I have finished small arms and AFVs.

I need to do towed guns, airpower, naval power. history, and international relations.

Omega said
Kilo, what do you think of the idea of a universal dating system?

Uhhhh..... hmmmmm.... I haven't really though of that..... Do mean like having everyone have the same calender? if so, than yeah, generally speaking we are all on the same calender. In terms of like, time zones, I don't to get that detailed and nitty gritty on that. Same reason why I don't require specific specs for vehicles or resources. That sort of stuff always seems to be more annoying than really useful. Sort of takes out the fun fantasy style of things. Anyway, I'm getting a little off topic here.

So yes to calender, no to timezones.

That is what I meant and again I like your mindset towards GMing NRPs as I have a similar one with keeping things open for people.

Anyone have any ideas for what the date should be based off of?

The year is 2340! Sometime in mid spring. Can't really think of any cool or original names of months right now.... iz tired.

Well the question is what happened 2340 years ago to change the calender?

Zaresto said
Why do we have all these people defaulting to mechs? They kinda suck.

It's looking more half and half to me. Also, I've always thought of mechs as being more maneuverable compared to tanks. Nonetheless, two of my mechs are really just very large troop transports for convenience's sake, the other walker is more of a design than something to be used as often. And the one I accidently put in as a tank, well, actually looks more like a tank with mech legs to me. Either way, I suppose it's preference. I really planned on using a lot of the ground support imports provided by urukhai once we get trade arranged.

Omega said
Well the question is what happened 2340 years ago to change the calender?

We have a few very religious and very not religious nations here. I'm assuming, since calenders are often based off such things, that a religious figure died. Each of these nations would have seen it differently, but definitely an important part of history nonetheless. Like, athiest nations might see it as a cornerstone or turning point in the downfall organized religion, whereas religious nations might view it another, such as transcendence and what not.

The Administration would base theirs off a decimal system. They'd divide the year into one hundred, and 'days' into ten, and 'hours' into one hundred. This would be for ease of recording when events occurred. However, as this does not in fact conform to the natural system of days and years, this is not used in normal, everyday life.

For this, I suggest we don't base it so much on religion- not just because there are atheist nations, but also because there are many different unrelated religions. I propose a more arbitrary 'common era' style date- for example, maybe the most powerful nations just decided on a date in order to help trading. This would in my opinion be more likely than a random religion deciding that they'll date everything by the birth of some other religion's deity.

Another suggestion could be that it's based on the fall of some large empire- perhaps a large swathe of the continent was part of such an empire, meaning that when it split into multiple states, it had huge, long-lasting effects on that whole region. Other nations (who hadn't been part of the empire, and so had been relatively unaffected) would have to adopt their dating system, as otherwise they'd just be placing barriers over their trade- sort of like how Chinese people have adopted ACE for international functions.

As for months, if we didn't want to just copy the dating system we have nowadays, we could have thirteen months with twenty-eight days each. There would be a leap year every ten years, I think. However, this could just unnecessarily complicate matters; it's really up to which you prefer: being different enough from reality, or being easy to use.

In terms of naming the months, please don't just think of cool names. It would be great if there was actually a reason behind each name, and amazing if they were tied to our nations (e.g. Machina as a month, named after the church of the machine...)

Zaresto said
Why do we have all these people defaulting to mechs? They kinda suck.

Honestly its because they are better mobile weapons platforms, while tanks are better frontline fighting vehicles. In the case of Mechs that mount Artillery cannons, they have higher sight lines, and could possibly reach areas that tanks would find impassable do to the danger of high centering, no traction, etc. In this they would be more maneuverable and adaptable

Zaresto said
That doesn't excuse the fact that mechs in this era of technology are horrible compared to tanks.

Well... no.. not really. Lets assume the mech uses the same engines as tanks, that means their main problems would come from the same problems that face tanks of the same era. That would be Horsepower problems of various models, or (as in the case of tanks like the Sherman) fuel problems, slow high speeds, and weight problems (though this could be rectified in a Mech by adding better lode bearing legs, but that would cause the first problem to most likely occur, a catch 22 if you will). Not only that but while some mechs can substitute tanks on the field, the majority play a heavy support role, or a mobile "static" defense role (an oxymoron I know), thus most are different than tanks. Those that are built to take on tanks are just that, built to take on tanks. They carry heavy cannons and various other implements used in tank killing, but are usually prone to being overrun, just like tanks. But in all honesty they probably have different engines, and so their own set of problems. An if you were referencing the whole "But the are bigger targets", yes they are but refer back to the point that they are usually used as mobile "static" defenses , they would be made to take huge punishment. Other than that the others could mount similar armor to the tanks.

Sorry if that sounded angry or attack like, it wasn't meant to. It was just written in a dead tired state

Mechs are worse than tanks. Or rather, if you have the technological capabilities to build mechs better than tanks, you could build something else much better. This is evidenced by the fact that no military in the world uses mechs, but nearly all of them use tanks. For example, instead of mechs you could just build a much faster, more mobile tank, or even make 'power armour' for normal soldiers.

Usurper King said
Mechs are worse than tanks. Or rather, if you have the technological capabilities to build mechs better than tanks, you could build something else much better. This is evidenced by the fact that no military in the world uses mechs, but nearly all of them use tanks. For example, instead of mechs you could just build a much faster, more mobile tank, or even make 'power armour' for normal soldiers.

