MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Conflict II (closed)Military
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
General conversation IV
 Group admin 
This is for of topic comments that dont belong in INN, no posting movements.
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 7:00 am
 Group admin 
Noticed that a lot of nations are not very active anymore, probably because the map hasnt been added in a while. I will be more active this week.

Does anyone want to do a joint project with me?
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 8:55 am
Quoting Vangaurd º
Noticed that a lot of nations are not very active anymore, probably because the map hasnt been added in a while. I will be more active this week.

Does anyone want to do a joint project with me?

Yeah, the map not being updated really decreased the activity... Anyway, what is that joint project?
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 9:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Terror .
Yeah, the map not being updated really decreased the activity... Anyway, what is that joint project?

Im not sure, I guess whatever someone starts I will finish. I wanted to work on a fighter that I started as I made the wings, But the hull is bugging me, It has to be thin and use SNOT.
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 10:10 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vangaurd º
Noticed that a lot of nations are not very active anymore, probably because the map hasn't been added in a while. I will be more active this week.

Does anyone want to do a joint project with me?

Yeah, the map is definitely part of it

Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 10:24 am
The map is the major thing. We don't even have everyone's countires on it yet (Or colonies).

I've said this before, but I want to point it out again that I think we really should all tag-team this map. If we can just get the first update in, then we'll see where everyones at and it will give us time to bicker before the next update.
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 10:32 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one

I'm breaking my own rules, but regarding our conversations elsewhere, I'd appreciate you taking Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. Claim it, and I'll make it official. This will be deleted after I get a response.
Permalink
| March 15, 2012, 11:53 am
Finally, after waiting for shipping, my Lego Batman Dynamic Duo Funhouse escape set arrived! It's truly amazing, and anyone hesitant to get one should just buy it right now as you won't be disappointed. I’ve finally gotten a Joker minifigure (Along with my first Riddler, Robin, and Harley), and along with an awesome set design it’s perfect.
Permalink
| March 15, 2012, 9:45 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
I'm breaking my own rules, but regarding our conversations elsewhere, I'd appreciate you taking Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. Claim it, and I'll make it official. This will be deleted after I get a response.

:P
Permalink
| March 15, 2012, 9:53 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
I'm breaking my own rules, but regarding our conversations elsewhere, I'd appreciate you taking Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. Claim it, and I'll make it official. This will be deleted after I get a response.

Ummmmm.....sure, Why though? There isn't a secret plan to gt those places easily is there?
Permalink
| March 15, 2012, 9:57 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
I'm breaking my own rules, but regarding our conversations elsewhere, I'd appreciate you taking Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. Claim it, and I'll make it official. This will be deleted after I get a response.

Is there a reason you said that here? Is there a rule against not influencing new members?
Permalink
| March 15, 2012, 10:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
Ummmmm.....sure, Why though? There isn't a secret plan to gt those places easily is there?

There's a balance of power issue at stake.

No, not really, just something I didn't want discussed in public for obvious reasons.
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 12:33 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
There's a balance of power issue at stake.

No, not really, just something I didn't want discussed in public for obvious reasons.

k, just googled them, they sound good, but im sitting on a massive uranium mine and i can't do anything with it!!!
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 8:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
k, just googled them, they sound good, but im sitting on a massive uranium mine and i can't do anything with it!!!

You could mine it and sell it to any nation that uses nuclear power for ships or power plants and the depleted uranium to the nations for CAS planes. But yeah, that's everyone's problem.
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 10:43 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
You could mine it and sell it to any nation that uses nuclear power for ships or power plants and the depleted uranium to the nations for CAS planes. But yeah, that's everyone's problem.

YAY it isnt worthless, but both of the countries are currently controlled on the newest map
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 10:47 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
You could mine it and sell it to any nation that uses nuclear power for ships or power plants and the depleted uranium to the nations for CAS planes. But yeah, that's everyone's problem.

Ummm, since when were there nuclear power plants and nuclear powered ships in WW2? The first nuclear ship, a submarine, was built in 1953. The first nuclear power plant was built in 1951. If we are allowing jet fighter or tanks from the earlly 1950's, and considering nukes aren't allowed, anything nuclear should be banned too.
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 12:06 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Ummm, since when were there nuclear power plants and nuclear powered ships in WW2? The first nuclear ship, a submarine, was built in 1953. The first nuclear power plant was built in 1951. If we are allowing jet fighter or tanks from the earlly 1950's, and considering nukes aren't allowed, anything nuclear should be banned too.

I'm breaking my own rules, but regarding our conversations elsewhere, I'd appreciate you taking Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. Claim it, and I'll make it official. This will be deleted after I get a response.
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 12:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
YAY it isnt worthless, but both of the countries are currently controlled on the newest map

Just go ahead and claim them. The other guy has been inactive since the day after he joined. We'll just boot him when you stake your claim.
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 12:32 pm
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
I'm breaking my own rules, but regarding our conversations elsewhere, I'd appreciate you taking Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. Claim it, and I'll make it official. This will be deleted after I get a response.

What's the point of what you said? It's has allready been said once, and does absolutely nothing to adress my points.
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 3:45 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
What's the point of what you said? It's has allready been said once, and does absolutely nothing to adress my points.

It has nothing to do with this group
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 3:56 pm
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
It has nothing to do with this group

Oh, I get it now. However, I believe my point is valid.
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 4:16 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Oh, I get it now. However, I believe my point is valid.

Your point is mOst certainly valid
Permalink
| March 16, 2012, 4:20 pm
Does anyone know how to change the textures in LDD, I'm working on something big but the textures are different, outlined or like the're drawn making my pc very slow
Permalink
| March 17, 2012, 7:13 am
Quoting Brickviller -
Does anyone know how to change the textures in LDD, I'm working on something big but the textures are different, outlined or like the're drawn making my pc very slow

I think you can change it in Preferences.
Permalink
| March 17, 2012, 11:11 am
Quoting Vangaurd º
Noticed that a lot of nations are not very active anymore, probably because the map hasnt been added in a while. I will be more active this week.

Does anyone want to do a joint project with me?

Sure. I wouldn't mind doing a joint project.
Permalink
| March 19, 2012, 4:25 pm
The Tongorian A-5-76 medium tank has been posted.
Permalink
| March 20, 2012, 1:06 am
 Group admin 
This comment will be posted in all my active groups.
In Ldd Ive been saving my creations to my flash drive without realising, and it became smashed by mistake.
Ive sent it to a computer place so they can extract any files from the pile of parts.
All my newest creations are gone, Including my new stealth fleet, and Uboat. It could take months to get back, if ever.

Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 1:02 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
This comment will be posted in all my active groups.
In Ldd Ive been saving my creations to my flash drive without realising, and it became smashed by mistake.
Ive sent it to a computer place so they can extract any files from the pile of parts.
All my newest creations are gone, Including my new stealth fleet, and Uboat. It could take months to get back, if ever.

I copied all my LDD files onto a pendrive, so I can't lose them. I suggest you, in the future you should do the same.
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 1:30 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
This comment will be posted in all my active groups.
In Ldd Ive been saving my creations to my flash drive without realising, and it became smashed by mistake.
Ive sent it to a computer place so they can extract any files from the pile of parts.
All my newest creations are gone, Including my new stealth fleet, and Uboat. It could take months to get back, if ever.

I have mine on Dropbox, so they are shared between all of my computers. Thats to bad about you losing them, I hope you can recover them :(.
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 4:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
I copied all my LDD files onto a pendrive, so I can't lose them. I suggest you, in the future you should do the same.

I meant that I saved my files onto a USB drive, but not on my computer.
I wanted to do the oppisite.
Then I realised all my creations were gone, and saw my Usb drive hanging off my computer by its innards.
I never realised they wernt being saved on the computer.
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 6:06 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
I meant that I saved my files onto a USB drive, but not on my computer.
I wanted to do the oppisite.
Then I realised all my creations were gone, and saw my Usb drive hanging off my computer by its innards.
I never realised they wernt being saved on the computer.

Hmmm, thats a big problem. Does this mean you lost all your LDD creations? If so, that would be a real shame, as you are one of the best builders around, and have made some truely awesome stuff on LDD. I hope you can recover them.
Permalink
| March 28, 2012, 6:48 pm
 Group moderator 
Vanguard,(from the statistics thread)
I agree, those numbers are unrealistic, but the ones you came up with are too. I suggest numbers in the 1500-3000 range.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 8:35 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Hmmm, thats a big problem. Does this mean you lost all your LDD creations? If so, that would be a real shame, as you are one of the best builders around, and have made some truely awesome stuff on LDD. I hope you can recover them.

Only my newer ones, but I still have my Condor, as I made it after this happened.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 8:41 am
 Group admin 
Okay, so are early jet fighters allowed or not?
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 10:26 am
Quoting Matt P
Okay, so are early jet fighters allowed or not?

Hmm, I think the admins said they were OK after April starts...
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 10:38 am
Quoting Terror .
Hmm, I think the admins said they were OK after April starts...

I checked, and yes, it looks like April is good for jets. Hmm, I guess I better start on that jet fighter.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 12:11 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
I checked, and yes, it looks like April is good for jets. Hmm, I guess I better start on that jet fighter.

you are a building MACHINE!
How do you make them so fast and still have them look so good?
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 1:14 pm
 Group admin 
Alright, people! Before this gets out of hand, I want you all to remember that in the 40s, jets were used as trump cards. They were expensive, hard to make, and therefore very few. So, I'm thinking there should be a numbers cap on jet fighters at about 100-200. Jet bombers should be under 100. This is not subject to how many nations you incorporate, or how much land you possess, or how many resources you fancy that you have over others. It's a blanket per member cap that's intended to make it more of a level playing field.

Of course, this number can be debated, but will be set by the admins. I don't want nations flying around with thousands of jets ruling the world, because it just didn't happen. Prop jobs will still be the workhorses of all nations, as they were in the 40s even into the 50s.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 1:43 pm
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
you are a building MACHINE!
How do you make them so fast and still have them look so good?

I'm on spring break, and have been building 6-8 hours a day. And some creations, like the destroyer and bomber, have been WIP for allmost 2 months, so it's not like I built them in a day. Also, a portion of my creations are mods, like the transport plane and the flying wing.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 3:58 pm
Ultramarine, the Germans managed to produce 1433 ME 262 jet fighters, 800 HE 162 jet fighters, 400 ME 163 Comet rocket planes, and this is when they were being heavilly attacked, which obviously would have hampered their industry. Since jetfighters can only be built 5 at a time, I don't see a reason to put such a low cap, or even a cap at all.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 4:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Ultramarine, the Germans managed to produce 1433 ME 262 jet fighters, 800 HE 162 jet fighters, 400 ME 163 Comet rocket planes, and this is when they were being heavilly attacked, which obviously would have hampered their industry. Since jetfighters can only be built 5 at a time, I don't see a reason to put such a low cap, or even a cap at all.

I agree. Im also wondering when I will get my Admin status back, as I havnt done anything to deserve this. Matt P, and Ultra are never active and have I am the one who has been keeping the group in line all this time, Ive created pretty much all the convos. I think this just becuase Im going to war with them that they decide that they dont want me as an Admin anymore.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 5:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º

I was not involved in the decision to demote you. It was NOT motivated by personal dislike. However, it is fact that we cannot have an admin that insists on being as unrealistic as you have constantly been. As an admin, you believe that you can use your authority to protect what you are doing without having to answer to anyone for it as you have demonstrated. How can we have you, with your behavior, keeping others in line with the spirit of the group? Being an admin is a job, not a privilage, not to be taken lightly, and reversible.

I'd love to have this conversation in private over Flickr, but you apparently don't have one...

Quoting Matthew McCall

"As few as 200 Me 262s made it to combat units due to fuel shortages, pilot shortages, and the lack of airfields that could support the Me 262."
You can produce as many fuselages as you like, but flying them is a different matter. Besides, as a nation in decline, they didn't care about such things as the national debt and free slave labor made up a large proportion of their workforce. Again, we've seen that members can spam the group with dozens of LDD creations that are elaborate, yet would cost a great deal of money to obtain IRL. I believe the limit would work out best for everyone.

You all seem to be forgetting that though we may have the technology of the 40s, we're not embroiled in a world war right now. History shows that peacetime has small numbers of soldiers, small air forces, and small navies. The US Army in 1935 consisted of a mere 136,000 men and a handful of tanks. No one had even considered million-man armies after they disbanded in WWI. In 1938, an order of more than 100 for one type of aircraft was considered unprecedented. It was unheard of to order the numbers we see from WWII. The pre-war RAF was in the neighborhood of only 600 planes.

