and I'll take my chances on someone's strategic response, since I think I can handle it.

Bottom line, if you're scared of letting your precious money sinks get nuked, keep them away from Axis Nova or from an AN ally.

Meh. I'm not going to jump through ten million hoops and employ ridiculous strategies such as boarding or frogmen (in the middle of the ocean!? get real!) or submarines that somehow don't get noticed by ships in the fleet that have presumably, highly trained crew that are supposed to be watching out for subs at all times and not distracted by the rest of the battle.

Easier by far to just throw a tac nuke-- and I'll take my chances on someone's strategic response, since I think I can handle it.

Bottom line, if you're scared of letting your precious money sinks get nuked, keep them away from Axis Nova or from an AN ally.

Well then, you're obviously one of those people who puts winning before quality RP, with your kind, my kind of logic holds no sway...

Damage control is very important, i think. A 700m+ long SD requires a long time to get anywhere on the ship, particularly belowdecks, where compartments can hamper movement. Lots of compartmentalization is useful in flood control but isn't good for fire fighting. Fires on the deck are relatively easy to control(except on CVs), but below the deck, people have to run through compartments in a quick way to control the fire. With a big ship, you can have bigger compartments but with large crews confusion can ensue. Thus you have to balance compartmentalization vs openness. Small compartments are good for flood control, as they limit damage of that type, but they limit internal space and limit firefighting ability. Most ships(with the notable exception of aircraft carriers) store munitions below decks, making human fire control important(sprinklers and other automatic methods are ineffective against munition and fuel fires.

So, you say, you just won't let a conventional round through. That might be valid, but remember that armor increases the weight of a ship without increasing displacement, making the ship more likely to capsize. Once a ship has capsized, it cannot be repaired.

To the people who said napalm on the deck would work: only with poor ammunition storage techniques. Good ammunition storage will put a fireproof barrier between ammunition and gun and may also separate powder and shell(though SDs seem to use railguns).

Well then, you're obviously one of those people who puts winning before quality RP, with your kind, my kind of logic holds no sway...

You mean like SD users? :)

e: OK, that's not entirely fair of me. There are reasonable SD users, and some of them are in this thread.

These are not the ones who have been suggesting ridiculous tactics to remove an SD. =p

Anyways, the only thing I reasonably have left to deploy against SDs other than nukes would be this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433849).

I glued two things that people have accepted in the past together, and this is the only non-nuclear alternative I can reasonably use =p

Your own subs could be pinned down by Anti-Sub helicopters.

Which would survive how in the middle of a pitched naval battle? Even in your ideal situation where the SD has been immobilised, there's no way an escort fleet would abandon a charge worth almost as much as all the other ships combined in the middle of the ocean, so you'd still have a whole fleet there awaiting some kind of flotilla of giant tugs.

The idea of infantry-only boarding actions being an effective way to deal with giant surface ships is absurd. The Shinano, a WW2 aircraft carrier with no flooding control systems fitted, took seven hours to sink despite being torpedoed multiple times by a US submarine. Against a much larger ship with effective pumps and watertight compartments, a group of commandos with non-nuclear man-portable expacks would be able to do practically nothing, especially given they'd have to waste most of their time on board cutting through locked hatches. If you can get a submarine that damn close that you can unload a boarding party, why not do something more sensible like, I don't know, shooting at the SD with torpedoes?

[On the other hand, a full-scale airborne attack on a ship with tanks and infantry is a fun if silly idea.]

This is the same silly logic that says that a man standing on top of an M1A2 tank could disable it by taking a pair of bolt cutters and a pistol and killing the driver. Maybe, but how the hell is he supposed to get there?

Also, as a random note, what's so special about nuclear weapons? A tactical nuclear attack against an SD with low-powered warheads might leave it afloat and possibly even still operational afterwards. As long as you don't call 'I nuke your ship and now it is dead [you're stupid!]' it's neither unimaginative nor the RP-killer that people are making it out to be. An SD with a rear deck wrecked by a nuclear strike can still make a dash home or a hopeless last stand that will live in your people's memory forever. It can limp back into port trailing a huge cloud of fire and black smoke as your whole nation watches in shock. The captain can order his crew off, resting a hand on the wheel sadly as he does his final duty of scuttling her.

Why the hell is everyone so obsessed with the idea that anything nuclear kills the target instantly with no chance to defend and no possible continuation afterwards, like it's some kind of universal full stop? Just because it's a nuke doesn't mean it vapourises the fucking thing.

I should also note that even if the commandoes/special forces/SEALs/frogmen/whatever did get onboard, the fight won't be easy. With a seaborne insertation you got a lot of things to worry with not only screens of escorting vessels miles from the ship itself, but also the self-defence armaments on the SD itself (sicne the act of not having CIWS and crew-served autocannons or/and machine guns would be suicidal aboard any large naval combatent). Thus, there's a slim chance of getting through the escort rings around it, let alone avoiding being chopped up by a hail of AP projectiles from a heavy machine gun. If you are using a helo for insertation, well, good luck - you'll really need it. Watch out for the point defence missiles and CIWS firing at you as your helo mindlessly hovers above the deck.

And then there's the issue of the crew of the ship itself. Since the primary role of superdreadnaughts are after all, serving as a command vessel for a flag staff, there will be a naval infantry detachment guarding it. And then what? Throwing your platoon-sized commando detachment against a battalion-sized naval infantry force, and another load of sailors who now will be arming themselves with assault rifles from th ship armory?

The idea had been talked about before, but it won't work unless you pit your force against say, a merchant or a random destroyer, but then again that's not the topic of the discussion.

With gunships, it'll be much better, based on the assumption that you deal with the escorting vessels first - a part of just about any large naval engagement. Even if people want to shoot nukes against it, it's basically the same thing.

I could think of a couple of ways to employ these boarders.

1. Have them swim to the propulsion area of the SD. Place explosives on the propellers, blowing it to hell. While they're at it, blow up the shafts themselves, causing more problems for the ship's crews to repair. This is done while the SD is stationary, firing its giant guns or whatever duty it is carrying out.

2. Make their way to the ammo dumps for the Big Guns, then blow it up with some C4 explosives. The C4 will detonate all the ammo for those 30 inch guns, then that in turn will shred the guts of the SD while depriving it of ammo. The cooking ammo can detonate more ammo around it, leading to a chain reaction.



Before you guys say "Its not possible!", I have a very simple solution. The boarders can wear the uniforms of the enemy sailors, making them indistinguishable from other sailors scurrying around in the heat of battle. Camouflage is your best friend in those situations.

Have them swim to the propulsion area of the SD. Place explosives on the propellers, blowing it to hell. While they're at it, blow up the shafts themselves, causing more problems for the ship's crews to repair. This is done while the SD is stationary, firing its giant guns or whatever duty it is carrying out.

The vast majority of SDs don't have propellers. Plus, if they do the shafts are encased in armour and not accessible. If the propeller throws a blade while moving it'll damage the shaft anyway; best way to do that is with Earthquake bombs.

Before you guys say "Its not possible!", I have a very simple solution. The boarders can wear the uniforms of the enemy sailors

First they have to get on board. They then need to get dressed in enemy uniforms hoping nobody noticed them board, then make their way to the magazine hoping that the sailors there will give them access even though they don't know them, have never seen them in that area before and that area is already completely crewed. You also have to hope that the sailors are of the same species, ethnicity and such as they are so they don't stick out like a sore thumb...

It's likely to get them shot, seriously. Covert ops work best when, as with the operations against the Tirpitz, the ship is inactive and laid up somewhere, not when it's in active service and firing.

hmmm, SOmebody sells fairly cheap submarines designed to take out SD's, basically is a diesel electric and runs on MagnetoHydroDynaamic water thrusters instead of screws, using all of its stored electricity in one mad dash (hit something like 60knts) the subs slip through on battery power (silently) and unload a bunch of magnetic shaped mines under the SD which magnetize onto the keel and crak it, A cracked keel is the best ship Killer I know of, even A trimaran will take some serious effort to stay afloat with a cracked keel

*Notes that for commandos/ covert ops, the ideal thing would be a new moon, wooden/ plastic gliders, possibly transparent, and sufficient explosives to destroy important parts of the main artillery (I.e. the breeches)*

*Also notes that, as GMC mentioned, nukes are hardly RP killers. They have frequently been used without doing that (Me, internal and external. Iraqstan, internal. Eurusea, internal and external, to name a few examples) Mind, I've yet to see an SD being used without killing a combat thread due to its OMFGness*

The vast majority of SDs don't have propellers. Plus, if they do the shafts are encased in armour and not accessible. If the propeller throws a blade while moving it'll damage the shaft anyway; best way to do that is with Earthquake bombs.

Earthquake bombs? I never heard of that. What are they specifically?

First they have to get on board. They then need to get dressed in enemy uniforms hoping nobody noticed them board, then make their way to the magazine hoping that the sailors there will give them access even though they don't know them, have never seen them in that area before and that area is already completely crewed. You also have to hope that the sailors are of the same species, ethnicity and such as they are so they don't stick out like a sore thumb...

It's likely to get them shot, seriously. Covert ops work best when, as with the operations against the Tirpitz, the ship is inactive and laid up somewhere, not when it's in active service and firing.

Ah...

First, I could always fabricate enemy uniforms on my mainland, then bring them in that covert-ops sub. Just before the actual operation, my spec-ops can put on the enemy uniforms then, depending on what happens....

1. If there is actual underwater swimming involved, they can don wetsuits over their fake uniforms. Once they arrive inside the ship, they dipose of the wetsuits inside a locker or an out-of-the-way place.

2. If there is no swimming involved, i.e. direct contact between the sub and the SD's hull, just open up the hull through cutting torches or lasers, then have my men get inside the SD.


Second, most NS nations are either Causcasian or Asian in MT times. I can use white or Asian people of my own to blend in with the crew of the SD.

Third, my Spec-Ops can always learn the enemy's language prior to the actual operation. American spies learn Russian to infilitrate the USSR, and USSR spies learn English to infilitrate the USA or England.

Fourth, in combat, there is chaos. People hurry around to get their tasks done quickly as possible. They don't exactly stop and spend 1 minute inspecting every sailor, crewmember, or person they come across. What's more, there could be some casaulties and thus, my spec-ops can pose as replacement crewmembers or soldiers.

There are many more possible scenarios in this, which could involve faking ID, take out a few crewmembers and stuff them in lockers or such, lie to the enemy guys and say they're (my spec-ops) repair technicians, etc. The SD is a huge ship with 1000's of crewmembers and is 1 kilometer long in most cases. The bigger a ship and crew is, the easier it becomes to blend in without raising suspicions.

If the ship only had like 100 crewmembers and only 100 meters long, then infilitration would be quite difficult. However, with 10,000 crewmembers and 1,000 meters of ship, it becomes pretty easy to slip in, fake ID and lie to the enemy, and blend in without raising enough suspicion to institute a lock-down. The same principle works for inflitrating major enemy cities, huge military bases, Law + Order departments, transportation networks, etc.

Earthquake bombs? I never heard of that. What are they specifically?

http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/

First, I could always fabricate enemy uniforms on my mainland, then bring them in that covert-ops sub. Just before the actual operation, my spec-ops can put on the enemy uniforms then, depending on what happens...

Well, then they'd have to insert in the uniforms, possibly getting them wet or damaged in the process.

1. If there is actual underwater swimming involved, they can don wetsuits over their fake uniforms. Once they arrive inside the ship, they dipose of the wetsuits inside a locker or an out-of-the-way place.

Um, wetsuits have a layer of uniform-ruining water inside, that's why they're called wetsuits.

Third, my Spec-Ops can always learn the enemy's language prior to the actual operation. American spies learn Russian to infilitrate the USSR, and USSR spies learn English to infilitrate the USA or England.

Yes, but those spies were usually in low-security areas. Actual high-up military espionage is almost always done by getting enemy nationals to do your work for you.

Fourth, in combat, there is chaos. People hurry around to get their tasks done quickly as possible. They don't exactly stop and spend 1 minute inspecting every sailor, crewmember, or person they come across. What's more, there could be some casaulties and thus, my spec-ops can pose as replacement crewmembers or soldiers.

In shelling a city there is not chaos at all, everyone goes about their tasks in as orderly a fashion as possible. If they're not on the crew list and nobody's seen them before, people won't let them pass. In combat, a ship is locked down to minimise damage, moving into a section without a good reason would be fairly suspicious. Replacements would have to present papers to show they were replacements.

Infiltrating a large ship is very difficult when everything is in your favour; doing so in combat is all but suicidal. Even if you succeed, do you think the gun crews will just ignore you while you set demolition charges in the magazine?

If you think that you can have people onboard that no sailor on the ship even knows or doesn't even act according to the regular routines and traditions aboard the ship, you've got a problem. If you can even think that you can somehow have people climbing up the hull of a SD without lookouts from the SD or another ship noticing it let alone being able to sneak up the ship without being torpedoed or .50-cal-ed to death... And then when they get on board? Oh, somehow having them miraculously change their wetsuits besides a plethora of crew members on the deck of the ship, and then act as if they know everything abot the task at hand (after all, they do have a task as 'crew members') and as if they are the best friends of a random sailor on board? Forget about it.

Really, even not considering the dangers of sneaking up a minisub or RHIB onboard, this idea is just as feasible as massing an army of paratroopers, drop them over an enemy city, and proclaim the city as yours. Oh, don't worry, our air force will escort the cargo aircraft and will bomb the capital to death :) We'll also steal the enemy's ammunition and have the entire paratrooper regiments and their commanders dressed in enemy uniforms :p This isn't an ancient war when you still have ships attacking each other at mere kilometers between each others and when you still have crewmembers on the deck of U-Boats firing away their deck guns at will. If you still insist on sneaking them onto the ship, well, make sure that they bought life insurance.

Beyond that, if you are planning to sneak commandoes onto Omzian ships, just make sure that you don't call a Chief Petty Officer as a 'Commander' just because of the shoulder insignia :p

In shelling a city there is not chaos at all, everyone goes about their tasks in as orderly a fashion as possible. If they're not on the crew list and nobody's seen them before, people won't let them pass. In combat, a ship is locked down to minimise damage, moving into a section without a good reason would be fairly suspicious. Replacements would have to present papers to show they were replacements.

Infiltrating a large ship is very difficult when everything is in your favour; doing so in combat is all but suicidal. Even if you succeed, do you think the gun crews will just ignore you while you set demolition charges in the magazine?

Hmm...

When the SD is in combat, trying to defend itself aganist a concentrated attack of thousands of planes and missiles, there is guanatreed to be at least some running around, casaulties, and such. Not only that, but add in my navy coming down on the SD and its escorts. More shells, targets, and stuff to defend aganist.

Also, if the SD is bombing a city, it might have to deal with land-based aircraft, surviving coastal batteries, cruise missiles and ICBM's from further inland, etc. My nation, or any other nation for that matter, wouldn't exactly just let the SD sit there unopposed and let it rain death upon coastal cities. I or other victim nations WILL find a way to continue to hamper / hinder the SD, via the methods I stated above with land-based defenses and aircraft.



That aside, crews do need to move the big ammo for the big guns from the storage bays to the gun turrets for firing. Ditto for chemical propellant. Crew would also have to deal with damage control parties roaming throughout the ship, patching its systems up, or fixing either major or minor damage.

My spec-ops can easily pretend to be a damage control party, which solves the "Hey I haven't seen you before" problem. Also, this will allow my spec-ops more access to different areas of the SD, and what better place to hide dime sized C4 plastic explosives than in damaged piping, wire insulation, light systems, etc.

Also, as for the planting of explosives in ammo storage or chambers. We already have tiny C4 explosives the size of pennies, dimes, etc. My spec-ops can quietly slip just one of those C4 explosive plastic things on the giant gun bullet when they handle or move it to the gunnery guys.

2 possible scenarios here.

1. The spec-ops detonate the C4 while the bullet is inside the ammo dump. The C4 detonates the explosives inside the giant gun bullet it's slapped on. The resultant explosion detonates the giant bullet itself, then that explosion ignites the other bullets and ammo in the ammo storage dump. Major damage ensures.

2. The bullet with the tiny C4 explosive on it enters the main gun turret (the 30 inch ones or whatever the biggest size on the SD), the C4 detonates, causing the bullet to explode inside the turret, rendering a "mission-kill" on the turret, rendering it inoperable. The explosion could possibly blow up the whole turret, or cook the ammo inside the turret, creating considerable internal damage to the SD.


It can be hard to spot a dime sized bronze colored C4 plastic puddle on a bronze colored SD main gun bullet round. Once again, camouflage is my friend here.

You need to consider how you are going to insert your commandoes onto the ship and how are they going to go on deck and them into the ship before even dream about how they should plan the destruction. If you are planning a seaborne insertation, the only two choice are pretty much either a RHIB (or a larger boat) or a mini-sub, both which can get detected and consequently, sank with ease with the onboard armaments of the escort vessels (and the close-in self-defence armaments of the SD as well).

(snip)



Actually, I was going for the "Submarine cuts into SD's underside hull with torches or cutting lasers, then sneak my Spec-Ops into the sparsely crewed storage chambers of the ship (food storage, spare parts storage, etc.) or sewage system chambers of the ship" approach.

I believe this is possible with today's ultra-quiet diesel hybrid submarines, or magnetodynamic driven subs (both perfectly feasible within the SD tech era).

If you think that you can have people onboard that no sailor on the ship even knows or doesn't even act according to the regular routines and traditions aboard the ship, you've got a problem. If you can even think that you can somehow have people climbing up the hull of a SD without lookouts from the SD or another ship noticing it let alone being able to sneak up the ship without being torpedoed or .50-cal-ed to death... [snip]

So basically, you're just agreeing with Axis Nova? Jesus Christ...you're being inconsistent.

GMC, I'm all for suffering critical damage but the way the tac nukes have been described in this thread is "omfg ONE HIT KO!", hence my wanting to avoid a one hit wonder. I'd gladly half my ship in flames - it adds to the mayhem - but I don’t want what could be a pivotal part of the RP just get nuked. And as for you lot complaining about boarding parties: does it have to be 100% military feasible? No.

Let it slide and you'll have a fun RP with the commandos being hunted down by vengeful crewmembers.

So basically, you're just agreeing with Axis Nova? Jesus Christ...you're being inconsistent.
I do not have to be consistently disagreeing with someone - as my priority is to get my points out rather than holding a ridiculous grudge against someone. I'm actually being rational here - anyone who still believes otherwise that it is feasible to sneak up commandoes into the ship, can test it in combat and regret it.

I do not have to be consistently disagreeing with someone - as my priority is to get my points out rather than holding a ridiculous grudge against someone. I'm actually being rational here - anyone who still believes otherwise that it is feasible to sneak up commandoes into the ship, can test it in combat and regret it.

I believe it was you who said that you're sick and tired of the "OMG! Missile Spam!" and that you want people to actually employ tactics and strategy aganist SD's.

