MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop collapse & collision. 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 III
For posting general conversation that doesnt belong anywhere else. The old one was pretty long, so I made a new one.


Permalink
| September 26, 2012, 5:45 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
For posting general conversation that doesnt belong anywhere else.
The old one was pretty long, so I made a new one.


So whats up with our two silent group members? They joined about a week ago, but no nations in the sign up thread. No action. Whats the deal?
Permalink
| September 26, 2012, 6:54 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
So whats up with our two silent group members? They joined about a week ago, but no nations in the sign up thread. No action. Whats the deal?

There hasnt been any activity on there homepages.
Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 12:57 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
There hasnt been any activity on there homepages.


yea, that's a good place to check, I should have thought of that. Are you trying to get any other new members? This place seems so quiet.
Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 1:31 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford Are you trying to get any other new members? This place seems so quiet.
I think we should invite Andrew Somers as he is a very talented builder and has a lot of creation for this group.

Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 2:42 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
There hasnt been any activity on there homepages.


yea, that's a good place to check, I should have thought of that. Are you trying to get any other new members? This place seems so quiet.

Any ideas on who to invite? I really dont know that many people.
Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 2:55 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Any ideas on who to invite? I really dont know that many people.


Hmmm. I don't really think the questions is about who is a good builder. It's about who would be more active. Or maybe, how could you encourage the people already in the group to become more active. Activity draws attention. Movement, MOCs, and active discussion draw attention. When a group is really hopp'n, then members start to just invite themselves. So I think the real question is: How do you increase the activity level?

Have you tried leaving reviews on the MOCs of the current members? Leave a review and mention the group. Something like... "Great MBT! Like the camo pattern. I Hope to see you more active over on Collapse and Collision!" Ever try anything like that?

Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 3:46 pm
 Group moderator 
Maybe we could do some building challenges. For example, you have to build something and if you do, you get some bonus like some extra vehicles.

By the way, I'm planning to make a short comic about territory-53 and if it makes it to the main page, more people will know about this group.
Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 4:12 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
By the way, I'm planning to make a short comic about territory-53 and if it makes it to the main page, more people will know about this group.



Commander Sylvan,

As is so often the case, you make a good point. I have about 4 MOCs for this group that I need to post. (A camera! A camera! My kingdom for a camera!) When I do post them, I need to talk up the group and include a link to this page with each MOC. It's a form of advertising, and it does work.

People go to see the MOC, read the text, see the link and think: "Meh... I'll take a peek".

Mr. Squid, when people join the group, you should try to greet them right away. Let them know you are glad they joined: "Hey, welcome to the group! Check out the "New members" thread and if you have any questions, I would be happy to help you out...".

The thing is that this is your group Mr. Squid. Your baby. YOUR ATTITUDE makes the difference. A warm welcome makes people want to play. If the room is cold when they show up, then the new guy never takes of his jacket, and never sits down at the big table.

Like that guy Matt P. He joined about a week ago, but nobody has said a word to him. It makes a difference. Go check his stuff out. He has a whole fleet of ships and some pretty good stuff. Leave a review and mention the group, and I bet he shows up on the new nations thread and the stats page.

What have we got to lose?

Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 5:54 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

Mr. Squid, when people join the group, you should try to greet them right away. Let them know you are glad they joined: "Hey, welcome to the group! Check out the "New members" thread and if you have any questions, I would be happy to help you out...".

Like that guy Matt P. He joined about a week ago, but nobody has said a word to him. It makes a difference. Go check his stuff out. He has a whole fleet of ships and some pretty good stuff. Leave a review and mention the group, and I bet he shows up on the new nations thread and the stats page.

What have we got to lose?

Yes I agree, but I've know Matt P for quite a while. Matt P is the one who created conflict I, and he isnt usually very active, after conflict II broke down he hasnt really done anything on the pages.

I usually have lots of free time, and check the groups activity every day. When new members join I usually do check there mocpages.

I know that the group isnt very active, but there is curretly only 14 members. Im hoping that since the group is set up, that people might show some interest, Im also planning on releasing my new creations, my new camera arrived yesterday and I have no excuses.
Permalink
| September 27, 2012, 6:10 pm
Mr. Squid,

Can you tell me what happens to a country if they endanger their economy by violating the growth rate of 1 territory every 4 weeks?

What is the actual impact on that country? Do they lose weapons, or soldiers, or does their production rate go down? How long to the effects last?

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 8:34 am
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Mr. Squid,

Can you tell me what happens to a country if they endanger their economy by violating the growth rate of 1 territory every 4 weeks?

