HazmatMedic said
You will be notified when you have been accepted.I tried having a list before, but it was taking forever to sift through the OOC responses to find nations. But I guess that's kind of negated with the NS dump up.

That's pretty lazy, just to be honest. I'll wait for you to read the Dominion's NS before I put "Accepted" at the bottom.

HazmatMedic said
Also, cannons on Galleons, Battleships and the like are more common and acceptable than Land Cannons.

Is that so? Tell me, how is a cannon on a galleon more common and acceptable than land cannons?

Let's give you a quick history lesson.

The first cannons on land in the British Isles and France were used in 1327 by the English against the Scottish - King Edward III was given an early cannon, known as the pot-de-fer, which was an early mortar, for his coronation. The most well-known example of cannons being used was in 1346 at the Battle of Crecy by the English against the French during the Hundred Years War - these were ribauldequins, or organ guns as some know them as - basically a collection of barrels mounted on a carriage which were all fired at once as a huge 'shotgun'. These devastated the French in the battle, according to Giovanni Villani:
"The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire… They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses… The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners… [by the end of the battle] the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls."

Now, moving on to things bigger than a ribauldequin, let's look at the Ottoman Siege of Constantinople in 1453:
"When Sultan Mehmet II laid siege to Constantinople in April 1453, he used 68 Hungarian-made cannon, the largest of which was 26 feet (7.9 m) long and weighed 20 tons. This fired a 1,200 pound stone cannonball, and required an operating crew of 200 men." This is in the 15th century, and it is clearly contradictory to your argument that land cannons are less realistic and less acceptable than sea-borne cannons. Let's look at other historical 'superguns'.

Pumhart von Steyr, Austrian supergun made in the early 15th century. Had a calibre of 800mm.
Dulle Griet - Belgian supergun made in the early 15th century. Had a calibre of 640mm.
Mons Meg - Scottish supergun made in Flanders in 1449. Had a calibre of 510mm.

Land cannons aren't acceptable? Please, do some research if you want this to be realistic.

Early naval artillery was an antipersonnel weapon to deter boarders, because cannon powerful enough to damage ships were heavy enough to destabilize any ship mounting them in an elevated castle.

So cannons are just for firing at people, not other ships, yes? Good, this makes naval combat way more fun than the simple over powered "bang bang cannon ur dead lel" rubbish.

Ionians beaked with death ftw #lookoutxerxes

Legion X51 said
Is that so? Tell me, how is a cannon on a galleon more common and acceptable than land cannons?Let's give you a quick history lesson.The first cannons on land in the British Isles and France were used in 1327 by the English against the Scottish - King Edward III was given an early cannon, known as the pot-de-fer, which was an early mortar, for his coronation. The most well-known example of cannons being used was in 1346 at the Battle of Crecy by the English against the French during the Hundred Years War - these were ribauldequins, or organ guns as some know them as - basically a collection of barrels mounted on a carriage which were all fired at once as a huge 'shotgun'. These devastated the French in the battle, according to Giovanni Villani:"The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire… They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses… The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners… [by the end of the battle] the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls." Now, moving on to things bigger than a ribauldequin, let's look at the Ottoman Siege of Constantinople in 1453:"When Sultan Mehmet II laid siege to Constantinople in April 1453, he used 68 Hungarian-made cannon, the largest of which was 26 feet (7.9 m) long and weighed 20 tons. This fired a 1,200 pound stone cannonball, and required an operating crew of 200 men."
This is in the 15th century, and it is clearly contradictory to your argument that land cannons are less realistic and less acceptable than sea-borne cannons. Let's look at other historical 'superguns'.Pumhart von Steyr, Austrian supergun made in the early 15th century. Had a calibre of 800mm.Dulle Griet - Belgian supergun made in the early 15th century. Had a calibre of 640mm.
Mons Meg - Scottish supergun made in Flanders in 1449. Had a calibre of 510mm.
Land cannons aren't acceptable? Please, do some research if you want this to be realistic.

...screw you, Legion.
I never said land cannons are unacceptable, merely that they are rarer and more expensive that cannons on boats.
Ok, let's take history out of it for a jiffy. I have a cannon on a Galley. It's designed for sea-based combat and sinking boats. It is therefore smaller, lighter and has a lower calibre than a siege cannon. It's designed to sit on a lightweigh boat alongside many others of its kin.
With a Land cannon, it is designed to punch through the thick walls that surround a city. It is therefore heavier, bigger and stronger than the cannon on the Galley. It doesn't need to worry about weight or other cannons as much, because it won't sink the continent. Because it's bigger and stronger, it is more expensive.

HazmatMedic said
...screw you, Legion.

Wow. Okay. That really shows what kind of GM you are.

