First Strike (OOC, MT/Early PMT, Signups) ATTN: Tam Dimei

[New Aeyariss]

Are cyborgs early PMT?

Or at least the likes of Winter Soldier, or Captain America...

To be fair according to various advocates of transhumanism we will see first use of GRIN tech within next 20 to 30 years. Technology is progressing at enormous rate and DARPA is constantly trying to construct transhuman soldiers.

Even Putin recently spoke about Russian scientists breaking the human genetic code which will unleash the "super soldiers who will be worse than a nuclear bomb".

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

Are cyborgs early PMT?

Or at least the likes of Winter Soldier, or Captain America...

1: Are you referring to robotically-enhanced supersoldiers (cyborgs) or medically-enhanced supersoldiers (Cap)?

2: Cyborgs are rather middle or late-PMT. I can allow medically enhanced supersoldiers or normal humans with external robotic enhancements, but nothing past that.

To give an example of our RP tech limits regarding these things (fictional characters, at least):
Medically-enhanced supersoldier- Hitman: Agent 47
Robotically-enhanced supersolider- Charlie from Kingsman: The Golden Circle

[Palmyrion]

Medically enhanced supersoldiers it is. Or Charlie from The Golden Circle. Both are within early PMT, right?

Though, resurrecting dead and medically and robotically enhancing them is not early PMT?

Also, pardon me if I would be constantly OOCly probing the RP's tech limits.

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

Medically enhanced supersoldiers it is. Or Charlie from The Golden Circle. Both are within early PMT, right?

Though, resurrecting dead and medically and robotically enhancing them is not early PMT?

Also, pardon me if I would be constantly OOCly probing the RP's tech limits.

It might get annoying, but go ahead.

Also, Charlie wasn’t dead to begin with. He was just unconscious from Eggy’s electric shock in the first movie (and even though I love the Kingsman movies, I don’t want to make this thread into a discussion of the franchise).
Simply put, he wasn’t dead to begin with.

And though I will probably accept medically enhanced supersoldiers through slower, more complex genetic engineering or cloning, I won’t accept something where you slap a bright-blue serum on a guy and suddenly he’s a superhero with permanent powers.

[Purnelaw]

I'd say we should lay down the law now for what's acceptable under early PMT, so we don't get bogged down with arguments about it later.

[Palmyrion]

Palmyrion may commit additional necessary forces as the RP progresses. It might end up in me deploying an Army division, a carrier strike group, and an expeditionary strike group as reinforcements should the situation escalate.

EDIT: Now that the thread is open, the only problem for me now is what could pull Palmyrion into the rising conflict.

[Post War America]

I would assume since you've concluded the attack that the thread has been opened.

[Novum Acadia]

Nation Name: Novum Acadia
Government Type: Federal Monarchy, with local parlimentary governments.
Leader Name: King Peter I
Side: Exodia
Role: Other [Will send small squads of Special Forces]
Notes, Comments, Other:
Novum Acadia is new and small, so it has great technology and training, but not many troops. Please check the MT/PMT factbooks and the RP disclaimer Factbook.

[Jackania yugo]

This is the second time I've tried to make a first post with it not going through.

[Allanea]

Nation Name: Free Kingdom of Allanea
Government Type: Constitutional Monarchy
Leader Name: Alexander and Cassiopeia Blaken-Kazansky
Side: Exodia[X] Tam Dimei[ ] Other(Explain[ ]
Role: Active (Sending troops and participating in battle)[X] Passive (Sending weapons/supplies, etc)[ ] Other (Explain)[ ]
Notes, Comments, Other:

Due to the fact the situation is already rather lopsided at the moment, the Free Kingdom will send a submarine, the FKS Prince Potemkin, to operate on Tam Dimei's communications.

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

Nation Name: Novum Acadia
Government Type: Federal Monarchy, with local parlimentary governments.
Leader Name: King Peter I
Side: Exodia
Role: Other [Will send small squads of Special Forces]
Notes, Comments, Other:
Novum Acadia is new and small, so it has great technology and training, but not many troops. Please check the MT/PMT factbooks and the RP disclaimer Factbook.