What is the actual impact on that country? Do they lose weapons, or soldiers, or does their production rate go down? How long to the effects last?

Lets just say, for every one nation, it takes at least 2 weeks to capture


for every nation your attacking at the same time you add three days of cool down time to the normal 2 weeks.

for example
1 nation - 2 weeks - 14 days cooldown

2 nations - 2 weeks - 31 days cooldown.

3 nations - 2 weeks - 48 days

4 nations - 2 weeks - 65 days

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 11:10 am
 Group moderator 
Wow! 69 people call me as their favorites.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 11:26 am
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Lets just say at the most, you can only take over 2 nations at once. the least amount of time it takes for both is 3 1/2 weeks.

after that cool down time would be increased.
You must take 2 weeks, but if you stretch yourself out it will be three.


Mr. Squid,

So, what if you do things to address the cost of a third annexation.

1. Like halting all military production for two weeks (thats a lot of money right)?
2. Accumulating cash by the sale of weapons?

I recall you mentioning in another thread that this surplus cash could be used to reduce the cool down time between annexations.

Also, how big does a nation have to get (number of territories) before the annexation limit increases?

Again, can China really only annex the same number of countries as Chile?

Mike

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 11:33 am
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Mr. Squid,

So, what if you do things to address the cost of a third annexation.

1. Like halting all military production for two weeks (thats a lot of money right)?
2. Accumulating cash by the sale of weapons?

I recall you mentioning in another thread that this surplus cash could be used to reduce the cool down time between annexations.

Also, how big does a nation have to get (number of territories) before the annexation limit increases?

Again, can China really only annex the same number of countries as Chile?

Mike

Wait, check my comment, I set up a better system.
Im not sure I want to add a money system, but
maybe halting production of vehicles could cut
3 days for every week.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 11:41 am
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Wait, check my comment, I set up a better system.
Im not sure I want to add a money system, but
maybe halting production of vehicles could cut
3 days for every week.


This is the post I was looking at. I think your comment is the 26th one down from the top.

Seems like a good idea to me. There is no real complicated system in place (nor should there be) and this lets people use their resources to deal with economic restrictions realistically.

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 12:19 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Mr. Squid, this is the post I was referring to. It says basically, that money in the game is not worth much because there is no real economic system, but

more importantly...

it says that cash from the sale of weapons can be used to reduce cool down time.

So... what’s the deal? If I find somebody to buy weapons then I can use the cash to speed things up a bit right?

That was an older comment, Im not sure that we could make a workable system for selling items, at least one thats not a page long.

You could always trade items, or simply ask a freind to import some for free, possibly even production rights.
For example, now that Ive begun producing weapons, I can start trading.

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 12:28 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
That was an older comment, Im not sure that we could make a workable system for selling items, at least one thats not a page long.

You could always trade items, or simply ask a freind to import some for free, possibly even production rights.
For example, now that Ive begun producing weapons, I can start trading.

Mr. Squid,

You wouldn't need any new system at all. Just allow the sale of weapons to help with the cool down time (the specific effect would be whatever you say it is. No new pages of rules).

As for giving weapons to buddy’s... or getting weapons form somebody, that's not my angle at all. "Lend lease" or "military aid" is something diplomatic. Something between allies. I just want to sell stuff and use the money to pay for war. I want to make decisions and make sacrifices that allow me to grow faster. It’s almost like real commerce.

I like the fact that halting weapons production cuts 3 days per cool down week. That is a costly but "Meaningful" benefit. You are paying for your expansion.

I saw all this talk about buying and selling stuff and then I saw your comment about an actual use for all this pretend money and thought "Ah ha! So there is a reason for all the talk!"

... oh well. Back to the planning bunker.

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 12:51 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Lets just say, for every one nation, it takes at least 2 weeks to capture


for every nation your attacking at the same time you add three days of cool down time to the normal 2 weeks.

for example
1 nation - 2 weeks - 14 days cooldown

2 nations - 2 weeks - 31 days cooldown.

3 nations - 2 weeks - 48 days

4 nations - 2 weeks - 65 days

Unless you use the Diesel sail hybrid transports in which case it's:
2 territories = 2 weeks -14 days cool down right?

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 1:07 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Unless you use the Diesel sail hybrid transports in which case it's:
2 territories = 2 weeks -14 days cool down right?

Well no, but since he rule has taken effect today, I guess we can let this slide.
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Wow! 69 people call me as their favorites.

