I guess with that ruling, what we can do to be 'delicate' is include some kind of disclaimer, I guess. Something that states that whatever characters say or do is obviously not in line with the beliefs of the writers, and that it is done purely for plot. I am glad the mods here have some sense, though.

Gotta have faith. These people know what they're doing. The era of Blackbird and Citricsquid are in the past for now.

POLAND STRONK

@vilageidiotx That reminds me, 'The Betrayed' would be a good title for me.

@vilageidiotx That reminds me, 'The Betrayed' would be a good title for me.

And Feo can have "The Retired"

They rained arrows down on he who stood against them, and showered with medals he who remained silent... ... because he was too inactive to oppose them.

* Brings Armenian Klansmen so I can say as many nwords as I want. *

Blame Hugs for the short post, he kept rushing me.

I hereby present to you the 100% complete, updated, finished and correct map of a world on the Precipice of War. Large version here: Bam! Heck if I can find a color for the Slavic Union if that happens though.

They rained arrows down on he who stood against them, and showered with medals he who remained silent... ... because he was too inactive to oppose them.

And when I was active, I broke a rule and joined in spamming. Yet I got the nice title.

So, in short we must block out the words with a *? What will they do next? Must we be force to put a * on bad words?

I doubt it. The mods here have some sense. Curse words are an important part of the way people talk. You can't have realistic characters without some curse words. I think the mods here understand that, since this is a roleplay forum and they know what is needed to make good characters and stories that people can take seriously. If we had to cover curse words with asterisks or replaced them with their silly counterparts (ei: fudge you), it'd really suck. Anyway, I'll have to continue my post tomorrow 'cause I'm tired as hell. I'm gonna sleep for once.

I need to catch up reading. I'm behind now that we have frequent posting. :P

So, I have a few more questions actually. So, since air technology is around 1930s(When the first jets appeared in Germany, Italy, and the UK and were god awful) What is the stance of land technology? Mostly in terms of small arms and tanks. I've been going around and keeping in mind Italy being around 1940-1951(Mmm, stripper clip fed semi-auto rifles OP) when it comes to that subject, but I'm not actually very sure. Clarification?

Nothing is absolutely set in stone. We don't enforce the use of certain kinds of weapons or vehicles. The only rules are 1) No jets unless you are the US, Spain or China (and even those are very early in development) 2) No advanced optics, radar, ect. 3) No missiles. Vehicles should be somewhere in the range of 40's to 70's tech, give or take, but without any of the more advanced optics or computer systems that vehicles started to use later on. Guns can follow a similar range but you may get a little more elbow-room there since firearms don't usually use any crazy computer tech. So any kind of gun that is 60's.. maybe 70's tech is probably fine as long as it doesn't have crazy optics and whatnot. I think the Spanish have night-vision goggles and the like, so they exist, but they are probably not available to everyone. The same goes for a lot of tech, both civilian and military. If it's do-able and it makes sense, you can get away with saying it exists, but it shouldn't be common. 40's - 50's tech makes sense for Italy, since they were an isolationist dictatorship until recently.

Alright, fair enough then. This is good since most of my knowledge about technology has to do with WW2 and Korean War era for military. Also, since Jets are in the early stages, that means they are still horrifically outclassed in all aspects(minus speed, and even then its only about a 100kph difference unless in a dive) by prop driven planes, right? Need to know should poor little Italy be forced to fight big China monster. (Or if anyone needs to know the capabilities of Jets in the early development and usage against propeller based aircraft)

Nah, I think jets are better than prop-planes. They are not that early-development. Gorgenmast, Aaron and Byrd all make reference to them being the fastest flying things people have seen, so I'm guessing they are more like 50s and 60s jets.

That is... quite a bit of development. Still prop planes would hold a good chance against Jets even if they are Korean war era...ish. I mean, the American P-80 Shooting Star top speed was around 898kph when armed for combat. A BF-109 K-4 (Which I assume Prussia would probably be using... or at least one very similar) has a top speed of around 720/710km/h, and has better acceleration, turn time, and climb speed would still be able to put up a good fight against it. The P-80 would have to line up, shoot, and then get away as fast as possible because if it missed(or hit, even then it was only .50 cals) all the cards suddenly went into the BF-109's hands. All the BF-109 has to do is hit the P-80 once with it's 30mm cannon and that thing is going down. Though, jets do have excellent energy retention compared to prop driven planes. When it turns, it may have a massive turn radius compared to a prop, it can keep it's speed up in that turn and get away. I'm mostly saying this for Village since he doesn't have jets, and is facing jets. Jets are cool, but in the end were only good for short quick passes instead of full out dogfights, which they would lose against props.

That's a lot of development if you insist jets in the 30s were anything like the ones we have now, or even like the ones a few decades ago. By 'early development', I meant that they are comparable to the jets we had when they actually started to become a thing immediately after WWII, when jets were still far from a mastered art. Another thing to keep in mind is that these jets' computer systems are probably very primitive. So they might be comparable to real-life jets, but only if you strip them of all the fancy computer stuff and replace them with very primitive versions.

The jet I listed was the US's fighter used in Korea, other then the P-51 Mustang. I'm not insisting the current jet technology is 30s level anymore, since I've been presented with the new information. Jets in the 30s were horrible, the Italian one couldn't even reach 400k/h. So, I was comparing a WW2 Fighter(Granted, a 1945 - years of development experience German bomber interceptor/fighter) to a 1949-Korean War era American jet fighter, not an early development jet like say the... Heinkel He 178, which had a top speed of only around 598 km/h(according to Wikipedia, knowledge of that jet is not something I have) I'd also like to correct a mistake I made earlier, the P-80 Shooting Star's top speed was actually around 950k/h. I was thinking of the very early development of the plane, not the one used a lot. Still, the advantages a jet has compared to a prop plane is the ability to choose when to engage. If the P-80 misses, all it has to do is just keep flying away, turn around once far enough, and go for another pass. I think the real question is if Chinese and Spanish pilots have the experience with said planes to understand that.

I don't think we need to go too far into specifics. What is important is that jets are fast. No need to over-complicate things more than that. Speed and all that is only important if we're playing a board game.