I am trying to do just that by expanding on the Commando-boarding-SD idea.

I do not have to be consistently disagreeing with someone - as my priority is to get my points out rather than holding a ridiculous grudge against someone. I'm actually being rational here - anyone who still believes otherwise that it is feasible to sneak up commandoes into the ship, can test it in combat and regret it.

I never said it was feasible. Read-my-post. Holding a grudge, no, you're simply adding to the arguement that nukes are the only to successfully destroy an SD, essentially destroying your own counter-arguement.

I know ways of destroying SDs without using <unfeasible spec ops mission> or <nuke>. If you're really interested, talk to Verdant Archipelago...

I never said it was feasible. Read-my-post. Holding a grudge, no, you're simply adding to the arguement that nukes are the only to successfully destroy an SD, essentially destroying your own counter-arguement.
OOC: No, it isn't feasible, but having the commandoes somehow miraculously sneaking onto a SD in the middle of rings upon rings of escorts isn't rational, either. With the arguments, yes, I do still believe that nukes are not the best tool for destroying a SD for various reasons despite their power - but am I to say that it would be feasible to sink a SD with a rock from the sky, since it adds to my "counter-argument"?

Rationality is what's important, not playing an absurd game of cat and mouse to see who can pump up the most counter-arguments and the highest number of ways of destroying a SD (or at least, destroying its ability to fight).

I know ways of destroying SDs without using <unfeasible spec ops mission> or <nuke>. If you're really interested, talk to Verdant Archipelago...

I'm really trying to think up of alternative ways to defeat SD's as I don't want to resort to using nukes. I thought the spec-ops was a good idea, use them to sabtoage the SD's main turrets or cause damage to its ammo dumps.

I'm clueless to any other ways to defeat SD's, other than using my Colossus Artillery platforms or 1000's of planes + conventional ICBM's.

The only other ways I can think of to defeat the SD is...

1. Destroy all of its escort ships, then launch 1000 torpedoes at the SD.
2. Destroy all enemy supply convoys. (SD can last for months with food though).
3. Suicide Kamikaze planes plow into the SD's gun turrets and missile cells.

I can't think of anything more right now.

So basically, you're just agreeing with Axis Nova? Jesus Christ...you're being inconsistent.

GMC, I'm all for suffering critical damage but the way the tac nukes have been described in this thread is "omfg ONE HIT KO!", hence my wanting to avoid a one hit wonder. I'd gladly half my ship in flames - it adds to the mayhem - but I don’t want what could be a pivotal part of the RP just get nuked. And as for you lot complaining about boarding parties: does it have to be 100% military feasible? No.

Let it slide and you'll have a fun RP with the commandos being hunted down by vengeful crewmembers.

I'd like to note that I never said that a tac nuke vaporizes an SD in one hit. It would most likely ruin it's ability to continue a battle, however.

I'd like to note that I never said that a tac nuke vaporizes an SD in one hit. It would most likely ruin it's ability to continue a battle, however.

Oh, I misinterpreted you then, my bad! I personally love the idea of a crippled SD weakly fighting back against the hunters closing in for the kill.

<snip>
TG Verdant. I dont want to just hand everyone a solution on a plate because then it'll just become widespread without anyone actually putting effort into it. I'll give you a clue though: destroying systems is on the right line.

Alternatively, just build some SDs of your own and let's get some massive battleship duels going. Germany didnt shout "techwank" because it didnt have any carriers in WWII and was therefore being soundly beaten by the Royal Navy.

OOC: No, it isn't feasible, but having the commandoes somehow miraculously sneaking onto a SD in the middle of rings upon rings of escorts isn't rational, either. With the arguments, yes, I do still believe that nukes are not the best tool for destroying a SD for various reasons despite their power - but am I to say that it would be feasible to sink a SD with a rock from the sky, since it adds to my "counter-argument"?

[snip]

I didn't say that boarding actions would always be successful, they could be fun to RP though - and that's what RP is meant to be: fun.

Alternatively, just build some SDs of your own and let's get some massive battleship duels going. Germany didnt shout "techwank" because it didnt have any carriers in WWII and was therefore being soundly beaten by the Royal Navy.

I dunno how to custom build my own naval ships, though.

By the way, I watched "Battle of Jutland" special on History Channel last week. It talked about how the Germans and British fought each other, and I thought it was quite interesting.

You can buy them from storefronts like mine (although I dont sell SDs as a matter of course, but I make exceptions) or Sarzonia's.

You can buy them from storefronts like mine (although I dont sell SDs as a matter of course, but I make exceptions) or Sarzonia's.

Thanks, appreciate it. BTW, any recommendation for good naval battle reading or such? I'm thinking of doing something Navy soon.

Out of curiosity, what about some sort of suicide weapon in the battle against SDs? I realise that not all nations would do something like this, but a country that is facing huge damage from the bombardment of one of these Behemoths may resort to something like this. The Japanese used them quite effectively in World War 2, I believe. You could strip down some old jet fighters in reserve, for example, load it up with a lot of ammo and fly it into the SD. Alternatively, you could use human-guided torpedos, or maybe even Fireships - sail a Destroyer loaded with ammunition and explosives up to a fleet, and you'll do some damage to the escorts of the SD, at least; makes the battle easier later.

Would be interesting to RP as well, from the points of view of the pilots that are carrying out the mission - interesting possibility to get into the psyche of one of these people.

But hey, what do I know? I'm a newbie. :)

Thanks, appreciate it. BTW, any recommendation for good naval battle reading or such? I'm thinking of doing something Navy soon.
Well read up on the Falklands War as it's the only semi-NS like conflict that has ever happened in real life, but bare in mind that it's rather low tech and the missiles etc used are rather old even in comparison to what Europe has IRL now. As far as battleship battles go... read up on Trafalgar, Jutland and how the world's navies got from one to the other.

Englemar: A suicide plane full of explosives is otherwise known as a missile.

Englemar: A suicide plane full of explosives is otherwise known as a missile.

Okay, fair point, but possibly a human guided aircraft would have a better chance of getting past missile defence systems due to the availiability of Countermeasure systems on an aircraft.

I'm just throwing ideas in the air here - never know if I may end up facing an SD one day, and I'd like to RP it creatively. :)

Alternatively, just build some SDs of your own and let's get some massive battleship duels going. Germany didnt shout "techwank" because it didnt have any carriers in WWII and was therefore being soundly beaten by the Royal Navy.

I do believe that Germany had several carriers, including some interesting designs that merged a Cruise and a Carrier allowing for an independant fighting force in a ship. However, Germany didn't put alot of stock into carriers, so it had nowhere near the ammount that the Brittish had, and no one had what the Americans or Japanese had.
Carriers were most prominent in the second world war in the Pacific, and only made supporting roles in the Atlantic simply because the war in the Pacific was over much more vast distances then that of the Atlantic.

The Japanese made a BCV, a battleship with a flight deck on one side, and it was useless for air operations because landing was impossible.

I do believe that Germany had several carriers, including some interesting designs that merged a Cruise and a Carrier allowing for an independant fighting force in a ship. However, Germany didn't put alot of stock into carriers, so it had nowhere near the ammount that the Brittish had, and no one had what the Americans or Japanese had.
Carriers were most prominent in the second world war in the Pacific, and only made supporting roles in the Atlantic simply because the war in the Pacific was over much more vast distances then that of the Atlantic.
No they didnt have any. They were building two, but neither were finished. And google "Sinking of the Bismark" "Taranto" "Malta Convoy" etc etc... almost every battle in the European theatre involved carriers. They didnt in the Atlantic because the Germans only had subs.

EDIT: And before and for the first few years of WWII Britain had the biggest navy in the world.

The Commonwealth of Pontinia has recently deployed a number of super-dreadnought ships (namely Grecia-class) as part of the Commonwealth North Pacific Fleet currently carrying out training manoeuvers in the North Pacific. We would like your assurance that these ships are safe from any unprovoked attack, as they will be carrying out test-firings of all weapons systems, including the Draco IV nuclear-capable IRBMs carried on the Grecia-class ships. (Please note that no actual warheads will be detonated as only the firing and guidance systems are being tested.)
With our respectful thanks,
John Callton, Chief Naval Officer
Charles Highbury, Chief Military Co-Ordinator
Johnathan Andersen, Head of State

No they didnt have any. They were building two, but neither were finished. And google "Sinking of the Bismark" "Taranto" "Malta Convoy" etc etc... almost every battle in the European theatre involved carriers. They didnt in the Atlantic because the Germans only had subs.

EDIT: And before and for the first few years of WWII Britain had the biggest navy in the world.

Yes, I've been through all of that. Wonderful stuff those Swordfish are.
Germany had several carriers it was building, including 2 that were scratch built as carriers. Go look up the Europa, De Grasse or Potsdam.
Include small conversions of captured French ships that saw limited combat, and failed when they did, and you get a number.
Germany stopped carrier devlopment for favor of the submarine.

As for the UK, they may have, but they were not as heavily invested in carriers as the US, and nowhere near what the Japanese had.
Someone can have 500 destroyers and one carrier, but a nation with 10 carriers and only 100 destroyers still has more invested in carriers the the first.

The Commonwealth of Pontinia has recently deployed a number of super-dreadnought ships (namely Grecia-class) as part of the Commonwealth North Pacific Fleet currently carrying out training manoeuvers in the North Pacific. We would like your assurance that these ships are safe from any unprovoked attack, as they will be carrying out test-firings of all weapons systems, including the Draco IV nuclear-capable IRBMs carried on the Grecia-class ships. (Please note that no actual warheads will be detonated as only the firing and guidance systems are being tested.)
With our respectful thanks,
John Callton, Chief Naval Officer
Charles Highbury, Chief Military Co-Ordinator
Johnathan Andersen, Head of State

Provided your Grecia classes are not attacking Axis Nova or any of it's allies, we shall have no interest in them.

I'll just say this;

If people with SD's don't want tactical nukes used against their ships they'll allow something else, such as a boarding party, to take place.

Complain about people wanting a quick and simple way to defeat an SD but when someone comes up with a way they nitpick it to death and say it wouldn't work....

Yes, I've been through all of that. Wonderful stuff those Swordfish are.
Germany had several carriers it was building, including 2 that were scratch built as carriers. Go look up the Europa, De Grasse or Potsdam.
:confused: That's exactly what I said. They didnt actually have any operational carriers.

Include small conversions of captured French ships that saw limited combat, and failed when they did, and you get a number.
Small conversions of other vessels arent proper carriers and havent proved to be worth much in a major combat. Again, I restate, Germany didnt have any actual operational aircraft carriers.

Germany stopped carrier devlopment for favor of the submarine.
I didnt say that they didnt. I just said they didnt have any carriers. What's your point?

As for the UK, they may have, but they were not as heavily invested in carriers as the US, and nowhere near what the Japanese had.
Someone can have 500 destroyers and one carrier, but a nation with 10 carriers and only 100 destroyers still has more invested in carriers the the first.
I cant find any actual figures, but the RN did have the first carrier and invent the concept of an aircraft carrier and built dedicated anti-air cruisers before WWII, so whatever.

Complain about people wanting a quick and simple way to defeat an SD but when someone comes up with a way they nitpick it to death and say it wouldn't work....
This is exactly my point. There ISNT an easy way to destroy a multi-million tonne battleship. Why cant everyone just accept it.

OOC: My official response to any nuking of a SD in my fleet would be the same as Praetonia's. Nuke one SD and I nuke your entire fleet. Nuke my fleet and your entire country goes down.

There is no EASY way to defeat a SD. It's going to take enormous resources to take one down, or, more precisely, register a "mission kill."

OOC: My official response to any nuking of a SD in my fleet would be the same as Praetonia's. Nuke one SD and I nuke your entire fleet. Nuke my fleet and your entire country goes down.

There is no EASY way to defeat a SD. It's going to take enormous resources to take one down, or, more precisely, register a "mission kill."

OOC: I maintain a ridiculously large SDI system for a reason-- that being to prevent myself from being placed in a MAD scenario.

In other words, since I believe I can nuke one of your SDs and deal with the consequences, MAD has failed for you in this situation.

If people with SD's don't want tactical nukes used against their ships they'll allow something else, such as a boarding party, to take place.

Complain about people wanting a quick and simple way to defeat an SD but when someone comes up with a way they nitpick it to death and say it wouldn't work....

Or you know, they could be much less "Rawr" about how unstopable they claim to be. Standard military action against them (you know, like ships, carriers and submarines) can work providing it's done right with a certain amount of care, the escort vessels surrounding it are much easier to pick of because of the amount of distance they have to be away from the main vessel in order to perform their role... taking out some of those escorts will make it easier to deal with the main vessel and help overall.

I don't know how impossible it is supposed to be to take one out, but you would think that it's possible to just nail it with a load of submarines or fuck over it's external electronics and systems with whatever firepower you can get close to it until it's effectively just a blind peice of atrillery or something...

Nuclear weapons aren't needed, they are just a bit of extra punch to get things done quickly... but if people incist they can't be damaged then people will incist on bigger guns and fall back on crazy ideas. If people aren't prepared to say "hey, your military probably know its possible to do damage this way" then people will do stupid things like spamming it with missles or nuking it. In other words, enough with the "Rawr" and show a little sportsmanship... some of us aren't military experts and all this crap about how they are near immune to all normal methods just gets people angry.

Meanwhile, the people who want to take out SD's need to chill out and remember that those who don't take damage are essentially godmoders... if they want to make a RP dull by not taking damage or helping you understand why that certain tactic isn't working (because your people should be able to work it out) and giving you a chance OOC, then you have to question why you are even RPing with them in the first place, all RPs are ulimately about co-operative story writing... either that or they are an OOC arguement writen in IC form. Personally I prefer to work with people rather then against.

OOC: I maintain a ridiculously large SDI system for a reason-- that being to prevent myself from being placed in a MAD scenario.
Ok. Assume for a minute (this is godmodded and irrationally wrong, but let's just assume, for the sake of argument) that you have a 99% efficient SDI system.

I launch 10,000 missiles from submarines (my entire nuclear arsenal). They get into the atmosphere, each one launches 10 decoys. You now have 100,000 targets. THey start to head down to earth. Each one MIRVs into 10 warheads. You now have 200,000 targets. With you're 99% efficiency rating (assuming an even spread between decoys and actual warheads) 1,000 warheads just hit your nation. You no longer have a nation.

Ok. Assume for a minute (this is godmodded and irrationally wrong, but let's just assume, for the sake of argument) that you have a 99% efficient SDI system.

I launch 10,000 missiles from submarines (my entire nuclear arsenal). They get into the atmosphere, each one launches 10 decoys. You now have 100,000 targets. THey start to head down to earth. Each one MIRVs into 10 warheads. You now have 200,000 targets. With you're 99% efficiency rating (assuming an even spread between decoys and actual warheads) 1,000 warheads just hit your nation. You no longer have a nation.

Look up how bomb-pumped X-ray lasers work. I don't need to target and hit each missile individually-- I can take out entire swaths at once, as well as nailing some of the missiles while they're in their boost phase.

Also, I have other ground-based measures in place for dealing with leakers, that I won't bother to discuss at this time (since I want to keep them a secret for when someone DOES try to flush the magazines at me).

Finally, it is worth noting that your nuclear weapons would neccesarily be inaccurate without good intelligence and targeting information. For all you know, those nukes could for the most part miss populated areas and mostly hit empty territory.

So you're claiming 100% efficiency with an SDI system?

Godmod => IGNORED.

OOC: My official response to any nuking of a SD in my fleet would be the same as Praetonia's. Nuke one SD and I nuke your entire fleet. Nuke my fleet and your entire country goes down.

Not to be an ass... but this whole thing still seems way over the top. Nuclear weapons don't automatically even sink an SD unless they are in the strategic range of yield.

But nevermind, I guess you guys are entitled to use that reasoning for your deterrent... it does work I guess, though the problem is would your nation enter a conflict if they knew at least one nation uses tactical nuclear weapons as standard? You're military would know from the start that if they used one on your ships your entire nation could be killed off in a MAD style escilation.

*shrugs*

Well, thats just my view. Personally I wouldn't use such an excessive deterrent as it escilates the situation too quickly for my liking... you may as well say you will nuke their entire nation as thats how it would end if someone tries it out, and surely a larger threat would make less people want to give it a try...

So you're claiming 100% efficiency with an SDI system?

Godmod => IGNORED.

While I generally agree, usually 10'000 nuclear warheads being fired at a nation also equal ignore by default. If it comes to that then you have either both agreed to ruin your nations, or the whole thread has failed.

Ok. Assume for a minute (this is godmodded and irrationally wrong, but let's just assume, for the sake of argument) that you have a 99% efficient SDI system.

I launch 10,000 missiles from submarines (my entire nuclear arsenal). They get into the atmosphere, each one launches 10 decoys. You now have 100,000 targets. THey start to head down to earth. Each one MIRVs into 10 warheads. You now have 200,000 targets. With you're 99% efficiency rating (assuming an even spread between decoys and actual warheads) 1,000 warheads just hit your nation. You no longer have a nation.

Then what happens after?

You have no nukes left. What's to stop another nation or an ally of Axis Nova from taking you out via nuclear means? Where is your MAD / WMD deterrant once you launch your full nuclear arsenal at Axis Nova?

I'm just using this hypothetical situation.

You have no nukes left. What's to stop another nation or an ally of Axis Nova from taking you out via nuclear means? Where is your MAD / WMD deterrant once you launch your full nuclear arsenal at Axis Nova?
Realistically few nations ever fire their entire arsenal... however keeping in mind that nationstates is very similar to world war one in that we all have webs of alliances it's pretty safe to say that most nuclear shooting matches between major powers would pretty much assure destruction of both nations and probably several of their allies...

Lets face it, MAD is so crazy that there are many people who just gave up on it in NS, even though it wouldn't be a good idea to do in RL.

Then what happens after?

You have no nukes left. What's to stop another nation or an ally of Axis Nova from taking you out via nuclear means? Where is your MAD / WMD deterrant once you launch your full nuclear arsenal at Axis Nova?

I'm just using this hypothetical situation.
Does it matter? AN will fire back and my nation will be dead too.

Iuthia: All Im demonstrating is how AN cant avoid MAD just by saying he has a massive SDI system. You're right that if it comes to MAD then something has gone wrong, but it's more likely to happen if people dont think it's something to be worried about.

EDIT: Realistically few nations ever fire their entire arsenal...
Since in real life there has never been a nuclear war, I dont see what grounding you have on which to say that.

Realistically few nations ever fire their entire arsenal... however keeping in mind that nationstates is very similar to world war one in that we all have webs of alliances it's pretty safe to say that most nuclear shooting matches between major powers would pretty much assure destruction of both nations and probably several of their allies...

Lets face it, MAD is so crazy that there are many people who just gave up on it in NS, even though it wouldn't be a good idea to do in RL.