Cool, But Im not sure that is very many.
over 100 people call me a favorite.
Then again half of them havnt been active on mocpages for over a year, some added me back 2010.

So Im not really sure being a bunch of peoples favorite really means anything.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 1:25 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Cool, But Im not sure that is very many.
over 100 people call me a favorite.
Then again half of them havnt been active on mocpages for over a year, some added me back 2010.

So Im not really sure being a bunch of peoples favorite really means anything.

Well, it means a lot for me.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 1:40 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Well, it means a lot for me.

I think you deserve more, but for me its more of a hassle, I cant keep track of that many.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 1:44 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Unless you use the Diesel sail hybrid transports in which case it's:
2 territories = 2 weeks -14 days cool down right?


Well no, but since he rule has taken effect today, I guess we can let this slide.


Dude, do you recall this conversation?

Quoting Michael Rutherford

I formally request that you consider allowing it for the following reason:

I have built and posted a means of transport that is of particular relevance to parameters of this exact group.

check the link:

http://www.mocpages.com/image_zoom.php?mocid=332992&id=/user_images/1588/1342501760m

As stated in the opening narrative on the home page, this is supposed to be a fuel starved world, and my transports are small, cheap, and use less fuel than any other transports currently built and posted by any other member of this group (I think this is a safe assertion because no other transports posted use sails... and energy doesn't get any cheaper than that).

These vessels are very slow movers, and I have adjusted my calculations for that (Max speed of ten knots when under sail).

But, the cost of production and more importantly in the strategic picture, the cost of movement is much lower.

The motor-sail design is not remotely farfetched. Diesel sail hybrids are already being used across much of costal Asia and Africa.

So, if you say it's "Officially O.K." I would like to claim this "Two Territories per 4 week cycle" ability (and of course, this would only affect sea born annexations... not land to land movements!).

Green light go?

Thanks.


Yeah thats ok, and lets keep the maximum at 2 per four weeks.


Dude, this is pretty important stuff to be moving around on.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 2:28 pm
Quoting rutherford

Dude, this is pretty important stuff to be moving around on.

Sorry, but Im not really sure I understand.
You mean sea annexations dont need as much cool down time?
I suppose if I said that then ok, I cant really read the comment that well.

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 4:28 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Sorry, but Im not really sure I understand.
You mean sea annexations dont need as much cool down time?
I suppose if I said that then ok, I cant really read the comment that well.

Yea, it's confusing. Here is the step by step version:

1. The rule is that you can only annex one territory at a time because it cost so much. If you do more than that, your economy suffers.

2. I said something like: "Yea, but my sail-diesel hybrid transports make it much cheaper! So can I annex 2 territories at a time instead of one? (without the economic penalty)

3. You said something like: "Yea ok, but 2 is the max".

4. Now since I can't annex more than 2 at a time without ruining my economy, I am looking for ways to shorten the cool down time.

5. You said halting production will reduce cool down time by 3 days per week (right on!).

6. And once upon a time you said something like: "Money from weapons sales will also reduce your cool down time" but...

7. Now you think that's not such a good idea, so the rule is changed (boo hoo).

8. But now I just want to make sure that I still have my two territories at once gimmick (because sometimes rules change)

Basically it's all about my ongoing quest to find faster ways to grow. But don't worry. Your group, your rules (stay hard!). I just want to keep track (and grow!).

Make sense?
Mike

Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:05 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Sorry, but Im not really sure I understand.
You mean sea annexations dont need as much cool down time?
I suppose if I said that then ok, I cant really read the comment that well.

Mr. Squid,
Just so we are clear: I push to get stuff that I want and I push to get answers when I don't understand stuff.

But this is your show man. When you say it's this way, then it's this way. If you say eggs will now be sold 5 in a carton, then bam. Eggs come five in a carton. You are the law in this group.

The four week wait between annexations is killing me though. I feel like a junk yard dog on a short chain.

Mike
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:11 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Yea, it's confusing. Here is the step by step version:

1. The rule is that you can only annex one territory at a time because it cost so much. If you do more than that, your economy suffers.

Basically it's all about my ongoing quest to find faster ways to grow. But don't worry. Your group, your rules (stay hard!). I just want to keep track (and grow!).

Make sense?
Mike

Yeah sorry about that, I guess sea travel could have a benifit, maybe minus 2 days "per week" cooldown time. Its just that this new system conflicts with what I said before.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:12 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Yeah sorry about that, I guess sea travel could have a benifit, maybe minus 2 days "per week" cooldown time. Its just that this new system conflicts with what I said before.