I'm sorry, but you might not be a good fit for this RP. Maybe another time, but not now. Rejected, I'm afraid.

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

Nation Name: Free Kingdom of Allanea
Government Type: Constitutional Monarchy
Leader Name: Alexander and Cassiopeia Blaken-Kazansky
Side: Exodia[X] Tam Dimei[ ] Other(Explain[ ]
Role: Active (Sending troops and participating in battle)[X] Passive (Sending weapons/supplies, etc)[ ] Other (Explain)[ ]
Notes, Comments, Other:

Due to the fact the situation is already rather lopsided at the moment, the Free Kingdom will send a submarine, the FKS Prince Potemkin, to operate on Tam Dimei's communications.

I'm sorry, but "kind of" rejected- I've seen your capability enough to know you would be pretty overpowered for this RP, and my side would be quite unbalanced. However, I would accept a Passive role, such as supplies or intelligence. If you're "active" just by sending a submarine and no other units, then accepted, as that would still be balanced.
Keep fighting alongside my good friend Atkemri, though! I know the "Wrath of the North" might be going a bit rough.
(To make this fit in better, the IC reason why you couldn't send troops was because you were occupied with that war.)

[Allanea]

Oh, no, no, what I literally meant is that there's just the one submarine and it hang about and sinks merchant vessels and warships.

[Allanea]

In addition I can offer Tak Dimei's side some tactical advice OOC to make the fighting less unbalanced.

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

In addition I can offer Tak Dimei's side some tactical advice OOC to make the fighting less unbalanced.

That'll be good.

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

Oh, no, no, what I literally meant is that there's just the one submarine and it hang about and sinks merchant vessels and warships.

It'll be okay, at least for now.

[Leonnia]

heya! the cavalry has arrived!

Nation Name: Communìdah d'Leonnia (leo), Commonwealth of Leonnia (en).
Government Type: Federal Constitutional Monarchy.
Leader Name: Prime Minister Frederico Bittercot.
Side: Exodia[ X ] Tam Dimei[ ] Other(Explain[ ]
Role: Active (Sending troops and participating in battle)[ X ] Passive (Sending weapons/supplies, etc)[ ] Other (Explain)[ ]
Notes, Comments, Other: potato

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

heya! the cavalry has arrived!

Nation Name: Communìdah d'Leonnia (leo), Commonwealth of Leonnia (en).
Government Type: Federal Constitutional Monarchy.
Leader Name: Prime Minister Frederico Bittercot.
Side: Exodia[ X ] Tam Dimei[ ] Other(Explain[ ]
Role: Active (Sending troops and participating in battle)[ X ] Passive (Sending weapons/supplies, etc)[ ] Other (Explain)[ ]
Notes, Comments, Other: potato

I’m sorry, but I really don’t think I can accept this. You don’t seem to fit well into this RP, you don’t seem inclined to explain anything, and you have no factbooks. Rejected.

[Leonnia]

heya! the cavalry has arrived!

Nation Name: Communìdah d'Leonnia (leo), Commonwealth of Leonnia (en).
Government Type: Federal Constitutional Monarchy.
Leader Name: Prime Minister Frederico Bittercot.
Side: Exodia[ X ] Tam Dimei[ ] Other(Explain[ ]
Role: Active (Sending troops and participating in battle)[ X ] Passive (Sending weapons/supplies, etc)[ ] Other (Explain)[ ]
Notes, Comments, Other: potato

I’m sorry, but I really don’t think I can accept this. You don’t seem to fit well into this RP, you don’t seem inclined to explain anything, and you have no factbooks. Rejected.

oh, I did not know it was to send ORBAT, forgive me.

34th Royal Infantry Regiment (Ferhard)
Commander: Colonel Maxmyllio Gergontt.

