MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Divide and Conquer II Closed for MaintenanceMilitary
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
Talk about anything and everything here, no matter if it relates to the group or not.
Permalink
| January 2, 2013, 3:42 am
 Group moderator 
The groups emblem is pretty cool, it does seem to fit the theme nicely. Sadly I hit a problem with my APC to, Im starting over when I get the time. I need to take an absence from Xbox, playing videogames all day is getting tiring, and even sitting down, and creating stuff with legos would be a massive exercise compared to being a mindless zombie pressing buttons.

Oh well,
Its 5:00 am now, better get some rest.

Permalink
| January 2, 2013, 4:27 am
Sorry about your APC, man.

When you get back online tomorrow you should get on the box so we can discuss this (rather tan typing it), we need to go over the rules and what we should do. I worked out the preliminary stuff, we just need to go over the more advanced stuff together.
Permalink
| January 2, 2013, 4:36 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
I'll give you two, which we are very close to finishing development on and will be on naval ships by 2020. the rail gun and MAC. the current rail gun owned by the US navy can fire a 5 inch projectile over 100 miles, and has a muzzle velocity of 8213 fps. now amplify this technology to fit a shell 14-18 inches across ( remember that this is multiplied exponentially), and you can get an approximate range of 4-6000 miles.

Uh... is this a joke? Pretty much every thing here is wrong, and that's coming from a big supporter of railguns.

For starters, there are no MACs under development, they are a fictional Halo weapon. Perhaps you were thinking of coilguns?

Second off, no, the US's railgun is not capable of the specs you have listed (it fired at 2,520 m/s), those specs are for the theoretical 2020-25 railgun, which will only come to exist if things continue as planned and we figure out how to solve several major issues (you know, like rail wear).

Thirdly, railguns just don't work that way. It doesn't really matter how big your projectile is, but is instead more a matter of power generation. In other words, your range calculation is pretty much 100% wrong (I suggest you look at wikipedia's section on formulas to learn how to properally calculate range). I also suggest reading further on the topic to get a better understanding.

On top of all this, cruisers and destroyers are going to be the ships recieving these weapons (in fact, they are currently the ONLY types of ships that are going to be getting them), rendering this so called "advantage" moot.
Permalink
| January 3, 2013, 10:26 pm
Quoting David Cook
Several people had said that the new rule set is bothersome, and while is almost exactly the same as D&C, except for fixing a few flaws and lowering the scale of unit production (I lowered all the numbers evenly). The only thing you don't have access to is space ships, you can still build MECH's, hover vehicles, Rail guns, drop ships, hornet-esque helicopters and all of the the other sci-fi goodies, just no spacebound vehicles. Think of it as a futuristic, smaller scale Conflict, for those of you were were part of the original group.

And I'm mentioning you in particular, tyro, the stuff you built in conflict and D&C was fantastic, you can still build every one of those things, except space ships.

but getting off the point here, If you guys really want it to be more like the original D&C, let me know below and I'll work it out I guess.

-----

if everybody wanted, I could make a second part to this, after the map is filled up, the factions become nations and battle for the planet. after the planet is filled up, we spread to the stars, to become galactic empires. I could make a space map, making spacebound tech okay, and ground tech still relavent, because that's how you would capture the planets. This one would be a neutral planet, kind of like a space UN. does that sound like a good idea to everybody?

production times and unit scale would be adjusted accordingly to each scale shift.


Permalink
| January 3, 2013, 10:28 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Uh... is this a joke? Pretty much every thing here is wrong, and that's coming from a big supporter of railguns.

For starters, there are no MACs under development, they are a fictional Halo weapon. Perhaps you were thinking of coilguns?

Second off, no, the US's railgun is not capable of the specs you have listed (it fired at 2,520 m/s), those specs are for the theoretical 2020-25 railgun, which will only come to exist if things continue as planned and we figure out how to solve several major issues (you know, like rail wear).