OK, let me tell you what I think the rules are, and you tell me if I got it yet.

1. Normal rule is: annext one territory per 4 week period (2 week to annex+2 week to cool down).

2. Sail Transport DOES NOT allow 2 territories to be annexed at once BUT it DOES allow you to subtract 2 days from the cool down time.

3. Halting all military production ALSO reduces cool down time by 3 days per week...

SO,

IF...

I halt all military production...

AND

I annex a territory where I arrive by sail transport

THEN

my cool down time will only be 6 days (normaly 14 but -2 for the sail transport and -3 because I'm not spending any money on new weapons = 14days-2days-3days-3days = 6days...

Am I right yet?
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:21 pm
had to fix my math.

the production bonus was PER WEEK so that -3 per week adds up to -6 total (because there are 2 weeks in the normal cool down period).

I think...
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:24 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

Am I right yet?

yes, and for every territory you annex at the same time you add three days per week.

so if your capturing 3 territories

14 * 3 = 42 + 3 per week = 48, the first territory doesnt count, so 48 days,- bonuses if you use them.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:33 pm
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
yes, and for every territory you annex at the same time you add three days per week.

so if your capturing 3 territories

14 * 3 = 42 + 3 per week = 48, the first territory doesnt count, so 48 days,- bonuses if you use them.


OK, so...

4 territories would be:
14 x 4=56 + 4 per week = 64 days (- 3 days per week that production is held at ZERO).

So if I hold production at ZERO for... 6 weeks I could subtract 18 days from that total for a new total of 46 days? 4 territories in 46 days (and no new weapons).

Huh. (was my math correct?)
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:50 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

OK, so...

4 territories would be:
14 x 4=56 + 4 per week = 64 days (- 3 days per week that production is held at ZERO).

So if I hold production at ZERO for... 6 weeks I could subtract 18 days from that total for a new total of 46 days? 4 territories in 46 days (and no new weapons).

Huh. (was my math correct?)

yes exept you added + 4 instead of + 3 "the + doest change. Remember that thats all cool down time, there is still the two weeks.
Permalink
| October 1, 2012, 7:55 pm
What does everyone else think about the system, I think its a bit to complex.

Why dont we just wing it?
2 weeks per annexation, and two weeks cooldowntime, maybe a cap of three territories at once.

Remember Im letting you decide.
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 7:12 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
What does everyone else think about the system, I think its a bit to complex.

Why dont we just wing it?
2 weeks per annexation, and two weeks cooldowntime, maybe a cap of three territories at once.

Remember Im letting you decide.

That's too much math for me. xD
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 7:31 am
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
That's too much math for me. xD

Yeah I figured that most members wouldnt want to do the math, including me.

BTW the next map update will be up by the end of the week.
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 7:36 am
Hey guys, The cheyenne military is now running at 100% capacity in terms of ground forces. I have an effective fighting force. what do you think I should work on next.

I was thinking of building my micro scale navy, and a transport & bomber plane
Then maybe a transport helicopter.

I was also thinking about non combat utility vehicles, like radar, and trucks.
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 7:49 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Hey guys, The cheyenne military is now running at 100% capacity in terms of ground forces. I have an effective fighting force. what do you think I should work on next.

I was thinking of building my micro scale navy, and a transport & bomber plane
Then maybe a transport helicopter.

I was also thinking about non combat utility vehicles, like radar, and trucks.

In my opinion, the air-force is the most important in modern warfare. If you control the air you can control the ground. Although, the navy is really important too. I have some ships ready to be uploaded.
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 9:15 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
In my opinion, the air-force is the most important in modern warfare. If you control the air you can control the ground. Although, the navy is really important too. I have some ships ready to be uploaded.

No, not really, airpower can't hold ground, you need boots on the ground for that. The air-force is still very important, don't get me wrong, but in no way does it control the battlefield.
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 10:10 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Hey guys, The cheyenne military is now running at 100% capacity in terms of ground forces. I have an effective fighting force. what do you think I should work on next.

I was thinking of building my micro scale navy, and a transport & bomber plane
Then maybe a transport helicopter.

I was also thinking about non combat utility vehicles, like radar, and trucks.

I've built several non-combat vehicles, and I can assure you that they are still quite fun to make. You should try building a few. I would also say you have missed a few important types of combat vehicles.
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 10:15 am
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
In my opinion, the air-force is the most important in modern warfare. If you control the air you can control the ground. Although, the navy is really important too. I have some ships ready to be uploaded.