On that, I see no reason why peace-time ceilings should be placed.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 6:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Quoting Vangaurd º

I was not involved in the decision to demote you. It was NOT motivated by personal dislike. However, it is fact that we cannot have an admin that insists on being as unrealistic as you have constantly been. As an admin, you believe that you can use your authority to protect what you are doing without having to answer to anyone for it as you have demonstrated. How can we have you, with your behavior, keeping others in line with the spirit of the group? Being an admin is a job, not a privilage, not to be taken lightly, and reversible.

I'd love to have this conversation in private over Flickr, but you apparently don't have one...

I will get a Flickr eventually.
I think Ive earned the privlege. If your going to continue to be as active as youve been, this group is going to fall apart, as its already dangling by threads as it is.
An admin cant just comment once a week or month, and expect to keep the group running.
It seems what you are going to do is keep me from being an Admin long enough to make the war go the way you want it to go, to cheat me out of any chance I would have to beat you by making and changing rules as youve been doing.
If you want I will stay out of making decisions regarding technology, and keep my mouth shut. But your not very capable Admins either.
For the record, this is all about one argument, and not me being constantly unrealistic, as Ive have kept my mouth shut regarding technology, for say FOREVER.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 7:30 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
"As few as 200 Me 262s made it to combat units due to fuel shortages, pilot shortages, and the lack of airfields that could support the Me 262."
You can produce as many fuselages as you like, but flying them is a different matter. Besides, as a nation in decline, they didn't care about such things as the national debt and free slave labor made up a large proportion of their workforce. Again, we've seen that members can spam the group with dozens of LDD creations that are elaborate, yet would cost a great deal of money to obtain IRL. I believe the limit would work out best for everyone.

You all seem to be forgetting that though we may have the technology of the 40s, we're not embroiled in a world war right now. History shows that peacetime has small numbers of soldiers, small air forces, and small navies. The US Army in 1935 consisted of a mere 136,000 men and a handful of tanks. No one had even considered million-man armies after they disbanded in WWI. In 1938, an order of more than 100 for one type of aircraft was considered unprecedented. It was unheard of to order the numbers we see from WWII. The pre-war RAF was in the neighborhood of only 600 planes.

On that, I see no reason why peace-time ceilings should be placed.

Your logic is faulty. The reason germany had those problems because by the time production started, the country was falling apart. A country in this game would not have the problems of wartime fuel shortages or having thier jet factories blown up. I can't find any info on it being too costly, and the fact that they were made with slave labor isn't relevent, and neither is what you are saying about LDD.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 7:38 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Your logic is faulty. The reason germany had those problems because by the time production started, the country was falling apart. A country in this game would not have the problems of wartime fuel shortages or having thier jet factories blown up. I can't find any info on it being too costly, and the fact that they were made with slave labor isn't relevent, and neither is what you are saying about LDD.

Everyone is raising good points, yes, Germany didn't care about national debt, and the war machine wasn't collapsing, it kept going until the bitter end, Jets aren't as expensive as one may think, the only real change would be the engine, which couldn't be that hard to manufacture
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 9:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º
It seems what you are going to do is keep me from being an Admin long enough to make the war go the way you want it to go, to cheat me out of any chance I would have to beat you by making and changing rules as youve been doing.

Oh, you found us out! I confess everything, you're 100% right. I'm not capable of making objective decisions regarding such things, and all I want is to beat you by hook or by crook. It's an obsession that consumes me. Congrats, Mr. Holmes, you've hit upon the crux of the matter.

Let's see:
-Airship carriers. (They were useless by 1940. Period. No matter how big you build them)
-Anti-submarine warfare. (somehow your airships are so much better because they use 1944 tech but my ships can't see your subs even though by that same year U-boats were dropping like flies to sonar and ASDIC tech?).
-The size of your military. (under peace-time conditions, simply unprecedented)
-Your underground tunnel network.
-Your 'Armored' troops. (you seriously overestimate their invulnerability)
All of this is off. You would have bankrupted yourself many times over by now regardless of how much money you drained off of other nations. Nowhere in recorded history do we see tunnel networks so extensive and so all-encompassing. Yet to you, "Ba! No problem." To me, you cannot be trusted to keep others in line if you yourself can't separate reality from fantasy. And yet, you'll still refuse to see it. Instead, you'll point the finger at us.

Don't get me wrong, this is supposed to be a great alternate-reality group where we can build weird things that never really existed. But unchecked, it will be the downfall of this group. It's up to the admins to guide members into knowing what's real, and what's not. Airship carriers? Go ahead, build them! I'm sure they've got a use somewhere; for the 'Awe' factor if nothing else. It's not unrealistic to build them at all! But do not overestimate their abilities, pretend they're better than they are, or purport that all of their inherent weaknesses have just simply gone away as if they never existed. That's where the real problem is.

Quoting Matthew McCall
I can't find any info on it being too costly, and the fact that they were made with slave labor isn't relevent, and neither is what you are saying about LDD.

Well, it's not. Actually, I think any nation would have that exact same trouble. I have strategic bombers, I know others do too. Unlike resources, production centers will be considered real and material in time of war, and therefore targetable. How many jets did England put in? The US? Few, very few. In point of fact, Germany fielded the largest number of jets at 200. That's all we can go off of, period.

Very well: one Reich Mark is approximately equal to $4.20. Using that, the Me 262 cost $367,080/piece. Compare this to the mere $50,985/unit of a P-51; more than 7x cheaper. So, you could build 7 prop-jobs for 1 jet. You tell me there's no difference?

My contention with LDD has been the same all along. It's a cheap way to make your military better than every other one because you have the potential to produce elaborate creations with thousands of pieces that you'd never be able to do otherwise because of economic constraints. That's why there's the balance that we have, if a flesh-and-blood MOC is of the same class as an LDD drawing, then the MOC beats it if they measure up relatively close aesthetically. That way there's a motivation to build flesh & blood stuff...
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 10:01 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Oh, you found us out! I confess everything, you're 100% right. I'm not capable of making objective decisions regarding such things, and all I want is to beat you by hook or by crook. It's an obsession that consumes me. Congrats, Mr. Holmes, you've hit upon the crux of the matter.

Let's see:
-Airship carriers. (They were useless by 1940. Period. No matter how big you build them)
-Anti-submarine warfare. (somehow your airships are so much better because they use 1944 tech but my ships can't see your subs even though by that same year U-boats were dropping like flies to sonar and ASDIC tech?).
-The size of your military. (under peace-time conditions, simply unprecedented)
-Your underground tunnel network.
-Your 'Armored' troops. (you seriously overestimate their invulnerability)
All of this is off. You would have bankrupted yourself many times over by now regardless of how much money you drained off of other nations. Nowhere in recorded history do we see tunnel networks so extensive and so all-encompassing. Yet to you, "Ba! No problem." To me, you cannot be trusted to keep others in line if you yourself can't separate reality from fantasy. And yet, you'll still refuse to see it. Instead, you'll point the finger at us.

Don't get me wrong, this is supposed to be a great alternate-reality group where we can build weird things that never really existed. But unchecked, it will be the downfall of this group. It's up to the admins to guide members into knowing what's real, and what's not. Airship carriers? Go ahead, build them! I'm sure they've got a use somewhere; for the 'Awe' factor if nothing else. It's not unrealistic to build them at all! But do not overestimate their abilities, pretend they're better than they are, or purport that all of their inherent weaknesses have just simply gone away as if they never existed. That's where the real problem is.

Quoting Matthew McCall
I can't find any info on it being too costly, and the fact that they were made with slave labor isn't relevent, and neither is what you are saying about LDD.

Well, it's not. Actually, I think any nation would have that exact same trouble. I have strategic bombers, I know others do too. Unlike resources, production centers will be considered real and material in time of war, and therefore targetable. How many jets did England put in? The US? Few, very few. In point of fact, Germany fielded the largest number of jets at 200. That's all we can go off of, period.

Very well: one Reich Mark is approximately equal to $4.20. Using that, the Me 262 cost $367,080/piece. Compare this to the mere $50,985/unit of a P-51; more than 7x cheaper. So, you could build 7 prop-jobs for 1 jet. You tell me there's no difference?

My contention with LDD has been the same all along. It's a cheap way to make your military better than every other one because you have the potential to produce elaborate creations with thousands of pieces that you'd never be able to do otherwise because of economic constraints. That's why there's the balance that we have, if a flesh-and-blood MOC is of the same class as an LDD drawing, then the MOC beats it if they measure up relatively close aesthetically. That way there's a motivation to build flesh & blood stuff...

Ummmmm, this is getting dirty, everyone (meaning ultra and vanguard cool down) cool down, if there's war, trash talk all you want, but that won't help you. Cool it on the sarcasm, and don't be like me and spew random untrue facts, ok? No fighting no biting.
Permalink
| March 30, 2012, 10:09 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
My contention with LDD has been the same all along. It's a cheap way to make your military better than every other one because you have the potential to produce elaborate creations with thousands of pieces that you'd never be able to do otherwise because of economic constraints. That's why there's the balance that we have, if a flesh-and-blood MOC is of the same class as an LDD drawing, then the MOC beats it if they measure up relatively close aesthetically. That way there's a motivation to build flesh & blood stuff...

Dude, seriously? Why is having to spend hundreds of dollars on legos the ideal? Some people simply can't afford to spend that much money. And it's not like just becaause I have LDD, my creations build themselves. I have to work hard to build my creations, and some of the larger ones have taken about 15 hours. Second off, the money being spent on real Legos has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with a nations economy. I can agree that if two equally good creations fought each other, real brick wins.
However, quanity is a quality of it's own, and as WW2 shows, numbers sometimes simply mattered more than who had the best stuff. So LDD creations are like cheaper, not as advanced creations, and real lego is like exspensive, better stuff. However, when it come to stuff like my Heavy cruiser, it's obvious its the best heavy cruiser around because of how much better it is than the little microships. Finally, I agree with Boris; I wish you and Vanguard could cool down the sarcasim and accusations, as it has no constuctive benifits, and is tearing the group apart.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 1:39 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Finally, I agree with Boris; I wish you and Vanguard could cool down the sarcasim and accusations, as it has no constuctive benifits, and is tearing the group apart.

That's actually precisely my point. Using LDD, you can build huge and elaborate creations that nobody else can, unless we used LDD too. Just like I said. So, it gives you an advantage. Because they're in the same class, a micro-scale properly built would beat yours. Don't look at my destroyers, by the way, they'll be replaced. Use real LEGOs, build micro if you have to. No shame. I believe when I said economically speaking, I was in fact referring to one's pocketbook, not your nation's economy.

I did not want to address the situation in public like this. I would much rather have dealt with it in private. But, happened as it did.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 2:28 am
When do we start building jets?
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 3:31 am
Quoting Elpa 14
When do we start building jets?

As said several comments above, when April starts.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 7:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
That's actually precisely my point. Using LDD, you can build huge and elaborate creations that nobody else can, unless we used LDD too. Just like I said. So, it gives you an advantage. Because they're in the same class, a micro-scale properly built would beat yours. Don't look at my destroyers, by the way, they'll be replaced. Use real LEGOs, build micro if you have to. No shame. I believe when I said economically speaking, I was in fact referring to one's pocketbook, not your nation's economy.

I did not want to address the situation in public like this. I would much rather have dealt with it in private. But, happened as it did.

I have been been building regular carrier this week, and plan on replacing the flying ones.
I cant see how if an assault rifle round couldnt peirce a soilders helmet how it could pierce a suit of armor, and a sheild made out of the same materiel.
I also agree that Ldd creations should be limited in power because they can be built quite faster than real lego.
The tunnel complexes are being tuned down, and Im going to say that they arnt completed yet.
And I will use submarines for diferent roles besides attacking destroyers.
If I havnt used my jump start bonus for ships, can I use it now?
I also want everyones opinion on how MattP decided as soon as he made his stats that he could automaticly get 400 tanks, just because the creation ws already on mocpages for a while.
Its like a new builder could join and automaticly get 1000 tanks because he had a creation on flicker for a year, I dont see how this is fair.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 7:52 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º
I also want everyones opinion on how MattP decided as soon as he made his stats that he could automaticly get 400 tanks, just because the creation ws already on mocpages for a while.

I have been in this group for far longer than that tank, and I officially started creating tanks when I posted that creation. It has been 9 weeks. I'm updating my stats now, so nine time forty is 360. Do you understand? It's not when you post stats, it's when you come out with the creation.

It is NOTHING like what you are saying. You are saying that a new member automatically gets the number of tanks per week since he has already built it. BUT I CREATED THIS GROUP. I am NOT a new member!
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 9:49 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matt P
I have been in this group for far longer than that tank, and I officially started creating tanks when I posted that creation. It has been 9 weeks. I'm updating my stats now, so nine time forty is 360. Do you understand? It's not when you post stats, it's when you come out with the creation.

It is NOTHING like what you are saying. You are saying that a new member automatically gets the number of tanks per week since he has already built it. BUT I CREATED THIS GROUP. I am NOT a new member!