So are you saying that MAD / WMD are almost useless in NS due to the uber-alliance blocs and the like?

So are you saying that MAD / WMD are almost useless in NS due to the uber-alliance blocs and the like?

I think they're actually saying it's strengthened by it.

I think they're actually saying it's strengthened by it.

Indeed. He said that it will probably mean that the nuclear war will spread, although personally I dont. I have plenty of allies who'd be willing to fight a war for me, but I doubt any of them would want to cease to exist for me.

Ok, I was just thinking of this.

Would it be possible to land some covert dudes on a SD to act like they're part of the enemy personnel, then have them split up and try to take over the gun control rooms themselves to turn the guns on the enemy fleet?

Ok, I was just thinking of this.

Would it be possible to land some covert dudes on a SD to act like they're part of the enemy personnel, then have them split up and try to take over the gun control rooms themselves to turn the guns on the enemy fleet?
Many ignores this fundamental question: How are you going to get your commandoes onto the ship? Oh, somehow miraculously getting through screens upon screens of escort ships protecting it, and not having one single lookout on the SD itself noticing it? Save the 'platoon of commandoes being massacred by battalion of marine infantry' later :rolleyes:

The notion of being able to turn the guns on the enemy fleet is laughable, if not absurd. Research a bit on the crew requirement for a single turret of a naval gun and you'll see what I'm talking about. Oh yes, you can train them to act as enemy sailors with near perfection too, and if someone gets in the way we'll just try a Splinter Cell-style kill and hide them into the locker :p

It's just as much feasible as replacing rifles with sticks.

Ok, I was just thinking of this.

Would it be possible to land some covert dudes on a SD to act like they're part of the enemy personnel, then have them split up and try to take over the gun control rooms themselves to turn the guns on the enemy fleet?
If you did it really well then you could probably get the teams on baord, and cause some mayhem by shooting random people with silenced pistols, but your chances of getting near an engine room, the bridge or a turret are negligable.

Indeed. He said that it will probably mean that the nuclear war will spread, although personally I dont. I have plenty of allies who'd be willing to fight a war for me, but I doubt any of them would want to cease to exist for me.

I thought that if uber-alliance blocs threatened WMD and MAD, then there can't be any interesting 1 vs 1 nation diplomacy and action without interference from their 100 (exaggeration, I admit) allies? This would effectively stifle RP, as people would be too afraid to be bold and do actual real-politik and such, instead of cowering in fear.

Jaded and cynic, I admit. But I've been looking for some good RP without the "death cloud of alliances" hanging over my head. I'm only involved with NATO (apparently dead, so of no consquence), and CFA (same as NATO). I'm also involved in TAPRES (Schultaria-led alliance) which focuses on economy and science rather than war and military stuff.

So if I ever get threatened, I'm pretty much on my own, considering my only long-standing ally, Vastiva, got DEAT'ed.

Well if you're ever fighting me with a SD you're going to give me a chance at doing some damage to it or I'm going to feel the need to use a nuke.

See, the thing is, i'm not going to just nuke a SD without trying something else. But if you make it invicable from all forms of attack like you're seemingly doing I still have to find a way to stop it.

It's about a good RP, not someone's toy getting to shell something all day, and there's a point where I would ignore someone for making themselves invicable.

Either you accept I have a viable chance of striking blows to it or I use something I KNOW will hurt it. The person with the SD will, in all cases, be the one that forces a nuclear strike.

Im not really in any alliances any more. Im in the OMP, but that's more of a collection of friends than an alliance per se. Im also in Haven, and they'd probably get pretty annoyed if you nuked something close to them, but it's actually a rather divided region. I dont like alliances either much... not group ones anyway, but they seem to have died out.

Well if you're ever fighting me with a SD you're going to give me a chance at doing some damage to it or I'm going to feel the need to use a nuke.

Whatever suits you, but there are a lot more /rational/ ways to destroy the SD's fighting capability than to do something absurd, like sneaking commandoes onto a ship /in the middle of a fleet/.

Since in real life there has never been a nuclear war, I dont see what grounding you have on which to say that.
Well, I don't know about you but firing all your nuclear weapons at once seems pretty stupid, people like to keep a reserve just in case something else arrises, which is what I mean about most real life nation who I'm fairly sure in a nuclear war would not use all their nuclear weapons unless there was no other way.
So are you saying that MAD / WMD are almost useless in NS due to the uber-alliance blocs and the like?
Actually, I'm saying that they are useless in a OOC sense seeing as no one would RP a real mutually assured destruction situation... IC it makes sense to have a deterrent entirely just to deter nations like yourself from using nuclear weapons in conflict.
Iuthia: All Im demonstrating is how AN cant avoid MAD just by saying he has a massive SDI system. You're right that if it comes to MAD then something has gone wrong, but it's more likely to happen if people dont think it's something to be worried about.
Indeed he can't... I'm just pointing out that if it gets to that point the chances are that the RP is ruined in the first place. The real issue here is that AN should really concider a nuclear deterrent before taking action, as realistically MAD shouldn't be ignored, but at the same time you guys need to remember that some nations have very different views on nuclear weapons and your nuclear policies make it dangerous for you to get involved with conflicts involving them, deterrent or otherwise.

The problem with mutually assured destruction is that it applies to everyone, some nations are used to the idea of using tactical clean nuclear weapons and other nations are very much against it, to attempt to force their view is dangerous and they both need to concider the risks. Sure they could try and call your bluff, sure you could go into a war and hope the nations already using tactical nuclear weapons will pay heed to your deterrent... eitherway both nations need to concider that it's a dangerous game from the start.

Whatever suits you, but there are a lot more /rational/ ways to destroy the SD's fighting capability than to do something absurd, like sneaking commandoes onto a ship /in the middle of a fleet/.

Meh, i'd probably use the commando capability to plant mines on the hull instead of boarding it, for a while anyway.

I have no strategic nuclear weapons, Praetonia-- the only non-tactical weapons I have are part of my SDI system.

Thus a massive counterstrike with nuclear weapons would not be possible on my part-- and considering my allies, I wouldn't need to make one, nor would I even want to anyways.

Though, as I posted earlier in the thread, I personally have another way to deal with SDs (provided you accept my particle cannon tech and how it's powered), but other people don't have access to that sort of thing.

If you really insist, I can TG or MSN or whatever the specs on the "thing" that takes care of leakers, so that you know how it works. Suffice it to say that it IS capable of stopping multiple warheads aimed at what it's trying to defend.

e: Provided you don't use the knowledge in-character and provided you don't reveal it to others, of course.

Im not really in any alliances any more. Im in the OMP, but that's more of a collection of friends than an alliance per se. Im also in Haven, and they'd probably get pretty annoyed if you nuked something close to them, but it's actually a rather divided region. I dont like alliances either much... not group ones anyway, but they seem to have died out.

I remember the whole uber-alliances thing, like NATO vs RWC, and the NWO. Also don't forget the Operation Brimstone thing that AMF started.

But I believe that there are still uber-alliances lurking around, in one form or other, like Ghologth, C.A.D., Galactic Empire (FT), The Ministry, etc. So if I end up at odds with just one of the nations involved in those alliances, I end up being alone even if I'm the victim.

That kinda puts a dampner on going for exciting and tension RP's with good diplomacy, conflict, or the like because two things can happen.

1. My enemy calls in its uber-allies if it's about to lose. RP ends.
2. My enemy's allies jump in at their free will, drastically increasing potential over-kill. RP ends.

I apologize for going off topic and on a tangent here. Its just one of the things that has been creeping up on me as I watch my old friends get DEAT'ed or go inactive.

You think you've got problems? I don't even remember all the people I'm allied with =p

You guys know what the good sportsmanly way to do this would be? How about the people who own these super-dreadnaughts just tell them outright how best to combat these ships?

Praetonia, you incist that it's lazy to just ask how to do it... but the problem is that people like Doujin have wanked up the concept so well that the best way to get rid of the misconceptions about Super-Dreadnaughts would be to just tell them how to deal with them... I doubt it's a super easy quick way of dealing with it and it would still need alot of roleplaying, but at least you no longer have people going on about how they will nuke them or sneak the cheet commandoes on board.

When someone asks me (OOCly) about how to get into Iuthia, I'll tell them my weaknesses outright from the start if I think I'll get a good RP out of it... we're not playing a competition here and some of us don't read heavily into military physics and strategy... hell, I'm still basing alot of my military "wisdom" on things I've learned from The Evil Overlord and his guides.

If people think they are facing invincible units, they will keep making crazy plans to fight it and frankly I'm tired of how everyone wanks up the SD and everyone fears it enough to make crazy nuclear policies... something has to give and teasing people with the answer isn't helping.

You guys know what the good sportsmanly way to do this would be? How about the people who own these super-dreadnaughts just tell them outright how best to combat these ships?

Praetonia, you incist that it's lazy to just ask how to do it... but the problem is that people like Doujin have wanked up the concept so well that the best way to get rid of the misconceptions about Super-Dreadnaughts would be to just tell them how to deal with them... I doubt it's a super easy quick way of dealing with it and it would still need alot of roleplaying, but at least you no longer have people going on about how they will nuke them or sneak the cheet commandoes on board.

When someone asks me (OOCly) about how to get into Iuthia, I'll tell them my weaknesses outright from the start if I think I'll get a good RP out of it... we're not playing a competition here and some of us don't read heavily into military physics and strategy... hell, I'm still basing alot of my military "wisdom" on things I've learned from The Evil Overlord and his guides.

If people think they are facing invincible units, they will keep making crazy plans to fight it and frankly I'm tired of how everyone wanks up the SD and everyone fears it enough to make crazy nuclear policies... something has to give and teasing people with the answer isn't helping.

Unfortunately, it is in human nature to always try to win. Humans are inherently competitive.

You don't need to quote my entire post, it's right about your reply. Anyways, I know that Interional Incident (and Nationstates to be honest) is competative at times, but to be honest this isn't about giving out secret information, it's about bringing this whole arguement to a point where everyone can go away and be reasonable about SDs.

Anyways, you could better be putting your time to use by replying to my IC post about your cowardly bounty offer in the whole Guffingford thread... :p

OOC:

What is interesting to note that while a superdreadnought can be considered wank (yes, yes, I've heard the arguments of how it could be constructed in modern times but we just lack the will, money, etc... to do so) a ICBM isn't. In fact, a nuclear tipped cruise missle isn't considered wank either. Wank enters into the equation when thousands of missiles are launched at the same time. No less ridiculous than a superdreadnought (with accompanying escort) by nations who, for the most part, can't afford them.

Why do people who have these uber dreadnoughts want to force people to only use conventional weapons? If I saw one off my coast and it wasn't allied, I would use everything I could to destroy it.

You don't need to quote my entire post, it's right about your reply. Anyways, I know that Interional Incident (and Nationstates to be honest) is competative at times, but to be honest this isn't about giving out secret information, it's about bringing this whole arguement to a point where everyone can go away and be reasonable about SDs.

Anyways, you could better be putting your time to use by replying to my IC post about your cowardly bounty offer in the whole Guffingford thread... :p

There's more to that than meets the eye. Suffice it to say that the merchant ship doing the run will have a 'guardian angel', so to speak =p

It's not that nuclear weapons are wank, it's that other nations are determined to keep them from being used what so ever... now if they were OOCly doing that I would protest as nuclear weapons can and have been parts of an RP, however they aren't stopping us OOCly, but ICly through the excessive use of deterrents.

It's a legitimate tactic, though personally I think it's a bit crazy with the way they are prepared to respond, but it's their nations. Nuclear weapons aren't wank, they are just scary as hell to some. The reason I would expect you wouldn't use a nuclear weapon on a SD at your coast is that the nuclear escilation could change the situation from a SD on your coast to several hundred ICBM's heading towards your nation. However, like all things the IC view of the nation comes into it as does the individual situation.

This conversation isn't so much about wank, but about the SD and how to deal with it without starting a nuclear war.

You don't need to quote my entire post, it's right about your reply. Anyways, I know that Interional Incident (and Nationstates to be honest) is competative at times, but to be honest this isn't about giving out secret information, it's about bringing this whole arguement to a point where everyone can go away and be reasonable about SDs.

Anyways, you could better be putting your time to use by replying to my IC post about your cowardly bounty offer in the whole Guffingford thread... :p

I'm all for good and reasonable RP. If there are good RP'ers out there or threads with good potential RP's then I'm game. I'm frustrated when I try new ideas and concepts, then people say "OMG! I am invincible! Now post 90% losses or I will IGNORE yoU!" type of crap. I love story driven RP's because it can be fun to explore my and your nation everyday life, culture, traditions, etc. rather than constant war, destruction, and death.

BTW, I'm Sharina, not Axis Nova.

Hmmm. I could reply to about 12 posts but I really cant be bothered.

Iuthia - I thought that AN had a strategic deterrant in which case he could fire straight back and destroy my nation. That is why there is no point in keeping some "should the need arise" because nothing will ever arise after you launch.

There is actually a very simple way to take out a SD. Well, at least mission kill it. It doesn't involve nukes. What you must do, and there is a way to do it, is take out the use of the guns and missiles, and it then becomes just a carrier. Think about it. There is a way to take out the guns and missiles, with just a few well placed attacks.

Now tell me how you think YOU could do this. I've already developed something that does this and am waiting for the right time to unveil it.

Most nations (RL and NS) cannot fire their entire arsenal in one go anyways... it's logistically impossible to do so as no one maintains tens of thousands of Silos but many nations have many nuclear warheads never the less.

Even in the such a case where you expect the counter attack will seriously damage you, part of the point in a first strike is to severely damage or even destroy their nuclear firing capability so that their responce is much less effective and the few that get through wouldn't likely take out your own capabilty. So having some left in reserve is useful for deterring other enemies from taking advantage of your weakened state.

Note you don't have to reply to this, it's just my opinion after all, personally I would rather you would have addressed the opinion that this whole SD nuclear thing could probably be avoided if people didn't feel they had to use nuclear weapons in the first place... but your not really assed about that I guess, you'd rather correct my view on nuclear deterrents.

My entire nuclear arsenal is in subs, half of which are in refit. However, if it becomes clear that the deterrent may be needed (ie a major war, for example with Axis Nova) then they will be put to sea.

but your not really assed about that I guess, you'd rather correct my view on nuclear deterrents.
Im not going to hand people solutions on a silver platter just because they cant be bothered to think past n00kz. If anyone is really interested then TG me and I'll tell you, but it isnt actually in my interests to tell everyone.

Now tell me how you think YOU could do this. I've already developed something that does this and am waiting for the right time to unveil it.

I wouldn't have the military know-how on how to do that, I would say something along the lines of actually RPing orders to the combat vessels, which were being systematically destroyed one by one by the SD, to concentrate their fire on disabling the ship... how I would tell them to do it I would hope the other poster would at least assume my people aren't idiots and give me some kind of return for my trouble instead of continuing on the lines that if I don't OOCly know, I can't possibly ICly know how to destroy a ship.

As to your way of doing things, please don't say EMP, it's something I would rather we would avoid given the arguements it hold. If you have some cooler more naval method then thats cool... like I said, I don't know enough about ships to say more then pounding it with other ships and torpedoes is a good method and would take alot of fire before the thing finally stopped firing back.

Im not going to hand people solutions on a silver platter just because they cant be bothered to think past n00kz.

Meh, nevermind it was a nice idea to just try and ask about it and hope someone would be nice and tell us what they think would be a good idea, but clearly it was too much to expect that you know, any of you guys would want to help dispel Doujin's wanked up view of the SD.

Nevermind, I'll ask someone else... if I telegram you I'd only end up telling others about it so that we can finally end this whole "nuclear weapons only" misconception, so I doubt it would be in your "interests" to tell me your way.

Meh, nevermind it was a nice idea to just try and ask about it and hope someone would be nice and tell us what they think would be a good idea, but clearly it was too much to expect that you know, any of you guys would want to help dispel Doujin's wanked up view of the SD.
Since you are so insistant... I will not tell you specific ways. However I will tell you what to aim for. Radar and optics are obviously vulnerable areas which cannot, by their very nature, be armoured. THey are therefore a good target. As are the guns themselves. The only offensive advantage of an SD over an arsenal ship or carrier are her guns and if you can destroy them then you will have scored a victory (actually hitting the guns is somewhat difficult but it is possible - I will not tell you how). The actual hull itself is very heavily armoured and without another SD you are unlikely to make much progress.

The best way to fight an SD, in my opinion, is to inflict sufficient damage on the escorts that the SD and its fleet pulls off. This is warfare, not an RTS slug-fest, and players will not keep their precious SDs and fleets in combat to the last bullet unless they're defending their home territory. The best way to do this is probably not in a head on encounter, but using SSGNs (that's cruise missile armed subs) to harass the vessel's escorts (target the weakest armoured vessels - frigates and destroyers - first) from long range. Guard major ports, coastal cities and large beaches with emplaced 25" and 30" naval guns. If you can armour something to X degree whilst getting it to float, you can armour it to an even greater extent when emplaced on land with no requirement to not sink.

Alternatively, just make your own SD and a powerful High Seas Fleet. Then again, I suppose the willingness or otherwise to do that is what seperates a true maritime power and a nation with a navy, and the nation willing to commit to the expense of being a maritime power deserves his advantage in terms of SDs and should not be ashamed of the fact that he/she has an advantage.

There. I've gone some way to dismantling my own naval power. I hope you're pleased with yourself.

There. I've gone some way to dismantling my own naval power. I hope you're pleased with yourself.

I'm actually more pleased with you, giving an in depth tactical OOC post showing your own knowledge in the matter while also showing you are prepared to help OOCly to promote better RP all around and hopefully dispel the notion that SD's are impossible to stop without nuclear munitions.

This isn't about who has the best sea power and giving the enemy secrets, this is about being a good sport and helping people who are ignorant of the realities... realistically any nation should have experts in the field who can at least give the most basic answers to the problem without being so great as to have a fool proof solution.

Heh, I've suggested myself previous that some of the external electronics are easy to take out (though getting a missile to them is hard with the defences and getting shells to them requires getting up close and personal) and it's good to see a confirmation on that from someone who actually has a good idea about it.

As for the rest of it, very good and thankyou for the help. With any luck others will at least take it into to concideration and will not resort to tactics which endanger everyone. At the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that your own navy will not stand back and watch as they try it and at least you know what they may try and do so you can prepare for it and counter it with ease...

I'm not really ashamed of the SD, it's a cool idea and some of my allies (such as GMC) have had huge ships, tanks and artillery for a long time... it's more about dispelling the misconceptions people have about the SD and finding some way of working it all out. I know Iuthia is far being a "Naval Power" in the same way that Praetonia is, simply because our doctrine is completely different and we don't need such a large navy (seeing as we look at it all totally different).

So yeah, I'm kinda pleased to have gotten a such a good reply, even if you hate me for it.