Thirdly, railguns just don't work that way. It doesn't really matter how big your projectile is, but is instead more a matter of power generation. In other words, your range calculation is pretty much 100% wrong (I suggest you look at wikipedia's section on formulas to learn how to properally calculate range). I also suggest reading further on the topic to get a better understanding.

On top of all this, cruisers and destroyers are going to be the ships recieving these weapons (in fact, they are currently the ONLY types of ships that are going to be getting them), rendering this so called "advantage" moot.

Your right, it is a matter of power generation, and MAC guns are not being developed by the government, even though they are simply large coil guns, and do the exact same thing "hence non fictional".


Besides that (also thanks for switching convos)
Battleships simply are not meant for this, they have use, which is why they are being used now, being discontinued due to there age, not effectiveness.
Same reason why C-130s "or an old car" need to be replaced, parts malfunction more often, one day the lighting, next the engine.
Cost is the main concern, they are expensive.
Firepower is always wanted, the ability to erase whole islands of the map, not strike with precision like a MLRS. Maybe not useful in singe, but effective enough with proper escort.
Then we have a use for them, the ship may not look good on paper, but the whole fleet will look better with it, as that ship that blows stuff up.
Its the fact it can sustain fire.

Permalink
| January 3, 2013, 10:46 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid
Your right, it is a matter of power generation, and MAC guns are not being developed by the government, even though they are simply large coil guns, and do the exact same thing "hence non fictional".
Besides that (also thanks for switching convos)
Battleships simply are not meant for this, they have use, which is why they are being used now, being discontinued due to there age, not effectiveness.
Same reason why C-130s "or an old car" need to be replaced, parts malfunction more often, one day the lighting, next the engine.
Cost is the main concern, they are expensive.
Firepower is always wanted, the ability to erase whole islands of the map, not strike with precision like a MLRS. Maybe not useful in singe, but effective enough with proper escort.
Then we have a use for them, the ship may not look good on paper, but the whole fleet will look better with it, as that ship that blows stuff up.
Its the fact it can sustain fire.

Yeah, I figured it would be best to take this outside the stats forum.

Anyway, while it is true that coilguns and MACs are basically the same thing, MACS are litterally orders of magnitude more powerful (as in they have a kiloton to megaton level of firepower), so they fall under different categories of weapons (just like you don't put handguns and battlship cannons in the same category).

I completely agree that battleships have absolutely devastating firepower, I jsut hold that the same amount of money spent on these battleships would be more effiecently shunted into making more cruisers, destroyers, and carriers due to their much more versatile capabilites (AKA being able to do more than just shore bombardment).

If a country had unlimited resources to spend, I would have absoultely no problem with battleships and would even gladly welcome them. However, sadly this isn't the case, so money would be better spent on more useful ship types instead.

However, if you really want a modern battleship, something like this is probably the way to go:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser#Armament

Also, minor nitpick: MLRS is not an accurate weapon in the slightest, it's a weapons system that fires fairly inaccurate rockets and spreads thousands of submunitions over entire battlefield grid spaces. if you want pin-point accuracy, cruise missiles are the way to go.
Permalink
| January 3, 2013, 11:06 pm
An MRL is a purpose built area weapon. Why be accurate when you could just drop a few more rockets into the fray?

Also, lets try not to argue about every mi or detail.
Permalink
| January 3, 2013, 11:41 pm
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
An MRL is a purpose built area weapon. Why be accurate when you could just drop a few more rockets into the fray?

Also, lets try not to argue about every mi or detail.
eh, i prefer high fragmentation bombs. but, agreed

Permalink
| January 3, 2013, 11:44 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Oscar Floyd
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
An MRL is a purpose built area weapon. Why be accurate when you could just drop a few more rockets into the fray?

Also, lets try not to argue about every mi or detail.
eh, i prefer high fragmentation bombs. but, agreed

Nay, I'll prefer High-explosive rounds, White Napalm bombs, Cluster munitions, and Fragmentation rounds.

Permalink
| January 3, 2013, 11:50 pm
Can there be Anarchys?
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 12:12 am
Quoting Matthew McCall
Uh... is this a joke? Pretty much every thing here is wrong, and that's coming from a big supporter of railguns.