Thats not how weve been playing so far. When other people make there stats they follow what weve been doing, they dont get to pull the Im an admin so if I want to jump start my stats I can do it because I can do whatever I want.
you may have created conflict, but I dont like how you make me an admin, vanish and leave me to keeping things in check for so long, in two conflicts, and then we have an argument so you decide all my hard work doesnt count and I can just go skrew myself.

Ive put the most most effort into this group, and Ive been letting Ultra decide upon the technology, and I but heads with him for one miniute and you demote me from admin status, I think I have the right to be mad.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 11:04 am
Quoting Vangaurd º
I have been been building regular carrier this week, and plan on replacing the flying ones.
I cant see how if an assault rifle round couldnt peirce a soilders helmet how it could pierce a suit of armor, and a sheild made out of the same materiel.
I also agree that Ldd creations should be limited in power because they can be built quite faster than real lego.
The tunnel complexes are being tuned down, and Im going to say that they arnt completed yet.
And I will use submarines for diferent roles besides attacking destroyers.
If I havnt used my jump start bonus for ships, can I use it now?
I also want everyones opinion on how MattP decided as soon as he made his stats that he could automaticly get 400 tanks, just because the creation ws already on mocpages for a while.
Its like a new builder could join and automaticly get 1000 tanks because he had a creation on flicker for a year, I dont see how this is fair.

I agree with Vanguard about how production works. as far as I know, thats how everyone has been playing.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 12:34 pm
 Group admin 
I have created a flikr account, but it seems unworkable, and stressfull, as my computer blocks a lot of stuff, and it wont let me add a buddy icon.
I will figure it out
My name is Vangaurd conflict II
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 2:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º
I have been been building regular carrier this week, and plan on replacing the flying ones.
I cant see how if an assault rifle round couldnt peirce a soilders helmet how it could pierce a suit of armor, and a sheild made out of the same materiel.

Helmets were never intended to be bullet proof. They were meant to protect the soldier's head from flying grenades (not exploding ones), low-velocity shrapnel, rocks & debris thrown up by explosions, and general bumps & bruises. The US M1 steel pot helmet is only 0.047" thick with steel. It takes 0.25" of steel to stop a bullet at 90 degrees. The M1 also weighed 2.85 lbs, can you imagine the weight of a chest plate made from that material? Then, you've got 0.50 cal, can your suit stop those too? Or, armor piercing rounds like I've got?

Quoting Vangaurd º
The tunnel complexes are being tuned down, and Im going to say that they arnt completed yet.
And I will use submarines for diferent roles besides attacking destroyers.
If I havnt used my jump start bonus for ships, can I use it now?

On a different class of ships, yes. Otherwise, you can apply it to an existing class of a previous type, but not the new one you post. You've posted battleships and U-boats, so you can't apply it to the new model in either of those classes, it can be applied to the old one.

Quoting Vangaurd º
I also want everyones opinion on how MattP decided as soon as he made his stats that he could automaticly get 400 tanks, just because the creation ws already on mocpages for a while.
Its like a new builder could join and automaticly get 1000 tanks because he had a creation on flicker for a year, I dont see how this is fair.

That's true, however, he did post it to the group on or around January 22. After 9 weeks (at 40/week) and the jump-start of 40, that would be an even 400 tanks. Since he did post it then, I don't see a problem. But you'd be right if he just posted it yesterday or something on MP even if he had it previously on Flickr.

Production of vehicles is tough to keep track of, and I don't think we've made anyone continuously say that they're producing them in order to be able to produce them. It's one of those implied things where we are doing it even if we don't say we are. Ships are another matter, and henceforth I think we should have it a rule that you have to announce how many you're building of what before you do. Makes it easier to track so two people don't got to war and suddenly 80 more ships show up in one week; even though there may have been ample time to say that you'd been producing them all along. In fact, it has been a couple weeks since I've updated my stats myself.

I'll update the admin announcements thread shortly to reflect what I've said about the ships.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 5:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
That's true, however, he did post it to the group on or around January 22. After 9 weeks (at 40/week) and the jump-start of 40, that would be an even 400 tanks. Since he did post it then, I don't see a problem. But you'd be right if he just posted it yesterday or something on MP even if he had it previously on Flickr.

Production of vehicles is tough to keep track of, and I don't think we've made anyone continuously say that they're producing them in order to be able to produce them. It's one of those implied things where we are doing it even if we don't say we are. Ships are another matter, and henceforth I think we should have it a rule that you have to announce how many you're building of what before you do. Makes it easier to track so two people don't got to war and suddenly 80 more ships show up in one week; even though there may have been ample time to say that you'd been producing them all along. In fact, it has been a couple weeks since I've updated my stats myself.

I'll update the admin announcements thread shortly to reflect what I've said about the ships.
Ok
Ive updated my stats and stated that the 1 million men arnt all being used, and are instead mostly the reserves, and need additional training.
I also updated the numbers of creations Ive had now that I know.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 6:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º
Ok
Ive updated my stats and stated that the 1 million men arnt all being used, and are instead mostly the reserves, and need additional training.
I also updated the numbers of creations Ive had now that I know.

That's much more likely. I have a potential pool of 1.1 million conscript eligible. I'll probably never use them unless I was invaded. Now, if you were ever invaded, well that's a different matter entirely.

Have we discussed the wartime production yet? I intended to. Basically, you double what's on the table (for ships you shave off a week [or half the lowest time, you can't have ships instantly]) and troop numbers are frankly expected to grow quite large, into the millions even yet will be subject to your estimated population size based on landmass size (meaning we or you will just glance & make sure it's logical). But again that comes at an economic price. I do ramble.
Permalink
| March 31, 2012, 10:09 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Because they're in the same class, a micro-scale properly built would beat yours.

Ummm..., I suggest you reread how Plastic vs LDD works. The rules clearly state plastic wins as long as it is around as good as it's LDD counterpart. This means even if the LDD is built somewhat better, plastic wins more often than not. While in most cases this would hold for any competition, in this case, large, highly detailed ships are simply an order of magnitude better than puny microships, which are roughly the size of a single turret on the the larger ship. It's obvious which got more work, effort, and complexity put in to them, and the big ships look quite a bit better too. Can you honestly say any micro ship in this group is even close as good as any of the following ships?

http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/312827
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/51776
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/304583
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/314597
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/2223
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/306373
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/127113
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 1:31 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
Well, it's not. Actually, I think any nation would have that exact same trouble. I have strategic bombers, I know others do too. Unlike resources, production centers will be considered real and material in time of war, and therefore targetable. How many jets did England put in? The US? Few, very few. In point of fact, Germany fielded the largest number of jets at 200. That's all we can go off of, period.

Very well: one Reich Mark is approximately equal to $4.20. Using that, the Me 262 cost $367,080/piece. Compare this to the mere $50,985/unit of a P-51; more than 7x cheaper. So, you could build 7 prop-jobs for 1 jet. You tell me there's no difference?

Maybe the reason other countries didn't build many as jets is because the Germans had a head start? And as for the 200 at a time, we allready went over this, the problems were caused because they were fighting a war at the time, so problems like lack of fuel or pilots wouldn't really exist to a country not at war. You also need to factor in the jets being destroyed in combat and the factories building them being bombed.

I completely agree jets cost more, but since you could build 50 P-51's a week, building the props would cost more than the 5 jets. So, in other words, production wise, assuming equil amount of models, the jets are costing you less than an prop planes. And if you want to talk about costly production, let's look at your ship numbers. You have 11 batleships. Here is a comparision with the waring countries of WW2:

United States - 8
United Kingdom - 5
Germany - 2
Japan - 2
Italy - 3

As you can see, you made even more battleships while on a peacetime economy than a far larger and industrious country on a wartime economy. Iowa battleships cost roughly 125 million each in WW2 US dollars. So this would be like your country spending 1375 mil on these ships alone. Obviously, thats a good deal of money.
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 2:08 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
"As few as 200 Me 262s made it to combat units due to fuel shortages, pilot shortages, and the lack of airfields that could support the Me 262."
You can produce as many fuselages as you like, but flying them is a different matter. Besides, as a nation in decline, they didn't care about such things as the national debt and free slave labor made up a large proportion of their workforce. Again, we've seen that members can spam the group with dozens of LDD creations that are elaborate, yet would cost a great deal of money to obtain IRL. I believe the limit would work out best for everyone.

You all seem to be forgetting that though we may have the technology of the 40s, we're not embroiled in a world war right now. History shows that peacetime has small numbers of soldiers, small air forces, and small navies. The US Army in 1935 consisted of a mere 136,000 men and a handful of tanks. No one had even considered million-man armies after they disbanded in WWI. In 1938, an order of more than 100 for one type of aircraft was considered unprecedented. It was unheard of to order the numbers we see from WWII. The pre-war RAF was in the neighborhood of only 600 planes.

On that, I see no reason why peace-time ceilings should be placed.

You know what is quite interesting about that, they built roughly 700-1000 Me-262. Which means they payed the price of 1000, even though only 200 made it to combat. We don't have those problems. You crunch the numbers.
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 3:36 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
"As few as 200 Me 262s made it to combat units due to fuel shortages, pilot shortages, and the lack of airfields that could support the Me 262."
You can produce as many fuselages as you like, but flying them is a different matter. Besides, as a nation in decline, they didn't care about such things as the national debt and free slave labor made up a large proportion of their workforce. Again, we've seen that members can spam the group with dozens of LDD creations that are elaborate, yet would cost a great deal of money to obtain IRL. I believe the limit would work out best for everyone.

You all seem to be forgetting that though we may have the technology of the 40s, we're not embroiled in a world war right now. History shows that peacetime has small numbers of soldiers, small air forces, and small navies. The US Army in 1935 consisted of a mere 136,000 men and a handful of tanks. No one had even considered million-man armies after they disbanded in WWI. In 1938, an order of more than 100 for one type of aircraft was considered unprecedented. It was unheard of to order the numbers we see from WWII. The pre-war RAF was in the neighborhood of only 600 planes.

On that, I see no reason why peace-time ceilings should be placed.

Yeah, but technically, were not in peace-time. Everyone is gearing up for war, and some countries are already at war.
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 3:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Elpa 14
Yeah, but technically, were not in peace-time. Everyone is gearing up for war, and some countries are already at war.

With who, NPC's? Please. If anyone breaks their economy over an NPC they're doing something wrong.

Quoting Matthew McCall
You also need to factor in the jets being destroyed in combat and the factories building them being bombed.

In the 1940s, jets would be the equivalent of stealth in cost and complexity. Can you show me a single country that has more than 300 stealth aircraft? It's a perfect comparison with the relative costs and complexity of build. Possibly the reason that Germany could build so many is that they were destroyed either in the factory or en route so that they did not have the prolonged burden of maintaining them?

Quoting Matthew McCall
You have 11 batleships. Here is a comparision with the waring countries of WW2:

I don't know where you got those numbers, but I found that the US alone had no fewer than 18 battleships at the time of Pearl. The Japanese had, at that same time, 10 plus 3 on the way (13). The Royal Navy in 1939 had 15 battleships and battle cruisers (battle cruisers are battleship-sized craft that have less armor to make them faster). So, I think I'm well within the realm. [All numbers from Wikipedia]

Quoting Matthew McCall
Ummm..., I suggest you reread how Plastic vs LDD works. The rules clearly state plastic wins as long as it is around as good as it's LDD counterpart.

That's precisely my point: not one person in this group could afford IRL to pay for a ship to be made as detailed as yours is out of plastic. I know I might be able to, but it would break me financially. So, microscale ships, as long as they're not just 4 pieces stuck together would win over LDD. Otherwise, we may as well give up plastic altogether and use nothing but LDD if you want it your way. That's not the point of this game, and it's not the point of MOCpages as a whole.
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 4:06 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
With who, NPC's? Please. If anyone breaks their economy over an NPC they're doing something wrong.

Quoting Matthew McCall
You also need to factor in the jets being destroyed in combat and the factories building them being bombed.

In the 1940s, jets would be the equivalent of stealth in cost and complexity. Can you show me a single country that has more than 300 stealth aircraft? It's a perfect comparison with the relative costs and complexity of build. Possibly the reason that Germany could build so many is that they were destroyed either in the factory or en route so that they did not have the prolonged burden of maintaining them?

Your logic has a huge flaw. Airplanes in general cost way more than they used to, and are much harder to manufacture due to higher complexity. No one is building even cheap airplanes at anything near the rate they were during WW2. And with the end of the cold war and the global financial problems, no one really needs to or can afford to buy that many aircraft in the first place.