It's not about sea vs air vs ground. Which is most important to you is determined by your geography, and your enemy’s capabilities, and your strategic goals.
Right now, there is not much chance for player vs player combat, so air and navy forces only need to be basic “Work Horses”.

As for "If you can control the air, you can control the ground" I don't think history supports this claim. Air superiority is a great advantage. It allows you to do a lot of terrible things to your enemy (Strike!) but... in the end, you cannot occupy a country and exploit its economic potential from the air. You have to put thousands and thousands of soldiers on the ground. That said, consider US air power in Viet Nam. Or US (and earlier Soviet) air superiority in Afghanistan. Automatic victory? Nope.

Maybe you mean in conventional war only? Well, consider German Air Superiority over the Soviet Union or over the British in Africa in WWII. Automatic victory? Nope.

Now look at the Navy. Will an advanced navy help you spread across a super continent like Eurasia? Well, along the cost maybe. But a missile sub and an aircraft carrier won't help you take Mongolia.

How you use your weapons you have will always matter more than the type of weapons you have.

There is no one “Most Important Thing".

Mr. Squid,
If I were you, I would build a small navy to protect your coastal waters and fortifications to support them. Maybe advanced air defense systems as well . For offensive action, you need to push inland. You are a land power nation. That is where you need to focus for growth.

Attack!
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 11:27 am
Quoting Matthew McCall
I've built several non-combat vehicles, and I can assure you that they are still quite fun to make. You should try building a few. I would also say you have missed a few important types of combat vehicles.


I agree with your assessment of the role of air power. Mr. Squid is looking for looking for specific examples. What type of combat vehicles would you say he needs?
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 11:38 am
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Hey guys, The cheyenne military is now running at 100% capacity in terms of ground forces. I have an effective fighting force. what do you think I should work on next.

I was thinking of building my micro scale navy, and a transport & bomber plane
Then maybe a transport helicopter.

I was also thinking about non combat utility vehicles, like radar, and trucks.


If I were you, I would build a small navy to protect your coastal waters and fortifications to support them. Maybe advanced air defense systems as well .

For offensive action, you need to push inland. You are a land power nation. That is where you need to focus for growth. So trucks would be the ticket. Trucks large enough to haul your APCs, MBTs, and the troops themselves. People don't like to build transport assets because they are not glamorous. But trucks haul victory. Believe it.

Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 11:47 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford People don't like to build transport assets because they are not glamorous. But trucks haul victory. Believe it.
Trucks are fun to build. I have some but I might even make some new.

Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 11:53 am
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
What does everyone else think about the system, I think its a bit to complex.

Why dont we just wing it?
2 weeks per annexation, and two weeks cooldowntime, maybe a cap of three territories at once.

Remember Im letting you decide.



I think you should be able to attack 1 territory for every three you already own (but you can always attack at least 1).

Examples:
A country with between 1 and 3 territories can annex 1 territory.
A country with 6 territories can annex 2 at once.
A country with 9 can annex 3 at once.
A country with 12 can annex 4 at once.

Large countries can have several operations at once, and small countries can only do one at a time. It’s pretty simple and pretty logical.

I think the two week cool down time is good, if you can shorten it by halting military production.

Keep the math simple though. Zero production = -3 days per week is good.

When will we actually decide this issue? We need to make the decision so we can proceed with planning.


Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 12:12 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

I think you should be able to attack 1 territory for every three you already own (but you can always attack at least 1).

When will we actually decide this issue? We need to make the decision so we can proceed with planning.


Ok sounds good, simple yet effective.
It will go into effect by tommorro, as long as everyones happy.
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 2:46 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Wow! 69 people call me as their favorites.


Well deserved commander Sylvan!

Build! Post! Review! Attack!
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 4:00 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Quoting Michael Rutherford People don't like to build transport assets because they are not glamorous. But trucks haul victory. Believe it.
Trucks are fun to build. I have some but I might even make some new.


Commander Sylvin,

I propose begin licensed production of the PRN designed Diesel-Sail hybrid transports.

Link:
http://www.mocpages.com/image_zoom.php?mocid=332992&id=/user_images/1588/1342501793m

I was hoping that the cash from this sale would help me expand faster, but it turns out that this is not the case. But still, the PRN is proud of this vessel, and we would be willing to license production in Tongoria for a nominal fee.

Each unit can carry 400 troops, or 30 tons of cargo at 10 nautical miles per hour under sail, or at 20 nautical miles per hour under diesel power.

The vessels are slow, but inexpensive to operate, and they will allow you to annex islands and coastal territories.

The PRN will license Tongoria to produce these vessels at 10 million each.