HazmatMedic said
Ok, let's take history out of it for a jiffy.

Not going any further than this. I'll respond with this:

Hazmatmedic said
3. Keep it realistic.

Need I say more?

Faulty said
So cannons are just for firing at people, not other ships, yes? Good, this makes naval combat way more fun than the simple over powered "bang bang cannon ur dead lel" rubbish.Ionians beaked with death ftw #lookoutxerxes

To be fair, ships didn't go down after one or two shots. Ships of this era were fairly robust, and could endure multiple hits from cannons.

I don't know much about this, however. Do any of our native history buffs care to chime in?

Alfhedil said
Wow. Okay. That really shows what kind of GM you are.

Well, I did say someone else could GM. If you want, you can take over.

Legion X51 said
Not going any further than this.

I am keeping it realistic. Realistically, a boats cannon will be less powerful than a siege cannon.

HazmatMedic said
Well, I did say someone else could GM. If you want, you can take over.

I will gladly do so.

HazmatMedic said
...screw you, Legion.I never said land cannons are unacceptable, merely that they are rarer and more expensive that cannons on boats.Ok, let's take history out of it for a jiffy. I have a cannon on a Galley. It's designed for sea-based combat and sinking boats. It is therefore smaller, lighter and has a lower calibre than a siege cannon. It's designed to sit on a lightweigh boat alongside many others of its kin.With a Land cannon, it is designed to punch through the thick walls that surround a city. It is therefore heavier, bigger and stronger than the cannon on the Galley. It doesn't need to worry about weight or other cannons as much, because it won't sink the continent. Because it's bigger and stronger, it is more expensive.

And at that outburst, I'm out of this RP. As a GM, and especially as this is your first go at it, you should always be open to criticism and help, and when your own knowledge is lacking you should never be less than ecstatic to learn more. Attacking people for giving you information that you clearly didn't have earlier isn't helpful for anyone, let alone yourself, and the fact one of your rules is to keep it realistic serves to emphasise the fact that you're just going to use your role as GM to try and smack down anyone who disagrees with you. Let's look at what you've said.

...screw you, Legion.

Not the language a GM should be using. I don't care if Legion fisted your new born babies and used them as boxing gloves to fend off your grieving wife, that outburst of language is unacceptable for a GM. You, as GM, must always show restraint and must always take the higher, more respectable ground by being calm and considerate. Saying "screw you" because you've had your feelings hurt for people following your own rules isn't conducive to a good RP.

This is without mentioning your overall tone. Instantly you're on the defensive - "I never said land cannons are unacceptable" - and yet all Legion can be accused of doing is following your rules, specifically rule three on the very first page, "3. Keep it realistic".

I've had my reservations about this RP for a while now, especially since I saw how you sought attention when people last had the unbelievable audacity to question your judgement by repeatedly claiming you couldn't do it, and thereby repeatedly gaining assurances that you could and you were brilliant and you were amazing and special and good and true and the one GM to rule them all and in the darkness bind them all. It's particularly glaring that you had that entire episode of ostensible self-doubt by the fact you moaned over and over that you didn't feel comfortable being GM, but have made no move to transfer power.

I'm sorry, but that this is your first GMing of an RP is no excuse, and you should know full well how to behave. Attacking people for following you rules, and then having you break them yourself by calling for us to "take history out of it for a jiffy" is the height of hypocrisy, and those doubts I had about this RP, and believe me there were many, are now just too much to bear and I withdraw. Using your position as GM to smack down other players is rude and unnecessary, and I can confidently say that, even in the first RP I ever GMed - which, incidentally, went well because all an RP needs to be GMed properly is patience, research, and, god forbid, effort - I never once went out of my way to make another RPer feel little or irrelevant, and, God as my witness, I've never said "screw you" to any other RPer I've ever RPed with.

#yoloswag

I personally don't think we should have galleons and battleships at all, from what I recall they were more Rennaisance-era ships than Medieval. Early cannons were really big and heavy, and now that people mention it I do think ships were probably stronger than some people think. They didn't just splinter into pieces after a shot or two. But naval warfare isn't really mt strong suite, so what I can add to this conversation is limited.

EDIT: Also, HazmatMedic, you are the GM and you really shouldn't be saying 'screw you' just because someone's trying to give you some constructive criticism.

ASTA said
To be fair, ships didn't go down after one or two shots. Ships of this era were fairly robust, and could endure multiple hits from cannons. I don't know much about this, however. Do any of our native history buffs care to chime in?

I know. But boat cannons do to boats what land cannons do to walls. A land cannon shooting at a boat will do a crikey-load of damage. Boats have the benifit of being faster to build.

