NationStates Jolt Archive


OOC: SD Tech

Chitzeland
21-11-2005, 00:01
A simple question: are super dreadnoughts PMT or MT? What is considered PMT for a SD and what is MT?
The Macabees
21-11-2005, 00:11
SDs within themselves are MT because you could realistically take today's technology and build one - it would just take more money than RL governments are willing to spend. Nonetheless, most people that field them are PMT. Time scales for both vary; personally I see MT anything up to present, and PMT anything after until around 2030 to 2040.
Call to power
21-11-2005, 00:17
I consider SD PMT because I think all new designs are PMT (PMT is 2006-2100 MT is 20th November 2005 23:16 and counting)
Banduria
21-11-2005, 00:27
I consider SDs MT because I'm a MT nation and I field them. ;) Also, because I take MT as everything that's feasible to be designed now. PMT is everything that will be feasible in the next 50-100 years.
Otagia
21-11-2005, 01:04
I consider SD PMT because I think all new designs are PMT (PMT is 2006-2100 MT is 20th November 2005 23:16 and counting)
So anything at all that I design that isn't in RL at the moment is PMT? Now that's just silly. How is something that could easily exist in the modern world (custom caseless rifles, superdreadnoughts, my smartgun system, etc.) PMT? If we did things that way, MT RPs would be inanely boring, wtih everyone using G-11s and Abrams tanks.
Yallak
21-11-2005, 01:14
So anything at all that I design that isn't in RL at the moment is PMT? Now that's just silly. How is something that could easily exist in the modern world (custom caseless rifles, superdreadnoughts, my smartgun system, etc.) PMT? If we did things that way, MT RPs would be inanely boring, wtih everyone using G-11s and Abrams tanks.

Well at least thered be no tech awnking arguments! On this matter i agree - SD's (or as i still call mine, Battleships) are MT. They really are just bigger version of a normal battleship - easily designed and built now just totalling inefficient for a RL nation, hence why nobody uses them.
They can become PMT if people still all kinds of crap onto them like ive seen - laser gun and ones that can even fly (Don't ask cause i'll never be able to stop complaining about that one). But in general they are MT.
Dostanuot Loj
21-11-2005, 01:31
SD's in the way they seem most commonly used or designed by self-provlaimed "MT" nations, are PMT.
You could build a MT SD but because of all the afformentuioned "techwanking" no one would want to.

S, that said, I cut the MT era off at say, the beginning of 2006. Maybe when 2006 begins I'll bump that to the beginning of 2007, but I havn't decided yet.

I must also note, to go with Otagia's argument, that when I decide between MT and PMT I like to make allowances for things that may be PMT normally, but people use in a MT environment. I think it makes things much more interesting when you can have variances and different nations/cultures with different advantages and dissadvantages.
Phoenixius
21-11-2005, 01:53
I consider MT as up to 2010, and include everything that could be built today, but isn't because its not feasible for our world. This I also extend to some other technologies that I deem we could have today if we just spent enough on R&D.
Otagia
21-11-2005, 02:05
I consider MT as up to 2010, and include everything that could be built today, but isn't because its not feasible for our world. This I also extend to some other technologies that I deem we could have today if we just spent enough on R&D.
Hear hear. Oh, and you forgot the lack of morals bit. We could have quite a bit more if it wasn't for that annoying moral inhibition about human experimentation. And with quite a bit of that out of the way in Otagia, research goes splendidly.
Phoenixius
21-11-2005, 02:10
Ah yes, morals. If only there were more mad scientists with no scruples hey?
DMG
21-11-2005, 02:15
It all depends on the technology being used on the SD.
Beth Gellert
21-11-2005, 02:25
I don't like all this... the SDs floating around NS are, typically, not modern.

They radically change modern technology by their appearance.

They're theoretical at best.

And that's fine for everyone who wants to deal with that, but you have to recognise that it's something apart from the modern.

Strictly speaking it's not future tech of any sort, either, because SDs are never going to exist, but that's just all the more reason for them not being considered in the ordinary modern realm.

It's going to end up forcing me to say that between my nation and any nation with SDs there's a stretch of shallow water the silly monsters can't cross, and I don't want to do that sort of thing.