Quoting Matthew McCall
You have 11 batleships. Here is a comparision with the waring countries of WW2:

I don't know where you got those numbers, but I found that the US alone had no fewer than 18 battleships at the time of Pearl. The Japanese had, at that same time, 10 plus 3 on the way (13). The Royal Navy in 1939 had 15 battleships and battle cruisers (battle cruisers are battleship-sized craft that have less armor to make them faster). So, I think I'm well within the realm. [All numbers from Wikipedia]


No, I'm talking about ships built during WW2. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Naval_ships

<<<<That's precisely my point: not one person in this group could afford IRL to pay for a ship to be made as detailed as yours is out of plastic. I know I might be able to, but it would break me financially. So, microscale ships, as long as they're not just 4 pieces stuck together would win over LDD. Otherwise, we may as well give up plastic altogether and use nothing but LDD if you want it your way. That's not the point of this game, and it's not the point of MOCpages as a whole.
The cost of how much it would take to build a design has absolutely nothing to do with it's combat performance in the game. The rules exsplicitly say that plastic wins only if it is roughly even to it's LDD counterpart. Massive ships are far better made than puny microships, so large, well built LDD ships are better than microships. By this logic, even junky plastic builds are better than the a 1:1 scale creation of soemthing on LDD. Your argument is blatently different from the rules, so it is clearly invalid. And what you are saying about switching to building massive LDD ships doesn't make much sense unless you are willing to put 15-20 hours in per ship unlike a half hour for a microship. MOC pages allows LDD creations just as much as it allows plastic creations, so your last statement was clearly false.

*Edit: sorry about the bold, I think it was caused by the link.*
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 4:32 pm
Ummm... could a mod approve my comment? It's not about the above discusion and quite funny if you ask me.
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 6:24 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Your logic has a huge flaw.

Yeah, the US GDP in 1939 was all of $92 billion, 0.6% of today's GDP. Though you are right in what you say, since it's all proportionate, then it's the same. An aircraft that costs $300,000+ would be the equivalent of an aircraft that costs $150 million today (F-22). Just like today your average F-16 is a mere $30 million in comparison. Again, the average nation's air force was in the 500-900 plane range pre-war which includes fighters, heavy fighters, night fighters, light bombers, heavy bombers, dive bombers, and cargo planes. I still don't know why you want thousands of jets, can you even comprehend what effect 200 jet fighters would have on the world? You'd also have the ability to build about 100+ jet tactical bombers.

"LDD"
Bottom line: a well-done microscale ship, MOC plane, or MOC tank will beat an elaborate LDD one. Simply put: you either have to invest hundreds of dollars to build the elaborate one in plastic, or give up and do LDD. The point of this group is to encourage you to build plastic. Period. Moral of the story: build micro in plastic. That's not in the rules? Pity. "The Admins reserve the right to make up new rules as the game progresses. Their word is law." -Rules. Just sayin'.

"You have too many battleships"
That is what they call a non sequitur, you made the point that I possess more battleships than any one nation did during WWII. I proved I did not, that I possessed fewer than they did by at least 2 (except Germany). Then, as proof, you show me a table of how many battleships each nation *constructed* during WWII, which did not include those they already possessed? That's different by a long shot, and frankly has nothing to do with your argument. What are you trying to say?

"My comment"
I did, and deleted it. It wasn't, by the way.
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 8:42 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Quoting Matthew McCall
Your logic has a huge flaw.

Yeah, the US GDP in 1939 was all of $92 billion, 0.6% of today's GDP. Though you are right in what you say, since it's all proportionate, then it's the same. An aircraft that costs $300,000+ would be the equivalent of an aircraft that costs $150 million today (F-22). Just like today your average F-16 is a mere $30 million in comparison. Again, the average nation's air force was in the 500-900 plane range pre-war which includes fighters, heavy fighters, night fighters, light bombers, heavy bombers, dive bombers, and cargo planes. I still don't know why you want thousands of jets, can you even comprehend what effect 200 jet fighters would have on the world? You'd also have the ability to build about 100+ jet tactical bombers.

"LDD"
Bottom line: a well-done microscale ship, MOC plane, or MOC tank will beat an elaborate LDD one. Simply put: you either have to invest hundreds of dollars to build the elaborate one in plastic, or give up and do LDD. The point of this group is to encourage you to build plastic. Period. Moral of the story: build micro in plastic. That's not in the rules? Pity. "The Admins reserve the right to make up new rules as the game progresses. Their word is law." -Rules. Just sayin'.

"You have too many battleships"
That is what they call a non sequitur, you made the point that I possess more battleships than any one nation did during WWII. I proved I did not, that I possessed fewer than they did by at least 2 (except Germany). Then, as proof, you show me a table of how many battleships each nation *constructed* during WWII, which did not include those they already possessed? That's different by a long shot, and frankly has nothing to do with your argument. What are you trying to say?

"My comment"
I did, and deleted it. It wasn't, by the way.

I'm guessing your in a bad mood?
anyways..... EVERYONE STOP ARGUING AND START THE WAR ALREADY

Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 10:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
I'm guessing your in a bad mood?
anyways.....

Not at all, except I do not appreciate being called a liar, and my every move questioned. Nor do I fancy repeating myself much.
Permalink
| April 1, 2012, 10:34 pm
I think we should be able to make more faster in this group, otherwise we'll just end up like the former group were we had ONE war. Even that ended quite fast...
For example: 10 jets/week? That's rough. Im aiming for maybe 200 jets, then production ends. But waiting half a year? Nahh. Naval ships? Lets just say, in this pace, our first large naval battle will be in maybe 2-3 years. If we can produce things faster, we get more wars faster. There's no point in waiting years for your country to finally have the military you want.
Permalink
| April 2, 2012, 2:18 pm
Quoting Elpa 14
I think we should be able to make more faster in this group, otherwise we'll just end up like the former group were we had ONE war. Even that ended quite fast...
For example: 10 jets/week? That's rough. Im aiming for maybe 200 jets, then production ends. But waiting half a year? Nahh. Naval ships? Lets just say, in this pace, our first large naval battle will be in maybe 2-3 years. If we can produce things faster, we get more wars faster. There's no point in waiting years for your country to finally have the military you want.

Totally. Other war game groups are working a lot faster, have many wars and such. And yes, they may be older, but most of us here have been in at least 2 gropus of this kind.

Permalink
| April 2, 2012, 2:21 pm
hey guys, I just wanna say this, if you need help or ideas on a MOC. try this place for blueprints.
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/
Permalink
| April 2, 2012, 2:27 pm
Quoting Daniel Boone
hey guys, I just wanna say this, if you need help or ideas on a MOC. try this place for blueprints.
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/

Interesting website. Thanks. Also, what general year are we in?
Permalink
| April 3, 2012, 11:14 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Colin Small is a TFOL
Interesting website. Thanks. Also, what general year are we in?

World War 2, I think the year would be 1944
Permalink
| April 3, 2012, 11:31 am
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
World War 2, I think the year would be 1944

I know it's WWII just I need the year jut to know i I could use jets and such.
Permalink
| April 3, 2012, 11:40 am
Quoting Colin Small is a TFOL
I know it's WWII just I need the year jut to know i I could use jets and such.
Jet production is allowed since April 1st.

Permalink
| April 3, 2012, 11:48 am
Hey, anyone for a joint LDD lander project?
Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 10:52 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting PALADIN. (previously Terror.)
Hey, anyone for a joint LDD lander project?

I like the new name
Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 10:53 am
Quoting PALADIN. (previously Terror.)
Hey, anyone for a joint LDD lander project?

Sure, Im not sure if my skills are good enough, but I am open to that.
Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 11:21 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Elpa 14
I think we should be able to make more faster in this group, otherwise we'll just end up like the former group were we had ONE war. Even that ended quite fast...

Not at all, this one just needs people to get mad at each other sooner and have the motivation to fight. The downfall of that group lay in the unreal nature. As I recall, 800,000 casualties in a single day? That didn't even happen in WWI.

Quoting Elpa 14
For example: 10 jets/week? That's rough. Im aiming for maybe 200 jets, then production ends. But waiting half a year? Nahh. Naval ships? Lets just say, in this pace, our first large naval battle will be in maybe 2-3 years. If we can produce things faster, we get more wars faster. There's no point in waiting years for your country to finally have the military you want.

Don't forget that you get a first-time bonus of 60 planes. That means you'd only have to 'wait' 14 weeks. We may look at the jet figures again, but remember that props will still be the workhorses of any air force regardless. Jets will be the trump cards, not the mainstays.

As far as ships go, how many ships do you need to have a 'huge' naval engagement? The largest ship vs. ship engagement consisted of 250 ships, but that was in WWI. The largest ship vs. ship battles in WWII consisted of less than 70 vessels, including the last classic battle line engagement of the battleship (8 battleships total, the rest were smaller). Landing fleets are different, and they had a great number of fleet auxiliaries attached, padding their numbers significantly.

Bottom line, WWII fleets were smaller, and literally just groups of support vessels for the fleet carriers instead of masses of vessels forming gigantic battle lines to go gun-to-gun like they did in the First World War.
Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 12:12 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Don't forget that you get a first-time bonus of 60 planes. That means you'd only have to 'wait' 14 weeks. We may look at the jet figures again, but remember that props will still be the workhorses of any air force regardless. Jets will be the trump cards, not the mainstays.

I get 60 jets right away? That sounds better. Well i calculate my fleet will take around 16 weeks to build, and more if i build subs.

Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 12:47 pm
 Group admin 
Attention all:

The "Production Timescale" thread has been updated to include landers, fleet carriers, escort carriers, and others. Please inform yourselves as to the new updates. Vanguard, if read this, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would 'edit' your comment at the top of the Statistics thread to reflect these changes. Your comment is in a great spot for those updating their stats. Thank you.

Quoting Elpa 14
I get 60 jets right away? That sounds better. Well i calculate my fleet will take around 16 weeks to build, and more if i build subs.

Says so in the section under "Jump-start" bonus. It would only apply to new jets/aircraft once.

Also, you can build ships simultaneously, but do be logical (i.e. build 2 carriers, 2 battleships, and a handful of destroyers at once). Don't make a prolonged habit of it, however. Remember your economy...
Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 12:51 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Says so in the section under "Jump-start" bonus. It would only apply to new jets/aircraft once.

Also, you can build ships simultaneously, but do be logical (i.e. build 2 carriers, 2 battleships, and a handful of destroyers at once). Don't make a prolonged habit of it, however. Remember your economy...
So i make batches of ships? I can produce 3 destroyers in 2 weeks?

Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 12:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Elpa 14
So i make batches of ships? I can produce 3 destroyers in 2 weeks?

Indeed.
Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 1:42 pm
anyone here use neatchat? I'm a little new to it. also, is there a group on NC for Conflict?
Permalink
| April 4, 2012, 11:45 pm
 Group admin 
Good news everyone, My parents and mentor agreed to give me nearly $100 to spend at the lego store, I plan on buying the parts to make a new AA flak guns, some new vehicles, and lots of new ships.

I will get to go the week after next when Im on vacation.
Permalink
| April 6, 2012, 4:03 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
Good news everyone, My parents and mentor agreed to give me nearly $100 to spend at the lego store, I plan on buying the parts to make a new AA flak guns, some new vehicles, and lots of new ships.

I will get to go the week after next when Im on vacation.

Nice!
Permalink
| April 6, 2012, 4:23 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
Good news everyone, My parents and mentor agreed to give me nearly $100 to spend at the lego store, I plan on buying the parts to make a new AA flak guns, some new vehicles, and lots of new ships.

I will get to go the week after next when Im on vacation.

sweet! you lucky little duck you!
Permalink
| April 6, 2012, 4:36 pm
 Group moderator 
I noticed that the old conflict group is showing up on he homepage, could an admin of that group add links to the groups main pages to the two break off groups(D&C,this one) It would probably increase the number of players
Permalink
| April 7, 2012, 1:17 pm
I miss old Conflict, this time era is so boring. We should make a modern conflict!
Permalink
| April 8, 2012, 2:22 pm
Quoting Elpa 14
I miss old Conflict, this time era is so boring. We should make a modern conflict!

We already have it. It's divide and conquer.
Permalink
| April 8, 2012, 2:39 pm
Quoting Elpa 14
I miss old Conflict, this time era is so boring. We should make a modern conflict!

I love WW2, but Matthew S is right, DAC was the other group that split from old Conflict, and it is near futuristic.
Permalink
| April 8, 2012, 3:18 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
I love WW2, but Matthew S is right, DAC was the other group that split from old Conflict, and it is near futuristic.


It didn't split from the old conflict, it split from this one. David Cook just took a bunch of members here and jumped ship.
Permalink
| April 8, 2012, 4:57 pm
Quoting Dr. No

It didn't split from the old conflict, it split from this one. David Cook just took a bunch of members here and jumped ship.

