[OOC] The Fires of Anuria(Reboot)

[Sigma]

Sounds good with me :)

And a middle of the road type of vehicle or two would be good I would say.

[Ozerath]

Cool cool, looking forward to seeing this start up!

[Sigma]

Funny you say that :P Everyone it's up now.

@Legion02
@ClocktowerEchos
@Ozerath
@Willy Vereb
@Brink_
@Skepic

I must admit, I just took bits of my first post from the original rp, and modified it :p

[Willy Vereb]

@ClocktowerEchos
You aren't alone with gigantic land vehicles. White Corps has a limited use of them, too.

This is the Mark IX BOLO
Its name is an abbreviation on the term "Be On Lookout" which roughly translates as its role of protector. The body of the vehicle is 50m long and it's practically a starship on land. It doesn't need several functions which you can find on starships so it's very compact for its power. The main cannon for example is obviously designed for orbital defense. (though thanks to crafty engineering, law-mongering and lobbying of the interstellar committee this main gun is neither considered orbital weapon nor weapon of mass destruction)

[Sigma]

Very nice :)

It'll be fun to see it in action. It'd make a perfect setting for a major battle.

[Skepic]

Sort of unavailable till monday. Shall have a post up then!

[Willy Vereb]

@SigmaSpeaking of orbital defenses, I figure these would be the only true exception on the "no orbital strikes" rule. Otherwise how the starships are supposed to defend themselves if the local batteries rain them from the surface?
Planetary shields and such which doesn't explicitly prevent ground operations or dropships sending down troops are not included. Also causing more destruction than what's absolutel neccessary to destroy threatening orbital defenses is also frowned up at best and strongly sanctioned at worst.
Of course worlds that does not support life are a different matter. For example so long you avoid hitting the residential areas of civilians it's perfectly reasonable to bombard a moon or asteroid base with all that you bear (baring sorts of destroying the planet ofc).

What do you think? Would my thoughts above be in line with what you imagined for this RP?
We obviously need an interstellar laws of war to avoid things boiling down to one side bombing the other to oblivion. We want ground conflicts and so on.

[Sigma]

@Skepic No worries, we can wait :)

@Willy Vereb I would say yes, I'm pretty sure the moon and other mostly uninhabitable rocks are exception to the Treaty.

[Ozerath]

The treaty could also only prohibit indiscriminate bombardment: asteroid strikes, strategic nukes, antimatter bombs, etc. Precise tactical strikes of limited scale against specific targets could be permitted.

[Legion02]

@Ozerath Just saying but my missiles are extremely small scale anti-matter missiles. The explosions are not even close to nuke-like power though. But still, a full ban on anti-matter would render my advanced weapons useless. Maybe a ban on weapons of mass destruction?

[ClocktowerEchos]

@ClocktowerEchos
You aren't alone with gigantic land vehicles. White Corps has a limited use of them, too.

This is the Mark IX BOLO
Its name is an abbreviation on the term "Be On Lookout" which roughly translates as its role of protector. The body of the vehicle is 50m long and it's practically a starship on land. It doesn't need several functions which you can find on starships so it's very compact for its power. The main cannon for example is obviously designed for orbital defense. (though thanks to crafty engineering, law-mongering and lobbying of the interstellar committee this main gun is neither considered orbital weapon nor weapon of mass destruction)

@Willy Vereb

I know, I added them in for reference to the large, super heavy tanks of the USSR like the T-35
The GT RKT-M8 series is based on the simple phrase of "Get Rekt M8" purely based on how much it can fuck up your day.

[Willy Vereb]

The treaty could also only prohibit indiscriminate bombardment: asteroid strikes, strategic nukes, antimatter bombs, etc. Precise tactical strikes of limited scale against specific targets could be permitted.