For starters, there are no MACs under development, they are a fictional Halo weapon. Perhaps you were thinking of coilguns?

Second off, no, the US's railgun is not capable of the specs you have listed (it fired at 2,520 m/s), those specs are for the theoretical 2020-25 railgun, which will only come to exist if things continue as planned and we figure out how to solve several major issues (you know, like rail wear).

Thirdly, railguns just don't work that way. It doesn't really matter how big your projectile is, but is instead more a matter of power generation. In other words, your range calculation is pretty much 100% wrong (I suggest you look at wikipedia's section on formulas to learn how to properally calculate range). I also suggest reading further on the topic to get a better understanding.

On top of all this, cruisers and destroyers are going to be the ships recieving these weapons (in fact, they are currently the ONLY types of ships that are going to be getting them), rendering this so called "advantage" moot.

I dont really think that these weapons would be all that logical on a naval ship. they sound like they would take up a lot of room that could be used for other more reasonable weapons. the magnets and electromagnetic devices for it would take up tons of room.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 12:15 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
An MRL is a purpose built area weapon. Why be accurate when you could just drop a few more rockets into the fray?

Also, lets try not to argue about every mi or detail.

Yes, I'm aware that MLRS is an area effect system, and was just pointing it out since it would seem Mr. Squid had a misunderstanding of their capabilities (at least I think, it's hard to tell).

As for arguing and debating, this is something that should be done until a good , logical, and clear set of consistent rule set on tech, which we currently don't have. If we didn't do this, and instead all had was wildly different ideas and interpretations of military capabilities and the like, I'm not sure how this group could possibly function properally. For example, do you really want this group to allow railguns that have the range to fire and accurately hit targets from one side of the continent to the other? (that type of range would have so much recoil that I dare say it would likely destroy itself and what ever fired it) .That's the type of thing that can happen if we all have our own ideas of what works instead of solid rules based on logical principles of how things work. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know a considerable amount about military technology, at least for an "armchair general", so when I see something I consider wrong I try to correct it.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 12:21 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Oscar Floyd
I dont really think that these weapons would be all that logical on a naval ship. they sound like they would take up a lot of room that could be used for other more reasonable weapons. the magnets and electromagnetic devices for it would take up tons of room.

Well, the US navy disagrees with you on this point, exspect railgun armed ships in under two decades. The new Zumwalt destroyers, assuming we get the tech fully developed, should be armed with both lasers and railguns by roughly 2025.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 12:25 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Oscar Floyd
I dont really think that these weapons would be all that logical on a naval ship. they sound like they would take up a lot of room that could be used for other more reasonable weapons. the magnets and electromagnetic devices for it would take up tons of room.

Tungsten is a heavy metal see, so when a missile hits a tank it can be destroyed by APS, or canceled by tough advanced armor. However if a Kinetic round made out of tungsten, fired from a Coilgun hits that tank, its toast.

The round will hit it like a knife though butter, right through the tank, and probably though the pavement, and deep into the ground.
The magnets propel it to very fast speeds.

Basicly, there isnt any other weapon you could give a cruiser, thats as powerfull, besides Nuclear ICBMs. A cruise missile just doesnt compare, hense why the navy wants them so bad right now. They might not have a blast radius, but if you fire it at any known ship, it will sink it. Also underground bunkers, and such.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 4:23 am
Is anyone else up right now? at the butt-crack of dawn?
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 8:07 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
Is anyone else up right now? at the butt-crack of dawn?

I am, went to bed like at 1 to 1:30. XD
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 8:22 am
 Group moderator 

Quoting Nightmaresquid
Tungsten is a heavy metal see, so when a missile hits a tank it can be destroyed by APS, or canceled by tough advanced armor. However if a Kinetic round made out of tungsten, fired from a Coilgun hits that tank, its toast.

The round will hit it like a knife though butter, right through the tank, and probably though the pavement, and deep into the ground.
The magnets propel it to very fast speeds.