Composition:

102nd Royal Infantry Battalion.
103rd Royal Infantry Battalion.
104th Royal Infantry Battalion.
41st Marine Battalion.

Total: 2550 men.

RNd'L Carmanttia, for transport and locomotion of the Marines, while the Air Force takes care of the transport of infantry battalions.

Is everything all right, or do you need even more?

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

This is the second time I've tried to make a first post with it not going through.

Did you make your post yet?

[Palmyrion]

Perhaps this Tam Dimeian attack on a Palmyrian Merchant Marine Cooperative vessel would be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

You know, despite this being MT/PMT, I sort of want this to end up like a WWI-style, all-out, no holds barred "war is hell". I actually went and rewatched Battlefield 1 trailers and gameplay as potential inspiration for how our nations' militaries might directly confront each other.

What I kinda want to see:

Naval battles involving classic battleship guns just as much as hacking, aerial warfare or antiship missiles. (Ship guns might be railgun-assisted, but in the end, they're just old cannons pointing at each other and shooting shells). There might be just as much WWII influence here as WWI.

Close-to-ground aerial warfare, despite having jets. Anyone who's seen Battlefield I gameplay will know of planes flying so low they hit infantry and ground vehicles. Dogfights, even with jet fighters, can happen pretty much anywhere. It only depends on the skill (and sanity) of the pilot.

Bomber interception/defense. More WWII than WWI influence, defending bombers from interceptors, whether from an remote-operated fire-control turret or from the cockpit of a fighter jet, is here to stay.

Very close-ranged ground combat. There's a reason why the usage of my Power Armored troops are based off of the Sentry Kit from BF1. It isn't just limited to firefights in tight areas like buildings, trenches or forests, either. I'm expecting John Wick-close gunfights and even opportunities for troops to engage in melee fights.

Greater interaction between infantry and vehicles in ground warfare. Despite it being "the modern age", there's still more than airstrikes or roadside IEDs as ways to take out a tank or an armored car. Expect troops recklessly bombarding a tank with grenades, recoilless rifles, and RPGs in hope of damaging it or slowing it down by sheer firepower, or soldiers even climbing onto an unprotected spot to place explosive charges or force open doors to get to the crew inside. It isn't just limited to offense, either. If one can remember the Tiger scene from Fury (taking WWII influence as well again) with infantry lining up, single file behind tanks in order to advance on enemy lines, then expect something similar to that too.

Cavalry (or at least a form of it). My few cavalry units now use motorcycles, but the methods are still there. While they may drive motorcycles and utilize automatic weapons, they'll still know how to ride horses and attack with swords or melee. I'm actually imagining Polish WWII cavalry- armed with anti-tank rifles or similar weapons and using their mounts to get close to enemy armored vehicles.

Armored trains and locomotives- pure Battlefield 1. If Tam Dimei has built any railroads on his conquered islands, I'm giving him the opportunity to use them wisely and in a really badass way to defend said islands from ground units.

Attacking and defending from airships- again, pure Battlefield 1 (with a few modern twists, of course). Considering how my nation's Air Force actually deploys giant airships for use as bombers, it'll be fun reducing enemy cities, bases and ship fleets to nothing- and it'll be hell when a Jackanian or Tam Dimeian fighter plane rips apart our helium cells with machine guns or throws missiles at our gondolas or defensive turrets.

Straight-up vehicular warfare- not BF1 as much as it is Red Crucible, everything from kamikaze-ing your tank into another tank just to get the clearest shot possible at it, or utilizing a 5-ton transport truck or a Humvee or an Armored Personnel Carrier or... whatever to savagely run over enemy infantry. Luring enemy vehicles, especially aircraft, into crashing is also included.

Of course, you don’t have to follow any of these. It’s just what I’m hoping to see soon, and expect it when I have a turn to post.

If anyone wants to share any of their own concepts, feel free to make a post.