I think, without creating a whole new tech domain within which to play them and other far-out ideas that will never happen, the only reasonable place for them is this so-called Post-Modern Tech period. That doesn't appeal to me, personally, but that's okay, I'll just stay out of it. I just don't want its Super Dreadnoughts crashing into my reality-based world.
DMG
21-11-2005, 02:32
They're theoretical at best.

There is a reason it is called modern tech and not current products.
Civitas Americae
21-11-2005, 02:44
It's going to end up forcing me to say that between my nation and any nation with SDs there's a stretch of shallow water the silly monsters can't cross, and I don't want to do that sort of thing.


You don't have to. I currently have four different ways of smacking superdreadnoughts within MT:
1. Missile-spam.
2. Lots of battleships. For the same price as an average SDN ($250 billion), I can get 25 BBCNs. I'll lose some of those ships, but I'll lose less than he will because that SDN will go down.
3. Die Teufelbombe. Superbomb to the max. 600 tons, explodes with the force of over 300 tons of TNT.
4. Naval mines. They aren't expected to actually sink an SDN (though its possible), but exploding at a large enough distance that they'll cause resonance within the hull will destroy lots of machinery and break the legs of a good number of crewmen. If you can't put out to sea, you are as good as sunk.
Beth Gellert
21-11-2005, 02:52
Yeah, that's all well and good, but I don't like it because I just don't see it as very realistic. It becomes a borderline numberwank, or else diverts into more theoretical technology that I don't think players ought to be drawn into unless they choose to play PMT or what have you. It's silly, in the modern world, in any realistic universe, we wouldn't be forced to do any of those things to deal with SDs, and so, since I'm playing in as realistic a universe as possible, I'd rather not do it.
Mondoth
21-11-2005, 02:53
3. Die Teufelbombe. Superbomb to the max. 600 tons, explodes with the force of over 300 tons of TNT.


if a bomb weighs 600 tons and explodes with the force of 300 tons of TNT wouldn't it be more efficient (and cheaper) to just use TNT? heck, C-4 is more powerful than TNT and you could make a coupla high power HESH rounds, that would put a dent in any SDN
Civitas Americae
21-11-2005, 02:55
if a bomb weighs 600 tons and explodes with the force of 300 tons of TNT wouldn't it be more efficient (and cheaper) to just use TNT? heck, C-4 is more powerful than TNT and you could make a coupla high power HESH rounds, that would put a dent in any SDN

It uses Tritonal, which is 18% more powerful than TNT. Bombs cannot devote all of their weight to explosives.
Dostanuot Loj
21-11-2005, 03:01
You don't have to. I currently have four different ways of smacking superdreadnoughts within MT:
1. Missile-spam.
2. Lots of battleships. For the same price as an average SDN ($250 billion), I can get 25 BBCNs. I'll lose some of those ships, but I'll lose less than he will because that SDN will go down.
3. Die Teufelbombe. Superbomb to the max. 600 tons, explodes with the force of over 300 tons of TNT.
4. Naval mines. They aren't expected to actually sink an SDN (though its possible), but exploding at a large enough distance that they'll cause resonance within the hull will destroy lots of machinery and break the legs of a good number of crewmen. If you can't put out to sea, you are as good as sunk.



It's long been my policy to just nuke it.
An SD appears off my coast (Won't even get into the impossibilities of that geographically), then I'll nuke it with whatever size bomb I decide is nessecary. I really don't care what the owner of the SD has to say about it.
People say nukes are RP killers, well, so are SD's. And I don't think this is the place to debate it (There was a debate about nuking SD's before).

Of course I'll never have to deal with that because I have chosen to completely ignore SD's in RP. And since this is freeform RP, I can do so.
I'll never have to nuke an SD and deal with any of the supposed consequences of deploying a nuke against an SD because no one can force me to recognise an SD as legitimate (Unless they have a gun to my head, where they deserve their SD being nuked at least anyway).
McKagan
21-11-2005, 03:07
It's long been my policy to just nuke it.
An SD appears off my coast (Won't even get into the impossibilities of that geographically), then I'll nuke it with whatever size bomb I decide is nessecary. I really don't care what the owner of the SD has to say about it.
People say nukes are RP killers, well, so are SD's. And I don't think this is the place to debate it (There was a debate about nuking SD's before).