Basicly, there isnt any other weapon you could give a cruiser, thats as powerfull, besides Nuclear ICBMs. A cruise missile just doesnt compare, hense why the navy wants them so bad right now. They might not have a blast radius, but if you fire it at any known ship, it will sink it. Also underground bunkers, and such.

Actually, right now it's believed the 2020-25 railguns will have roughly the same firepower as a cruise missile. The advantage is being able to have a much larger supply of cheaper rounds, that as you say, can't really be defended against. Also, there are some anti-tank missiles out there that no current armored vehicle can survive being hit with no matter how good their armor, assuming it gets past the APS. (Top attack missiles like Spike and Javelin are essecially good at this)
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 12:32 pm
 Group moderator 
Replying to David Cook about the admin announcement.

It would be pretty cool to expand into the galaxy as I have a lot of spacecraft to be uploaded.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 12:53 pm
So I guess arguing about something is the only way we'll talk about something in this group for some reason.

JUSTIN BEIBER ROCKS!!!!

that should do it
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 1:46 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
So I guess arguing about something is the only way we'll talk about something in this group for some reason.

JUSTIN BEIBER ROCKS!!!!

that should do it

NO WAY, he is just a snoty nose brat with a girly singing voice, I say that music for Red vs Blue is better then Justin Beiber's songs expetly 05 Mental Meta Metal RVB Season Ten.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 2:05 pm
nuuuuuooooo, I say is thingin is phat fellow 9 year old, as I am also 9, that is th only reason why I like his music.

But seriously though, someone is buying his music, who and for god sake's WHY?
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 2:09 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
nuuuuuooooo, I say is thingin is phat fellow 9 year old, as I am also 9, that is th only reason why I like his music.

But seriously though, someone is buying his music, who and for god sake's WHY?
Hyped teenage girls?

Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 3:02 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Well, the US navy disagrees with you on this point, exspect railgun armed ships in under two decades. The new Zumwalt destroyers, assuming we get the tech fully developed, should be armed with both lasers and railguns by roughly 2025.

Lasers?
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 3:24 pm
Quoting Oscar Floyd
Lasers?

lol yes, I was thinking the same thing
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 3:27 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
lol yes, I was thinking the same thing
Also, by that time soldiers will be equipped with laser-blasters and lightsabers will replace combat knives.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 3:54 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Oscar Floyd
Lasers?

Yes, lasers. In fact, we will probalby get them before railguns.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17546077 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Lasers
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 4:49 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Yes, lasers. In fact, we will probalby get them before railguns.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17546077 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Lasers

Yes, but a directed energy weapon isnt a laser in the truest sense of the word, erm, term I guess, not word.

I though you were talking about star wars/space age visible lasers of doom type stuff.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 5:19 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
Yes, but a directed energy weapon isnt a laser in the truest sense of the word, erm, term I guess, not word.

I though you were talking about star wars/space age visible lasers of doom type stuff.

Uh... directed engry weapons aren't lasers, lasers are directed energy weapons. Anyway, blasters, phasers, lazguns, ect are all silly and not going to be made anytime soon (if ever). If you here me ever mention lasers, I'm almost allways talking about the real ones.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 6:11 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Uh... directed engry weapons aren't lasers, lasers are directed energy weapons.


Uhhh... what?
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 6:13 pm
Never mind, I just got what you were trying to say, like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is mot a square. It was just worded awkwardly.

no, I know that, that's just the way I had to say it to explain what I was trying to get across.
Permalink
| January 4, 2013, 7:47 pm
 Group moderator 
Well today I spent working on editing pics with photoshop magic. Along with my new modern weapons "comment on mine & I will on one of yours" I will have pics of my armed forces, and Phalanx hover IFV, added to the group pool in the next few days.


Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 2:38 pm
 Group moderator 
How is a combat Report Looks like and set up?
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 2:52 pm
I think I am just going to watch this one.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 2:58 pm
Quoting Christian Bish
How is a combat Report Looks like and set up?

You don't need to worry about that right now as you are not at war, but a Combat Moderator (CM) would make that after receiving both players plans, and artfully tells you who won or lost with a battlefield summary or combat report.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 2:59 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
How is a combat Report Looks like and set up?