[Tam Dimei]

I want exactly this! What’s the fun in just bombing and drone striking each other. Instead it should be all out battles to decide the victor. I am going to go after the smallest country in the little coalition against my nation. This could be like the Battle for France in WW2 or something similar the first real meeting of the nations.

[Palmyrion]

You know, despite this being MT/PMT, I sort of want this to end up like a WWI-style, all-out, no holds barred "war is hell". I actually went and rewatched Battlefield 1 trailers and gameplay as potential inspiration for how our nations' militaries might directly confront each other.

Here we go again, the unhealthy fixation on outdated tactics that make little to no sense in today's battlefield.

What I kinda want to see:

Naval battles involving classic battleship guns just as much as hacking, aerial warfare or antiship missiles. (Ship guns might be railgun-assisted, but in the end, they're just old cannons pointing at each other and shooting shells). There might be just as much WWII influence here as WWI.

Modern warships today have guns mainly for naval fire support and air defense, with much emphasis on the former on the gun's role; ship-to-ship fighting with guns is mostly a last resort. The two I said are two things, but implying the discouragement of using missiles despite it being the more reasonable option just so we can have naval gunfights is another. Even worse is just sneaking up within visual range, let alone 40km (the furthest that naval guns, even 127mm, can reach out to) of my ship undetected from 320km away by my ship's radar, or 500km with a deployed AWACS; common rule around these parts is to just post that you are en route to give the other side a fair chance to respond - and this has nothing to do with IC consequences, just fair play. The furthest you can go in this is to RP that you detected my formation while you are en route.

Close-to-ground aerial warfare, despite having jets. Anyone who's seen Battlefield I gameplay will know of planes flying so low they hit infantry and ground vehicles. Dogfights, even with jet fighters, can happen pretty much anywhere. It only depends on the skill (and sanity) of the pilot.

Dogfights are mostly a last resort in air-to-air warfare. And we do have close-to-ground aerial warfare, just without actually hitting infantry while you are rushing at Mach 0.8 because it's gonna be bad for the aircraft's integrity and especially its engines.

Bomber interception/defense. More WWII than WWI influence, defending bombers from interceptors, whether from an remote-operated fire-control turret or from the cockpit of a fighter jet, is here to stay.

Modern-day bombers have gone away with defensive turrets bristling from their bodies as fighters nowadays engage bombers in ranges far beyond even the max ranges of 30mm autocannons (if you can mount 4 on a bomber, that is). That said, bombers usually go with fighter escorts right now; you can say that you have fitted air-to-air missiles on your bomber purely for self-defense reasons, but it defeats the purpose of both the bomber (decreased payload, and costs of modifying because IRL bombers weren't designed to use such weapons even in a self-defense capacity) and the escorts (if the threat profile is low and the bomber's self-defense missiles can shrug off that threat, why bother with escorts?).

Very close-ranged ground combat. There's a reason why the usage of my Power Armored troops are based off of the Sentry Kit from BF1. It isn't just limited to firefights in tight areas like buildings, trenches or forests, either. I'm expecting John Wick-close gunfights and even opportunities for troops to engage in melee fights.

Quite reasonable. I'm an "NS MT" guy, so I have a bit of qualms with powered armor.

Greater interaction between infantry and vehicles in ground warfare. Despite it being "the modern age", there's still more than airstrikes or roadside IEDs as ways to take out a tank or an armored car. Expect troops recklessly bombarding a tank with grenades, recoilless rifles, and RPGs in hope of damaging it or slowing it down by sheer firepower, or soldiers even climbing onto an unprotected spot to place explosive charges or force open doors to get to the crew inside. It isn't just limited to offense, either. If one can remember the Tiger scene from Fury (taking WWII influence as well again) with infantry lining up, single file behind tanks in order to advance on enemy lines, then expect something similar to that too.

You can have ATGMs or even remote-detonated mines. As for soldiers climbing onto unprotected spots, remember that modern-day tanks with RWS have small blind spots, so it will be hard to get to a tank's unprotected spot, and also consider its infantry escorts that will keep your soldiers busy enough for your tank to keep fighting; crew doors are tightly locked as well, and there isn't just enough time for lockpicking; breaching charges are another thing, though, but need the expertise of highly-trained explosives specialists (aka not your average soldier).