Of course I'll never have to deal with that because I have chosen to completely ignore SD's in RP. And since this is freeform RP, I can do so.
I'll never have to nuke an SD and deal with any of the supposed consequences of deploying a nuke against an SD because no one can force me to recognise an SD as legitimate (Unless they have a gun to my head, where they deserve their SD being nuked at least anyway).

Same here.

People say that if someone nukes their SD, they'll respond with a full scale counter attack on said nation.

However, I doubt many people would do that in an actual RP. Most people these days deploy the majority of their nukes in submarines. Which means if you nuke the holy hell out of someones mainland, their strategic arsonel is still active.
Dostanuot Loj
21-11-2005, 03:12
Same here.

People say that if someone nukes their SD, they'll respond with a full scale counter attack on said nation.

However, I doubt many people would do that in an actual RP. Most people these days deploy the majority of their nukes in submarines. Which means if you nuke the holy hell out of someones mainland, their strategic arsonel is still active.


Besides, what's to stop someone seeing an SD off their coast as a full scale declaration of war and deciding that it's best to escelate?
If you know the other person is going to nuke you if you nuke their ship, then just all out nuke them first. Then of course they argue OOCly, and the RP is ruined, all because of the appearance of an SD.

But this is a little off topic, and best suited for the long dead topic regarding it.
Beth Gellert
21-11-2005, 03:14
I don't like to back people into corners over it, so much, since I don't like that happening to me, but I just really wish that people would keep their more fantastical weapons outside the modern domain.

They can have their SDs and their sub-orbital and hypersonic jets and their fancy nearly-practical stealth and anti-stealth measures and their mass-issue bulletproof performance enhancing combat suits, and their eighty tonne ETC-cannon-weilding tanks, but recognise that there's no need if you don't want to, and some of us don't want to, because we're still interested in today, as well as tomorrow [or a theoretical today that, if we really get down to it, just allows me to say, well, since BG never suffered the counter-scientific impact of, for example, the inquisition, we're several centuries more advanced than you in 2005 and we just installed an off-switch on your leader].

It's fine, but put it somewhere else, the modern world is still having fun with what the modern world has.
Xirnium
21-11-2005, 03:34
If we did things that way, MT RPs would be inanely boring, wtih everyone using G-11s and Abrams tanks.

Why should using modern technology be boring?
Yallak
21-11-2005, 09:06
Yeah, that's all well and good, but I don't like it because I just don't see it as very realistic. It becomes a borderline numberwank, or else diverts into more theoretical technology that I don't think players ought to be drawn into unless they choose to play PMT or what have you. It's silly, in the modern world, in any realistic universe, we wouldn't be forced to do any of those things to deal with SDs, and so, since I'm playing in as realistic a universe as possible, I'd rather not do it.

That's not true. SD's are just really big battleships so long as their equipment is kept MT. And realistically, if your playing a realistic universe then if someone builds an SD you have to deal with it (as long as its not a godmodded one) and is still a MT SD.
Just like in RL - when the germans built the Tripitz - the Allies couldn't just go 'piss off thats not fair i choose not play" - they had to think up tactics to beat it (like massive airstrikes by torpedo planes) - same with the Japanese Yamato (USA went for many Sub attacks as far as i know).
Thrashia
21-11-2005, 09:36
A simple question: are super dreadnoughts PMT or MT? What is considered PMT for a SD and what is MT?

Next time, in the title of the thread, state whether the conversation is MT or PMT plz. Especially if you put SD in the title. The first thing that comes to mind is not a boat floating on water.
Callisdrun
21-11-2005, 09:37
That's not true. SD's are just really big battleships so long as their equipment is kept MT. And realistically, if your playing a realistic universe then if someone builds an SD you have to deal with it (as long as its not a godmodded one) and is still a MT SD.
Just like in RL - when the germans built the Tripitz - the Allies couldn't just go 'piss off thats not fair i choose not play" - they had to think up tactics to beat it (like massive airstrikes by torpedo planes) - same with the Japanese Yamato (USA went for many Sub attacks as far as i know).

Actually, the Tirpitz was not all that enormous, had an obsolete armor scheme, and an armament that was outgunned by the British Nelson class and the US North Carolina and South Dakota classes.

The Yamato was sunk through a massive air strike, not submarines.
Callisdrun
21-11-2005, 09:39
Next time, in the title of the thread, state whether the conversation is MT or PMT plz. Especially if you put SD in the title. The first thing that comes to mind is not a boat floating on water.