Apon review, it turns out you are correct. This group was made on the 25th, and DAC was made on the 30th. However, it should be noted that was because not everyone from old Conflict wanted WW2, and up to the 29th, it really hadn't been decided what the group would be like.
Permalink
| April 8, 2012, 5:46 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
We already have it. It's divide and conquer.
Isn't that futuristic? I checked it out, and they were talking about fighters going mach 7 and having these futuristic weapons and such. Im talking about getting the old conflict back online. We already have countries, maps, and creations.

Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 3:38 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Elpa 14
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
We already have it. It's divide and conquer.
Isn't that futuristic? I checked it out, and they were talking about fighters going mach 7 and having these futuristic weapons and such. Im talking about getting the old conflict back online. We already have countries, maps, and creations.

Well, I
Wasn't there, but it seemed pretty futuristic to me, with walkers, rail guns and the like.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 6:43 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Elpa 14
Im talking about getting the old conflict back online. We already have countries, maps, and creations.

We do too here. The old conflict was somewhat chaotic, and we just need to continue this one. Perhaps for the next group we can do an even different time period besides WWII or modern.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 8:23 am
 Group admin 
This group has no patience, we're talking about quitting already?

Perhaps we could keep this group, our militaries, this timeline as it is. However, we could switch to a world map? Fragmented and torn, just to make it fair. Like 5-6 nations might take up the US.

If you all are getting bored, especially since our chosen CM is afk, then that's what I would suggest. Otherwise, I say no to futuristic, because you can't control the explosion of unrealistic technologies.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:05 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
If you all are getting bored, especially since our chosen CM is afk, then that's what I would suggest. Otherwise, I say no to futuristic, because you can't control the explosion of unrealistic technologies.

I'll be CM(please, at least acknowledge my EXISTENCE if anything)

Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:22 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
I'll be CM

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate your knowledge of WWII weapons capabilities? Perhaps more importantly, their limitations?
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:32 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate your knowledge of WWII weapons capabilities? Perhaps more importantly, their limitations?

about 7 or 8, you could find a more knowledgeable person than me, but I know my facts, know my tactics, know my common sense.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:36 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
about 7 or 8, you could find a more knowledgeable person than me, but I know my facts, know my tactics, know my common sense.

Good enough, what's your Flickr again?
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:39 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
This group has no patience, we're talking about quitting already?

Perhaps we could keep this group, our militaries, this timeline as it is. However, we could switch to a world map? Fragmented and torn, just to make it fair. Like 5-6 nations might take up the US.
If you all are getting bored, especially since our chosen CM is afk, then that's what I would suggest. Otherwise, I say no to futuristic, because you can't control the explosion of unrealistic technologies.
I like the group how it is.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:39 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Good enough, what's your Flickr again?

YAY! I think you added me as a contact, but I'm vallkirimrl(thats my screen name). ANyone else, feel free to add me too.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:41 am
 Group moderator 
Actually, I can't access the map, is there someone who could email me a screen shot?
My email is- treborruhtra@gmail.com
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 10:44 am
 Group admin 
I'm submitting this aircraft for review here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46934040@N05/5215960990/in/photostream

It's based off a later MiG, but it conforms to the Gloster E.28/39 in looks and likely capabilities (except for the max speed, probably about 550mph). The missiles obviously wouldn't be included. What say all?
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 11:47 am
No offense, but the aircraft has strange porportions and seems really chunky.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 11:56 am
How many CMs are needed? I have decent WWII knowlege. Especially about planes.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 12:12 pm
What's does submitting to review mean? Are you asking for an oppinion of it? If so, personally I think it looks chunky, and needs better porportions.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 12:24 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
I'm submitting this aircraft for review here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46934040@N05/5215960990/in/photostream

It's based off a later MiG, but it conforms to the Gloster E.28/39 in looks and likely capabilities (except for the max speed, probably about 550mph). The missiles obviously wouldn't be included. What say all?

MY initial instinct is that it shouldn't be allowed, but since itconforms to the gloster, I think it should be allowed.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 12:57 pm
 Group moderator 
Well, I request that you provide links to any creations used that aren't in this group, or are only on flickr.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 1:04 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
I'm submitting this aircraft for review here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46934040@N05/5215960990/in/photostream

It's based off a later MiG, but it conforms to the Gloster E.28/39 in looks and likely capabilities (except for the max speed, probably about 550mph). The missiles obviously wouldn't be included. What say all?

It looks very cold war era, maybe if you took photos of it without the missiles?

Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 1:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
Well, I request that you provide links to any creations used that aren't in this group, or are only on flickr.

when can we start?
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 1:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one

Well, we already have a Gloster-like aircraft in the group if I'm not mistaken.

Quoting Vangaurd º
It looks very cold war era, maybe if you took photos of it without the missiles?

That unfortunately can't happen, since it's been gone for over a year now. However, just envision the missiles replaced with bombs or unguided rockets.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 1:27 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vangaurd º
when can we start?

As soon as I get an FM containing the ombat orders from you, and a co-ordinated order from matt p and ultra, and someone emails me a screenshot of the map(someone using a mac if possible)
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 1:27 pm
Yeah...for all of you guys using Flickr, just make sure you add links to your stats so we can see them. We don’t want a situation where if you’re in war and say "well I have 200 of this on flickr, I just never added a link" since then it's not going to count; as far as this group is concerned if there’s no links and it’s not on MOCpages itself, it never exists.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 1:55 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Well, we already have a Gloster-like aircraft in the group if I'm not mistaken.

You are probably talking about my aircraft right? I have no problem with yours if you use correct stats for it, like me.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 2:00 pm
Oh, it's about if it should be allowed? Yes, I say it's OK.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 2:20 pm
Hi Tyro, nice to see you join.
Permalink
| April 9, 2012, 11:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Tyro Cook
Thank you. I'm not really as much into the whole country building thing here as I was in D&C, but I'm happy to start the WWII genre as it presents many new building opportunities.So I thought I'd start out with a hearty bang! My First WWII jet has been added, the SK-5 Hellbat.

Why dont you join an existing nation?
Im sure someone will be happy to have help.
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 9:44 am
So, about Costigar potentially building an aircraft carrier: Does anyone have any objections or can I just focus our economy and manpower to pump out one?
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 12:46 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Colin Small is a TFOL
So, about Costigar potentially building an aircraft carrier: Does anyone have any objections or can I just focus our economy and manpower to pump out one?

Costigar? Whats that?

@vangaurd, he has joined colin
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 12:48 pm
 Group moderator 
I would appreciate combat orders from that combatants by friday(Im assuming its still going on?) I would love it if someone with a mac could email me a screenshot of the map?(email- treborruhtra@gmail.com)
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 1:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
I would appreciate combat orders from that combatants by friday(Im assuming its still going on?) I would love it if someone with a mac could email me a screenshot of the map?(email- treborruhtra@gmail.com)

Should I email my orders to the same link.
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 1:28 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vangaurd º
Should I email my orders to the same link.

Sure, flickr is fine too.I'm vallkirimrl on flickr, for anyone who feels like adding me. If you do email me, just make sure to tell me who you are, I don't want to get the orders mixed up
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 1:30 pm
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
Costigar? Whats that?


I don't know where my other comment went but look for the "Revolution!" post in INN4.
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 2:25 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
Why dont you join an existing nation?
Im sure someone will be happy to have help.
The U.S.O.S. would be more than happy to invite him into our ranks and engineering.
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 7:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one

So...

...when are orders due by?
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 9:30 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Ultramarine .
So...

...when are orders due by?

Before Friday, I have a good chunk of time on Friday free but without wifi :(. But if orders are in before hand, I can screenshot all of the creations and get it done
Permalink
| April 10, 2012, 9:32 pm
 Group moderator 
I was looking through the conversation, and I saw armor piercing MGs. What are the use for those? Attack tanks(please tell me that it isn't) or trucks and the like.
In other news, my laptop decided to be agreeable and let me see the map
Permalink
| April 11, 2012, 8:45 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
I was looking through the conversation, and I saw armor piercing MGs. What are the use for those? Attack tanks(please tell me that it isn't)

diferent kinds of armored vehicles, halftracks, scout cars, and other lightly armored vehciles
Permalink
| April 11, 2012, 9:04 am
 Group moderator 
I'm going to ask that everyone get orders in by 11:59 pm on thursday, eastern time. I can have a CR out by about noon of Friday if all goes well
Permalink
| April 11, 2012, 3:21 pm
 Group admin 
Hey everybody,

It's been brought to my attention that certain stats might be out of order. As a reminder, the jump-start bonus can only, I repeat only, be used on the first vehicle/ship/plane in its class. It cannot be used continually whenever a new one is posted. Subsequent ships in the same class must start from scratch.

Also, the production rates apply to all vehicles on a blanket basis, not to each one individually. So, only 185 vehicles and 89 aircraft can be produced each week (not counting jump-starts).

Might not seem like much, but even Germany was 90% foot-borne just prior to the war and only 40% motorized at its height during the war. Remember, it is different for war-time.

Individuals in violation have been noted, and your prompt response to this would be preferable in the form of reformed stats. Thank you.
Permalink
| April 12, 2012, 1:55 pm
 Group moderator 
Just a reminder to Matt P, Vanguard, And Ultra that orders are due in just over an hour
Permalink
| April 12, 2012, 10:37 pm
 Group moderator 
CM vallkirimrl is most displeased that only Ultra turned in orders
Permalink
| April 13, 2012, 12:07 am
Quoting Vallkirimrl (preivously C. Boris)
CM vallkirimrl is most displeased that only Ultra turned in orders

I guess it's safe to assume his forces are defensive, but that's it. Do we even assume his forces were mobalised if he didn't previously state so?
Permalink
| April 13, 2012, 12:15 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
I guess it's safe to assume his forces are defensive, but that's it. Do we even assume his forces were mobalised if he didn't previously state so?

Since I have orders if sorts from vanguard, I'm going to go ahead with the CM. the Ceyronian plan is to defend, yeah, it's obbiously mobilized
Permalink
| April 13, 2012, 12:28 am
Quoting Vallkirimrl (preivously C. Boris)
Since I have orders if sorts from vanguard, I'm going to go ahead with the CM. the Ceyronian plan is to defend, yeah, it's obbiously mobilized

Yah, that makes sense.
Permalink
| April 13, 2012, 12:33 am
 Group admin 
Sorry about the no orders issue, I've been pretty overwhelmed with work this weekend.

When are the next ones due?
Permalink
| April 13, 2012, 9:25 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matt P
Sorry about the no orders issue, I've been pretty overwhelmed with work this weekend.

When are the next ones due?

How about Wednesday, 11:59 pm, it's spring break, so I should be able to get it out quickly again
Permalink
| April 14, 2012, 8:58 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Vallkirimrl (preivously C. Boris)
How about Wednesday, 11:59 pm, it's spring break, so I should be able to get it out quickly again

Wednesday the 18th? Ok sounds good.
Permalink
| April 14, 2012, 6:41 pm
 Group admin 
Hey peeps, just wanted to mention that we were one of four of the groups in the "explore" section on the Mocpages homepage.
OH HELLZ YEAH
Permalink
| April 15, 2012, 3:57 pm
Quoting Matt P
Hey peeps, just wanted to mention that we were one of four of the groups in the "explore" section on the Mocpages homepage.
OH HELLZ YEAH

That's cool, and I hate to spoil your good mood, but what groups appear in exsplore is random. For proof, just refresh the page several times and you can see it's different groups every time you compare.
Permalink
| April 15, 2012, 4:57 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
That's cool, and I hate to spoil your good mood, but what groups appear in exsplore is random. For proof, just refresh the page several times and you can see it's different groups every time you compare.

Good old spoiler :P
Permalink
| April 15, 2012, 5:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
That's cool, and I hate to spoil your good mood, but what groups appear in exsplore is random. For proof, just refresh the page several times and you can see it's different groups every time you compare.

I know this already, it's just kinda exciting for us to be up there. It's like the 2nd or 3rd time too.
Permalink
| April 15, 2012, 5:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Also, the production rates apply to all vehicles on a blanket basis, not to each one individually. So, only 185 vehicles and 89 aircraft can be produced each week (not counting jump-starts).

Can you please explain this better.
Are you saying that if you have five diferent fighters that you can only produce 60 of one type in a week. Because this wont work.
This is a big change as no one has been playing like this including you.
If I am correct then everyone will have to change there stats. Changes like this wont be good for the group, and is very upsetting. I say we should vote on it, we cant keep changing the rules like this.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 1:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º
Can you please explain this better.

It's not a change, as it's been the rules from the word 'go'. Unfortunately, it has only now been brought to my attention that some have over 14,000+ land vehicles *coughMATT.Mcough*, when someone like me has all of 3,371; and 30.9% of that is gun jeeps. I believe this is an abuse of not only the production scales, but also the jump-start bonuses. That would be right, though by my calculation, I've only got 141 fighters over the limit, which is easily fixed. I am thinking of upping the production numbers, but if it's equal for everyone, then there shouldn't be an issue here. Or, if we do apply the number for each vehicle, then we'd need to trim them down.