Really, it's not impossible at all to deal with a SD and render it combat incapable, like Praetonia said. I'm not going to give specific ways to do the job, but neutralizing the air defence capability of the escorts and the SD is the cruical thing before you proceed to attack the heart of the SD itself, and it can be done in various ways with the limit being practicability, feasibility, rationalness, and of course your imagination and creativity. Forget about doing close in raids or mass missile spam-style attacks - the first will end horribly while the latter will be devastating for your accountants-wearing-naval-uniforms. Submarines are also cruical weapon platforms, especially in disabling the SD's ability to move - though it's up to you in how you will use your submarines to your best advantage. Unmanned aerial vehicles will be helpful if not invaluable, and that's my final hint in this paragraph.

When you are on the defencive, use terrain to your advantage - you have the upper hand in littoral waters. Set up ambushes, and another thing - those unmanned, underwater weaponry we see throughout the times of modern warfare can actually be useful.

The goal is to render it incapable of sustaining combat, not merely focusing on its future on the sea floor. At the same time, it's best not to print out a page of text and name it "the Ultimate Way of Defeating SDs" step-by-step - use you mind.

[size=1]And as for you lot complaining about boarding parties: does it have to be 100% military feasible? No.

If you are throwing an idea out in an OOC thread without a note that you know it's silly, then yes, it has to be 100% militarily feasible. If you do something in an IC thread, no, it doesn't.

This thread has opened my eyes.

I realized that up til' now my navy has done nothing but support a war on terrorism and that I am totally open to being walked over by a SD or otherwise big ass fleet.

Thus, I need a new submarine and a bad ass torpedo... :p

I believe that our MAD people (Specifically those with CR and/ or PF > good) still failed to explain just why the people in their nations are not up in arms and protesting against the national suicide policies their governments seem to want to go through with/ vote their present legislation out of office.

Last I checked... Hrm... Yes, personally, I would be seriously pissed if my government decided to go all the way to national suicide just because a few thousand sailors got nuked.

So... Yes. I require an explanation as of why this 'Good Guy' nations seem to be hiveminds of hyperloyal 'My Government knows best!' beehives that wont hesitate commiting a national suicide because 'The President said so!' instead of... Uh... Humans.

How about... Im not a "good guy" nation and it's annoying that people say that? The thing is that not everyone is 2005 America. My nation is based around 1904 British Empire. Were the British people up in arms about military spending? No, they protested on occassion because the government wasnt buying enough battleships and when WWI broke out, there were street parties (in Britain, France and in Germany). They didnt cower in fear at the mention of possibly declaring war on some tin pot little middle east dictatorship. The majority of my people understand that the nuclear deterrant is necessary and because I dont leap straight from "SD hit" to "full strategic responce" they support the Government's efforts to protect the navy which is, after all, a massive employer and most people in the lower class areas know a sailor and most people in the middle class areas know an officer.

That and the fact that no one wants to bring down an excellent government just because of one policy which is unlikely to happen anyway.

(Not that I'm going to actively debate it or anything, but I find it hard to believe any non-propagandized population in modern times would be cool with going to war, considering all the unspeakable horrors unleashed during the 20th century's greatest conflicts. Zeppelin raids, poison gas attacks, massive firebombings, nuclear weapons... Its not like the old days where machineguns were still crank operated and intelligence gathering balloons were the next big thing.)

I've stated multiple times that my nation cannot employ such policy due to military and political (aka HR) restrictions; however, many also fails to realize that the usage of tactical weapons, against a nation which already declared themselves of willing to use strategic nukes in reply to tacnukes, wouldn't look good for the other nation's population as well. Neither point can be refuted.

Personally I was thinking of just shelling it with air-bursting incindenary artillery rounds - mainly white phospherous or thermite; those'll make a real mess of any ship, even the more exposed parts of an SD.

The trick, of course, is getting in range, what with the SD's long guns, but there are several methods, and a missile-based delivery system would also work; you're mainly after the soft stuff, so it's not like you'll need anywhere near the kind of numbers you'd otherwise need to have a shot at cracking the armour.


By the way, what measures do these SDs have to protect against 'back breaker'-style torps, anyway? Ya know, the ones that explode under the keel, creating an air bubble that removes the water supporting the middle of the ship - ship's own weight then snaps it in two, or atleast inflicts massive structural damage.


Alternativly, ignore the combatants and target the enemy supply ships instead; force them to withdraw or risk starving/being stranded/running out of ammunition - hell, even if your capital ships are nuclear powered, chances are alot of your escorts aren't.


I supose you could also hit it with dirty-bombs; they're not nukes, and between 24/7 enforced NBC procedures and the slow rad poisoning it'll have a nasty efect on the crew moral if you irradiate their ship.


And, hell, paradroping troops and tanks onto the SD's deck would be fun; tricky and likly suicidal, but fun - hell, take a page from the russians and paradrop APCs with full troops loads, and use rockets to kill speed on final descent.

*wonders if you could build a supercavitating transport that could 'hop' out of the water and onto the deck without kiling the crew, staying close to the surface while on aproach to make hitting it with anti-sub weapons difficult*

Ok, so that one's pretty silly, but it would be neat as hell.

Send massive rafts of magnetically triggered, thermite filled condoms. If it doesn't work militarily, it might convince them they don't want anything to do with the kind of country that would send them.

(Not that I'm going to actively debate it or anything, but I find it hard to believe any non-propagandized population in modern times would be cool with going to war, considering all the unspeakable horrors unleashed during the 20th century's greatest conflicts. Zeppelin raids, poison gas attacks, massive firebombings, nuclear weapons... Its not like the old days where machineguns were still crank operated and intelligence gathering balloons were the next big thing.)
Praetonia wasnt part of WWI or WWII. Why? Because they dont exist on NS. And you think that the Napoleonic Wars werent terrible? Or the US Civil War? Or hell even the Punic Wars which killed a substantial proportion of the world's population at the time.

Send massive rafts of magnetically triggered, thermite filled condoms. If it doesn't work militarily, it might convince them they don't want anything to do with the kind of country that would send them.

Haha, good one, Sileetris. You hit the nail on the head with that satire. :p

Oooo, I see. Praetonia's population is dumb enough to not see the difference between a (Supposedly) few month campaign involving front soldiers and machineguns in a country that isn't theirs and full scale nuclear onslaught that would indeed hit everything, and hit everything quickly.

Of course, I'm not quite sure how people who are so excessively stupid (And uninformed. Apparently, Praetonia has zero media, given that its people know quite literally nothing of the onslaughts happening in NS, well... Pretty much daily) are capable of producing engineers which, in turn, produce SDs, but hey... Suspension of disbelief, I guess? Or is it just a desire to have an OMG LOYAL WE'LL HAPPILY DIE FOR YOU! population of drones in a world where having such is extremely unlikely?

however, many also fails to realize that the usage of tactical weapons, against a nation which already declared themselves of willing to use strategic nukes in reply to tacnukes, wouldn't look good for the other nation's population as well.This is true, albeit only to a limited extend. The paradigm that doesn't involve mutual extermination would be kinda longer-lived, in the long term, because it is simply less extreme. Besides, it depends a lot on which side is the aggressor. Frankly, I can't see either side playing aggressor, due to each sides' restrictions.

<snip>
And so by your logic the US, UK, France etc wouldnt have put up with the cold war, where any small conflict could turn into nuclear war, and would have demanded their governments surrender to the Soviet Union because that way they wouldnt get nuked, correct? Of course not. This has been a policy for NS decades if not centuries, and it has never happened and doesnt ever look like it's going to happen, so people just get on with their lives. Saying that, most of your argument is basically saying that you think something and so my population must be thick if they dont agree with you. Have you ever heard of culture differences? Im not saying that my people are sheep who will gladly be led to the slaughterhouse without saying a word (I hardly see how that would be godmod, even if I did, since at the end of WWII the Japanese committed suicide in droves rather than be captured by the Americans, and that was when "society" had pretty much broken down so you can hardly say anyone was forcing them), but this whole debate is simply philosophical and neither or us can prove it one way or another, so I dont see why you continue to press this point. Probably because you dont have any other arguments, but whatever.

Have you ever heard of culture differences? Im not saying that my people are sheep who will gladly be led to the slaughterhouse without saying a word (I hardly see how that would be godmod, even if I did, since at the end of WWII the Japanese committed suicide in droves rather than be captured by the Americans, and that was when "society" had pretty much broken down so you can hardly say anyone was forcing them), but this whole debate is simply philosophical and neither or us can prove it one way or another, so I dont see why you continue to press this point...

Not really looking to continue this arguement, just to express my view. Personally I would concider such a mentality to be rather wanky (not the same as "godmod" which is very well defined) depending on how well the nation actually RPs those "cultural differences".

It's all very well having a highly loyal populace, but there are side effects of such a culture which inevitably get shown throughout all other parts of your culture... personally I RP my people (who aren't obcenely loyal, but are rather nationalistic) as being almost racist when concidering other nations, xenophobic is probably a better way of thinking of it but it's not a serious problem because Iuthia is seeing more and more tourism and trade then it did several hundred years ago. Meanwhile the people aren't as nationalistic as they used to be either.

So, while it isn't a godmod to claim your people are all highly loyal and care little about the horrors of mutually assured destruction, even going as far to say they are all very pleased their government supports such an aggressive escilation policy. It is concidered wanky (which isn't the same as godmod) to have your society think that way while not RPing how your people have come to thinking like that and RPing the inevitable downsides of thinking ever other nations people are scum. Oddly enough, of all the nations I have to congradulate on achieving this, Guffingford does very well in showing how their highly nationalistic society thinks and showing their utter contempt for anything which isn't as pure as their they are.

All this said, though... I don't think it's as bigger problem as Der Angst makes out, I'm sure both Omz and Praetonia are filled with people who don't like the idea, but at the same time aren't completely aware of exactly what their government policies mean or how dangerous it potentially is... I think we're underestimating the human ability to simply ignore something until it becomes a problem. Lets face it, a nuclear stand off will never happen in their life time, right?

Of course, should either of these governments actually have to go through with their policies (and survive it) there is a good chance that this ignorance could result in their people getting very informed very quickly and actually caring about how close they were to destruction. Thankfully, deterrents should hopefully never come to that and if their policy is actually fullfilled, the chances are neither government would actually survive it anyways... so it's all moot point.

My arguements about nuclear weapons on this thread were more around the idea that I personally read the policies as being a little insane... their possible and even Iuthia could use them without worrying too much about it's populace rising up against us (though that's not saying much, Iuthia is a dictatorship afterall and we do actually go through with proper indoctrination) I just don't like the idea myself.

Hmm... this brings up an interesting point.

Should SD's be considered WMD or not, due to their toughness and extreme weapons?

Would a policy of "Send SD aganist me, I'll nuke your nation. Do not send SD in, then there will be no nuclear retaliation, and we can have a conventional war." work realistically?

I believe it should, as it would benefit both sides. Both sides won't get glassed over, or have to whine or deal with SD's. Problem solved.

Would a policy of "Send SD aganist me, I'll nuke your nation. Do not send SD in, then there will be no nuclear retaliation, and we can have a conventional war." work realistically?
What would you do if the enemy just sent the SDs anyway? Would you really be prepared to lose your nation in a nuclear war just because you cant think of a non-cheap way to sink SDs?

I don't think it's as bigger problem as Der Angst makes out, I'm sure both Omz and Praetonia are filled with people who don't like the idea, but at the same time aren't completely aware of exactly what their government policies mean or how dangerous it potentially is...
With all due respect, and with no negative feelings, for the last time, I'm merely OOCly advocating the use of strategic nuclear weapons a sa deterrence against the usage of tactical nuclear weapons, and consequently, the dangerous idea of using tactical nuclear weapons from the start as a first strike weapon. Due to political restrictions and military capabilities, I do not have the intention, OOCly or ICly, to employ such tactic or such policy of countering tactical nuclear capabilities. Do people think that a nation with an 'Excessive' human rights and 'Superb' political rights is going to adopt such policy, let alone maintaining the components of an effective strategic nuclear deterrence component of the military, such as nuclear warheaded ICBMs and other long-range delivery platforms?

...and yes, I do RP the restrictions due to the high CR of my government. Look at that Omzian Greenpeace incident a while back.

<...>
*sigh* Im not saying I have a nation full of citizens whoa re ultra loyal to the government (since the government is elected that doesnt make any sense either). Im just saying that my populace isnt as generally stupid and war-averse as that of the Untied States. Just because Im not RPing as the US with more people doesnt mean Im godmodding, or "populace wanking".

I sympathise with both parties here. On one hand, I've always been irritated by the NS reaction to nuclear weapons. Disproporitonate retaliation is not always the answer. On the other hand, Praetonia's responce, articulated before you made this policy statement, is equally valid. I suppose it comes down to who's nerve breaks first... If Praetonia sends an SD into Axis Nova's waters, is he the one provoking the nuclear releace, or is it Axis Nova for first using nukes.

I have to side with Praetonia for three reasons. One is the Pandora's Box argument. Once Axis Nova has used a nuclear weapon, one has to assume that all subsequent attacks are nuclear tipped, and treat them accordingly. The difference between tactical and stratigic weapons is largely semantics... a megaton range weapon used to engage a fleet is a tactical weapon, while a kiloton weapon, dropped on a city, is stratigic. Though Axis Nova claims they will only continue to use nukes if provoked by SDs, there's no reason to assume they are telling the truth. And if that nuclear weapon is launched from a warship in a fleet, it is unsafe to assume that the other vessels are not equipped with nuclear weapons.

Second... your definition of Superdreadnaught is very sloppy. I personally use some oversized battleships, but neither I nor any other OMP member would consider them superdreadnaughts. Superdreadnaught is actually a term that refered to second generation dreadnaughts in the 20th century. Do you have a tonnage limit in mind? An armament limit?

Third, is a single SD actually any more dangerous than a well equipped battlefleet? Of course not... any reasonable NS quality fleet would smash an unescorted SD. In that case... wouldn't it be reasonable to extend your policy towards any fleets that include several armoured ships? And those submarines, pesky bastards, and they tend to carry nuclear weapons. SSBNs are designed with the sole purpose of killing cities. Wouldn't it make sence to have some nuclear torpedos to clear out them? And nuclear tipped SAMs to knock down those bomber fleets, because it's so expencive and dangerous to rely on conventional ones. In fact... lets arm EVERYTHING with nukes, and use them to eliminate any possible threat.

The above policy is a simple extention of yours. Perhaps someone doesn't want to deal with your twinky airships, which are far more bizzare and futuristic than the typical SD... would you consider them justified in blowing them away with nuclear weapons?

SD is nothing but an extremely compact way to deploy naval force. Therefore I find it rather weird that it is beeing discussed as something comparable to nuclear weapon or other WMD. If you use the money and effort put in SD to build a "normal" navy instead, and have a shitload of BB's and carriers, no one would come to weep about they will use nukes if that navy comes at them, because it is as strong as SD. I don't think that it is harder to sink a SD than to sink a conventional navy of same funding.

In other way of saying it, if I deploy an armoured division with 2000 tanks instead of the usual 200 or so, is it right to say that you use nukes to counter them because that division is too strong? Then, splitted to 10 divisions its suddenly ok, and the person even thinking about using nukes will be considered madman.

EDIT: LMAO! I read through the whole thread, then jumped over like 5 last post's because I was so eager to post my own opinion and the notice that it has been said just in the prewious post. My usual luck.... :rolleyes:

What would you do if the enemy just sent the SDs anyway? Would you really be prepared to lose your nation in a nuclear war just because you cant think of a non-cheap way to sink SDs?Wrong question. Would you really be prepared to send the SD despite knowing that doing so will kill your nation?

You know, this very problem is why nobody in the real world attacks nuclear-capable nations. And this is also why omg überships are strategically redundant.

Now, you can of course stay in fairy land where nations don't use all means necessary to defend themselves from foreign aggression. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with sanity, nor reality, and more importantly, it means that you have to actually resort to diplomacy instead of going in all SD happy, once you leave fairy land.

It's really simple: If $nation says that it will start using nuclear ordinance, be it strategic or tactical, if it is attacked and/ or attacked with specific means, then it means that you have to deal with it. In the case of tactical nuclear responses, you can either quit your 'I'll go MAD as soon as you use non-conventional ordinance' or the nation in question is rendered untouchable for you.

In the case of strategic responses, the nation is rendered untouchable to begin with.

And there's no ooc bitching that can help you there.

So, well... yes, congratulations for having a few hundred thousand tons of pointless metal in your harbour.

Third, is a single SD actually any more dangerous than a well equipped battlefleet? Of course not... any reasonable NS quality fleet would smash an unescorted SD. In that case... wouldn't it be reasonable to extend your policy towards any fleets that include several armoured ships? And those submarines, pesky bastards, and they tend to carry nuclear weapons. SSBNs are designed with the sole purpose of killing cities. Wouldn't it make sence to have some nuclear torpedos to clear out them? And nuclear tipped SAMs to knock down those bomber fleets, because it's so expencive and dangerous to rely on conventional ones. In fact... lets arm EVERYTHING with nukes, and use them to eliminate any possible threat.Well.. yes, yes it would. Point in case, DA does. The decision regarding which kind of ordinance is used is mainly a decision based on cost effectiveness (Value of the target vs. value of the ordinance required to destroy the target) and character of the engaging units (It can happen that, say, a SEU(aq) (Strategic Engagement Unit (Wet Navy)) that could just kill $Floating_Fortress with nuclear and/ or conventional bombardment, chooses to actully stage an airborne boarding attempt, out of sheer arrogance).

But yes, nuclear tipped torpedoes, SAMs, handgrenades *cough* etc. are of course common.

And, oddly enough, they do not work as a deus ex machina.

Because, ya'know, rather than assuming that either NUKE! WMD! MAD!!!11 or NUKE! I WIN!, one could actually think about it for a moment. Widespread use of tactical nuclear weapons. The first thing a strategist worth his wage thinks about is how to make them cost ineffective. Answer: spread your forces, eliminate the idea of a 'front', concentrate the war on a variety of strategically important points, with as few forces as possible.

As a result, you have combat on squad level, rather than million-men armies or thousands of tanks concentrated on only a little space. You have small groups of comparatively small ships frantically engaging in the mutual downing of missiles, the crews nervous, doing the best they can, knowing that their chances to survive are 50/ 50, until one side loses. You have small groups of low-altitude planes trying to get through to an important target in equally hard and important missions, heroism & adventures far beyond the ww1esque slaughter $SD seems to promote.

And seriously, tell me, how can that be an RP kiler? Disregarding the option of you requiring OMIOD HUGE! steel penii to feel adequate.