Super Dreadnought is what I thought of when I saw the title. What did you think of?
Gelfland
21-11-2005, 09:54
I consider use of WMD against SDs to be perfectly acceptable. but I'll usually wait until the second bombing run. the first one I'll use more conventional weapons, like 22,000-pound bombs.
Barkozy
21-11-2005, 13:04
I think the problem with SDs being MT is that money is no issue in NS. All it takes to have SDs are some stats and some time being here. I don't want to see draconian rules about tracking your economy, so, we use the tech system to protect people.
Thrashia
21-11-2005, 13:20
Super Dreadnought is what I thought of when I saw the title. What did you think of?

I'm an FT player, and if you've only thought of Super Dreadnought when you saw SD, then you've been under a rock for the last 30 years.

Get what I mean now?
Otagia
21-11-2005, 15:35
Why should using modern technology be boring?

No originality. With real stuff, like it or not there is a predefined "best," whether said best is a type of tank, a certain model rifle, etc. Thus, most everyone will be using said best design. If you're allowed to make your own designs, it mixes things up a bit and keeps people from saying stupid things about what would work and what wouldn't. Well, sometimes....
Xirnium
21-11-2005, 16:00
No originality. With real stuff, like it or not there is a predefined "best," whether said best is a type of tank, a certain model rifle, etc. Thus, most everyone will be using said best design. If you're allowed to make your own designs, it mixes things up a bit and keeps people from saying stupid things about what would work and what wouldn't. Well, sometimes....

In my opinion what is “best” is conjectural and there is plenty of room for diversity. Also I think originality is about much more then tech.

Plus, I find claims of "saying stupid things about what would work and what wouldn't" strictly involve cases where people create their own designs (though it's not that, per say, that is the problem, the problem is people who techwank), but meh.
Beth Gellert
21-11-2005, 16:13
Well, that's not true at all, Otagia, unless you happen to be or happen to associate with poor RPers. BG spent ages with two squadrons of retro sixties jets as the core of its airforce before I moved on, and there are nations that choose to deploy T-55s and play poor economies even though some others won't accept that there's more to RP than selecting the right issues on one's nation page.

Besides, there's not a split between real-world systems and hyper mega never-going-to-have-a-real-life-parallel systems like SDs. BG uses almost entirely original native equipment, and none of it would be out of place if some nation or firm developed it today, where as an SD would be the laughing stock of the world if somebody launched one this afternoon.
Otagia
21-11-2005, 17:34
Well, that's not true at all, Otagia, unless you happen to be or happen to associate with poor RPers. BG spent ages with two squadrons of retro sixties jets as the core of its airforce before I moved on, and there are nations that choose to deploy T-55s and play poor economies even though some others won't accept that there's more to RP than selecting the right issues on one's nation page.

Besides, there's not a split between real-world systems and hyper mega never-going-to-have-a-real-life-parallel systems like SDs. BG uses almost entirely original native equipment, and none of it would be out of place if some nation or firm developed it today, where as an SD would be the laughing stock of the world if somebody launched one this afternoon.

Then you currently follow my philosophy, using original designs. The way I interpreted Call to Power's post (and he leaves little to debate), he would think that even a new assault rifle using RL tech would be PMT. I think that SDs are quite rediculous, but they ARE quite feasible IRL, just horribly inefficient.
Strathdonia
21-11-2005, 18:24
I'm an FT player, and if you've only thought of Super Dreadnought when you saw SD, then you've been under a rock for the last 30 years.

Get what I mean now?

Of Course to my mind even in FT an SD is still A Super Dreadnought but then i like to keep the traditional designation system rather than use any of Lucas's silly warrbling, anyway to me a Star destroyer would be some kind of FTL-capable escort vessel But thats just me of course Super Dreadnoughts are best designated as SDNs and dreads as DNs unless you want to start adding the Nucelar designation (SDNN, DNN).

Personally my old rule for MT was if it could be in service by 2015, ie the DDx, 1st gen ETC guns, EB-52s, F-35, stand off ramjet missiles etc etc, basically stuff that is actually fairly far along in testing a developement or actually has a projected development and testing timescale. Hence why i could have an 80ton ETC totting tank, it just wasn't all that good, so it got repalced by an even more powerful tank that while better had its own host of problems (new gun barrel every other week due to the stupid stresses imparted by a ETC system that used temps a bit higher than was really safe).