Acceptable?
Counter Proposal?

Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 4:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford

I agree with your assessment of the role of air power. Mr. Squid is looking for looking for specific examples. What type of combat vehicles would you say he needs?

1. Self-Propelled Howitzer
2. dedicated Self-Propelled Mortar
3. Rocket Artillery
4. Some sort of dedicated AA platform that actually has a radar
5. dedicated Anti-tank platform
6. a tracked heavy IFV
7. something like the Russian BPMT terminator

AA is especially inportant since his airforce is currently almost non-existant.

(note: yes, he does have some of these, but they are only small batches of my designs that he can't build more of, so he needs to build his own domestic designs)
Permalink
| October 2, 2012, 4:40 pm
Gentlemen,

I think my combat update for T-118 is stuck in moderation. Can any of you tell me if it is there or if it got deleted?

Thanks.
Mike

Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 9:10 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Gentlemen,

I think my combat update for T-118 is stuck in moderation. Can any of you tell me if it is there or if it got deleted?

Thanks.
Mike
Allowed it.

Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 9:41 am
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Gentlemen,

I think my combat update for T-118 is stuck in moderation. Can any of you tell me if it is there or if it got deleted?

Thanks.
Mike
Allowed it.

Thank you.
Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 10:38 am
Quoting Matthew McCall
2. dedicated Self-Propelled Mortar
4. Some sort of dedicated AA platform that actually has a radar
5. dedicated Anti-tank platform

What do you mean when you use the word:"Dedicated?"
Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 12:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Quoting Matthew McCall
2. dedicated Self-Propelled Mortar
4. Some sort of dedicated AA platform that actually has a radar
5. dedicated Anti-tank platform

What do you mean when you use the word:"Dedicated?"

A platform that does nothing but one job. For example, he gave his tank a mortar, but I'm saying it would be good to have a vehicle that's a mortar first and foremost.
Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 1:05 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
A platform that does nothing but one job. For example, he gave his tank a mortar, but I'm saying it would be good to have a vehicle that's a mortar first and foremost. >>>

Hmm. Correct usage. A platform that is task specific, and therefor (in theory) the best platform for that task. It's very sound thinking but there are some down sides to that approach.

Care to take a stab at what they might be?
Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 1:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Quoting Matthew McCall
A platform that does nothing but one job. For example, he gave his tank a mortar, but I'm saying it would be good to have a vehicle that's a mortar first and foremost. >>>

Hmm. Correct usage. A platform that is task specific, and therefor (in theory) the best platform for that task. It's very sound thinking but there are some down sides to that approach.

Care to take a stab at what they might be?

The main problem that I can think of is lack of flexability and overspecialization. However, trying to cram too much stuff into a vehicle detracts from it's primary purpose. don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea to do stuff like put mortars in tanks, but imagine if someone designed a tank that also carried soldiers, an AA system, anti-tank missiles, an autocannon, ect... this would obviously take up a ton of space and hamper the tanks primary goal of being a tank.

These are some good examples of a specialised varient of a vehicle dedicated to a specfic task:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1129_Mortar_Carrierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1134_Anti-Tank_Guided_Missile_Vehicle


Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 2:13 pm
Yep. A helicopter that is an anti-tank platform will always be a better tank killer than a transport with anti-tank missiles attached. A specialized platform will carry more missiles...or more troops depending on its function.

But the real drawback to specialization is that it creates unique supply requirements for each vehicle. For example, if you have enough fuel, parts, and technicians to support 10 specialized attack helicopters and 10 specialized transports...you could support 30 combination helicopters. The 30 mixed platforms would not be as good at tank killing or move as many troops as their specialized cousins...but you would be able to field MORE platforms total. So if your rich, then specialized is good. But if you need to stretch you dollars, then you should consider the combo. At the strategic level...this efficiency argument gains weight.

Second downer for specialized platforms is that what we THINK a weapon is best for, is not always what it actually IS best for. The best anti-tank weapon of WWII was the German 88mm. Oooops! It was fielded as an anti-aircraft weapon, and adapted to the anti-tank mission in the field. Often, improvisation at the tactical level is stifled if you have "a special tool for every job". This is also related to "Fielding Lag". The amount of time required to get an idea from the field into production.