Nukes are weapons, like other weapons, too, and they don't work perfectly (Incidentally, I'm mightily amused by the SDfapping faction just screaming NOES! as nukes are mentioned, completely ignoring their own, apparently perfect, anti-air defences. Last I checked, the nuke still needs to reach its target (What with the blast radius of the average nuke being < the radius of a battlegroup), but apparently the minds of certain people are too fixated on OMIGOD WMD U WANKER to think rationally...). Actually, I figure that the primary problem people have with nukes is that all they've seen are the 'I N00kZ YUO N00B! GODMODDER!!!11 AHAHA TAKE LOSSES!' [enter picture of nuclear detonation here] posts by so-called veterans lacking things like a brain, rather than posts like, say, this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7221711&postcount=26) or, uh, this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9187239&postcount=101) [/shameless plug, and the first to complain about this not being mdoern tech gets eaten by rabid stoats for not seeing the point].

Besides, I don't see where the problem is. The main arty of $Superdread alone should manage something like 0.2 kilotons/ salvo (0.6 kilotons/ minute? Make that, say, Praetonia's 21 dreads, 1/3 of them available, seven times 0.6 = 4.2 kilotons/ minute, well within tacnuke range), on its own. Why doesn't this count as WMD? It's certainly more destructive than chemical/ biological weapons, and on the same level as tacnukes.

Would a policy of "Send SD aganist me, I'll nuke your nation. Do not send SD in, then there will be no nuclear retaliation, and we can have a conventional war." work realistically?What would you do if the enemy just sent the SDs anyway? Would you really be prepared to lose your nation in a nuclear war just because you cant think of a non-cheap way to sink SDs?
Oddly enough, I would think that policy of deterrence against SD's is just as insane as the policy against tactical nuclear weapons... admittedly I would see it as harder to justify, but it would be just as affective as saying "Don't use tactical nuclear weapons against me."

If they sent an SD anyways, then clearly they don't respect the deterrent. The same applies to deterrence against tactical nuclear weapons... if you respect the deterrent you don't push it.

Annoyingly however, few people in NS actually respect nuclear deterrents in nationstates, as Axis Nova has shown in this thread and Feline Catfish proved when their deterrent was ignored despite the threat being very real.
I'm just saying that my populace isnt as generally stupid and war-averse as that of the Untied States. Just because Im not RPing as the US with more people doesnt mean Im godmodding, or "populace wanking"
It's worth pointing out that I never said your society was wanky, I expressed my view on the subject. If I say 'Praetonia's society is almost a godmod' then I could understand why your being so defencive about it... but I was just saying in general that having a uber-loyal populace should be covered with some form of explaination about how they got that way and how it affects their mentality...

I mean hell, I would be stupid to say your society is unlikely and that you shouldn't RP like that because Iuthia's society is very unlikely and wanky in it's own respects... I don't have crime in the normal sense and my people are partly indoctinated into the system.

Don't take things so personally, most of my points are broadly made to cover the subject... it isn't a direct slur against you unless I directly say to you what I think is wrong.

With all due respect, and with no negative feelings, for the last time, I'm merely OOCly advocating the use of strategic nuclear weapons a sa deterrence against the usage of tactical nuclear weapons, and consequently, the dangerous idea of using tactical nuclear weapons from the start as a first strike weapon.
I was talking about the policy, not the action. The fact you have that policy and that you have to act as though you would go through with it would create people who are opposed to the idea that you may have to go through with it... the fact that you won't will not change that view unless you say "We won't go through with it" to them, in which case the deterrent is pointless.

I mearly lumped you and Praetonia together on that one because you both ICly seem to have the same policies, even though you will never go through with yours, your people think you will because if they don't, it's not a deterrent but a weak threat.

No, reread my whole statement, from the start. Did I ever indicate, ICly or OOCly, that I am actually going to employ such policy ICly with my government? No. Once again, is a government that has abnormally high CR rating, even despite our rather nationalistic and 'defensive' views, really going to deploy such policies? No. Is a military going to deploy such doctrine when it doesn't have the specific capabilities of accomplishing the very basic requirement of such policy? No.

This is going to be the last time that I'm going to reiterate a fact that has been made very clear for multiple times. I have my own particular reasons of why I'm OOCly advocating the idea, but ICly it's different.

This is going to be the last time that I'm going to reiterate a fact that has been made very clear for multiple times. I have my own particular reasons of why I'm OOCly advocating the idea, but ICly it's different.

My fault, skim reading is a bad idea. The previous time you pointed it out I got the idea you didn't do it but you still made the threat... my laziness meant I didn't read further into it and find out that you didn't even make the threat. I apologise for the mistake.

No, it's not a problem, and I have done that before (though being lucky to avoid unwanted results by editing) - and I might have gotten a bit too harsh myself. However, some still might get my OOC beliefs and my IC beliefs mixed up, considering that they are not exactly the same (even though my nation's political standings does reflect my OOC views somewhat).

OOC: I think that the Atomic Tests that the US conducted in the late '40s and early '50s have broved that Nuclear Weapons have suprisingly bad results against ships.

Why not just, if being able to destroy the escort fleet and keeping the SD from running away, an attacking nation just hauls in about 50 big battleships designed for land bombardment and lowers their guns against the SD?

What would you do if the enemy just sent the SDs anyway? Would you really be prepared to lose your nation in a nuclear war just because you cant think of a non-cheap way to sink SDs?

Well also, are not SDs just cheap themselves? I mean, its like: "I have the bigger, unstopable ship that you can't launch nukes at. :p Your forces cant do anything unless you have and equaly wanked-up vessel."

Nukes are a cheap solution to a cheap problem. I'm sorry but this the sheer fact of it. All you SD advocates say that nukes are cheap but overlook the fact the SD are cheap in their own right.

The only reason you dont want even tactical nukes used against you is the fact that you dont want to lose your whole "big investment" in a single attack, but expect them to plow through anything less than another SuperDread. Heck a 2 kt nuke would do damage to a SD but you would bitch about it being a nuke. Even if I fire a supercav torpedo with equivlent of 2,000 tons of TNT (2kt) you would bitch at that also; saying that it would be detected, shot down, too big for supercav, and such. But as said earlier no system is 100% perfect and at least a few would get through.

Quit the wanking. You want uneven playing fields by taking out a great equalizer. Even if you don't like tactical nukes, there is such a thing as proportional force. If you nuke their mainland, expect them to do the same and thefore MAD happens. Oh wait, I forgot, you have a super wanked up nuke defense that also works 100% of the time.


EDIT: I will also tell everyone how to take out a SD in a "non-cheap" way. You take a small-medium sized, stealthy missile with even a small to moderate warhead load. The sensors on the missile would guide it toward the ships communication arrays and sensors. After they are taken out, the SD can only use it's gunes at very close range and cannot use it's aircraft. If you fire some 500 of these smaller missiles per SD from guided missiles cruiser, Enough would get through to mission kill the SD. Bit more expensive than a nuke or huge-ass missile/torpedo, but would get the job done.

Another way would be to send out a bunce of small stealthy drones packed with jammers. Same effect would happen.

Another EDIT: When Doujin first came out with his first SD ship, it was acknoledged to be very ineffiecent and not cost-effective. Due to this is was limited to the symbolic flagship role. This was always fine with me. But now SD's have become the main surface naval combatant and lost it's ineffiecent nature. How can even the older nations have 20-30+ SDs and still have such huge numbers of escourts, an airforce, navy, and marines.

*Is waiting for Praetonia's response even though he is online right now*

Would you care to respond Praetonia?

Just curious, how would an underwater CWIS system work? You can't shoot underwater.

Well also, are not SDs just cheap themselves?
No. They cost several hundred billion each and at least a trillion in research costs. In addition, they require maintenance, you have to dredge your docks so you can maintain them and then after all that effort they arent actually very useful on a pound for pound basis.

I mean, its like: "I have the bigger, unstopable ship that you can't launch nukes at. :p Your forces cant do anything unless you have and equaly wanked-up vessel."
SDs arent unstoppable.

Nukes are a cheap solution to a cheap problem. I'm sorry but this the sheer fact of it. All you SD advocates say that nukes are cheap but overlook the fact the SD are cheap in their own right.
Nukes are a cheap solution to an extremely expensive problem.

The only reason you dont want even tactical nukes used against you is the fact that you dont want to lose your whole "big investment" in a single attack
Indeed I dont. Would you?

but expect them to plow through anything less than another SuperDread. Heck a 2 kt nuke would do damage to a SD but you would bitch about it being a nuke.
Yes, because it isnt economically viable for my nation to fight a war if SDs are routinely nuked. Hence the deterrent policy.

Even if I fire a supercav torpedo with equivlent of 2,000 tons of TNT (2kt) you would bitch at that also; saying that it would be detected, shot down, too big for supercav, and such.
Try building a torpedo that can hold 2,000 tons of conventional explosive and I will accept it. You might, however, realise that such a "torpedo" would be more akin to an extremely large submarine with bigger influence, magnetic and sonar signals than the SD itself.

But as said earlier no system is 100% perfect and at least a few would get through.
I doubt you could afford to build enough of them to pentrate all of the escorts with such a massive craft when you consider they have little real use above killing SDs, and that isnt a capability you're going to need on a regular basis.

Quit the wanking. You want uneven playing fields by taking out a great equalizer.
ICly, yes I do want an uneven playing field tilted as strongly in favour of me as possible. Any realistic nation would have the same attitude.

Even if you don't like tactical nukes, there is such a thing as proportional force. If you nuke their mainland, expect them to do the same and thefore MAD happens.
Exactly. Now, are you willing to nuke the SD and risk MAD when you can simply destroy the SD some other way. You see, by me threatening to nuke your homeland if you nuke an SD does not put you into a no-win situation. Nuking the vessel does put me in a no win situation. That is the difference.

Oh wait, I forgot, you have a super wanked up nuke defense that also works 100% of the time.
It was Axis Nova who said that, not me.

EDIT: I will also tell everyone how to take out a SD in a "non-cheap" way. You take a small-medium sized, stealthy missile with even a small to moderate warhead load. The sensors on the missile would guide it toward the ships communication arrays and sensors.
Well done. THis is a good strategy. Much better than nukes.

After they are taken out, the SD can only use it's gunes at very close range
Well not quite. It can use data from other vessels and aircraft.

and cannot use it's aircraft.
Where do you get this from?

If you fire some 500 of these smaller missiles per SD from guided missiles cruiser, Enough would get through to mission kill the SD. Bit more expensive than a nuke or huge-ass missile/torpedo, but would get the job done.
Well it wouldnt kill the SD, but it would destroy the sensors. That is, if you get the first shot.

Another way would be to send out a bunce of small stealthy drones packed with jammers. Same effect would happen.
Well no. The SD would simply burn through the radar jamming because it has much larger and more powerful sensors.

Another EDIT: When Doujin first came out with his first SD ship, it was acknoledged to be very ineffiecent and not cost-effective.
Indeed.

Due to this is was limited to the symbolic flagship role. This was always fine with me.
No, he never said that.

But now SD's have become the main surface naval combatant and lost it's ineffiecent nature. How can even the older nations have 20-30+ SDs and still have such huge numbers of escourts, an airforce, navy, and marines.
Because they spend massive amounts of money on their navies and have small armies.

No. They cost several hundred billion each and at least a trillion in research costs. In addition, they require maintenance, you have to dredge your docks so you can maintain them and then after all that effort they arent actually very useful on a pound for pound basis.

No they arn't cheap money wise, but playing wise.

SDs arent unstoppable.
According to you they are, unless you have another superdread in the water.

Nukes are a cheap solution to an extremely expensive problem/No, stated above.

Yes, because it isnt economically viable for my nation to fight a war if SDs are routinely nuked. Hence the deterrent policy. Well then that goes to show that SD are inefficent.

Try building a torpedo that can hold 2,000 tons of conventional explosive and I will accept it. You might, however, realise that such a "torpedo" would be more akin to an extremely large submarine with bigger influence, magnetic and sonar signals than the SD itself. Not really. If your SDs are mnore stealthy than even a sub than they are godmods. If the torpedo is shaped right, it would be just as stealthy as a sub, even more so as it would remain inactive when not in use.

I doubt you could afford to build enough of them to pentrate all of the escorts with such a massive craft when you consider they have little real use above killing SDs, and that isnt a capability you're going to need on a regular basis. Well, If I cant build up enough missiles, then how in the world are you about to build so many SD's, maintain them, build such a large escort fleet, and maintain them? Again, your bringing a possible solution down while ignoring faults in your own tactics. You are also wanking here by the fact that you claim 100% shoot-down kill. No system is 100%.

ICly, yes I do want an uneven playing field tilted as strongly in favour of me as possible. Any realistic nation would have the same attitude. You can;t ignore a nuke IRL. And if it done realistically and reasonable here in NS there is no reason to ignore something.

Exactly. Now, are you willing to nuke the SD and risk MAD when you can simply destroy the SD some other way. You see, by me threatening to nuke your homeland if you nuke an SD does not put you into a no-win situation. Nuking the vessel does put me in a no win situation. That is the difference. I am willing to have MAd if it stops a nation from using SD's. Deterance doens't work against me. I nuke your SD, you go crazy and nuke my homeland. I nuke the rest of you SD's and your homeland MAD. Consider this my deterance to SD's.

Well not quite. It can use data from other vessels and aircraft. The missiles would take out the communication devices also. That was in the design you know.

Where do you get this from? Typo, it can still use aircraft.

Well it wouldnt kill the SD, but it would destroy the sensors. That is, if you get the first shot. Again with the wanking that a SD would destroy anything in it's path.

Well no. The SD would simply burn through the radar jamming because it has much larger and more powerful sensors. OMG does the wanking ever stop? You can't just burn through jamming. Jamming has a limited range on power, yes, but you cannot burn through jamming.

No, he never said that. Well that is the way it was RPed

Because they spend massive amounts of money on their navies and have small armies.
Not from what I've seen. Most of you SD guys still have huge armies, and airforces.

Praetonia, you claim that nukes are an uncreative way to take out an SD. Tell me then how an OMG huge ship is creative? The differnce between: "Hey guys, lets take a huge hull, slap huge guns on it, give it wank armor, and put flight decks on it. YEA!" and "Hey guys, they got a big ship. Let's nuke it." are very small.

When a SD appears on the horizon the first thing I do is unload a volley of anti-SD missiles at it [which are basically armor-piercing tac nukes]. If he other guy responds with a strategic attack then I'd do likewise, ergo, MAD. I have my own SDs of course, it's for ego reasons mainly.

There isn't so much a need for nukes. Just take out the capital ship's support fleet, a ship at a time, using various means, and Superdreadnoughts suddenly become wide open to combined sea and air attack. Hell, if you want, overload it with splitwarhead missles. Should be more than a CWIS could handle, but I doubt it could really damage a big ship. But I'm getting too much into my nation's naval doctrine.

No they arn't cheap money wise, but playing wise.
No they arent. If you'd care to look, I've made lineart for my SDs, and spent some time RPing them. Nukes on the other hand dont require any more effort than saying you launch some missiles.

According to you they are, unless you have another superdread in the water.
Care to provide evidence of my saying that? What I have said is that they are very difficult to destroy, and that the best way to destroy them is to use another SD (and how, precisely, is that impossible to do?).

Well then that goes to show that SD are inefficent.
Well done. And with regards to the use of nuclear weapons against them, that proves what, exactly...?

Not really. If the torpedo is shaped right, it would be just as stealthy as a sub, even more so as it would remain inactive when not in use.
Believe it or not, a submarine big enough to carry 2,000 tonnes of explosive would be the biggest submerisble craft ever built in real life or NS, and would generate enough engine noise to be detected miles off.

If your SDs are mnore stealthy than even a sub than they are godmods.
(It was for rhetorical effect).

Well, If I cant build up enough missiles, then how in the world are you about to build so many SD's, maintain them, build such a large escort fleet, and maintain them?
Because SDs are useful for things other than killing SDs, and their use doesnt involve accepting that you're going to lose all of them, whether they achieve their intended goal (in this case blowing up next to an SD) or not.

Again, your bringing a possible solution down while ignoring faults in your own tactics. You are also wanking here by the fact that you claim 100% shoot-down kill.
Pardon me if I claim to be able to detect ZOMFG GIGANTIC submarines on sonar and deal with them effectively using torpedos. ICBMs are not the least stealthy things ever built whilst at the same time only being able to move at 20knts. A massive explosive submarine-torpedo, on the other hand, is both.

No system is 100%.
Please then explain how a tank has 100% effectiveness against a blind medieval archer. An ABM system cant be 100% effecitive because it uses exactly the same technology as the ICBMs it's intending to shoot down. You cant compare ABM/ICBM effectiveness to fleet-wide ASW/massive submartorpedo effectiveness.

You can;t ignore a nuke IRL. And if it done realistically and reasonable here in NS there is no reason to ignore something.
Where, precisely, do I say I will ignore anything? I will accept your anti-SD nuclear attack, I just expect you to then accept that when I carpet nuke your nation that it, in turn, is dead.

I am willing to have MAd if it stops a nation from using SD's. Deterance doens't work against me.
So you would rather destroy your entire nation than bother thinking up a decent way of killing SDs?

The missiles would take out the communication devices also. That was in the design you know.
Hmmm... no. Communications devices (radios, microwave dishes etc) arent activated all the time so you couldnt have your missiles home in on them in the same way as you could a radar.

Again with the wanking that a SD would destroy anything in it's path.
Oh I do apologise. I didnt realise that losing your radar means that the entire ship will spontaneously sink.

OMG does the wanking ever stop? You can't just burn through jamming. Jamming has a limited range on power, yes, but you cannot burn through jamming.
...do you know anything about how electronics warfare works?

Well that is the way it was RPed
No it wasnt :S Doujin built numerous SDs and did infact use them in an RP to fire on an enemy fleet with their main guns.

Not from what I've seen. Most of you SD guys still have huge armies, and airforces.
Care to provide any examples? Because I dont, and neither does Hogsweat, and nor does Sarzonia.

Dude, it's just because you have a hard time realizing that your $200 billion ship has been rendered useless by a $2 million weapon. A tac nuke is perfectly legal, and well grained into my own naval doctrine. And I don't know how y'all can debate this, like this, for so long.

Dude, it's just because you have a hard time realizing that your $200 billion ship has been rendered useless by a $2 million weapon. A tac nuke is perfectly legal, and well grained into my own naval doctrine. And I don't know how y'all can debate this, like this, for so long.
Read the entire thread, not just the first post, then reply. I hope then you can appreciate that there are two sides to this.

[OOC: In the interest of trying to return this to a IC roleplay as opposed to constant OOC debating, which possibly deserves a thread of its own...]

Scene: President Mike Sarzo's weekly press conference at the Gray House

"Mr. President, is there any chance of restoring welfare spending now that the economy is showing signs of improving?"

"If we believe that restoring welfare spending is in the best interests of Sarzonia, we'll consider that. Right now, I firmly believe that returning the money previously spent on welfare to the taxpayer's pocketbook is the cause for our economic growth.

"Mr. President, how are the army reforms progressing?"