What I see here is what I feared, people are just churning out vehicles and planes without a care in the world to their economy. I know it's a pain to have such a tight leash on production rates, but because we're dealing with a fictional versus real world with no starting grounds to go off of, this is what we get. If we were doing real-world, it would be easy. Mexico wouldn't have the ability to have more than a hundred tanks at most and about two-dozen planes. The US, or fractured states thereof, would have the ability to produce more than that. But here, we have to assume everyone is equal, and so we have to have strict regulation. This leads to rules that would baffle law students, and have to be constantly explained.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 1:55 pm
No, it hasn't been this way, that's your interpitation of the rules Vanguard made. It quite clearly states that that is for each vehicle, not a grand total. As far as I know, you are the only person who has seen it this way. You are telling the person who made the rule your personel oppinion of it, which is quite obviously not what he intended. And if you would take a look at my numbers, you would see that the fast majority are light and medium vehicles with only about 5 percent being heavies. And my numbers are puny compared to WW2 numbers. Sure, they were at war back then, but all my numbers combined can't even reach production runs of single vehicles that were produced. Vanguard is an admin too, and he made the production system, so I would take his word as overiding others on this matter.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 2:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
No, it hasn't been this way, that's your interpitation of the rules Vanguard made.

No, it's my interpretation of the rules that *I* made for this group. Vanguard only copied them and posted them in the stats thread. Which I believe was a good idea, and have found that a convenient place to see them.
http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=19346&topicid=76728#comment-902805
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 2:32 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
I've only got 141 fighters over the limit, which is easily fixed. I am thinking of upping the production numbers, but if it's equal for everyone, then there shouldn't be an issue here. Or, if we do apply the number for each vehicle, then we'd need to trim them down.

I think mattP fixed his stats already.
Anyway I think that at this point nobody has really high numbers of vehicles, and instead of making everybody change there stats we should try and find another solution first.

What do you think about setting a limit on how many vehicles you can produce in total? Say you can only produce 1000 tanks for example, and 2000 fighters, or roughly 10,000 land vehicles?

Its just that the original rule wasnt that clear, so after all this time people have been trading, and stuff while building there military not noticing this rule.

Other than that I say we should trim the stats down now, but maybe keep our original stats to some degree, I still want to have it so the more creations you make the faster you can build your military.
I do think that the members who are affected should get a say in this, maybe a vote.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 2:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º
I think mattP fixed his stats already.
Anyway I think that at this point nobody has really high numbers of vehicles, and instead of making everybody change there stats we should try and find another solution first.

It's Matt McCall, actually. Well, it will mean a change either way. Either someone will come down, or someone like me would go up. Not that I would mind going up...

Quoting Vangaurd º
What do you think about setting a limit on how many vehicles you can produce in total? Say you can only produce 1000 tanks for example, and 2000 fighters, or roughly 10,000 land vehicles?

I find that to be a worthy suggestion, and one that I have advocated in other areas, like jets. However, no one seems to be able to agree on that either. Nevertheless, I do believe that we should have a council over Flickr to decide the matter once and for all.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 2:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Well, it will mean a change either way. Either someone will come down, or someone like me would go up. Not that I would mind going up...
we should have a council over Flickr to decide the matter once and for all.

I think it might be better to keep our stats so far, maybe it would be easyer for you to increase you vehicles numbers seeing as you are the only one who has been playing like that.
You can find me on flickr here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78552153@N02/
Im sort of new to it so you might have to give me a link to the convo because I probably wont be able to find it.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 2:49 pm
Ultra, you should notice I have been cutting production permantly (well not quite, but no plans to resume production) of certain vehicles each week. Before you start complaining about finanicial problems, you should remember that the Consortium is two countries working together as a federation, and that we really haven't produced much of a navy compared to quite a few countries.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 3:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Before you start complaining about finanicial problems, you should remember that the Consortium is two countries working together as a federation, and that we really haven't produced much of a navy compared to quite a few countries.

I've got three nations in my little alliance. Not producing what you can is not an excuse for producing what you can't. There is no provision in the rules for multiple nations. I considered it, but then we'd have people running across the map grabbing up dozens of nations. I didn't want that. That may be one of the topics we discuss.

Quoting Vangaurd º

Ok, I'll see what I can set up tomorrow afternoon.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 3:16 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Before you start complaining about financial problems, you should remember that the Consortium is two countries working together as a federation, and that we really haven't produced much of a navy compared to quite a few countries.


That does not make any sense. By that logic you could just say, "My country is made of 30 smaller countries and can produce unlimited amounts of forces!" That’s ridiculous, and in any event would still cripple your economy—which I would assume is doing horrible right now anyways since you produced like 1000 of everything.

@Ultramarine
I would like to be in on this conversation when it's set up if possible.

Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 3:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. No

That does not make any sense. By that logic you could just say, "My country is made of 30 smaller countries and can produce unlimited amounts of forces!"

I think he meant the NPC he captured.
I also think that in order to capture a NPC it has to exist on the map. Can someone please update the map, maybe Ultra or you.
Whoever does it remember to increase BAC occupied Methra from last weeks battles, add Bulkana to my nation, and fix my color.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 3:52 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
I think he meant the NPC he captured.
I also think that in order to capture a NPC it has to exist on the map. Can someone please update the map, maybe Ultra or you.
Whoever does it remember to increase BAC occupied Methra from last weeks battles, add Bulkana to my nation, and fix my color.


I'd be willing to update the map, but I'm not sure how it was made or uploaded to that site. If I were to put it into MS Paint (Which I assume was used to make it) it appears all blurry and would be near impossible to edit that way.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 4:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. No

I'd be willing to update the map, but I'm not sure how it was made or uploaded to that site. If I were to put it into MS Paint (Which I assume was used to make it) it appears all blurry and would be near impossible to edit that way.

I will try to do it now.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 4:09 pm
Quoting Vangaurd º
I will try to do it now.


Ok, just check that list I made in the Map convo so you don't leave out anything. --Perhaps you should upload it onto Flickr as well.

Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 4:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. No
@Ultramarine
I would like to be in on this conversation when it's set up if possible.

Certainly!

I'd certainly like to pitch in on the map too, and might be able to do it with a couple programs I've got. Though it would be this weekend before I could get to it, would that be ok?
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 4:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. No

Ok, just check that list I made in the Map convo so you don't leave out anything. --Perhaps you should upload it onto Flickr as well.

Im doing the map now. The problem was that it cant be done on paint, it has to be done in photoshop so there wont be any pixels.
I will have it done by thursday, and will have everything on it that needs to be done, and lots of NPCs.
And Ultra, maybe to prevent the map inactivity from happening again, we can take turns, that way if one of us misses the map the next week the other person will be doing it just in case.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 4:35 pm
Quoting Dr. No

That does not make any sense. By that logic you could just say, "My country is made of 30 smaller countries and can produce unlimited amounts of forces!" That’s ridiculous, and in any event would still cripple your economy—which I would assume is doing horrible right now anyways since you produced like 1000 of everything.
I got a full sized country to join mine, which obviously would boost the economy. The only things I have produced 1000 of is trucks. I have a tiny navy, with the heaviest ships being cruisers. This obviously would significantly lighten the load on the economy compared to people making 13 battleships. And finally, since they are cheaper LDD models, the produced stuff doesn't cost quite so much.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 4:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º

Actually, would you mind me taking a crack at it first? I'll do terrain features and everything (rivers, mountains, forests, deserts, etc.). I could probably have it done Thursday or Friday evening. I've always wanted to do a geography project like this.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 5:56 pm
 Group admin 
Hey guys, would there be any possible chance we could post-pone the CR for a day? I'm terribly loaded with work and spring testing this week, and I don't think I can get any orders in tonight.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 6:34 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
I got a full sized country to join mine, which obviously would boost the economy. The only things I have produced 1000 of is trucks. I have a tiny navy, with the heaviest ships being cruisers. This obviously would significantly lighten the load on the economy compared to people making 13 battleships.


How did you get another country of equal size to just join you? I don't understand why everyone annexes land "peacefully" when we’re in a WW2/apocolyptic world. That would not happen; in a war-torn world governments are not just going to give up their power.

And yes, you do have 5000+ in jeeps and such; but a land force with vehicles that are well over 30,000 in number is just not possible. Even two "joined" countries could not build nor support that during peacetime—and at one time! It’s not like they just went through WW1 and the Great Depression or anything—their economies are fine. But hey, when countries join together they can build anything right?—like 120 seaplanes in five days! I don’t see anything in the stats rules that allow a person to build more than 60 fighters a week, not 120 in five days—and by the way a week is seven days—but oh, the country is actually two, so they can just ignore the rules and do whatever.

Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 6:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Actually, would you mind me taking a crack at it first? I'll do terrain features and everything (rivers, mountains, forests, deserts, etc.). I could probably have it done Thursday or Friday evening. I've always wanted to do a geography project like this.

The new map is already up, you can still do a terreain map, wouldnt it be better sepertate.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 6:50 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matt P
Hey guys, would there be any possible chance we could post-pone the CR for a day? I'm terribly loaded with work and spring testing this week, and I don't think I can get any orders in tonight.

you know there do tommirrow, not today right, but I'm fine with that
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 7:37 pm
Quoting Dr. No
Quoting Matthew McCall
I got a full sized country to join mine, which obviously would boost the economy. The only things I have produced 1000 of is trucks. I have a tiny navy, with the heaviest ships being cruisers. This obviously would significantly lighten the load on the economy compared to people making 13 battleships.


How did you get another country of equal size to just join you? I don't understand why everyone annexes land "peacefully" when we’re in a WW2/apocolyptic world. That would not happen; in a war-torn world governments are not just going to give up their power.

And yes, you do have 5000+ in jeeps and such; but a land force with vehicles that are well over 30,000 in number is just not possible. Even two "joined" countries could not build nor support that during peacetime—and at one time! It’s not like they just went through WW1 and the Great Depression or anything—their economies are fine. But hey, when countries join together they can build anything right?—like 120 seaplanes in five days! I don’t see anything in the stats rules that allow a person to build more than 60 fighters a week, not 120 in five days—and by the way a week is seven days—but oh, the country is actually two, so they can just ignore the rules and do whatever.

Sorry, but I don't think you get it. The Lanuran goverment didn't really lose any power because it is a federation. There is no reason why we can't have joined peacefully, you should realise this type of thing happened back then. 1930's pre WW2 Germany is a good example. I have nowhere around 30,000 vehicles. And I was by no means trying to break any rules. You do realise I and a good amount of other people had interpeted that rule quite differently? You are being quite needlessly sarcastic. Also, I never, ever, used a production bonus on the same type of vehicle, and I do mean EVER. I was quite carefull about that.

Also, before you start complaining how much all this would cost, here is some simple math. Iowa Class battleships cost 100 to 125 million each, depending on the estimate. I will use low estimate to prove my point even stronger. Sherman tanks cost 30,000 each. We will use shermans as a medium vehicle, as I have both more and less exspensive vehicles.

Divide the battleship by the sherman and you find you could build 3030 tanks for one battleship. Multiply this by 11 (the number of battleships Ultra has) and you get 33,333 tanks for those ships. Therefore, just his battleships cost quite a bit more than all my groundforces combined. And if we want a high estimate, his 11 battleships cost 45,833 sherman tanks, more than double how much my ground forces cost.
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 8:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall

You are comparing apples with oranges. I've proved that the average pre-war navy IRL was about my strength (though they had a few more cruisers and destroyers, that's beside the point), whereas the average pre-war army did not possess as many tanks as you have. Also, it doesn't matter how many tanks you could produce for the price of a battleship, you simply cannot say "Well, in lieu of a battleship, I'm gonna make 50,000 tanks, 'k?" So your point doesn't make sense, or at the least is immaterial.

Now, you can either see what the rules are, or we can keep arguing this point for another 30 comments. Which is it?
Permalink
| April 17, 2012, 9:06 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
You are comparing apples with oranges. I've proved that the average pre-war navy IRL was about my strength (though they had a few more cruisers and destroyers, that's beside the point), whereas the average pre-war army did not possess as many tanks as you have. Also, it doesn't matter how many tanks you could produce for the price of a battleship, you simply cannot say "Well, in lieu of a battleship, I'm gonna make 50,000 tanks, 'k?" So your point doesn't make sense, or at the least is are, or we can keep arguing this point
for another 30 comments. Which is it?
I'm not saying that I am producing that many vehicles, I'm saying you've spent quite a bit more than my entire ground force in just a part of your navy, so if my economy is ruined, yours is even worse. And 50,000 is more than an order of magnitude greater than a battleship is worth.

Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 12:32 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
I'm not saying that I am producing that many vehicles, I'm saying you've spent quite a bit more than my entire ground force in just a part of your navy, so if my economy is ruined, yours is even worse. And 50,000 is more than an order of magnitude greater than a battleship is worth.