Cavalry (or at least a form of it). My few cavalry units now use motorcycles, but the methods are still there. While they may drive motorcycles and utilize automatic weapons, they'll still know how to ride horses and attack with swords or melee. I'm actually imagining Polish WWII cavalry- armed with anti-tank rifles or similar weapons and using their mounts to get close to enemy armored vehicles.

Cavalry on motorcycles? Come on, modern-day cavalry can mount horses, but horse-mounted cavalry is usually for internal security or ceremonial purposes (see 61st Cavalry of the Indian Army). Assaulting positions with horseback cavalry isn't a good idea; the horses can be easily injured or killed before their riders can even get in range of their AFV targets.

Armored trains and locomotives- pure Battlefield 1. If Tam Dimei has built any railroads on his conquered islands, I'm giving him the opportunity to use them wisely and in a really badass way to defend said islands from ground units.

In modern warfare, trains have been relegated to transport roles. There are rail-mounted missile silos, but they aren't placed near the front-line. Even then, the mobility of a train is limited to its tracks, and in one direction only: forward (reverse can be done, but it will be much slower). Armored trains became obsolete because improvements in ground vehicles rendered them so; the latter made ground vehicles like tanks, APCs, etc., able to mount significantly better weapons than armored trains, with the addition to being flexible mobility wise (aka not restricted to rails). Furthermore, rail tracks are prone to sabotage.

Attacking and defending from airships- again, pure Battlefield 1 (with a few modern twists, of course). Considering how my nation's Air Force actually deploys giant airships for use as bombers, it'll be fun reducing enemy cities, bases and ship fleets to nothing- and it'll be hell when a Jackanian or Tam Dimeian fighter plane rips apart our helium cells with machine guns or throws missiles at our gondolas or defensive turrets.

DO you know why airships were disbanded from service in many armed forces in the world? This is why. Airships are large and can't carry as much payload. Even the HALE-D, a modern airship which was just a subscale demonstrator, had problems with its helium levels at 9.8km above sea level; by contrast, modern-day bombers like the B52 and the B1 do well at that altitude.

Straight-up vehicular warfare- not BF1 as much as it is Red Crucible, everything from kamikaze-ing your tank into another tank just to get the clearest shot possible at it, or utilizing a 5-ton transport truck or a Humvee or an Armored Personnel Carrier or... whatever to savagely run over enemy infantry. Luring enemy vehicles, especially aircraft, into crashing is also included.

Running over enemy infantry? Do you know why they won't get a chance to do so? It's because the infantry run into cover.

Of course, you don’t have to follow any of these. It’s just what I’m hoping to see soon, and expect it when I have a turn to post.

If anyone wants to share any of their own concepts, feel free to make a post.

Follow these and thou shalt be rewarded with scores of dead among the ranks of thy troops.

[Allanea]

). Armored trains became obsolete because improvements in ground vehicles rendered them so; the latter made ground vehicles like tanks, APCs, etc., able to mount significantly better weapons than armored trains, with the addition to being flexible mobility wise (aka not restricted to rails). Furthermore, rail tracks are prone to sabotage.

This is blatantly untrue on a range of counts.

1. Armored trains are still built and used.
2. Armored trains can mount all weapons as tanks and APCs, and indeed they can carry the tanks and APCs themselves.
3. Armored trains might not be literally able to turn on the rails, but in a country that has a developed rail network, they have a variety of maneuver options, among them separating into several mini-trains, carrying tanks and APCs to assist in maneuver, etc.
4. ASrmored trains typically carry groups of sappers to detect sabotage of rails and repair them.

As such, in a civil war/COIN scenario, armored trains are extremely useful. They have repeatedly been used in this context, in the 21st century, and are still maintained for both counterror use and for border protection.