"Well, Kenneth, time will tell. The only way we're going to see the benefit of the army reform programme is to see our troops in live combat. That's something I'd rather avoid unless it's absolutely necessary."

"Mr. President, what do you make of Axis Nova's new policy regarding superdreadnoughts?"

"You mean the policy of launching tactical nukes?"

"Especially with Axis Nova being one of our allies and all..."

"Claire, we haven't been allied with Axis Nova since our war against Holy Panooly many years ago. As far as I'm concerned that was a marriage of convenience. Next question."

"What is Sarzonian policy regarding the announcement?"

"Our policy is that if you use tactical nuclear weapons against us, we will retaliate against you with tactical or strategic nuclear weapons in turn. I would strongly advise Axis Nova to reconsider this irresponsible policy since it is MAD waiting to happen. But as we have no relations with Axis Nova, we believe that will have no effect on Sarzonian military policy. Next question."

"Mr. President, is there any truth to the rumour..."

Conversly... I have to admit that I'm interested in the idea that a nation could state that it will respond to super-dreadnaught ships with nuclear weapons as part of their deterrence policy, in the same way that nations who don't like tactical nuclear weapons being used against their ships are prepared to escilate their nuclear responce as a deterrent against such an attack.

Some nations aren't prepared or equipped to deal with super-dreadnaughts and feel that the most cost effective way of dealing with them would be to state out and out that they will escilate nuclear conflict should they be used against them... such a statement would be a deterrent in a sense as every nation equipped with SD's would have to concider the danger of their use.

The problem is that this method of deterrences has unlimited applications, bringing us all the way back to Feline Catfish stating that they will use nuclear weapons to destroy any fleet which enters their waters aggressively. The reality of nuclear weapons is that in any invasion situation where your nation is facing destruction at the hand of another, albeit through conventional means, if you have nuclear weapons you can threaten their use to deter further action.

This is what the nuclear deterent ultimately is and it's often ignored throughout NS because it's very limiting... almost every nation in NS has nuclear weapons and many of those nation are capable of threatening their use in such a way that they could destroy another nation at the threat of losing their own.

Der Angst touched this, but the fact that people are usually insulted by his posts they missed the comment... realistically mutually assured destruction is a very powerful force which damn near stops wars because no one can afford to fight them as the loser may use those weapons, depending on how desperate their situation is.


But to get back to the super-dreadnaught and nuclear weapons... the only real arguement to OOCly ignore nuclear weapons is the fact that they kill RPs, and even this arguement is limited to those who don't RP the use of nuclear weapons properly, lets face it, any n00b could RP "I luanch teh missile" but it takes a properly RPer to spin a story out of it and make it interesting and tense like nuclear weapons should be and have been used in numberous films to great affect. Ironically the same arguement saying that nuclear weapons kill RPs works against the SD, which when used by a n00b, is near impossible to kill... but in the hands of people who worked with make the first and those who know their stuff they are good tools which create tension.

Nuclear weapons shouldn't be discounted because their too effective... the best IC arguement against the nuclear weapon is the fact that most nations will escilate their own nuclear responce intiating mutually assured destruction. Most sane nations will respect a nuclear deterrent because the cost of ignoring such a deterrent is too high, however, there is no reason that such a deterrent couldn't be turned on it's head and used in a similar manner against the SD itself.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with nuclear weapons at all and I'm not so insecure in my diplomatic/military capabilities that I have to make such cowardly threats against the super-dreadnaught... but in the end such threats will limit how much fighting you can actually do as well as protecting you in both cases, afterall, it wouldn't be reasonable to enter a conflict against a nation which uses SD's all the time if you had a nuclear deterrent prohibiting the use of them against you, the same apply to entering a conflict against a nation which as standard equips their military with tactical nuclear weapons... if you don't like them, shoving yourself in their face will only make it much more likely that both nations will kill one another in a MAD scenario.

But hell, we've been told some of the basics on how to take them down without using nuclear weapons and we've been told by various SD users that they are hardly unstoppable and lets face it, the SD is rather unwieldy at the best of times and they tend to come into service out of date due to the amount of time it takes the build the damn things. So for the most part I wouldn't worry about it so much.

Just to illustrate my rather long point, I'll give you a couple of examples from this thread:

In plain words, Axis Nova will hit any and all hostile "super-dreadnaught"/"super battleship" class targets with tactical nuclear weapons should they threaten this nation or any of our allies under any circumstances.

Here in the first example, we see Axis Nova stating it's new policy... or basically the very first statement on this thread which started the arguement.

If you think about it, this statement serves as a deterrent against the use of SD's against him because you know what they are likely to do when they face them... the threat isn't too harsh as it basically works on the principal that if you use a SD they will use nuclear means to destroy it, a one for one in a sense. So you could feasibily continue to use SD's anyways and be prepared for the strike... remeber, nuclear weapons are not a launch and forget thing, they have to get to the target.

1) If nuclear weapons are used to destroy a Praetonian superdreadnaught, a blanket attack against the entire enemy fleet will be launched in responce.

2) Should the enemy retaliate with a similar fleet wide attack on Praetonian assets, a full strategic responce will be provoked.

Here in the second example, funily enough the second post as well, we see the counter-deterrent. If nuclear weapons are used against an SD then this nation will pretty much use nuclear weapons back against the attackers entire fleet.

It's an effective deterrent, at first I figured both were rather crazy and I still think they are, but they are effective never the less. Afterall, they both know what will happen if they get involved.

The interesting bit here is that these two policies will assure that neither nation will want to be the aggressor against the other... Praetonia knows that if it starts a conflict with Axis Nova using SD's they will inevitably end in a nuclear war which would destroy them both. Alternatively, Axis Nova knows that if they use nuclear weapons against Praetonia they will automatically be in a MAD scenario which can only end in either one nation chickening out or the two of them being destroyed or virtually destroyed.

In essence, the policies should work... though Axis Nova has a problem in that they state they will use nuclear weapons should a SD be used on their allies, which means in order for their deterrent to really work they would have to list their allies. Furthermore, the "any circumstances" part means they would have to warn their allies if they start a conflict on a nation with SD's then they run the risk of Axis Nova using tactical nukes for them... there are some questionable issues with the involvement of their allies in the statement.

Iuthia's post above makes a good point, and while the use of tactical nuclear weapons against SDs itself isn't too wrong in the sense, it's the unrealistic expectations that there wouldn't be a deterrence for it and that things won't escalate that's the problem. Porportional response, yes, provided that it's the nation's actual doctrine - and then with porportional response, it'd also be easy to enter a debate as to whether you should try to sink someone's entire navy if they sank your coast guard cutters or your missile boats. The fact is, would you rather have your entire nation ruined, or would you rather actually find ways to combat the SD conventionally so that the threat would be effectively neutralized? It's irrelevant whether the other will MAD in return (most probably they will) and it's irrelevant how 'good' are both nations' 'OMG UBER SDI SYSTEM!!1' (considering that by the nature of NS, most if not all developed nation will have one) - the fact is, would you risk havign your entire city disappear in a mushroom cloud, or at the very least, expending a huge sum of money by actually launching your thousands (if not tens of thousands) of strategic nuclear weapons and the platforms that they are boosted by?

And the 'your population will be angry' response doesn't work well - it has been already said and proven before that not all nations, regardless of their military capability, will be able to adopt the 'strategic as a deterrence for tactical' policy. Porportional response is only one choice that a military can adopt, 'strategic nuke in return for tacnuke' is another policy that a military and a government can adopt, provided that the conditions are set for them. Not every nation is the same politically, culturally, and in terms of traditions and fundamental beliefs - if that's the case, then one could say that a nation is full of hippies just because certain people are hippies. It also works in a broader sense of view, BTW.

...and this is one reason why the current nuclear bunker buster project IRL is so controversial. Even if the 'nuking you back' part does not happen, it at the very least would smash your credibility in smitheerens and for potential adversaries, dismiss any sense of relying on [nation deploying nuclear bunker buster]'s policy of no-first-strike in order to avoid a nuclear war, and creates a very strong sense of suspicion, fear, and uncertainity..

And here, uncertainity also plays a role too. A big role.

I'd still love to know how underwater CWIS things work.

The arguement was supposed to work both ways though, Axis Nova as an example wasn't particularly good because of the impracticality of their statement, afterall, are they really prepared to nuke any SD hostile to their allies even if their allies started the war? It's demands alot from their allies and places alot of responcibility on those allies to not let Axis Nova do something stupid.

However, the deterrent idea itself could work... I would concider it to be just as crazy as the idea of strategic nuclear weapons for tactical nuclear weapons, but it can potientially work so long as you are careful with it.

For example, if I were to assume that my nation hadn't ditched it's nuclear weapons a long time ago and that it had a deterrent policy against the Super-Dreadnaught then I would still only use conventional methods in a conflict in which I was the aggressor in order to avoid that MAD situation... the idea of the deterrent is to protect myself from the biggest threat (for the purposes of this thread, the SD) should another nation choose to start a war on me.

So long as the deterrent is used defencively then you could still enter conflicts as you would normally, the deterrent itself is little more then a defence against what I perceive as unacceptable threats.

Of course, using that logic I may as well forget the SD and just go full out with "attempt to invade my nation and we'll nuke your fleet" as it would be effectively the same thing, the idea of just deterring the use of the SD is interesting but not really worth doing it alone if you are looking to stop the entire invasion.

Anyways, I'm sure Omz knows what I mean... I just thought I would clarify.

This whole debate seems somehow stupid to me. Someone came up with a great design of a huge ship. It is idiotic to prevent everybody from using it by saying you will immediately n00k3riz3 it. This leads to the inevitable: if you ever see a tank that is stronger and better armed than your's (read: better, more experienced player behind it), you will use tactical nucklears against enemys tank divisions. If they have better rifles and they dare to use them against your will, same thing. If they are better trained, you just claim that they have to use only militias of same level as your troops.
With this logic, one can say that if anyone uses ANYTHING BUT SWORDS AGAINST ME, I WILL USE NUKES! ARE YOU REALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO TAKE THAT RISK?

Or, just to make it simply, IF ANYONE EVER ATTACK'S ME WITH ARMED FORCES, I WILL USE NUKES. Mwahahaha, owned.

This kills a war RP, the most important and popular form of it.

I reiterate:

I'd still love to know how underwater CWIS things work.

Someone enlighten me.

Yay, nothing like just reading the last couple posts, eh Madnestan?

Freeform RP, playing realistically and using the tools you have? It's completely unfair to say you'll tactical nuke someones superior army... it will totally ruin the RP if I know the enemy will win and instead use my nuclear weapons to make sure they don't invade me. We must only fight on open battlefields and charge in straight lines, being practical just isn't fun.

Seriously though, without the sarcasm you can do anything you like in a RP because it's freeform, allowing for the fact that anyone can ignore you for any reason... most the time people come to some understanding and work around realism with certain acceptions to make it more interesting.

But you seem to be forgetting that nuclear weapons are just tools, they are real and they are a threat to most modern technology nations. Most nations avoid mutually assured destruction and keep their nuclear weapons for basically detering others from using nuclear weapons against them... however, some nations, and Feline Catfish was a great example of this, don't have capable navies and their military know this... so to make up for it they are given a nuclear weapon along with a platform to use them and then use those weapons to deter people from invading them.

Does it break RP? Hell no, it created a huge thread with the biggest flaws being the nations who were ignoring the defencive deterance and were out right starting a war over something which ultimately didn't even affect them. It was a perfectly realistic action to take... if you can't beat them then you can make them pause when they realise that attacking you will result in unacceptable loses.

That is how MAD works and it would be foolish to ignore part of real life just because you feel it's not interesting enough for your RPs... however it's worth noting that deterence is a defencive thing, so if you don't like it you can just avoid it. Real simple really... most nations will not tactical nuke others because of other deterence policies which escilate into destruction of their own nation.

So long as people like Axis Nova don't ignore the nuclear threat, the chances are that using a nuclear weapon against a SD would be impractical as you wouldn't be able to do so without fear of nuclear retaliation and unacceptable loses when the alturnative is much more simplistic and acceptable.

Nuclear weapons become RP breakers when someone totally ignores nuclear deterents and uses them without concideration for the shitstorm they create... if both sides are using them then frankly people don't care much. Yhey are tools which can be used, like all tools they can be abused, so long as people respect the threat they present then they fit in perfectly. I don't ignore nuclear weapons, I have methods around it... some people do ignore nuclear weapons and thats their choice, but it's not a set thing.

Lets put it as simple as possible, without sarcasm:

If you say that you use nuclear weaponry against enemy who has better navy than you do, or better airforce, or better army, that will kill all CONVENTIONAL warfare, which is what I meant, just didn't make it clear enough. You see, this is not just about SD's. SuperDreadnought (read: a force you can't/don't think you can ((which doesn't seem to be exactly the same thing)) win a fight against) will be nukerized if it comes at you? What makes limits to this, or gives the certainity that you, or anyone else, will not use n00ks against any form of superior force? Then only option left is to
1.Blast off everything
2.Have no war at all.

IMO small country, who is to be invaded and doesn't have enough conventional power to beat the invader should just accept that and move on to the resistance-part. Rather than get the whole population waporized from the face of the earth. Only reason to have nukes is to prevent the other side of using them.

EDIT: And sorry, but I couldn't read your previous statement before giving my own, because you hadn't posted it yet when I started to write (which is everything but a fast project :rolleyes: )

If the proper resonse to a nuclear attack on a super dreadnought is a strategic-scale nuclear response then the implication is that SDs are strategic rather than tactical... that the use of nuclear force against them is proportional to a nuclear attack on a city. The deployment of SDs becomes equivalent to the deployment of WMDs, and it is only right that they be countered with WMDs.

If that's not the case, then the use of WMDs against them is different, and does not call for strategic response.

Either way, they can be differentiated from sane and reasonable military forces. Over the top protection of them is making them a nuclear issue and deploying them against a society that can't stop them without nuclear force is essentially telling them that we're going to use our WMD on you, you'd better not retaliate on a tactical scale!

If it makes the use of SDs impractical, oh dear, what a pity, never mind.

God, I hate those things. BG will probably just smash kamikaze super-WIGs into them or something, if they're ever employed against the Commonwealth. We're in serious danger of reaching a point -if not already there- where they simply aren't used as good RP tools, especially as everyone's turning them out and threatening nuclear death to anybody who hurts their precious (common) babies.

I don't know why I'm getting involved in this. I think I'll go have some eggs and bacon [wanders off]

The arguement was supposed to work both ways though
No, it doesnt work both ways. I see what you (and Der Angst, although I prefer to communicate with him as little as humanly possible) mean, but the two situations are, on closer inspection, quite different.

You see, we must examine what will happen if I were to attack Axis Nova and the each policy was not in place:

In plain words, Axis Nova will hit any and all hostile "super-dreadnaught"/"super battleship" class targets with tactical nuclear weapons should they threaten this nation or any of our allies under any circumstances.

Now, if this is not carried out then he can continue to fight my forces conventionally, and considering his FT flying uber railgun airships of d00m, he has a good chance of winning. He also stores up the last resort "Peace deal now or I'll nuke you" threat if he actually starts to badly lose.

1) If nuclear weapons are used to destroy a Praetonian superdreadnaught, a blanket attack against the entire enemy fleet will be launched in responce.

2) Should the enemy retaliate with a similar fleet wide attack on Praetonian assets, a full strategic responce will be provoked.
Now what happens if this is not in place, and is not carried out? In short, Im screwed. I've just lost a $250bn ship. The morale in my navy plummets. I'm probably forced to pull out of the theatre in an embarassing retreat whilst being harried by Axis Nova's forces.

You see, my policy does not force Axis Nova into doing anything. I dont close off all his options. He can still continue the war conventionally, and he can still win it. His policy, however, does close off all my options. If my policy isnt in place then I've basically lost the war and if it is then both of our nations are destroyed.

In real life, it was expected that the Soviets, should they invade Europe, would use "salami tactics" - advancing in small and perfectly reasonable stages whilst attempting abortive diplomacy at each stage, thereby not forcing the allies into pursuing a nuclear solution. Admittedly this was designed to be used against nations governed by actual people who didnt want themselves and their families to go up in a horrific nuclear fireball, but the point stands. My polciy leaves his options open, meaning that if he has a reasonable government he'll just not nuke me and fight me some other way. His policy destroys my ability to fight a war against him and doesnt leave me any other options. Especially as my fleets actually cant operate with SDs to operate as information processing data hubs.

If the proper resonse to a nuclear attack on a super dreadnought is a strategic-scale nuclear response then the implication is that SDs are strategic rather than tactical... that the use of nuclear force against them is proportional to a nuclear attack on a city. The deployment of SDs becomes equivalent to the deployment of WMDs, and it is only right that they be countered with WMDs.
The problem is that you're mixing up morality and practicality. WMDs are covnentional and their nuking 'should' prompt only a tactical responce and so in that sense you are "right", but it doesnt actually change my policy, and it'll still go to MAD if you nuke them, and you dont have to nuke them to beat them so the logical solution is not to nuke them. What is "right" and "wrong" doesnt really come into it.

No, it doesnt work both ways. I see what you (and Der Angst, although I prefer to communicate with him as little as humanly possible) mean, but the two situations are, on closer inspection, quite different.

Of course, in the post you just responded to and pulled my quote out of I said rather specifically that his deterrent was impractical and I went on to say how it could work...

I won't repeat myself, nor I will reply to your point about how it's options are limited because I addressed that in the post you are replying to.

The point was that deterent could work, not that it was advisable. It is possible to come up with a deterent against SD's which is very similar to your own deterent against tactical nuclear weapons in that they are prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons should someone attack them with SD, in such a case they wouldn't be limited as it's a defencive measure and you would know out right that he will escilate to using nuclear weapons on your SD's should you start a war on him.

Like I said in the post you replied to, his actual policy is impractical but you could probably make something which would work.


Now I've had a chance to get used to it, I can accept your policy and the reasoning behind it. I'm just saying that it can work both ways and that it's possible to exend that policy, though such policies are usually defencive. I would find it a little crazy if your policy was the same if you were to actually start a war with a nation you know to use these weapon on a common basis, not that you would.

Basically, the original example was designed to show that realistically neither of you could star a war on the other without calling off your nuclear policies. The problem is that Axis Nova's policy is not practical.

IMO small country, who is to be invaded and doesn't have enough conventional power to beat the invader should just accept that and move on to the resistance-part. Rather than get the whole population waporized from the face of the earth. Only reason to have nukes is to prevent the other side of using them.

And you are entitled to that opinion, personally I think it's rather interesting and realistic to for a much weaker nation to use nuclear weapons as a way to force others to repect their territory and not invade. The idea is a deterrent stopping more powerful imperialistic nations from invading them... actually using those nuclear weapons is a last resort and there is much diplomacy which could be RPed as well as story (fighting isn't everything).

