The Time Has Come. We need some rules to keep this thing straightened out.
2035 is 25 years and a few months away. Nothing will be reality then that isn't being researched now.
MECHS: The idea of a legged tank is by no means too futuristic. However, with modern technology, they would be slow, awkward, and noisy.
LASERS: Lasers are real. They're even being researched as weapons. The US has a laser AAA site and the AL-1, a Boeing 747 with a laser turret mounted on the front. Both operate on similar principles. Rather then launch a warhead, the laser heats up and ignites already existing targets, whether it's a fuel tank on an airplane, or in the case of the AL-1, a ballistic missile's warhead.
So it's real. But here are the things to think of. First, it would never work as an anti-infantry weapon. It would pass right through, neatly searing the edges of the wound, thus preventing bleeding. It would hurt like heck, but an AK-47 is much more efficient. Second, it's a general's nightmare. Current weapons-grade lasers require huge amounts of power, as well as chemical cooling agents. Suppose an enemy A-10 dropped a bomb on your supply truck of toxic coolants...not good news.
GAUSS GUNS/RAILGUNS: Scientifically, they’re sound. Economically, stay away from ‘em. They cost so much electricity to run, that one railgun tested by the US Navy used enough power to run half of Chicago for six months. Now there’s people who can pay that bill, but there’s nobody who can truly afford it. But using the same technology…
ELECTROMAGNETICS: With scaled down versions of railgun equipment, the US Navy (and certainly others will follow) has begun installing electromagnetic catapults on their aircraft carriers. Cheaper and cleaner then steam.
SPACE EXPLORATION: Are we gonna colonize Mars by 2035? Nope. Will we make it outside the Solar System in two decades? Nope. Think of it this way: I’ll be 41 years old in 2035. People will probably have gotten to Mars. But it’ll be too expensive to keep them supplied for extended stays. Resource collection while there would be limited by time, plus the greenies wouldn’t let ya. :-P
PLASMA: As for weapons…I’ll quote an encyclopedia article. “While both of these proposals are scientifically feasible, practical applications are beyond our current level of technology.” There ya are. Plasma does have potential as a possible means of Nuclear Fusion power, but such plants would be in their infancy by 2035. Another possible use is Ion Engines (Like the TIE Fighters of SW fame), which provide a weak-but-steady source of acceleration for spacecraft: however, Ion engines are too weak to bust out of the atmosphere and would only be used on Space probes. Permalink
This is designed to be real-time. An eight-month campaign takes eight months. I think most of you know this by now, but there are some…well, they make me wonder.
Want to take over an empty spot on the map? First off, contact an Admin to make sure it’s OK. If we reply that it’s empty, well and good. Now you get to fight for it. It may be that other nations have interests there, or that they take your presence as a threat. Plus, even though it’s uncontrolled, there are still people there. So first:
Count up your army. Don’t forget to take into consideration how large your nation is, and thus how many men to leave on guard. Take into consideration any troops in other occupied areas, or that are already involved in other campaigns.
Do some research on your opponent. Count up their guys. Remember, it’s life or death for them, so they won’t hesitate to pull all their guys home. And their guards will all be in the front lines. Defense always has the geographical advantage.
Consider your opponent’s allies. Does he have any? Are there people that would want to defend his land for their own purposes? Would the CAS feel threatened by allies of the RA taking over Korea? Siberia? Make a few subtle hints in the forum; size up the opposition. There will be many times you’ll have to add allied forces to your enemies tally.
Do you have allies in this campaign? If so, ask how many men and supplies they’ll be committing to the theater. Add that to your tally.
When all’s counted up, look at the odds. If they’re in your favor, great. If they’re against you, you might want to reconsider. If they’re kinda even, skip on to the tactical and strategic considerations.
TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS:
Look at your economy versus your enemies. Which of you is better equipped to keep your men supplied over long periods of time? If you end up in a stalemate, the man with the greater economy behind his back is fated to win.
Look at a map. Where are you, and where is your enemy? How are you going to transport your men to his territory? Do you have the transports to do it? I noticed few of us remembered transports in our military line-ups – that’s an important thing to remember.
Once you’re there, where will you launch the attack? How? When? Will you Black-Hawk Special Forces behind his lines? Blast him with an aerial attack? Launch a modern-day D-Day? Remember that Power without Air Power, in the modern world, is no power.
If you plan correctly, and are militarily and economically capable of doing it, you can commence with your campaign, and probably conquer. If you’re on the border, think twice. If the odds are against you, don’t even think about it. And if the enemy has allies, you’re gonna find yourself in a strategic battle with allied leaders.
If we can, we will find a more fair way to decide who wins. But so far, all the battles I’ve seen could be won or lost simply by measuring the odds, or by checking with neutral theme members and asking which team seems to know what they’re talking about most, AKA ‘has better strategy’. Permalink
In note to the rule of railguns/gauss cannons, the US military is developing a Stryker-based unit that uses on-board generators to great an electrical static. The static is concentrated and then utilized to launch a projectile. Much of the unit utilizes nanotechnology to accomplish the relatively scaled-generators. Permalink
Quoting Dr. Spontaneous
In note to the rule of railguns/gauss cannons, the US military is developing a Stryker-based unit that uses on-board generators to great an electrical static. The static is concentrated and then utilized to launch a projectile. Much of the unit utilizes nanotechnology to accomplish the relatively scaled-generators.
Quoting Jeffery Smith
Excellent, Michael. Very clear explaination. But one little thing was wrong, the MU's eight month campaign was actually eight months. I started it back in October and just recently finished it.
Oh, that was in no way intended to pick on you. You and Dr. S seemed to have that one down right off the bat. Eight months was chosen at random...s'pose I should pay more attention in the forums. :-) Permalink
Quoting Cole Atelian
What about lasers as a vehical mounted anti-tank weapon.
Again, it's scientifically feasable, but not quite as practical as it seems. Right now the smallest weapon-grade laser is the size of a semi trailer. By 2035 it would be scaled down considerably, but still huge in comparison with a 105mm. So it's a go-ahead if you want to, but bear in mind it's gonna be a big vehicle...maybe convert an APC or something. Permalink
Quoting Jeffery Smith
Just think of what we did to Iraq when we found out they had chemical WMDs with the intent to use them and you'll get an idea what happens to you if you use them or intend to use them.
Well when I was but a young clonetard I used something that I called the X-10 bio rocket on Bruno Vaiano. I was also still a member of the RA under Michael. Permalink
Guys. This question involve one of my MOC. Do laser are powerfull enough to at least damage an aircraft? If not. Im taking out my AMF 17 from the group. And will be replace with a more "realistic" fighter..
also what's minimum requirement for MOC in this group? i heard some protest about member are 2-3 MOCs short and i though maybe im one of them( less MOCs) Permalink