That still is not the point. The point is that I'm producing within the bounds of the rules, and you're not. That's what this is all about.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 1:16 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
That still is not the point. The point is that I'm producing within the bounds of the rules, and you're not. That's what this is all about.

I wasn't purposely breaking the rules, and what I'm saying is if someone argues that my country's economy is ruined, yours is worse. That's all I'm saying, nothing more.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 1:23 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. No
And yes, you do have 5000+ in jeeps and such; but a land force with vehicles that are well over 30,000 in number is just not possible. Even two "joined" countries could not build nor support that during peacetime


Germany feilded over 50,000 tanks,
and SPG in WWII,
they feilded 16,409 panzer IIIs alone.
Of course they never used all of them.
In pre war time they feilded 3,503 tanks,
and SPG.

Of cource these numbers didnt
compare to the amount of tanks
America produced.

heres some stats,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 9:45 am
Yah, thanks vangaurd. I field less than 5000 tanks, less than 200 of which are heavy tanks.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:16 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall

Oy vey.

And that point just became moot, because you have a much larger navy than I do. Let's face it, if you call that a heavy cruiser, than your battleships are gonna be beasts. Those are battleships, not cruisers. They're too powerful to be anything less. $1.2 billion there compared to my $1.1 billion ($100 million difference). You've got 69 U-boats (building 36 at once?!?!), that's at least $414 million there. Add up all your other ships, we're getting closer to each other. We have about the same number of destroyers (22 vs. 17), and I have 4 carriers. On the other hand, I have only ~22% of your ground force. So, I'm really worse off than you?

Anyway, it was just an observation, and economically speaking you couldn't just keep churning out vehicles like you have been. Also, building 36 U-boats at once is very outside the limits. I don't wish to debate this further.

The new rules will be out in a day or two. It will mean some adjustments. When the admins/mods have finished, there will be no debate about it whatever the decision.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:21 am
On a side note: I really would like to know what is going on with the war between Belkaustan Confederation and Balaclava (?) So why did the war start, who are involved and so on.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:35 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Oy vey.

And that point just became moot, because you have a much larger navy than I do.

I dont see your point, sure a nation would have no reason to feild an army that size in peacetime but it would be easier for them to make that many vehicles than a war time nation, as its not like a war time nation has more money, and a better economy to be able to support a large army, they would probably have less money from being bombed.
I dont think the problem is his economy, I think its more about why would he need to produce that many vehicles.


Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:37 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Brickviller -
On a side note: I really would like to know what is going on with the war between Belkaustan Confederation and Balaclava (?) So why did the war start, who are involved and so on.

Right now the war is between Vanguard and Matt P. I just haven't gotten there yet. Orders are due tonight for that conflict.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:40 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
Oy vey.

And that point just became moot, because you have a much larger navy than I do. Let's face it, if you call that a heavy cruiser, than your battleships are gonna be beasts. Those are battleships, not cruisers. They're too powerful to be anything less. $1.2 billion there compared to my $1.1 billion ($100 million difference). You've got 69 U-boats (building 36 at once?!?!), that's at least $414 million there. Add up all your other ships, we're getting closer to each other. We have about the same number of destroyers (22 vs. 17), and I have 4 carriers. On the other hand, I have only ~22% of your ground force. So, I'm really worse off than you?


You do know what a typo is, right? That was an accident with the subs. My heavy cruisers are heavy cruisers, not battleships, because that what I intended them to be. Just because I built it big doesn't mean it's a battleship. Notice the size of the guns relative to the ship and it is quite clearly a heavy cruiser. You are grasping at straws.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:40 am
Quoting Vangaurd º
I dont see your point, sure a nation would have no reason to feild an army that size in peacetime but it would be easier for them to make that many vehicles than a war time nation, as its not like a war time nation has more money, and a better economy to be able to support a large army, they would probably have less money from being bombed.
I dont think the problem is his economy, I think its more about why would he need to produce that many vehicles.
Because he might be planning on going to war or selling stuff.

Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:42 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Brickviller -
On a side note: I really would like to know what is going on with the war between Belkaustan Confederation and Balaclava (?) So why did the war start, who are involved and so on.

I started the war because the nation of Methra had been divided for some time, and Methra used to be our ally before the great war.
So I declared war on Ceyron, and then Balcava declared war on us because they wanted some action. When we questioned them they said they are going to war because its a challenge, they dont appear to have any concern over Methra, or Ceyron.

On another note read the comments in the group the Ridge, thats why we invited you.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
You are grasping at straws.

Yeah... I'm not the one that has to justify myself here.

Quoting Vangaurd º
When we questioned them they said they are going to war because its a challenge, they dont appear to have any concern over Methra, or Ceyron.

While that is partially true, the real reason is that we're going to war to protect those who can't protect themselves. You made demands that we believed to be intolerable, backed up by claims that you outnumber and outgun the enemy, and that you will take what you believe to be yours by force and violence. We're pretty tight with Ceyron, so I would not say we don't have any concern for them.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 11:05 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
Yeah... I'm not the one that has to justify myself here.

You were attempting to redefine my ships in order to make them cost more, and gave no evidence besides that the model is large, an obvious logical fallacy. You were also adding a typo to my stats when I don't even have those subs built in the first place. Finally, you were accusing me of cheating, when I was just following a common interpitation of a unclear rule. To help my economy, I have sold thousands of things I have built, as well as sold production rights to quite a few vehicles.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 11:57 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
You were attempting to redefine my ships in order to make them cost more, and gave no evidence besides that the model is large, an obvious logical fallacy.

I meant that it was large and powerful, with a weapons manifest that I believed to be heavier than a standard cruiser. You can't just define a vessel as something, and I notice that you lack overall specs for the ship. What kind of guns does it have? If you actually showed that information it would be blatantly obvious which is was. Second, I don't go around doing things to make them cost more so I can feel better. I'm not the one that's outside the rules, you are. If you had the exact same things I did, even though it would include a larger capital fleet, there wouldn't be an argument. Instead of realizing that, you continue to attempt to justify yourself. I'm not the one grasping at straws, I'm not the one with stats issues, I'm not the one justifying myself. Just stop this already.

Right, and I can edit your posts for them to say what I want them to say? Whose fault is that typo? Who can make it go away so that there isn't any further confusion? It sorta looks like you got your hand stuck in the cookie jar and saying "I was just fixing the lid..."

Also, it was clearly outlined from the beginning, WITH EXAMPLES, what the jump-start bonuses were.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 12:13 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
I meant that it was large and powerful, with a weapons manifest that I believed to be heavier than a standard cruiser. You can't just define a vessel as something, and I notice that you lack overall specs for the ship. What kind of guns does it have? If you actually showed that information it would be blatantly obvious which is was. Second, I don't go around doing things to make them cost more so I can feel better. I'm not the one that's outside the rules, you are. If you had the exact same things I did, even though it would
include a larger capital fleet, there wouldn't be an argument. Instead of realizing that, you continue to attempt to justify yourself. I'm not the one grasping at straws, I'm not the one with stats issues, I'm not the one justifying myself. Just stop this already.

Right, and I can edit your posts for them to say what I want them to say?
Whose fault is that typo? Who can make it go away so that there isn't any further confusion? It sorta looks like you got your hand stuck in the cookie jar and saying "I was just fixing the lid..."

Also, it was clearly outlined from the beginning, WITH EXAMPLES, what the jump-start bonuses were.

It's a heavy cruiser, similiar to the Baltimore class cruisers. There you go, I'm not a big fan of writing large descriptions, but that defines it well enough. And who cares what it says for how many subs are built, it's my actual stats that matter. All I did was acidently add a 3, I can assure you the correct number will be fixed when they are actually added to my stats. However, I can't fix it right now because I'm using my phone at school, not my laptop. I know how jumpstart works, and am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt I never used one for the same type of vehicle twice EVER. The confusion was over regular production, which was quite simply not very clear (you can tell it's not clear when half the members didn't understand it.)
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 12:28 pm
After doing some research I found out Iowa battleships displaced slightly over 3 times as much as Baltimores, so it would seem safe to say they would cost 3 times as much.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 12:36 pm
 Group admin 
Whatever. I could go on, but I don't have the energy. Conversation's over.

When the new rules come out, there will be no excuses. Compliance will be absolute or penalties will result.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 12:36 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Whatever. I could go on, but I don't have the energy. Conversation's over.

When the new rules come out, there will be no excuses. Compliance will be absolute or penalties will result.

I don't really want to argue either, but I really just don't know what to do about my stats. It's pratically impossible to change them because of all the trading, how many months they have been around, and the fact my stuff has even been used and is still being used in a war. Changing them messes up quite a few deals with many members. How about I just stop building new ground vehicles for a while until people catch up? Or perhaps other's could get a boost in numbers? I really don't want to cheat at all, I'm just in a tough situation right now.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 12:49 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Whatever. I could go on, but I don't have the energy. Conversation's over.

When the new rules come out, there will be no excuses. Compliance will be absolute or penalties will result.

The new rules haven't come out yet, but I do say that sounds way too despotic.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 4:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Colin Small is a TFOL
The new rules haven't come out yet, but I do say that sounds way too despotic.

Yes, doesn't it rather? I've said it before, I do not enjoy debating the rules, justifying myself time and again when it is clearly stated that the admin's word is law. It becomes tiresome, and sometimes I lash out.

Called being human.

However, that does NOT mean that what I said in that comment is any less true.
Permalink
| April 18, 2012, 10:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
when the new rules come out,

I wasnt paying much attention, what where these rules about?

Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 3:34 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Yes, doesn't it rather? I've said it before, I do not enjoy debating the rules, justifying myself time and again when it is clearly stated that the admin's word is law. It becomes tiresome, and sometimes I lash out.

Called being human.

However, that does NOT mean that what I said in that comment is any less true.

You do bring up a point.
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 3:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vangaurd º
I wasnt paying much attention, what where these rules about?

The ones that we'll be discussing over Flickr for the next few days once I (or one of you mods or admins) start the conversation tonight.
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 4:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
The ones that we'll be discussing over Flickr for the next few days once I (or one of you mods or admins) start the conversation tonight.

Im going to bed in an hour, I get tired, so hopefully we can discuss things around this time tommoro. Maybe you should start the convo.
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 5:49 pm
 Group moderator 
Im a moderator! Why is that?
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 10:04 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vallkirimrl (preivously C. Boris)
Im a moderator! Why is that?

A pay raise?
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 10:06 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vallkrimrl

Haha, the admins have been doing some ranking rearrangement lately, and you were simply promoted because of the activity and good work you have shown lately. Congrats and keep up the good work!
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 10:19 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matt P
Haha, the admins have been doing some ranking rearrangement lately, and you were simply promoted because of the activity and good work you have shown lately. Congrats and keep up the good work!

:D I see awe was demoted.....
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 10:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vallkirimrl (preivously C. Boris)
:D I see awe was demoted.....

Part of the whole ranking scheme again. He hasn't been really... active lately.
Permalink
| April 19, 2012, 10:25 pm
 Group admin 
Vanguard, I do not intend to constantly pick at your stuff, but I do believe that your newest aircraft does not conform to the timeline in a few respects:
1) No aircraft under a two-engined medium bomber (B-25 & 26) was equipped with anything heavier than a 37mm cannon (P-39, Stuka G). 50mm is even larger than the ammo used by an A-10 Thunderbolt II.
2) Autocannons haven't been invented, and the ROF for a cannon of that period was very low (otherwise they'd knock the plane right out of the sky).
3) The ammunition capacity would be very low as well. The Stuka G, closest example, had a total of 12 rounds.

Fix those, and I think you'll be good.

Quoting Matthew McCall

Quoting Vangaurd º

Gentlemen, may we please keep the CR thread free of any superfluous conversations?

Address concerns here or over Flickr, please.
Permalink
| April 20, 2012, 11:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .

Thank you for addressing these issues, Ultra.

This goes out to EVERYONE as well, please keep weapon statistics realistic.

And also, keep flame-war-starting-comments COMPLETELY out of the INN. I don't care your argument, comments that state your opinion about something have potential to be harmful to others.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 1:33 pm
Actually Ultra, Auto cannons have been around for longer than you think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon#History
Some good examples are the Bofors or the Pom Pom. And by the end of WW2, most aircraft had auto cannons as part of their armament.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 2:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall

Congratulations! Feel better now? Autocannon = Automatic cannon. Get the point, I was referring to autocannons with the kind of ROFs that Vanguard was talking about.

Why do you constantly feel the need to contradict what I say?
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 2:17 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
Congratulations! Feel better now? Autocannon = Automatic cannon. Get the point, I was referring to autocannons with the kind of ROFs that Vanguard was talking about.

Why do you constantly feel the need to contradict what I say?