Now if they go out of their way to hide behind a deterent while fighting people then there is a chance people will out right see them as a threat and may ignore the deterrent for the greater good. So it's a dangerous game, if they are smart they won't push their luck, but it does level the playing field.

It's not popular, but it's possible to defend yourself in this way as the cost is unaccept for anyone to invade that nation. It's not worth it and if they are smart it will never be worth it... they can stay free that way, of course, when the actual invasion comes and if they don't want to die so they don't fire the weapons they can have both the deterrent RP and the resistance RP as they didn't even fire... the idea is to threaten the enemy in such a way they respect the threat and don't invade.

Most nations should respect the nuclear weapon. Unless they have a good reason of course... if they don't respect it then I would like to see the RP leading to their choice not to as it should be tense and interesting.

Yea, that is a good point. But still, and this is of course only my very own opinion, using nuclear weapons against invader is same as deleting your nation.
That's why I wouldn't ever use them against invader, only counter someone's nuclear strike. However, if it turns out to be a common doctrine to launch WMD's against someone whose conventional forces are stronger than your's, that makes it impossible to ever go in to war against a nation armed with notable nuclear arsenal and systems to deliver them.
Which leads to my previous conclusion: 2 Nations armed with nuclears can't have a war. Both can make their own rules about what weapons are allowed, or they shall start n00king.

I have weapons that can mission kill and even destroy a SD, but I opperate under the policy that if you don't get SD's involved I wont get tactical nukes involed. I use their own deterance against them. Like I said earlier; if you get SDs involed my deterance policy would say that I attack it will a low-yield nuclear device. Most other nations policies would then prompt them to attack with a much larger nuclear force. Once I know that the attack is going to happen, I lainch my nukes and a MAD situation occurs. Now I'm sure that no nation wants their nation nuked over a few SDs; so just keep them out of conflicts with me.


With most nations the mere metion of even a small tactical nuclear attack prompts massive nuclear strikes against the small-nuke using nation. This is totally unrealistic, not only would it give you and your nation a bad reputation, but it would also cost a lot of money. Not only do you expend all the money that went into the making of these nukes, you must replace them at some time or another also. People also don't seem to understand proportional force. Yes, some don't use it but they also overlook the fact that their SDs can dish out the same damage of a tactical nuclear device. So a tactical strike against a SD would be in line with proportional force.

Also, if I created some sort of warhead that weighs only 50kg but has a 1kt payload and wasn't nuclear, would you respond to it the same way as a nuke? What is the big difference between a big bomb and a small nuke. SD advocates just dont want to deal with the fact that a small missile can do massive damage to an expensive ship.

Many sight that nukes are uncreative. SDs are by their very nature uncreative, and inefficent. Some people like Praetonia claim that they are not because they RP them indepth. Well guess what, nukes can be RPed in depth also.

Believe it or not, a submarine big enough to carry 2,000 tonnes of explosive would be the biggest submerisble craft ever built in real life or NS, and would generate enough engine noise to be detected miles off.
Who said that it was a 1 to 1 ratio. I am developing an explosive gel that, when shocked by a massive electrical charge, would produce a TNT yield equal to 20 times it's weight. That wold make the torpedo carry only a 12.5 tonne warhead to produce a .25 kiloton yield Much better for a small kamakazi submarine.

Please then explain how a tank has 100% effectiveness against a blind medieval archer. An ABM system cant be 100% effecitive because it uses exactly the same technology as the ICBMs it's intending to shoot down. You cant compare ABM/ICBM effectiveness to fleet-wide ASW/massive submartorpedo effectiveness.
You know as well as anyone else that that is compairing apples to oranges. A missile defense system isn't 100% effective against a modern missile. Heck it would even miss the occasional boulder thrown by a catapult.

OOC: So, a tac nuke is basically not an accepted poportional response to an superdreadnought floating in a nation's waters?

With most nations the mere metion of even a small tactical nuclear attack prompts massive nuclear strikes against the small-nuke using nation. This is totally unrealistic, not only would it give you and your nation a bad reputation, but it would also cost a lot of money.

Depends on the situation, if your policy is that SD's are WMD and thus you respond to their use like you would a WMD then it could work, though I wouldn't push that policy by declaring war on a nation which uses the SD as common practice... in which case you are the nation ignoring the nuclear deterrent.

To say that you will escilate a nuclear encounter as a responce to tactical nuclear weapons isn't unrealistic,there has many arguements, good arguements on this thread such as the fact it is a deterrent... providing you acknowledge that deterrent it shouldn't come to that and most people aren't going to try and test these deterents because of the cost it would cause if they aren't bluffing and I seriously doubt there are many nations bluffing about it as it's a very dangerous bluff.

Basically put I understand why Praetonia does what he does, it makes sense in a warped kinda way and it should work. Meanwhile, if your policy is to treat SD's as WMD then I would expect that you would avoid nations who used them commonly unless you are actively seeking to ignore their own deterrents.

It's a risky business really.

OOC: So, a tac nuke is basically not an accepted poportional response to an superdreadnought floating in a nation's waters?

Depends who you are and what your views are on tactical nuclear weapons... some nations have very harsh views of them while others will use them as common practice for the extra bang and useful applications. Like always you have to work out who you are dealing with before you throw them around.

Iuthia would see it as a nuclear strike on a military target, but we would be pissed off at the use of nuclear weapons... that aside we don't actually have SD's so it's not really a huge worry for us.

Depends on the situation, if your policy is that SD's are WMD and thus you respond to their use like you would a WMD then it could work, though I wouldn't push that policy by declaring war on a nation which uses the SD as common practice... in which case you are the nation ignoring the nuclear deterrent.

To say that you will escilate a nuclear encounter as a responce to tactical nuclear weapons isn't unrealistic,there has many arguements, good arguements on this thread such as the fact it is a deterrent... providing you acknowledge that deterrent it shouldn't come to that and most people aren't going to try and test these deterents because of the cost it would cause if they aren't bluffing and I seriously doubt there are many nations bluffing about it as it's a very dangerous bluff.

Basically put I understand why Praetonia does what he does, it makes sense in a warped kinda way and it should work. Meanwhile, if your policy is to treat SD's as WMD then I would expect that you would avoid nations who used them commonly unless you are actively seeking to ignore their own deterrents.

It's a risky business really.

I don't ignore their deterrents, I use it against them. My deterrent is that I will present to them a MAD situation if they bring SDs into a conflict.

You people still don't get it, don't you? WHERE STANDS THE LINE? SD is a part of an extremely strong naval force. It doesn't form the WHOLE navy. Now, if you face a navy that has used as much cash and resources to build other types (BB's and Carriers) than it would have if using SD's, are you still using nukes? If you aren't, why not?
If you are, you will make it impossible to have a naval warfare RP or atleast to have a serious battle.

so just keep them out of conflicts with me.
(Edited)
...and what's the use if your cities are nuked as well, especially when you can of course, fight the SD conventionally? Again, while SDs can be countered by conventional means, the usage of tacnukes against SDs should be at best deterred from the outset, especially since it would indeed open up a whole new chapter of potential casulties and losses (even with porportional response only, it's much the same). With a SD, you do still present your enemy with an assortment of options that will not end in giant mushrooms; if you tacnuke someone's SD, no matter how you enforce your porportional policy or whatever, it still presents the very possible danger that the opponent's navy will be smashed by the threats of nuclear weapons and that it will escalate through differences in interpretation and the growing use of tacnukes against each other, thus a MAD scenario to deter the use of tacnukes from the outset is indeed sensible, and realistic.

This is totally unrealistic, not only would it give you and your nation a bad reputation, but it would also cost a lot of money.
If you really think it is 'totally unrealistic', then why do you still give us the impression that you will actually accept it? Why not just ignore it if you think it is quote 'totally unrealistic' unquote? Not that the 'strategic nuke in response to tacnuke' is factually unrealistic in many cases, but if you really think it is unrealistic, then why do you still want to force yourself into a MAD scenario with a nation who deploys a SD agaisnt you, and incidently does employ the policy?

Yes, some don't use it but they also overlook the fact that their SDs can dish out the same damage of a tactical nuclear device.
...again, no one mentions how they will do so. The SD is a weapon platform with individual weapons, thus it is not the SD itself that will cause much damage alone, especially if your enemy does not use in a direct combat role (in which case, for example, I don't). The rumours that the 30 inch guns on SDs can produce the effects of a small nuclear weapon is only a horribly uneducated myth as people ignores what actually goes into the weight of the shell (it isn't 100% explosives); and even then, the 30" does have its own fundamental problems and is still far from a very reliable weapon (another fact that people often overlook, if not purposely ignores), and that its true effect would only come into play in its land attack role.

SD advocates just dont want to deal with the fact that a small missile can do massive damage to an expensive ship.
They do, and they deter the very basic fundamental danger with the threat of escalation in return. Once again, if you actually read the points of many, you will find out that the fundamental problem is not tacknuke a SD, but the fact that there are some people - including you - who are totally and unwillingly refusing to accept all the possible consequences of such a strike against a SD. Yeah, porportional response. But is it not only one of the assortment of choices for many governments and militaries that has the capabilities and the circumstances to employ other policies, say, 'strategic nukes in return for tacnukes'?

Many sight that nukes are uncreative. SDs are by their very nature uncreative, and inefficent.
...and in your very opinion, the time and attention that many has dedicated to designing their vessels, including putting together a visual impression of the ship, figuring out its armouring and protection systems, drafting up a set of weapon and sensor systems, and putting all that together, a waste of time? I won't enter a SD feasibility debate, but again you have failed to explain how they are 'inefficient'. Yes, they do have a very high operating cost. Yes, navies can normally field a small number of them, and yes, they are large enough so that only a number of ports will accept them. But you are also apparantly forgeting their actual use.

then why do you still want to force yourself into a MAD scenario with a nation who deploys a SD agaisnt you, and incidently does employ the policy?

Well in my opinion if they stated openly how they deal with super-dreadnaughts and they didn't start a war with such a nation then wouldn't it be the other nations fault for ignoring their deterent?

You seem to be placing all the responcibility on USSNA, even if they are simply detering the use of a super-dreadnaughts against them despite the fact that it would be the other nations choice to start a war with them...

I can understand USSNA's policy being rather unworkable if they actually starting trouble and then hide behind their policy, but if that isn't the case and it's more of a defencive strategy (albeit an odd one) then it's hardly different from telling people not to use low-yield warheads on you because they are too effective. Both are, ulimately, weapons. The fact that the tactical nuclear weapon is an affective one doesn't change the fact that it ulimately a weapon being used on a military target. Both policies are about stopping the other nations using weapons which are concidered too dangerous to their militaries to accept.

I agree that this nation and others aren't really accepting the deterrent, but it seems like the essense of the arguement is being missed here... it's not about using tactical nuclear weapons on the SD, but using the threat of nuclear weapons against the SD as a deterrent from the SD being used against them. A nation which has a nuclear deterrent policy against tactical nuclear weapons would have to respect the danger in starting a conflict with such a nation and work out how much of a threat their statement means... oddly enough, it's the same thing they have to concider when entering a conflict with nations with SD's, if they will know that these nations have deterrents stopping the cheap kill of their ships and will either not use nuclear weapons or not enter the conflict.

The point here is that the deterrent works both ways, though the "I'll nuke your SD" arguement is ulimately rather fucked to begin with, the threat it presents is the same form of threat that is being used to stop them nuking SDs in the first place.

The end result is that if they want to fight you, they probably will be using conventional weapons, but if you want to fight them, using SD's will result in nuclear weapons being used on them so you have to balance your priorities... you either respect their threat and don't use SD or not even start a fight with them, or you don't respect their threat and accept that they will nuke you and your policy will force you into a MAD situation and you started it.

ICly, diplomacy would of course take place and conditions could be met and these threats could be removed... however most nations are very protective of their deterrents as making concessions damages the threat they provide.

Personally, I agree with you more, Omz, but I have to admit that there is an arguement for turning the deterrent used to protect the SD from nukes to protect them from SDs... in both cases it's about who starts the conflict and if they respect the threat that goes with it. If neither nations have a problem then its really rather moot point.

Of course, if they find themselves both supporting an ally then it gets interesting and diplomacy would be needed, either that or avoid one another.

In the end, USSNA does present a solid argument (After all, this is still a civil debate), but it still all depends on the scope of the conflict, the political standings of the two nations, and other elements as well. Porportional response can work best if pre-arranged and/or if both parties actually agrees to it; however, judging the scope of many conflicts in II, I'm afraid to say that it might not necessarily be the case. Porportional response, as said before, is just /one/ alternative; and despite its slightly more 'recklessness' nature, the 'strategic nuclear as deterrent against tacnukes' choice, I believe, is much more audacious and 'on the point' to prevent the nuking of a SD from the outset. Even if you do use porportional response, differences in the interpretation of the usage and the types of nucelar weapons and a general sense of uncertainity can lead to devastating effects.

I generally agree with you, you guys made it clear a long time ago that the deterrent would (though given some nations, maybe not) keep nations from concidering the use of a nuclear weapon against an SD, though circumstance tends to confuse things a bit at times, it would definately provide something to think about in a skirmish as few people would like to go from a minor battle over a small issue into a full scale nuclear confrontation.

I just like to explore posibilities. I found the idea of a deterrent against the use of SD's to be interesting. It also reminded me of the whole Feline Catfish thing, which would have worked better if Feline Catfish didn't suck so bad at diplomacy and insulted half the people who wanted to help.

Anyway, I'm growing tired of all this debateing on the subject. I have a deterance against a SD, but will use other means to defeat one if absolutly nessesar. But if backed into a corner, I will use nukes.

In any said naval conflict I will ask the other nation to keep SDs out of the conflict in turn for me not using tactical nukes. If they don't comply. Then they will learn just how fast I deal with SDs, nuke or not.

No one addressed my question regaurding the use of back-breaker torpedos against Superdreadnaughts; they seem like an ideal weapon-format.



IMO small country, who is to be invaded and doesn't have enough conventional power to beat the invader should just accept that and move on to the resistance-part. Rather than get the whole population waporized from the face of the earth. Only reason to have nukes is to prevent the other side of using them.


You're ignoring several factors, especially IC ones; for example, if you're about to be conquored, and you expect the other guy will slaughter and enslave the population(even if your leaders only belive this ICly; it doesn't have to be a real posibility), then you'd have every reason to break out the nukes and blow them to hell - you'll be devistated in turn, but the enemy will be in no condition to dominate the survivors.

Afterall, one has to ballance IC and OOC considerations, otherwise you'll be breaking character whenever it's convenient to do so.

And, really, one can have fun RPing their nation's climb back from nuclear ruin, too, if you want to.


Heck, when I was a tiny modern/near-future nation back in the day, one of my first forrays into the international scene resulted in several nations basicly declaring their intent to commit systematic genocide against my nation's people if they could; as you can imagine, this... coloured my IC view of tactical nuclear weapons; conventional defeat was actually worse than a MAD scenario in that case - atleast MAD leaves survivors! - so we were sure as hell willing to risk it! ;)

Fortunatly, things never got to the point of open war.

I have weapons that can mission kill and even destroy a SD, but I opperate under the policy that if you don't get SD's involved I wont get tactical nukes involed. I use their own deterance against them. Like I said earlier; if you get SDs involed my deterance policy would say that I attack it will a low-yield nuclear device. Most other nations policies would then prompt them to attack with a much larger nuclear force. Once I know that the attack is going to happen, I lainch my nukes and a MAD situation occurs. Now I'm sure that no nation wants their nation nuked over a few SDs; so just keep them out of conflicts with me.
So you're saying that you have reasonable weapons you can use... but you wont, you'll nuke the SD anyway and thereby cause a nuclear war that will destroy your nation? Riiiiiight.

With most nations the mere metion of even a small tactical nuclear attack prompts massive nuclear strikes against the small-nuke using nation. This is totally unrealistic, not only would it give you and your nation a bad reputation, but it would also cost a lot of money.
Why does this matter? If it ever happened both nations would be destroyed, so reputation is hardly of concern.

Not only do you expend all the money that went into the making of these nukes, you must replace them at some time or another also.
Everyone has a nuclear deterrent anyway :S

People also don't seem to understand proportional force. Yes, some don't use it but they also overlook the fact that their SDs can dish out the same damage of a tactical nuclear device.
wth? No it cant :S It also costs several hundred thousand times more.

Also, if I created some sort of warhead that weighs only 50kg but has a 1kt payload and wasn't nuclear, would you respond to it the same way as a nuke?
Yes, but that isnt possible so it doesnt matter.

What is the big difference between a big bomb and a small nuke. SD advocates just dont want to deal with the fact that a small missile can do massive damage to an expensive ship.
SD users want to deter people from easily destroying their ships, yes. How about I do indeed adopt a proportional responce approach. You nuke my $250bn ship, and I'll nuke $250bn of damage out of your capital? Oh wait, you'd carpet nuke me.

Many sight that nukes are uncreative. SDs are by their very nature uncreative, and inefficent. Some people like Praetonia claim that they are not because they RP them indepth. Well guess what, nukes can be RPed in depth also.
How are SDs uncreative? I dont see any SDs IRL. I dont see anyone outside of NS ever proposing their existance. Nukes on the other hand are cheap action genre fodder and have been around IRL since the 30s. Which is less creative?

Who said that it was a 1 to 1 ratio. I am developing an explosive gel that, when shocked by a massive electrical charge, would produce a TNT yield equal to 20 times it's weight. That wold make the torpedo carry only a 12.5 tonne warhead to produce a .25 kiloton yield Much better for a small kamakazi submarine.
You mean you'd techwank some non-existant substance into existance so that you could ZOMFG pwn m3h? Ignored.


You know as well as anyone else that that is compairing apples to oranges. A missile defense system isn't 100% effective against a modern missile. Heck it would even miss the occasional boulder thrown by a catapult.
I've said this before, but you havent got the message. *Takes a deep breath* I HAVE NEVER SAID I HAVE A 100% EFFECTIVE ABM SYSTEM. THAT WAS AXIS NOVA. THANKYOU.

And that was MY ENTIRE POINT. You cant say that you cant have 100% effectiveness against a ZOMG GIANTIC SUBZ0rz Kam1kaz3 torped0 of d00m because comparing that with ABM systems is comparing apples with pears.

SDs arent unstoppable.Apart from Hogsweat (Who lost two) and GMC(Who simply doesn't do war), I've yet to see SD users actually taking losses, rather than posting 'I shot down all your missiles, and I'm shooting you with my ship. Post losses'.

They are RPed as being unstoppable. The current reactions with regards to countermeasures are the direct result of this attitude. You've no one to blame but yourself.

If the SD users would actually start assuming that weapons that can hurt their ships (Specifically, somewhat more capable missiles/ torpedoes) simply exist and take appropriate losses (Note that I'm not thinking of insta-sinking. But it shouldn't take much more than it took to take down Yamato, and missionkills should be vaguely frequent), you wouldn't have this problem.