Basically, you tell where are your forces, how many units, where are they heading and what will they do.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 3:01 pm
 Group moderator 
Thanks and Check out the Navy Pack 1
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/350729
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 3:05 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Yes, lasers. In fact, we will probalby get them before railguns.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17546077 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Lasers

I am going to laugh my head off if these weapons are delayed by another 20 years
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 6:34 pm
If you watch and listen to this Russian national anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M

does it almost bring tears to your eyes. I personally find it really beautiful. Just as a matter of fact, I am not communist or live in Russia.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 6:41 pm
 Group moderator 
Got a steam Account and bought the THQ Bundle, installing Warhammer 40,000 II Dawn of war.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 6:43 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Oscar Floyd
I am going to laugh my head off if these weapons are delayed by another 20 years

That's possible, but not probable. We've had working prototypes of both weapon types for over a decade, and have been consistantly improving them each year. The US army even has a laser humvee that is used to destroy IEDs, so lasers have already started making their way onto the battlefield.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 6:55 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
That's possible, but not probable. We've had working prototypes of both weapon types for over a decade, and have been consistantly improving them each year. The US army even has a laser humvee that is used to destroy IEDs, so lasers have already started making their way onto the battlefield.


again, thats not a "laser beam" weapon, and its not even a weapon. If I remember correctly the ZEUS's laser superheats the IED until it's trigger mechanism releases and it blows up. But it is still a very "non-visible" laser.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 7:06 pm
I added some epic music to the main page, the player is towards the bottom
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 7:57 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
I added some epic music to the main page, the player is towards the bottom

Nice chose of music.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 7:59 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook

again, thats not a "laser beam" weapon, and its not even a weapon. If I remember correctly the ZEUS's laser superheats the IED until it's trigger mechanism releases and it blows up. But it is still a very "non-visible" laser.

Actually, Zeus is considered to be a laser weapon (albiet not a very powerful one), however, you are correct about how it works.

Anyway, visible lasers AKA Star Wars style aren't lasers, no real laser weapon will be visible (unlike other types of lasers, some of which are visible), period. Basically, if it's visible to the human eye, it's not a laser, since lasers are basically invisble light speed weapons. Any picture/art you see that shows visible laser beams is only to show viewers that the weapon is in fact actually firing something.
Permalink
| January 5, 2013, 8:06 pm
Glad to see the group shaping up well,
Just a note, I'm going to be uploading mainly to Flickr nowadays, because I'm lazy, and its easy to do it from there.
Permalink
| January 6, 2013, 10:15 pm
Glad to see this group, I hope it doesn't suffer the fate of the last like 5 groups. I like the fact it's not as futuristic as D&C 1, so yeah, I better get to building.
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 9:21 am
 Group moderator 
Is it just me, or is the photo uploader currently broken?
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 12:52 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Is it just me, or is the photo uploader currently broken?
Try the older version, it may work.

Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 1:14 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Quoting Matthew McCall
Is it just me, or is the photo uploader currently broken?
Try the older version, it may work.

That doesn't seem to help, it just gives me an error message after it finishes that the images were not able to be uploaded. :/
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 1:41 pm
Note sure if this is the right place, but I would like to put forward the idea of having 2, non affiliated, permanent CMs, for handling surprise attacks and things of that nature.
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 2:23 pm
 Group moderator 
Hay everyone, If any or you what to trade please ask what you want to trade in the ITF page.
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 3:45 pm
I may be a little late in getting any creations uploaded because of my busy 8th grade life.but i will get the uploaded in the near future.
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 4:52 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Oscar Floyd
I may be a little late in getting any creations uploaded because of my busy 8th grade life.but i will get the uploaded in the near future.

Oscar, What should we call our Alliance?
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 5:21 pm
sorry I haven't been on in the last two days, school took up most of my time. anyway, It's nice to see how the group is doing, in the very beginning I had low hopes for its survival, but now I'm sure it will last a long time.
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 6:06 pm
Quoting Christian Bish
Oscar, What should we call our Alliance?