I'm a big fan of specialization. Especially for fighter craft and MBTs I think the U.S. Bradley IFV is a perfect example of why specialization matters: its a vehicle that is a little of everything, but not really enough of anything. It's gun is not big enough to be a good tank. It does not carry enough ammo to last long in a fight. It does not carry enough troops to be a good APC. The armor doesn't stop 50 cal, but it's to heavy for it to be a genuinely effective amphibious platform. It's big, tall, heavy, cost a lot, and just doesn't earn its keep. The British Scorpion and German Weasel are better light tanks. The Soviet BMPs are better troop carriers. And anything would be a better STINGER or TOW platform.

But in this early phase of the game, where player on player contact is so unlikely, I would say: go with the cheap universal platforms for minimum cost".

Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 2:36 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
1. Self-Propelled Howitzer
2. dedicated Self-Propelled Mortar
3. Rocket Artillery
4. Some sort of dedicated AA platform that actually has a radar
5. dedicated Anti-tank platform
6. a tracked heavy IFV
7. something like the Russian BPMT terminator

AA is especially inportant since his airforce is currently almost non-existant.

Im not sure why I would need some of these, but I will take it into consideration.
An SPH, and a MLRS are planned but way into the future "due to parts"

An AA system is finished and yet to be posted, along with a supply truck, and a scout car.
Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 3:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Quoting Matthew McCall
1. Self-Propelled Howitzer
2. dedicated Self-Propelled Mortar
3. Rocket Artillery
4. Some sort of dedicated AA platform that actually has a radar
5. dedicated Anti-tank platform
6. a tracked heavy IFV
7. something like the Russian BPMT terminator

AA is especially inportant since his airforce is currently almost non-existant.

Im not sure why I would need some of these, but I will take it into consideration.
An SPH, and a MLRS are planned but way into the future "due to parts"

An AA system is finished and yet to be posted, along with a supply truck, and a scout car.

Self-propelled artillery is able to perform shoot and scoot much better than towed artillery, meaning that it is far less vulnerable to counter-battery.

MLRS is great at counterbattery and short-term extreme firepower, so it is complimentary to howitzers.

Since you lack a strong airforce, you want to have better airdefence systems than the tank varient you currently have. It would seem you have already built a better one.

Anti-tank vehicles aren't necassary, but can be used to provide heavy firepower in the lighter combat vehicle category rather than just IFVs.

A tracked IFV isn't neccassary, but it is inarguable that tracked IFVs do have at least some inportant advantages over their wheeled counterparts, so it would seem good to have a balanced mix.

BPMTs are highly valuabe as they would perform excellently in urban warfare, and they can provide great protection for tanks. Once agian, not necassary, but they fill a useful role.


Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 4:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
I'm a big fan of specialization. Especially for fighter craft and MBTs I think the U.S. Bradley IFV is a perfect example of why specialization matters: its a vehicle that is a little of everything, but not really enough of anything. It's gun is not big enough to be a good tank. It does not carry enough ammo to last long in a fight. It does not carry enough troops to be a good APC. The armor doesn't stop 50 cal, but it's to heavy for it to be a genuinely effective amphibious platform. It's big, tall, heavy, cost a lot, and just doesn't earn its keep. The British Scorpion and German Weasel are better light tanks. The Soviet BMPs are better troop carriers. And anything would be a better STINGER or TOW platform.

But in this early phase of the game, where player on player contact is so unlikely, I would say: go with the cheap universal platforms for minimum cost".

*Sigh* I don't think you understand the IFV concept, you got much of your information wrong, the Bradley is old and being replaced, and for some reason you are comparing it to light tanks, armored cars, and reconnaissance vehicles.

First off, the Bradley is an IFV, not a light tank. IFV's have a significantly different role on the battlefield than tanks. Yes, the gun is on the smaller side, but it's still effective at it's role. As for your claim of not enough ammo, this is laughable. It has 900 rounds of 25mm, 7 missiles, and 2,200 rounds of 7.62.

When you say it doesn't carry enough troops for an APC, yes, you're right. That's because it's NOT an APC. All IFVs carry smaller amounts of troops than APCs, this is hardly a fair complaint. Bradley armor protects from fire up to 30mm, which is significantly more powerful than 50 cal. Yes, the Bradley isn't very good at being amphibious, but that's a logical drawback to being so heavy. As for complaints about cost, the US doesn't care much about cost, which is why we spend as much as the next top 10 spenders combined. In other words, we have a big budget which allows us to get exspensive things. Like, you know, the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle that's replacing the Bradley since we want a better vehicle. XD

Your examples of vehicles that are "better" than the Bradley are quite simply wrong. BMP could mean anything from an absolutley horrible BMP-1 to something like the BMP-3, which is competive, but not superior, to the Bradley. The scorpion has been RETIRED for 18 years, and is in no way comparable to a IFV in the first place. As far as I can tell, it also has worse armor. As for the Wiesel, it's armor is only resistant to 7.92 mm, and the standard models only have a 20mm cannon, leaving them with far less firepower any way you look at it. Not to mention they don't carry any troops in the first place.