To be perfectly honest i would push SDs into the PMT time scale due to the sheer effort involved in biulding them and the time taken, if we were to RP the actual biudling time you would be fitting PMT weapons to the hull once it was actually biult.
Questers
21-11-2005, 18:48
Then you currently follow my philosophy, using original designs. The way I interpreted Call to Power's post (and he leaves little to debate), he would think that even a new assault rifle using RL tech would be PMT. I think that SDs are quite rediculous, but they ARE quite feasible IRL, just horribly inefficient.

Um..so please tell me what, IRL, could sink a ship with 30" of belt armour, 12,000 missiles, and 25" guns?

Again, if you nuke my superdreadnought, I'm not going to fire missiles in the millions at you but I will use my nearby SSBNs to start firing tactical nukes onto your main cities. If you escalate, I will escalate too. There's a line between conventional weaponry and WMD and unless both RPers are fully mature enough to RP it properly the line is best left Berlin-style.
Otagia
21-11-2005, 19:04
24,000 missiles courtesy of a fleet of smaller ships?
Questers
21-11-2005, 19:13
Um..I doubt the possibility of even the US Pacific Fleet launching 24,000 missiles at the same time O.o
Mini Miehm
21-11-2005, 19:15
Um..so please tell me what, IRL, could sink a ship with 30" of belt armour, 12,000 missiles, and 25" guns?

Again, if you nuke my superdreadnought, I'm not going to fire missiles in the millions at you but I will use my nearby SSBNs to start firing tactical nukes onto your main cities. If you escalate, I will escalate too. There's a line between conventional weaponry and WMD and unless both RPers are fully mature enough to RP it properly the line is best left Berlin-style.


What can sink it IRL? Other than a Nuke? Well, lemme see, since it only has 30 inch BELT armor, I'm thinking that a properly deployed torpedo could take it out, if it hit below the belt.
Questers
21-11-2005, 19:26
Yes because I did not include every detail you can imagine that this ship has no:

Engine (I did not mention how it is powered)
DP Guns (Didn't mention them)
CIWS (You don't need that! oh, wait..)
Systems (Who needs RADAR, SONAR, and LIDAR when I have..BINOCULARS!)
Other armour (The Iowa was only armoured in one place, new reports from Bullshit Inc. Show)
Complement (Yes they are all machines)
Aviation (UAV? HELO? NAAAAAH)

Please before you say stupid things actually use your brain, I'm pretty sure you have one (or am I?)
Mini Miehm
21-11-2005, 19:33
Yes because I did not include every detail you can imagine that this ship has no:

Engine (I did not mention how it is powered)
DP Guns (Didn't mention them)
CIWS (You don't need that! oh, wait..)
Systems (Who needs RADAR, SONAR, and LIDAR when I have..BINOCULARS!)
Other armour (The Iowa was only armoured in one place, new reports from Bullshit Inc. Show)
Complement (Yes they are all machines)
Aviation (UAV? HELO? NAAAAAH)

Please before you say stupid things actually use your brain, I'm pretty sure you have one (or am I?)


You know what I mean, now quit being an unmitigated ass.

Ships are much more lightly armored below the water line, and especially at the very bottom of their hulls, which would be the target of my torpedo, add in a terminal attack maneuver, and your ass is holed, well below the waterline.
Questers
21-11-2005, 19:35
Sorry, I forgot that all modern submarines are impossibly quiet and their torpedoes can destroy highly advanced battleships with ease, after sneaking up into range against twenty destroyers and a solid number of ASW Helicopters

I seem to be forgetful today, where has my medicine gone..
The Macabees
21-11-2005, 19:37
Well, even a WWII aircraft carrier could take four or five torpedoes, so it would be safe to say that a superdreadnought could take seven to ten - that's assuming they even get there with PMT ashum guns. I'm not saying it's impossible to destroy a SD, I am proponent of conventional methods of destroying them, and I have destroyed them before through better RPing [in general that's the way to do it], but you're never going to find a method to destroy a SD in one hit - in fact, by calling a super dreadnought unrealistic for not dying in one hit you're saying your missiles are unrealistic.
Mini Miehm
21-11-2005, 19:39
Sorry, I forgot that all modern submarines are impossibly quiet and their torpedoes can destroy highly advanced battleships with ease, after sneaking up into range against twenty destroyers and a solid number of ASW Helicopters

I seem to be forgetful today, where has my medicine gone..