Oh, and it would also help to recognise that NS is requiring cooperation. What is so fucking hard about telling people in explicit and detailed ways how to take out your stuff in order to get to some sort of mutual agreement? Personally, I do it all the time, yet, I've noticed that certain 'I play to win' individuals have slight problems acknowledging this (Yes, actually. I'm refering to you).

Nukes are a cheap solution to an extremely expensive problem.
And? It's called cost-effectiveness. It's logical to use cheap solutions.

Indeed I dont. Would you?So why do you risk them?

Yes, because it isnt economically viable for my nation to fight a war if SDs are routinely nuked. Hence the deterrent policy.So why go to war in a world where essentially everyone has nuclear capacities?

No they arent. If you'd care to look, I've made lineart for my SDs, and spent some time RPing them. Nukes on the other hand dont require any more effort than saying you launch some missiles.Buh?

Lemme see. Hypothetical scenario: SDs vs a (Downscaled, we don't want to see me spreading fluids all over the thread) me.

International Waters, Indian Ocean

The seagulls circling in the air followed the slowly approaching fleet, hoping for some food. It wasn't too hard, DA ships had a slight tendency of being slow, and they weren't particularly eager on engaging in the first place.
After all, staying alive was very much preferable to being shelled to death.

<TEU Moist Menace> Ain't it cute? All the birds...
<SEU Disproportional Response> Always remember, the Mirkanians descended from them. makes them look slightly less cute.
<TEU Moist Menace> Point. Anyway... Ah, there's the datafeed. Okay... oi.
<TEU Aggressive Potential> Hrm?
<TEU Moist Menace> Largish Battlegroup.
<SEU Disproportional Force> We're kinda aware of them.
<TEU Moist Menace> Not this close, tho.
<SEU Disproportional Force> Lemme see... Damn, you're right. Time until engagement?
<TEU Moist Menace> Do your own fucking calculations. Anyway... For us, about thirteen seconds. Twelve... Eleven...
<TEU Aggressive Potential> We get the idea.
<TEU Moist Menace> ^_^
<SEU Disproportional Force> Outside arty range. Okay. OEU?
<OEU Cuckoo's Egg> Here.
<SEU Disproportional Force> We'll need your subcraft. Missile Escorts.
<TEU Aggressive Potential> So, are we going to attack or what?
<SEU Disproportional Force> ... Yes. Just wait a fucking millisecond, please?
<TEU Aggressive Potential> Blah, blah.
<TEU Moist Menace> Targets acquired. Penetrators or distance detonations?
<SEU Disproportional Force> Ever been introduced to the invention of CIWS?
<TEU Moist Menace> Ok, ok. Distance.
<OEU Cuckoo's Egg> 128 mobile point defence subcraft launched. I'm waiting, boys and girls.
<SEU Disproportional Force> Not anymore.
<TEU Moist Menace> What he said.
<TEU Aggressive Potential> ... Yeah.
<OEU Cuckoo's Egg> Awww, how pretty they fly...

The comparativey quiet being of the seagulls was disturbed as the missiles (And fighters) were launched, leaving tiny ripples on the surface of the sea and occasionally ramming a particularly unfortunate seagull as the missiles accelerated to a velocity sufficient to reduce interception time by enemy CIWS to slightly less than a second.

It would, of course, still be sufficient to take some missiles down, after all, they weren't exactly stealthy, quite the opposite, but then, better than losing all of them.

The idea, as incomprehensible as it was to the seagulls looking at the tiny dots that had already left their vicinity, was simple: On-contact detonations, as destructive as they were, would be unlikely, as air defences were quite likely to prevent them. Most of them, anyway.

Instead, a few waves were formed, to hit the battlegroup, one after the other, all of them protected by the point defence drones/ fighters to make sure that carrier- based planes didn't slaughter the missiles before their time would come.
The first wave was supposed to detonate just before hitting the high-efficiency anti-missile defence radius of the most outward escorts, essentially killing off active and passive sensor arrays, perhaps even a few guns.

The second wave, the same, with the second line of defence.

The third would do it with the core of the battlegroup, its carriers and SDs. Certainly insufficient to sink it, but supposedly sufficient to reduce its combat efficiency to a bare minimum, at least for a few hours.

And that was all that was needed.

<TEU Moist Menace> You know... We really have to make a few pictures of the detonations. They're always so pretty!
<SEU Disproportional Force> Always the romantic, I see.

Well, ok. I'll admit that this would essentially be not more than 'To launch some missiles'. But I would suppose that some efford is included, yes?

So you would rather destroy your entire nation than bother thinking up a decent way of killing SDs?It's cheaper to prevent them from being used in the first place, really.

Then only option left is to
1.Blast off everything
2.Have no war at all.And what is wrong with 2., given that it is exactly what we had in the cold war, or, hey, with North Korea, now (The latter includes a few other problems, though, so a bad example)?

Either way, they can be differentiated from sane and reasonable military forces. Over the top protection of them is making them a nuclear issue and deploying them against a society that can't stop them without nuclear force is essentially telling them that we're going to use our WMD on you, you'd better not retaliate on a tactical scale! Veeeeeery good point.

(and Der Angst, although I prefer to communicate with him as little as humanly possible)Awww. Although I'll admit that it's understandable, I'm not exactly of the polite kind.

and considering his FT flying uber railgun airships of d00m, he has a good chance of winning.Just as a side note, I'd note that his flying airships (If you're even recognising a nation with an imploded economy managing to produce anything more than cardboard models for Axis Nova) suffer from things like not carrying even remotely the same amout of ordinance a wet ship carries (Simply due to needing to be vastly lighter/ less dense, or have you ever seen a battleship starting to fly just because you mounted propellers on it?), thus also having piss-poor armour, and generally being big, flying targets you can use flak (10.5cm+) against, with a really good chance of scoring hits, if they ever dare to actually cross your territory. The things are certainly fast, and way better supply transporters than normal planes, but in actual combat... Ewww. The middle arty of an SD (Heck, the main arty of a destroyer) should be able to slaughter them in flocks. Actually, kinda like posted here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7346936&postcount=5).

You see, my policy does not force Axis Nova into doing anything. I dont close off all his options. He can still continue the war conventionally, and he can still win it. His policy, however, does close off all my options. If my policy isnt in place then I've basically lost the war and if it is then both of our nations are destroyed.
Well, depends on who the aggressor is (And I'll admit that including allies in this deterrence policy is kinda insane). Axis certainly can't afford to attack Praetonia while going through with its doctrine. Conversely, the same is true the other way around.

The primary problem I would have with it is that it's rather limiting to options with regards to foreign policy. Especially once this doctrines spread, one is quickly losing the ability to do anything.

But sure, if this is Praetonia's choice.

wth? No it cant :S It also costs several hundred thousand times more.
It's missiles, combined with its arty? Sure it can. Granted, it needs a while (An hour?), but yes, it can. Also granted, yes, it's drastically more expensive, but on the other hand, significantly harder to intercept than a tacnuke (Assuming missile deployment. Nuclear shells are of course also an option).

SD users want to deter people from easily destroying their ships, yes. How about I do indeed adopt a proportional responce approach. You nuke my $250bn ship, and I'll nuke $250bn of damage out of your capital? Oh wait, you'd carpet nuke me.The idea is that the tactical nuke is a mere battlefield weapon, and both sides try to destroy each other's navy in the fastest/ most cost-effective way possible, really. In a conflict that involves both sides making extensive use of tactical nuclear weapons, proportional response doesn't actually exist. It's becoming as common as conventional artillery shells (Ok, slight exaggeration here) and is used whenever seen as being useful. 'Proportional Response' is a form of deterrent, ad has no point in such a scenario.

Now I'm curious if I'm actually honoured with a response, this time, or ignored like the last time.

Oh, and it would also help to recognise that NS is requiring cooperation. What is so fucking hard about telling people in explicit and detailed ways how to take out your stuff in order to get to some sort of mutual agreement? Personally, I do it all the time, yet, I've noticed that certain 'I play to win' individuals have slight problems acknowledging this (Yes, actually. I'm refering to you).Atta way to encourage "cooperation," fire off a round of insults and come off with a condescending attitude. That's a sure fire way to get someone to cooperate with you. :rolleyes:

Now I'm curious if I'm actually honoured with a response, this time, or ignored like the last time.If Praetonia chose not to respond to this post, I wouldn't blame him with the inherent lack of civility you have shown with nearly every OOC debate post that I've noticed since I started playing this game. And just so you know, I've been playing this game since early 2004. This happens to be a puppet I created in '05.

SD users want to deter people from easily destroying their ships, yes. How about I do indeed adopt a proportional responce approach. You nuke my $250bn ship, and I'll nuke $250bn of damage out of your capital? Oh wait, you'd carpet nuke me.


Woah, there.

Military target ≠ civilian target; whole different paradigm there. If you want to argue otherwise, well, I think most people would have trouble taking you seriously, OOCly.


As for the earlier bit about nuking an SD destroying your ability to fight a war offencivly, and making you pack up and go home, well, all that is is blaintent tactical inflexibility - a major inconvenience. For which you engage in massive nuclear retaliation, rather than tweaking your doctrine.

Ya know, that sounds 'cheap' to me.

Now, what happens if they disperse their fleet befor nuking your SD? ICBM's ain't the most acurate things, and a ship on the move not an easy target... Of course, if you want to catch ships in port, you're going to be nuking port cities, too; civilian targets.




And I'd still think a properly scaled keel-breaker torp would ruin an SD's day.

So you're saying that you have reasonable weapons you can use... but you wont, you'll nuke the SD anyway and thereby cause a nuclear war that will destroy your nation? Riiiiiight.

Did you even read all my post. IC I say I will Nuke SD's if they get involved. But OOC I know that I will try and take them out with conventional means and then resort to SDs.



Originally Posted by USSNA
Also, if I created some sort of warhead that weighs only 50kg but has a 1kt payload and wasn't nuclear, would you respond to it the same way as a nuke?

Yes, but that isnt possible so it doesnt matter.

It was a hypothetical question and it does matter. So you are saying that if someone devises a Non-Nuke way to deafeat your SD you will just go "Well I nuke your cities." Very Good There. :cool:


SD users want to deter people from easily destroying their ships, yes. How about I do indeed adopt a proportional responce approach. You nuke my $250bn ship, and I'll nuke $250bn of damage out of your capital? Oh wait, you'd carpet nuke me.

As said earlier: Military targets and Civilian Targets are not the same thing. In a war, strategic bombing is a certain strategy, but not very ofeten employed as Tactical means can solve the strategical problem for less.

How are SDs uncreative? I dont see any SDs IRL. I dont see anyone outside of NS ever proposing their existance. Nukes on the other hand are cheap action genre fodder and have been around IRL since the 30s. Which is less creative?

How are SD's uncreative? They are basically uber ships with big guns and thick armor. Not creative. You can draw all the lineart you want and RP it all you want, but it still comes down that SD's and Nukes are the same in creativity: Basically scaled up stuff.

You mean you'd techwank some non-existant substance into existance so that you could ZOMFG pwn m3h? Ignored.

Well isn't it techwanking when you create 30" rail guns when RL railguns cannot even fire more than once without needing servicing. Isn't it techwanking when you build ZOMFG big ships in ZOMFG numbers? Isn't it techwanking when you use ZOMFG thick armor with ZOMFG numerous bulkheads? If I RPed it correctly, according to the way that you claim SD's are creative. It would be an acceptable, techwank as SDs are.

I've said this before, but you havent got the message. *Takes a deep breath* I HAVE NEVER SAID I HAVE A 100% EFFECTIVE ABM SYSTEM. THAT WAS AXIS NOVA. THANKYOU.

And that was MY ENTIRE POINT. You cant say that you cant have 100% effectiveness against a ZOMG GIANTIC SUBZ0rz Kam1kaz3 torped0 of d00m because comparing that with ABM systems is comparing apples with pears.

I was just calling out your blatant disreguad for common sense. I also said you claimed 100% effectiveness in missile defense as you claim no number of missiles can get through to deal enough damage to an SD to sink or mission kill it.

I also never said anthing about the effectiveness of my anti-capital ship torpedo. One might do the trick, but more than one would most likly be used.

How are SD's uncreative? They are basically uber ships with big guns and thick armor. Not creative.
Well, it's interesting to see how you base your judgement on the creativity of something solely based on the measure of the calibre of their tube artillery armament, and the type and thickness of the armour used. Maybe the people who designed and built the M1A1 and M1A2 should get more 'creative' IRL just because they designed a tank that has a cannon that has superb performance against tanks, advanced sensor systems, and armour that can defeat a diverse spectrum of threats.

Eyeroll. When will people realize that it's the usage of the system that will really matter, and not the measurement of the individual weapon components on a combat platform that will be the decisive factor in determining the product is 'creative' or not? Surely, you previously said that the use of nukes can be creative. But then, if I might ask, how is SDs uncreative just because of its physical characteristics?

Alright.

I know I am just jumping into this, but I've wanted to get it off my mind.

I agree with USSNA that SD's are techwanking. I mean come on.

There are two types of RPers.

Ones that want to win
And ones that want to RP

This isn't a flame or an insult, but SD's in semi-large numbers are owned by people who want to win, at any cost. I just avoid those people IMO

Now I don't have anything wrong with 1 SD, unless it's just so "uber omg nothing but nukes can destroy it, and is protected agaisnt space based rail guns and MAC weapons" I just tend to avoid those people to.

Thank you and adieu.

This isn't a flame or an insult, but SD's in semi-large numbers are owned by people who want to win, at any cost. I just avoid those people IMO
Don't be so quick to judge the characteristics of a roleplayer solely based on the weapon systems and the military doctrines that they deploy. If you have a grudge against SDs, ignore them, but how can you be so sure that all and any people who owns SDs ICly are roleplayers who are occupied with winning any and all engagements at all costs?

Because, there just isn't a need for SD's in the RP world. They are way too godly, and never give the other person a chance.

I mean, you sick two SD's at each other, they'd never die. So the scenario is the guy witht he SD always wins because the SD is pretty much invulnerable, or the guy with the SD is stuck in a stalemate with the other SD.

RPing is about winning and losing, and when SD's are involved, it's always winning.

The invention of the SD was concidered rather creative when Freethinker designed the Doujin, though it didn't help that Doujin, the poster, seemed to make it sound unstopable to the point where he would shout down anyone trying to think of a way to take it down. Of course SD's were around before the Doujin with GMC and his love for oversized weapons just because they are cool... still, I can't deny that the SD was an creative idea at the time for the role it was designed for.

Of course, as a counter arguement, it's about time someone pointed out again that on the same arguement, the use of low yield nuclear weapons for a fast mission kill on such a large target is also a valid and creative idea, assuming we're talking of more then just "I n00kz joo" which frankly isn't the case. So I would rather that people stopped shouting that nuclear weapons are uncreative as well as others arguing that the SD is uncreative.

The whole thing is getting rather silly and off point... I mean, how many reasonable points keep getting ignored by both sides just because they want to be right? It seems like only a few people are willing to acknowledge a good point when they see one...

Because, there just isn't a need for SD's in the RP world. They are way too godly, and never give the other person a chance.
...are there a need for aircraft carriers in the real world, just because they can only be challenged by a selection of individual threats? The ship itself isn't in any way invincible; stick it to a commander that has absolutely no idea about naval operations, and I can guarentee you that it would be either steaming with black smoke at two knots or is dead in the water, almost sinking, a short time later. Yes, the SDs are huge and powerful platforms. But yes, they are also expensive targets as well. And yes, some navies do choose to employ them, to fulfill the needs of their IC naval doctrine.

In fact, I might ask, if you consider SDs to be absolutely instruments of tech-wanking just because it is indeed powerful (while completely and utterly ignoring the downsides of a SD, including /what if/ one or more actually sinks?), would it be stupid to maintain a nuclear arsenal just because it has the capacity to cause great destruction?

I mean, you sick two SD's at each other, they'd never die.
...Again, ignoring the downsides of a SD. Since it is overly obvious that you are exploiting the absolute myth that SDs are invincible (and a myth that is older than your own nation as well), it isn't really helping to back up your position except that it further signifies the absolute irrationality of such myth.

RPing is about winning and losing, and when SD's are involved, it's always winning.
Another quick assumption that casts an absolute blindness towards how the player will actually use it, and teh dynamic nature of warfare in general. If NS battles really should be a 'fight to the death' with missile spam and ships dueling each other with a blind volley of shells, then I'd suppose that there's no point in RPing warfare at all. Fortunately, it is not the case, even with a SD especially considering that they can be effectively countered by the combination of effective tactics and long-term strategies. And if one is careful enough to read along the thread, he or she will find this thread (along with another related trhead as well) to be rich with it.

In the end however, I never knew that RPs are about winning or losing. Especially interesting as it in a way, contradicts the statements in your first post:

This isn't a flame or an insult, but SD's in semi-large numbers are owned by people who want to win, at any cost. I just avoid those people IMO

I mean, you sick two SD's at each other, they'd never die. So the scenario is the guy witht he SD always wins because the SD is pretty much invulnerable, or the guy with the SD is stuck in a stalemate with the other SD.

And this is why it's a good idea to dispell the myth that SD's are unstoppable...

Because of abuse the whole idea of the super-dreadnaught has gotten to the point where alot of people think the worse of them.

Both sides of the argument need to be fully looked at. SD's have advantages and flaws; but no excess of one and lack of another. What must be remembered is that nothing is invulnerable. Even the most brilliant of ideas is adapted to. Nuclear missles eventually end up with countermeasures. In MGS2 Metal Gear Ray was derived as a countermeasure to the countless Nuclear equipped walking battle tanks of the Rex line, defeating the Rex's purpose of being able to achieve a nuclear strike from anywhere on Earth.

War breeds innovation, Innovation breeds counter-innovation

RPing is about winning and losing...

No, it isn't.

In MGS2 Metal Gear Ray was derived as a countermeasure to the countless Nuclear equipped walking battle tanks of the Rex line, defeating the Rex's purpose of being able to achieve a nuclear strike from anywhere on Earth.

Except, if you recall, Ray was awkward-looking, had the worst location for a rotary gun ever devised and could easily be defeated by a soldier on foot armed with an outdated surface-to-air missile launcher. Further, it's never made that clear what the hell is supposed to be so special about a Ray considering Rex has missiles too.

RPing is about winning and losing

What are you talking about?

RPing on NS is about telling the story of your nation and its leaders, struggles, conflicts, and so on. There is no 'winning' or 'losing' in this game. While there may be a beginning, in NationStates there is no 'end'. This game does not end, and when all is said and done there are no 'winners'. Small victories maybe, but eventually you will suffer a defeat, but that in NO WAY means that you lose the game and have to leave.

I have seen nations torn to shreds, only to rebuild and return to higher glory. Losing a war does not mean anything, only that your avenue for potential storylines changes slightly.