I'll leave for the weekend after this.
Common Territories wrote:I was just asking if I could use magic. I didn't say I wanted to be the only one. I would expect that if one person uses magic, then someone else will.
Do you not think it would be cool if fast moving flying machines had to dogfight with cannons to take out other fast moving flying machines?
Why do you think A-10s are cool? It's because of the gun. Obviously. And how rugged it is.
If the Queen had nuts she'd be King.
I said no such thing involving a queen and male genitalia.
Im not following your logic here in all seriousness.
Yea it'd be cool to see A-10s shoot at each other, but this isn't Grand Theft Auto. This isn't Rule of Cool Tech where whatever sounds or looks cool go; well, at least that holds true to many communities - really it's up to participants and the OP to make that decision. Yea it'd be cool to see A-10s shooting at each other with their cannons (why they would shoot at air targets with a ground-attack weapon is beyond me when they typically carry heat-seekers, but I guess this isn't about logic anymore is it?), but that's missing the entire point of Modern Technology. MT isn't about stuff looking cool in your head, it's about playing your role in a modern technology setting- yes, that includes jets and missiles. Whether you choose to write to the model or stray from it is fully up to you, but it's also up to everyone else here to not write with you if you insist on bringing magic into an MT thread because you think the back-up weapon on a jet fighter should be its only armament. Some people like me prefer to stick to the guidelines in having only modern tech being followed, that being that realism is stressed above all else; adding magic to MT is perverting it into an entirely different form of writing - that would be tech mixing mind you, and I'll cover that in a minute. You wanting to include magic and force people to use cannon fire to destroy other planes in a thread meant for modern warfare is ridiculous.
And FYI, that gun destabilizes the plane and is designed to shoot at ground targets, not air targets. If you're gonna rely on a CAS plane like the A-10 for your air battles because it has a big gun, you're in for a rude awakening friend. Don't get me wrong, I love the A-10 more than any other red blooded American, but it's by no means a very capable air combatant.
Did I say it would be cool to see A-10s shoot at each other? No, although it probably would be.
I said the GUN (well... cannon is much more accurate a term) is cool.
I've already said I'm not arguing for magic. I dropped magic when the OP said no.
Similar to when I completely dropped hypersonic missiles in the other one (they've been tested, but are not expected until 2018-2019 I think) and when I reduced the number of railguns; which are around and stuff, but I won't be using any on my ships.
But what do you have against mixing techs?
To me, that sounds cool as hell.
I can't give you a thumbs up or down on hypersonic missiles tbh; it's one of those topics that's largely split in half and depends on the OP's say-so - though personally I'd rule them out as standard practice. Railguns however are PMT; get back to me when a working combat prototype works successfully on a ship and we'll talk about it being MT or not.[/quote]
Railguns aren't only PMT.
Using the Civilization index:
Tier 7 - Stellar Settler (PMT)
Civilization may now travel across their home star system if they have one, with slow but practical speeds. Colonies on multiple planets are technologically feasible, and slower-than-light interstellar craft may have been sent out into the void. Genetic engineering and cloning are probably possible. Nuclear fusion may be utilized. Directed Energy Weapons may have become practical.
Considering that the US navy has been working on one for a while, it looks like that it will be much more feasible than colonies on multiple planets and more feasible than nuclear fusion.
Honestly, it looks like there has been less testing with hypersonic cruise missiles compared to railguns. It's just that one is more worth it (the cruise missile).
Also, I said that I was not putting it on my ships for this RP.
And I have an issue with tech mixing because many people use it wank, abuse other players, and make an RP totally cancer. I've seen tech mixers from galactic empires invading a tiny earth nation, to a universe sized empire invading a country on earth, and to a space ship the size of several galaxies kidnapping earth by taking it within its hull. Hell, there are fucking magical ponies in MT that make me personally question things sometimes. Point is is that it's unfair to people like me who write in MT's basic definition and who focus on realism because there is no feasible way that we'd have a chance against such foes; it's like pitting a musketman against a fucking M1A2 Abrams main battle tank - not hard to guess who wins that fight, right? It's not always about who wins a fight, but it's generally unfair in practice and the techs out there typically stick to their own kind (or at least they used to) because that was their interest field. In general though I've seen some... toxic behaviors from said communities that I'd rather not write about further that have tainted my personal views on the subject.
A person who uses it to abuse and wank is an asshole.
However, RP tech mixing done right makes for a very cool combination. Unless you find that cancerous. But most of the internet is cancer anyways so...
Hell, there are fucking magical ponies in MT that make me personally question things sometimes.
*clears throat*
I don't want to bring WWII tech to the fight. I'm talking about WWII tactics and dogfighting.
There's a reason why flying in War Thunder is fun.
Imagine if generation 4 aircraft had to shoot shoot bang bang (or any other variation of the sort) to kill another gen 4 fighter.
Wouldn't that be awesome. Of course, put shoot shoot bang bang with almost anything and it can make it sound awesome.
Again, the Queen and King balls phrase...
What's with you and queens, kings, and balls?
Seriously though. The idea of using modern aircraft in the fashion of WW2 aircraft is just plain retarded. That's like saying we should fight using 16th century styles of warfare with modern infantry; "Wouldn't it be cool if we wore bright colored uniforms, stood in a line several men thick, and shot at each other with fucking heavy machine guns and assault rifles!?" Jet fighters are much faster, much heavier, and purposely designed for the use of missiles in air combat. It'd be like telling a bullet to start acting like an arrow. Jet fighters are designed to carry and use missiles in air combat; that's why you don't see jets with a set of 4 25mm cannons on its wings, that's why you don't see them using thick armor to stop autocannon fire, and that's why you see them using smarter electronics that make them cost a ton of cash. The idea of them acting like WW2 planes is illogical and mostly impossible - at least how you're hoping it would be anyways. You can fight using your planes however you want, but someone capable like me will down them quickly if you want to emulate WW2 planes so badly.
Was I talking about 16th century warfare? No. I was not.
I was talking about how cool it would be for modern aircraft to fight actual dogfights.
I've bet you've heard stupider and more ignorant stuff before.
And I'm pretty sure that I've said things that are more stupid than this.
I may have indeed, but you're probably one of the first I've seen wanting to use MT equipment like WW2 equipment; granted I may be off because since I don't track such people and I've see plenty who try to legitimately use WW2 equipment in MT, so maybe you're actually down the line more because they also emulated WW2 warfare.[/quote]
Does down the line mean stupider?
I assume so.
Alright. I'm leaving now.