We never said there were other units around, this is all hypothetical, torpedo vs SD, if I had said SD task force, you might have a case, but I didn't, and you don't.
Mini Miehm
21-11-2005, 19:43
Well, even a WWII aircraft carrier could take four or five torpedoes, so it would be safe to say that a superdreadnought could take seven to ten - that's assuming they even get there with PMT ashum guns. I'm not saying it's impossible to destroy a SD, I am proponent of conventional methods of destroying them, and I have destroyed them before through better RPing [in general that's the way to do it], but you're never going to find a method to destroy a SD in one hit - in fact, by calling a super dreadnought unrealistic for not dying in one hit you're saying your missiles are unrealistic.


Ship armor has, IRL, generally become much lighter, and, consequently, less able to protect the ship, since WWII, and in WWII, the torps always hit at or around the belt. I'm talking about directly below, because at the very bottom of the hull, there is effectively no armor, making it the best weak point to exploit on any ship, not justSDs.
The Macabees
21-11-2005, 19:48
Ship armor has, IRL, generally become much lighter, and, consequently, less able to protect the ship, since WWII, and in WWII, the torps always hit at or around the belt. I'm talking about directly below, because at the very bottom of the hull, there is effectively no armor, making it the best weak point to exploit on any ship, not justSDs.


Uh no, ships IRL have become much lighter, especially with the mothballing of the BBs; but if a BB was to come out the armour would not be lighter - in fact, it could be heavier. Aircraft carriers actually have more armour than older CVNs, especially on the decks. And most ships have bulkheads for torpedo defenses, not armour. Again, it would take four to five torpedoes, and heavyweight at that, to destroy a CVN.
Oda noh Nobunaga
21-11-2005, 20:01
Of Course to my mind even in FT an SD is still A Super Dreadnought but then i like to keep the traditional designation system rather than use any of Lucas's silly warrbling, anyway to me a Star destroyer would be some kind of FTL-capable escort vessel But thats just me of course Super Dreadnoughts are best designated as SDNs and dreads as DNs unless you want to start adding the Nucelar designation (SDNN, DNN).



Advice: avoid saying this within 2 miles distance of the nearest SW convention near you.

2nd Advice: Avoid typing this in public domain where SW fans are bound to be since they populate a large portion of the earth.

3rd Advice: Change your name and move to a different country, its your only hope.

Final Word: If in a FT mind-set SD means Super Dreadnought to you...then your lacking, I have to agree with Thrash on that point.
Spizania
21-11-2005, 20:23
The best way of taking out a superdreadnaught is using two of your own
Callisdrun
21-11-2005, 21:47
I'm an FT player, and if you've only thought of Super Dreadnought when you saw SD, then you've been under a rock for the last 30 years.

Get what I mean now?

I haven't even been alive for the last thirty years. I don't play future tech. At all. I play weird modern tech/post-modern tech.

I see from previous posts that you meant Star Destroyer. Just because I don't think of something from Star Wars when I see the letters "SD" doesn't mean I've been under a rock.

Anyway, the best way to destroy an SD without a nuke is through the use of large numbers of torpedos. Of course, to do this you need to open up a hole in the escorts (presumably the SD has escorts, as it's beyond reckless to put a target that huge out there alone) for the subs to go through.

They could also presumably be destroyed when they're vulnerable, in port, like any other ship. You can use sabotage to accomplish this, for a relatively cheap operation.
Mini Miehm
21-11-2005, 21:53
Actually, now that I think about it, a KEW or FAE would be your best bet, since FAEs tend to destroy or badly damage everything within about 3km, and KEWs just make things blow the hell up.
Strathdonia
22-11-2005, 13:40
Advice: avoid saying this within 2 miles distance of the nearest SW convention near you.

2nd Advice: Avoid typing this in public domain where SW fans are bound to be since they populate a large portion of the earth.

3rd Advice: Change your name and move to a different country, its your only hope.