Well we could argue this for days I guess, but the militaries do not use mechs because they are, like you said, not feasible in this day and age. That said if we had the technology to build good mechas, we would probably have some of both. With a mech you can transverse almost all types of terrain. Hell a mech can climb stairs and over barricades and things. Sure they are easy to trip or knock down, but if you have the tech to build them in the first place you can figure out a way to get back up. Also Mechs have more uses, they have finer coordination than say a crane. There are many more arguments, but I'll give you a chance to respond before I write a page.

And plus, they look hella cool.

Invictus said
And plus, they look hella cool.

Damn, I forgot to account for the 'looking damn fine' factor in my argument. Rule of cool always did triumph over reality...

Personally, I think that if the military had reached the required technologies for a mech they would just use that technology to figure out a way to make existing tank designs more manoeuvrable. Less money spent that way, plus you can upgrade tanks already in action. But you are right: we could just argue about this for days, or we could actually get some role-play done. Speaking of which: does anyone want to trade food for low cost goods such as pots, pans, common engine parts and cookers- basically anything that would be made in China nowadays?

Usurper King said
Damn, I forgot to account for the 'looking damn fine' factor in my argument. Rule of cool always did triumph over reality...Personally, I think that if the military had reached the required technologies for a mech they would just use that technology to figure out a way to make existing tank designs more manoeuvrable. Less money spent that way, plus you can upgrade tanks already in action. But you are right: we just argue about this for days, or we could actually get some role-play done. Speaking of which: does anyone want to trade food for low cost goods such as pots, pans, common engine parts and cookers- basically anything that would be made in China nowadays?

That rule always seems to triumph....

Anyway sure, I suppose we can work out an arrangement

Great. How much food could you deliver per year, would you say? So I can figure out roughly how many mouths your food could feed/year. Of course, the Administration will give you comparable amounts of goods...

Usurper King said
Damn, I forgot to account for the 'looking damn fine' factor in my argument. Rule of cool always did triumph over reality...

Yeah, for something that is in a made up game that many are playing...I'm sorry if I enjoy how something would look in a friggin Rp where Mechs can be just as effective as tanks.

As for nationwise, my nation is "slightly radically religious" so they aren't too keen on trade with heretics, but their production does include pots and pans among other produced things.

Oh, sorry, I meant I would be trading my goods for your food. The Solaran Administration has a distinct lack of agricultural land...

As for the heretic thing, that would normally work the other way too ('damn lie-spreading religious dogs!') but the Administration would definitely be ready to turn a blind eye if food was a possibility...although, if you produce goods yourself, a trade might not work out...

Usurper King said
Oh, sorry, I meant I would be trading my goods for your food. The Solaran Administration has a distinct lack of agricultural land...As for the heretic thing, that would normally work the other way too ('damn lie-spreading religious dogs!') but the Administration would definitely be ready to turn a blind eye if food was a possibility...although, if you produce goods yourself, a trade might not work out...

A shame about you producing goods also. As for the heretic thing, that was kinda why I decided to play a crazy religious nation. It caters to both side of the spectrum and allows for me to create freedom fighters/rebels within my own nation; allowing other nations to interact with the rebels in an indirect way to get at my nation.

But mechs cannot take recoil as well as tanks, which means that your aspirations for mechs to be these self-propelled anti-tank turrets aren't founded in reality. If you are going to factor that they can trip over often enough that you need to make specific technology just to get them back on their feet, what is the point? Why go up stairs with a mech when you could have a squad of men do it better? Why even go up mountainous terrain with a mech when you could ride up it with a powerful tank? Why go over barricades when you could smash through them, giving you an even bigger advantage.

Tanks are more mobile, easier to get a crew into, easier to hide, can have bigger guns, and can have more armor.

Tanks better, man.

Zaresto said
But mechs cannot take recoil as well as tanks, which means that your aspirations for mechs to be these self-propelled anti-tank turrets aren't founded in reality. If you are going to factor that they can trip over often enough that you need to make specific technology just to get them back on their feet, what is the point? Why go up stairs with a mech when you could have a squad of men do it better? Why even go up mountainous terrain with a mech when you could ride up it with a powerful tank? Why go over barricades when you could smash through them, giving you an even bigger advantage.Tanks are more mobile, easier to get a crew into, easier to hide, can have bigger guns, and can have more armor.Tanks better, man.

If we have flying battleships (which if you look at the disigns everyone is useing, also have no base in reality)
I don't honestly think recoil dampeners would be that far off, hell they would probably be in use on said battleships..

That's why you give them more than 2 legs and a low center of gravity, and legs that are able to bend to accommodate different shifts in walking patterns.

Psychological warfare that's why and perhaps its a veritable meat grinder that awates the squad at the top.

Steep slopes, loose rocks, and other terrain a tank would struggle to get up

See the first part about stairs, also why smash through it and ruin it in case of a counter attack?

Depends on the terrain, and power of the tanks engine.

Probably

Most definitely,

Not quite they would have comparable weapons and probably better armour (to counteract the whole not being able to hide)

Can I play a merc company funded and equipped by a private arms contractor stationed within an existing nation?