No offense, I normally highly respect your posts, but this time you were simply wrong.

Permalink
| October 3, 2012, 7:18 pm
 Group admin 
Mr. Rutherford, I'm sorry if my rebuttal came off as too agressive, and for that I apologise. I would also like to point out that I'm not a Bradley fanboy, admit it has a wide variety of flaws, think that it needs to be replaced, and believe the German Marder and Swedish SV90 to be better IFVs. Anyway, I still stand by my argument regardless.
Permalink
| October 8, 2012, 2:46 pm
Mr. McCall, it is apparent that you read a lot of published rhetoric about military systems. Probably good stuff (Janes Tank and AFV Recognition Guide?) But is is also apparent that you don’t read many essays, and when you do read them, you “Skim”.

You say: “for some reason you are comparing it to light tanks, armored cars, and reconnaissance vehicles.”

I say: You didn’t really read the essay. Read again: U.S. Bradley IFV is a perfect example of why specialization matters: its a vehicle that is a little of everything, but not really enough of anything.
So the “Some Reason” which escapes you is this: I compare the Bradley to other types of platforms in order to illustrate that it is not really suitable for ANY of these roles. It is the perfect example of what you end up with when you do NO specialization.

You say: “*Sigh* I don't think you understand the IFV concept, you got much of your information wrong”


I say: After the 4 week Bradley IFV Leaders Course at Fort Benning, and then two years as a platoon leader in a mechanized infantry battalion, and a deployment to Bosnia, and two years in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (one year of which, 2011, was in Iraq) I think I pretty much “Understand the IFV concept”.

You say: “the Bradley is old and being replaced.”
I say: “So what? It’s still the primary U.S. IFV. By the way, it’s going to be rolling around this great big globe of ours for at least another ten years. You can bank on that.

There is more coming, but I'll cut this into small bites.

Wouldn’t want you to choke.

Permalink
| October 15, 2012, 10:44 am
You say: “First off, the Bradley is an IFV, not a light tank. IFV's have a significantly different role on the battlefield than tanks. Yes, the gun is on the smaller side, but it's still effective at its role.”

I say: “Tank you very much” for explain my own point to me. I think the entire IFV concept is garbage. You want to move troops? Use a truck it’s faster. You want to move troops under armor? Use an APC, it’s faster than an IFV and generally lower to the ground (less vulnerable to enemy fire). You want to engage an enemy with direct fire? Use a Tank main gun (it ends the entire dialogue with one well placed exclamation mark). Now… If You want to engage enemy vehicles with direct fire, from a platform that carries and deploys half a squad of infantry? Then use a Bradley. (Not sure why you would do that… but I guess people think it looks great on paper!)

Here is a reality check: This whole notion of moving until you find the enemy, stopping, deploying troops, and then fighting the enemy is not what happens. When you gain contact with the enemy vehicles, they are often more 500K meters away (500K is already close!). If you stop and kick out troops, it will take them at least half an hour to move into a good position (if the enemy does not move). And if the enemy moves while you are waiting for your half squad to lug their LAWs, SAWs and other gear through 100 meters of sand or mud or snow? You either chase after him, or you run from him. In either case, you end up leaving your dismounted troops far behind you. Or option number 3: you wait for the troops to crawl back to your vehicle and watch the enemy vehicles escape. It’s a garbage concept.

Have to work for a minute. Be right back…

Permalink
| October 15, 2012, 12:53 pm
IFVs are popular. All the big kids have them. But if you look at the nations who have IFVs, you will notice that most of them don’t actually do a lot of fighting. The exception to this is the U.S. And we use our IFVs as mobile bunkers overlooking check points, and as spotters for artillery. We don’t actually employ the IFV in the manner it was originally designed for. Neither to the Israelis.
Permalink
| October 15, 2012, 12:55 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
I got something stuck in moderation. Must have used the wrong type of ammo.
Allowed it, but please post in General Conversation IV next time. Thank you.

Permalink
| October 15, 2012, 1:05 pm
Mr. Sylvan,

Got it. Thanks. I am moving to CGIV now. You should lock this thread though, so all follow on parts of the dialogue don't get mixed up between the two threads.

Mike

Permalink
| October 15, 2012, 1:08 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop collapse & collision. 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