I don't constantly feel the need to disagree with you, but the statement that auto cannons hadn't been invented yet was clearly false, and would have affected countless creations. I couldn't have known you were talking about auto cannons with that rate of fire because you didn't specifically say so, so it sounded like you were talking about all auto cannons.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 2:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
I don't constantly feel the need to disagree with you.

You just did it again.

The article itself said that they weren't referred to as autocannons back then, did you see that? So, because autocannon is a relatively new term, I think I'm justified in my original statement. I've got several creations with 20mm cannons, obviously it was not intended to be a blanket statement that would rob everyone of anything heavier than MGs. Also, if you'd read what I said, I went on to illustrate that other planes had "Autocannons" even though I did not call them that. Perhaps you noticed? So, your entire point and this debate is merely over semantics?

Knock it off, it's becoming exceedingly onerous.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 2:31 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
You just did it again.

The article itself said that they weren't referred to as autocannons back then, did you see that? So, because autocannon is a relatively new term, I think I'm justified in my original statement. I've got several creations with 20mm cannons, obviously it was not intended to be a blanket statement that would rob everyone of anything heavier than MGs. Also, if you'd read what I said, I went on to illustrate that other planes had "Autocannons" even though I did not call them that. Perhaps you noticed? So, your entire point and this debate is merely over semantics?

Knock it off, it's becoming exceedingly onerous.

I read what you said, not once but twice. Just because they weren't called autocannons doesn't meant they aren't auto cannons. Bofors is called an auto cannon today, and it's the same weapon it was back then. Therefore, it was an autocannon, even if it wasn't called that. If I called my tanks "armor wagons", would you then say they aren't tanks? And no, when talking about aircraft, you didn't say "autocannons", you said "cannons", so I thought you considered them to be different weapon types. I'm sorry this all started, and I'll stop talking now.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 2:47 pm
 Group admin 
On another note, does anybody curretly want any new video games.
I was at gamestop, and they had the new PSV on display and I gave it a quick try, it was the most awesome thing I think I have ever played. It has a touch screen on the front, and two joysticks, and better graphics even than the Wii. I was shocked at how easy it was to use, it has 3G, a GPS, MP3, can download movies, play PSP games and much more. I played gravity rush, and will definently be buying it as soon as I can, along with that game, and a memory card. The only noticible flaw over other systems is that it cost 400 dollars to set up (only the system and memory card), but I will get it anyways because its so awesome.
I am just to exited over this.
On my trip I also picked up the mario party 8,9 and some Ps2 games
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 4:56 pm
Quoting Vanguard º
On another note, does anybody curretly want any new video games.
I was at gamestop, and they had the new PSV on display and I gave it a quick try, it was the most awesome thing I think I have ever played. It has a touch screen on the front, and two joysticks, and better graphics even than the Wii. I was shocked at how easy it was to use, it has 3G, a GPS, MP3, can download movies, play PSP games and much more. I played gravity rush, and will definently be buying it as soon as I can, along with that game, and a memory card. The only noticible flaw over other systems is that it cost 400 dollars to set up (only the system and memory card), but I will get it anyways because its so awesome.
I am just to exited over this.
On my trip I also picked up the mario party 8,9 and some Ps2 games

Mario party 8? In my oppinion, it's inferior to previous mario party games, but MP9 seems good. I don't think MP8 is a bad game, just mediocre. I've found myself buying ps2 games even just a few months ago, it was a good investment over all these years. I agree the Vita is priced high, but is awesome. However, it is my oppinion that at least currently the 3ds has a better game library. Hmmm... I'm pretty satified with my game library, but I would like Minecraft for xbox 360, and maybe Metroid Prime: Trilogy for Wii.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 5:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Mario party 8? In my oppinion, it's inferior to previous mario party games, but MP9 seems good. I don't think MP8 is a bad game, just mediocre. I've found myself buying ps2 games even just a few months ago, it was a good investment over all these years. I agree the Vita is priced high, but is awesome. However, it is my oppinion that at least currently the 3ds has a better game library. Hmmm... I'm pretty satified with my game library, but I would like Minecraft for xbox 360, and maybe Metroid Prime: Trilogy for Wii.

I agree on mario party, its been disapointing so far, and haha well the Vita has under 20 games that you can buy, but is still quite new, and it can play PSP (want to get GTA vice city)
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 5:24 pm
Quoting Vanguard º
I agree on mario party, its been disapointing so far, and haha well the Vita has under 20 games that you can buy, but is still quite new, and it can play PSP (want to get GTA vice city)

It's true it's a brand new handheld. I remember how the 3ds had a bunch of trouble in it's first 6 months, and look where it is now. I just hope Sony can pull off the same thing, as the vita is struggling sales wise.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 5:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
It's true it's a brand new handheld. I remember how the 3ds had a bunch of trouble in it's first 6 months, and look where it is now. I just hope Sony can pull off the same thing, as the vita is struggling sales wise.

I want it so badly, I could almost kill to get it, as Ive never seen a system that awesome.
It has 3G, Im going to get a plan from verison, and its graphics compare to the Ps3 which is awesome, and I want to see what socom games look like with two joysticks it would be like playing a shooter on a regular system, with Ps3 graphics. It has two cameras, two touch screens, and some gadgets that even smartphones dont have. Im looking forward to some Socom games, COD, and Im going to get gravity rush, and the resistence game. Luckly its less than two months till my birthday :?
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 5:46 pm
Quoting Vanguard º
I want it so badly, I could almost kill to get it, as Ive never seen a system that awesome.
It has 3G, Im going to get a plan from verison, and its graphics compare to the Ps3 which is awesome, and I want to see what socom games look like with two joysticks it would be like playing a shooter on a regular system, with Ps3 graphics. It has two cameras, two touch screens, and some gadgets that even smartphones dont have. Im looking forward to some Socom games, COD, and Im going to get gravity rush, and the resistence game. Luckly its less than two months till my birthday :?

It's truely a shame it isn't selling better.
Permalink
| April 21, 2012, 5:52 pm
 Group moderator 
/waits impatiently
Permalink
| April 25, 2012, 1:24 pm
Quoting Vallkirimrl (preivously C. Boris)
/waits impatiently

Watchya waiting for?
Permalink
| April 25, 2012, 2:23 pm
I guess nothings been happening recently. :/
Permalink
| April 25, 2012, 6:00 pm
Quoting Colin Small is a TFOL
I guess nothings been happening recently. :/

I've been pretty busy with school, and am involved in two wargroups. A war just ended last week in this group, so a temporary lull in activity is to be exspected.
Permalink
| April 25, 2012, 6:27 pm
 Group admin 
Haha, I've been waiting too. Let's try to get a little more active here guys...
Permalink
| April 25, 2012, 8:21 pm
In the upcoming days I will upload a new medium tank, if the weather is good. Some stats:
Main gun: long 105mm
Secondary weapons: 1 coaxial 13mm MG, 1 13mm AA MG
Front hull: 120mm(sloped)
Side armor: 80mm
Rear armor: 55mm
Turret
Front: 120mm
Side: 80mm
Rear: 80mm

Weight: 45t
Engine power: 880hp
Power/weight ratio: 19,5
Permalink
| April 25, 2012, 11:56 pm
Tongoria's first jet bomber is 90% completed, just need to figure out the front landing gear.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 12:43 am
Quoting John Stahlman
Tongoria's first jet bomber is 90% completed, just need to figure out the front landing gear.

Sounds pretty good.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 1:13 am
Quoting John Stahlman
Tongoria's first jet bomber is 90% completed, just need to figure out the front landing gear.

I can't wait to see it. You don't build that fast, but your stuff is worth the wait. :)
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 1:21 am
Yes, I don't have much time to build these days. This one is pretty cool! I can't wait for you guys to see it!
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 1:34 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Umm, so I have been trying to change my stats, but it would be a lot easier if I didn't have to factor in when each creation was built. Can I ignore that to simplify the process?

The short answer is "No." What I do is update my stats on the same day each week, usually a Thursday. Whatever the day, I just post the production reached by a vehicle up to that day that I might have posted say on Tuesday; which is usually less than a week's worth. So, every time I go back, I just know that I add 1 week's worth to all of them. Make sense?
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 11:40 am
 Group admin 
Hey everybody.

Well, the results are in after a week of consultation with 100% of the moderators and 66% of the admins. Everyone's voice was heard. The new rules are in the "Production" thread.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 11:59 am
Quoting Ultramarine .
The short answer is "No." What I do is update my stats on the same day each week, usually a Thursday. Whatever the day, I just post the production reached by a vehicle up to that day that I might have posted say on Tuesday; which is usually less than a week's worth. So, every time I go back, I just know that I add 1 week's worth to all of them. Make sense?

I know that, you are describing exactly how I do my stats. I'm asking to see how many weeks I've been in the group, and ignore when the various creations were added, since this process is taking way too long.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 12:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
ignore when the various creations were added

No.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 12:30 pm
Quoting Ultramarine .
No.

Well, ok.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 12:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
Hey everybody.

Well, the results are in after a week of consultation with 100% of the moderators and 66% of the admins. Everyone's voice was heard. The new rules are in the "Production" thread.

I belive my voice wasnt heard, I was never invited to the discussions, even though I was promised to.

You know Im at the end of the rope here. I dont know who you think you are Ultra so let me elaberate, you see you are just another person who was inited to be an admin, nope that just about covers it. Matt P did create this group, he created a blank pages with a few words in a single convo, You know what happened then, I took over from him knowing that he couldnt run the group by himself, and added pretty much 93% of the groups content, and you took over from here adding the extra 7%, wow you did a lot, you created rules that people couldnt understand, and wow thats about it, so go ahead run the group into the ground, Ive just about had it with you.

I only want the respect I deserve, thats all.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 1:43 pm
Quoting Vanguard º


Did you ever check your Flickr mail to see if you'd been invited?

I don't know why you two admins need to be fighting each other all of the time. Obviously something needs to be changed if this continues; and if you two keep fighting maybe it would be best if neither of you are admins.

Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 2:35 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Dr. No
Quoting Vanguard º

I don't know why you two admins need to be fighting each other all of the time. Obviously something needs to be changed if this continues; and if you two keep fighting maybe it would be best if neither of you are admins.

I agree, something needs to be done about this argument

Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 2:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Vanguard º
I belive my voice wasnt heard, I was never invited to the discussions, even though I was promised to.

I intended to ask you why you never joined either. I have proof positive right in my "Sent" mail on Flickr that I invited you. It is not my fault you did not join. The line reads from my sent: "Vangaurd conflict II Invite to join Conflict II Leadership Board." The date stamp? 4/19/2012

I resent any insinuation that I did not follow through on my promise. I do not appreciate it.

Quoting Dr. No
maybe it would be best if neither of you are admins.

I do not understand myself why everything I say is constantly contradicted and combated. For two people in this group, if I say "Red" they insist it must be "Green."
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 2:42 pm
I've only disagreed with you on stuff I truely disagree on, and recently I
haven't objected much. I don't get into arguments with you just for the heck of it. Anyway, why only 4 bombers per week? This seems really low compared to the over 100 of the other aircraft per week.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 2:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ultramarine .
I intended to ask you why you never joined either. I have proof positive right in my "Sent" mail on Flickr that I invited you.

I check my mail on microsoft inbox, what must have happened is that my mom deleated the notice for whatever reason, or that flickr just doesnt tell me whe I get invited to a group, so my bad. But I did recall asking to get a link to the group instead.

Quoting Ultramarine .
I do not understand myself why everything I say is constantly contradicted and combated. For two people in this group, if I say "Red" they insist it must be "Green."
Since the war started, this usually starts with me annoucing a new technology, and you telling me I cant use it, even when it is possible just never been done before, such as airship carriers carrying more than 10 aircraft even though they were only made in small sizes, compared to the biggeest airships use for civilian use that could have carried many times more, and didnt crash as often. Or building underground complexes in a short time, even though we have announced we where working on stuff like that since the beginning, and even in the last conflict, not to mention much more amazing feats have been done in short times, such as the panama canal, or the hoover damb, and just because it hasnt been done before doesnt mean its not possible, and of cource every nations would have reasons to build things like that seeing that a LOT of people died in a super war not just 20 so years ago, that would be my biggest problem that could be solved easly.

So could we have built a tunnel complex in almost 7 months time, if not then in a few more months, I would think its quite possible.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 3:37 pm
@ Vanguard
I sent you an invite to the group. Just click the Groups tab uptop on flickr, then click the subtab "Invites for You", it should be there now.

What's up with the tunnels? I don't see a problem with that, other than maybe the time it takes to dig them. Tunneled all of the time in the Japanese islands...
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 3:52 pm
Well...For the time being, Costigar is going to go hibernate. Until this is sorted out.
Permalink
| April 26, 2012, 3:52 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
« General conversation IV
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Conflict II (closed)Military


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use