Small nations are hopelessly outclassed any way you cut it, why the hell you would think that strictly limiting the order of battle would help them is beyond me. The only chance they could have is using dissimilar weapons! Otherwise it’s just a matter of lining 150 F-22s against 600 F-22s, and bang, the 150 planes lose every time. Rinse and repeat.Stas Bush wrote: Well, "anything" is a bad rule phrase. It will be a XB-70/T-4MS 200 wankfest real fucking soon, and the game will turn into TBO wankage whilst smaller nations would run around looking for what to do, disinterested in becoming accustmed to paper weapons.
Fuck up the tech tree? What fucking tech tree? Ever nation on earth is allowed to have the F-22, and a half dozen nations have fleets that could salvo off 4,000 Tomahawk land attack missiles at once. That’s wanktastictly stupid already.
"Roughly equivalent" means that it is equivalent.
A T-4MS200 for example is not roughly equivalent to other crafts.
How about Bartini WIGs, all calculated and even test ran with aerodynamic models? They are feasible with todays' tech, but they'd FUCK UP the tech tree if given to anyone who just wishes to have them from the very start.
This from the man who declared having Spiral suborbital bombers in the first pages of the thread, surprising.
Hell, I'm more willing to side with Beowulf, ditch all S-47 and ditch the Ulyanovsk CVNs than to allow a free-for-all.
*grunts* as if we didn't have enough weapon wankfests
The GDP angle is already utter bullshit in view of the ability of every single nation to compete with equally high technology and start up space programs at the drop of a hat while having no more then 1.5 trillion.
This game, when using simple crafts, is instinctively understood to nations both small and large, and allows for good grip on economy and military expenditure even for starting members. When using complicated tech but possible, off the grid when a nation starts, just makes it fucking pointless to invest into anything and makes teh whole GDP angle redundant bullshit.
Please do explain to me how the fuck that is different then everyone having F-22s and AEGIS please, because I sure don’t see any difference. Its all fucking bleeding edge technology even the US barely affords with six times the GDP anyone has here. Not to mention since most players can already start with the very best real life technology as it currently exists, any improvements pretty much automatically must jump into the realm of fiction anyway."Initial use of never built crap" means everyone will start gettng superior US aircraft wankoprojects wings, FULL of it, superior ships with the latest techonologies (and if we just allow all tech to function it means there's shitloads of satelites which just suddenly BEAMED up there for AEGIS purposes!)..
You’d have a way better argument if you wanted to start with MiG-29As and F-16As, not dozens of freaking Virginia class boats roaming the oceans. Hell by the terms being proposed Saddamistan, which I’d love to portray has having only a layer of high technology ontop of piles of crap (enough Foxtrots to build a pontoon bridge across the English Channel), will have more Virginia class submarines now then the USN thinks it can buy. That sound like making the GDP figures matter to you?
"
- PeZook
the Shuttle, you could build (if doing no other R&D and slightly straning your economy with militarization) - in around 3 years, meaning you could ANNOUNCE the great SPACE SHUTTLE in early May.