Bloody hell, it was meant to be a jovial "Damnit" like when a friend of yours makes fun of you, not a "You suck and everything you ever hope to achieve sucks" everyone is making it out to be!

Neither Rifles nor muskets exist yet. The arquebus is the most advanced firearm

Alfhedil said
I will gladly do so.

The stage is yours, my friend. What is your opinion on the cannon issue?

HazmatMedic said
Bloody hell, it was meant to be a jovial "Damnit" like when a friend of yours makes fun of you, not a "You suck and everything you ever hope to achieve sucks" everyone is making it out to be!

When you're going back and forth about stuff like this and you jovially say things like that it's probably best to put :D or :P next to it. Otherwise it's entirely possible for it to be misconstrued as you seriously saying 'screw you'.

So Boerd said
Neither Rifles nor muskets exist yet. The arquebus is the most advanced firearm

Did somebody say they have muskets or rifles? I've only seen references to arquebuses and cannons when it comes to gunpowder weaponry.

Faulty said
And at that outburst, I'm out of this RP. As a GM, and especially as this is your first go at it, you should always be open to criticism and help, and when your own knowledge is lacking you should never be less than ecstatic to learn more. Attacking people for giving you information that you clearly didn't have earlier isn't helpful for anyone, let alone yourself, and the fact one of your rules is to keep it realistic serves to emphasise the fact that you're just going to use your role as GM to try and smack down anyone who disagrees with you. Let's look at what you've said.Not the language a GM should be using. I don't care if Legion fisted your new born babies and used them as boxing gloves to fend off your grieving wife, that outburst of language is unacceptable for a GM. You, as GM, must always show restraint and must always take the higher, more respectable ground by being calm and considerate. Saying "screw you" because you've had your feelings hurt for people following your own rules isn't conducive to a good RP.This is without mentioning your overall tone. Instantly you're on the defensive - "I never said land cannons are unacceptable" - and yet all Legion can be accused of doing is following your rules, specifically rule three on the very first page, "3. Keep it realistic".I've had my reservations about this RP for a while now, especially since I saw how you sought attention when people last had the unbelievable audacity to question your judgement by repeatedly claiming you couldn't do it, and thereby repeatedly gaining assurances that you could and you were brilliant and you were amazing and special and good and true and the one GM to rule them all and in the darkness bind them all. It's particularly glaring that you had that entire episode of ostensible self-doubt by the fact you moaned over and over that you didn't feel comfortable being GM, but have made no move to transfer power.I'm sorry, but that this is your first GMing of an RP is no excuse, and you should know full well how to behave. Attacking people for following you rules, and then having you break them yourself by calling for us to "take history out of it for a jiffy" is the height of hypocrisy, and those doubts I had about this RP, and believe me there were many, are now just too much to bear and I withdraw. Using your position as GM to smack down other players is rude and unnecessary, and I can confidently say that, even in the first RP I ever GMed - which, incidentally, went well because all an RP needs to be GMed properly is patience, research, and, god forbid, effort - I never once went out of my way to make another RPer feel little or irrelevant, and, God as my witness, I've never said "screw you" to any other RPer I've ever RPed with.

#yoloswag

I really want to refute all of this, but all I can really say is...
The first one falls.

HazmatMedic said
The stage is yours, my friend. What is your opinion on the cannon issue?

I lean towards the actual history of the matter, in that what Legion has posted is historically correct. However in the past we had a similar issue regarding gunpowder in general, in which we ended up going with the "Don't be a Dick" rule. Essentially, each person was relatively free to construct their nation and military as they wished, so long as they clearly weren't trying to one-up someone else, or abuse a mechanic. To that point, I feel the reverse should be held in regards to cannons, in that they should be allowable as land-defenses, and limited for naval usage.

However, as always, "Don't be a Dick" supercedes "Be realistic"

Alfhedil said
I lean towards the actual history of the matter, in that what Legion has posted is historically correct. However in the past we had a similar issue regarding gunpowder in general, in which we ended up going with the "Don't be a Dick" rule. Essentially, each person was relatively free to construct their nation and military as they wished, so long as they clearly weren't trying to one-up someone else, or abuse a mechanic. To that point, I feel the reverse should be held in regards to cannons, in that they should be allowable as land-defenses, and limited for naval usage.However, as always, "Don't be a Dick" supercedes "Be realistic"

Then that's what we'll do.
Welcome to the GM spot, Alfhedil. In all seriousness, please do a better job than I did.

HazmatMedic said
Then that's what we'll do.Welcome to the GM spot, Alfhedil. In all seriousness, please do a better job than I did.

I do my best, but it comes from doing this for nigh on 15 years or so. Thing to remember is that it's impossible not to screw up at some point in time, you just have to own your mistakes.