@Ozerath

Yeah, let's say there's a maximum allowed firepower which can be deployed against ground targets. And even then provided the attack is aimed at the target in a place unoccupied with civilians, no saturation bombardment or indiscriminate attacks should be allowed.
Albeit this means anyone with space superiority could massacre the enemy without those being able to fight back.
The solution? It's already there since orbital bombardment is generally banned. Theater shields with power enough to shrug off the treaty-limited tactical strikes are allowed. Which means until the ground forces disable such shields or active countermeasures with similar purpose there's no fear of the enemy decimating you from the orbit.
Long story short this would give everyone an obvious target during battles.
These theater screening shields may also offer protection against enemy long range attacks like missiles and artillery.

As for weapons of mass destruction, they are any weapon with city-busting power or such. Their purpose is to cause massive destruction. These weapons are allowed but limited to situations where the intensity of the conflict makes their use reasonable. Also of course a weapon is considered orbital weapon first and WMD second. If it's a spaceborne weapon or anything similar that is banned by the anti orbital strike treaty then it's banned. As such WMDs are limited to things deployed from the ground or from the atmosphere.
And again, harm caused to civilian populations should be avoided. Environmental effects are also limited so no old school nukes leaving irradiated wastelands or poisons that kill the biosphere. Radiation surge caused by nukes is fine, just no fallout from leftover radioactive dust or such. (so you can of course have oldschool radiological weapons if you want, toxins are also fine if they don't harm the environment more than neccessary)

Lastly immensely powerful weapons which are still below WMD category are called Destructors. They can be freely used even in lower intensity conflicts (unlike WMDs) but environmental effects or harming civilians is still something you must consider. Sub-kiloton tactical nukes are Destructors, for example. So is that nifty superlaser you mounted on your giant super tank.
Due to bureaucratic trickery the main cannon of the Bolo is also Destructor while it's effectively a WMD (and certain applications are limited under that law).

@SigmaAre the above extension to the Treaty sounds right to you?
I try to make it consistent while also avoiding abuses and allowing players to do more or less everything they want. Players willingly violating the treaty could be also a nice roleplaying plot device, IMO.

[Willy Vereb]

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I know, I added them in for reference to the large, super heavy tanks of the USSR like the T-35

@ClocktowerEchos

Also in reference of the Baneblade and its variants, of course.

The GT RKT-M8 series is based on the simple phrase of "Get Rekt M8" purely based on how much it can fuck up your day.

Yeah, I think most people got the pun.

BTW, mine is of course a reference Keith Laumer's Bolo. For the record it'd have a sentient AI which is pretty much the most expensive part of the entire vehicle. It's also made to kind of skirt around the Treaty's limitations. Other factions may also develop "super vehicles" or "landships" with similar aims. Think of Monkeylords and Galactic Colossus kind of machines.

[ClocktowerEchos]

<Snipped quote by ClocktowerEchos>
Also in reference of the Baneblade and its variants, of course.

@Willy Vereb

Like I said, I was on a 40k kick when I made the sheet xD

[Ozerath]

@Ozerath Just saying but my missiles are extremely small scale anti-matter missiles. The explosions are not even close to nuke-like power though. But still, a full ban on anti-matter would render my advanced weapons useless. Maybe a ban on weapons of mass destruction?

@Legion02

Nah i was just using antimatter bombs as an example, @Willy Vereb has the right idea. The treaty covers yield, not specific tech.

Also whoops accidentally posted.

Also, I think there would be enough ongoing orbital conflict between factions to prevent any one of them from really being able to line up for much in the way of bombardment. You might get a few pot shots in before somebody else shows up to fight you off, but not enough sustained firing to get through base shields.

[Sigma]

@Willy Vereb Yes, I'm good with what has been presented for the Treaty :)

And to let everyone know, I have now set up a chatroom to help with plot planning.

[Ozerath]

Edited in some infantry weapons, brief base description. Overall, done enough to put in the characters tab.

[Sigma]

Excellent :) Everyone else can do so as well.

Also I have now added a Pirate Pad link for better plot development.

[Legion02]

Am I allowed to post already?

[ClocktowerEchos]

Can some keep me updated on PP stuff? My comp blocks PP for some reason ;-;