Final Word: If in a FT mind-set SD means Super Dreadnought to you...then your lacking, I have to agree with Thrash on that point.

Its not my fault i read SAci-Fi and space opera that isn't just a bunch of random ideas cobbled together with a hole filled vaguely mystical story line ;)

Star wars is cool but to base your ship designation scheme on it seems a bit silly unless you are actually RPing as "the" empire.
Iuthia
22-11-2005, 14:39
A simple question: are super dreadnoughts PMT or MT? What is considered PMT for a SD and what is MT?

This one is simple enough for me. I concider everything that is currently available and in common use to be Modern Technology, this means that the Super Dreadnought is doesn't fit into this description for me. Sure, it possible that the SD could be built with todays technology, but I've always felt that the point of modern technology is for those who want to play in a fictional world much like exists today with weapons and technology that can be looked up from living examples, originally most Modern Technology wars in NS were like larger versions of the cold war, Russia vs. America on drugs using technologies they both had.

If we start using techonology which could technically exist, it won't take long before we slip into Post Modern Technology by saying "well, we have been able to do this for quite a while, but no one put the effort into it because of budget problems" and then we end up with a highly unconventional modern technology. No longer do we have a stable technology base, but something that slides with the theoretical technology we see on many military websites.

But meh, thats all just my opinion though. Personally my nation has always been pretty far into Post Modern Technology, so the point is pretty moot. I just don't think the SD belongs in a modern technology setting where I'd expect more conventional modern combat. Though I suppose I view the most SDs as being Doujin-ripoffs, a vessel which even Freethinker (it's maker) agrees isn't modern technology.

Furthermore, most modern technology nations these days actually feel more like a low level post modern technology. Just a little ahead of todays technology and using the ideas that are still prototypes in real life as canon for their army. Though I suppose it really doesn't matter... I'm happily sitting in PMT.
Iuthia
22-11-2005, 15:19
Again, if you nuke my superdreadnought, I'm not going to fire missiles in the millions at you but I will use my nearby SSBNs to start firing tactical nukes onto your main cities. If you escalate, I will escalate too. There's a line between conventional weaponry and WMD and unless both RPers are fully mature enough to RP it properly the line is best left Berlin-style.

You know, I really enjoy seeing people state this, I think I'm going to have Noitan Teppup change it's deterrence policies to make the use of tactical nuclear weapons automatic in defending their waters against invading fleets... I imagine it would work on the same lines your deterence against tactical nuclear weapons on your SD, as you would know right from the offset that invading them would result in mutual destruction, much in the same way that using tactical nuclear weapons against an SD will also result in MAD.

But thats just me, generally I don't trust such policies in NS as there are too many crazy nations that don't respect the idea of a nuclear deterrent... I wouldn't be surprised to see an SD get nuked one of these days and result in either: a) Both nations nuking one another into craters. b) Ignore.
Otagia
22-11-2005, 17:17
Though I suppose I view the most SDs as being Doujin-ripoffs, a vessel which even Freethinker (it's maker) agrees isn't modern technology.

Just out of curiosity, how many people know what a Doujin is? Not the boat, the RL thing?
Kroblexskij
22-11-2005, 17:42
there are two ways.

The nostalgic SD - my personal favourite

its a big big battlesruiser basically. imagine a bismarck x 4.
larges guns, few missiles, flak cannons and machine guns none of yer ETC crap.

the modern SD - my personal despise

its a fancy stealthy radar, missile, ETC, vstol,
like a modern USS cowpens x 10 plus a landing strip.


you could have an old SD or a new SD its a choice.
I do not field any SDs but i might design a "nostalgic" SD.
Yallak
23-11-2005, 02:42
Ships are much more lightly armored below the water line, and especially at the very bottom of their hulls, which would be the target of my torpedo, add in a terminal attack maneuver, and your ass is holed, well below the waterline.

Not always so. My ships have double bottomed hulls. So even if you manage to blow through the first - theres a no. 2.
Beth Gellert
23-11-2005, 03:15
Iuthia's stance on the original question is something of a relief to me, because I was getting the impression that I was damn near alone... except that BG is using the modern-tech setting s/he describes, rather than being aware of it and using PMT anyway.

There's not much point to this post, I just wanted to express some general agreement with another poster, for once :)
Layarteb
23-11-2005, 03:17
Pmt