Hmm... well... uhh... Ill have to sleep on it. maybe the Edenor-Athenian Alliance?
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 8:12 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Oscar Floyd
Hmm... well... uhh... Ill have to sleep on it. maybe the Edenor-Athenian Alliance?

Ok, that sound nice.
Permalink
| January 8, 2013, 8:19 pm
 Group moderator 
Well, it looks like I'm not the only person having problems with uploading photos :( : http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=2600&topicid=86980
Permalink
| January 9, 2013, 1:15 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Well, it looks like I'm not the only person having problems with uploading photos :( : http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=2600&topicid=86980
If you really want to upload a moc, you can upload it to flickr then paste its HTML code into your moc page. However, the main pic will be an issue.
Permalink
| January 9, 2013, 1:43 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Well, it looks like I'm not the only person having problems with uploading photos :( : http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=2600&topicid=86980

My creation has been on the homepage for two days now, Im not complaining.
This will be fixed sooner, it is a major issue.
They are probably working on it now.
Permalink
| January 9, 2013, 2:38 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid
My creation has been on the homepage for two days now, Im not complaining.
This will be fixed sooner, it is a major issue.
They are probably working on it now.

This glitch seems to have started after you added you creation. Anyway, I do hope they fix it soon, I lost my main photo to my recent upload and can't get it back, and I won't be on the Internet the entire weekend.
Permalink
| January 9, 2013, 3:26 pm
 Group moderator 
I'm gone until late sunday, Pacific Time. See you then!
Permalink
| January 11, 2013, 7:31 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
I'm gone until late sunday, Pacific Time. See you then!

Later then.
Permalink
| January 11, 2013, 7:36 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Tyro Cook
I would greatly appreciate it if SOMEBODY would check out my new stuff.

Done.
Permalink
| January 12, 2013, 12:57 am
You can count me in on this group, I'm always up for a little military fun.
Permalink
| January 12, 2013, 12:57 am
Quoting Tyro Cook
I would greatly appreciate it if SOMEBODY would check out my new stuff.

I don't think your Air Force is big enough >.<
Permalink
| January 12, 2013, 11:10 am
 Group moderator 
Tyro, what do you want for the three aircraft?
Permalink
| January 12, 2013, 1:50 pm
Quoting Tyro Cook
Your right, I could probably use some more jets :P

Also several more bombers :D
Permalink
| January 12, 2013, 1:52 pm
I'll be uploading another map in just a little bit, and some of the numbers in the territories wont match up, I made too many of the territories too small and I re-sized a few of them.
Permalink
| January 12, 2013, 4:25 pm
I finished adding all pics to my Ground Forces Pack, so any critcism on it is welcome.
Permalink
| January 13, 2013, 8:25 am
made a newer version of the map, I made some of the territories bigger so there wern't so many differences with size, too big and too small
Permalink
| January 13, 2013, 4:46 pm
Anyone know when I'm allowed to start a war? :3
Permalink
| January 13, 2013, 10:59 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Anyone know when I'm allowed to start a war? :3

your ready for a battle, I suggest to wait a little longer and build up your forces.
Permalink
| January 13, 2013, 11:26 pm
 Group moderator 
Well, I finally finished adding all the photos to my mega upload, there is still no info, but exspect it to be added eventually. Even if you have allready seen the pack when it was first released, a LOT has changed since then, so you may want to give it a second look: http://mocpages.com/moc.php/351050
Permalink
| January 14, 2013, 2:07 pm
 Group moderator 
Sad, no one has put up comments on some of my creations exept Matt ( I am not attacking you but you have good advices; I say that much. i do have alot to learn though.) along with a few people. So please give me some good comments and and advices that could give me a chance to make a good lookin moc.
Permalink
| January 15, 2013, 5:39 pm
 Group moderator 
No one else is going to trade, I will like to have some Amphibus Warfar ships.
Permalink
| January 18, 2013, 3:32 pm
Quoting Christian Bish
No one else is going to trade, I will like to have some Amphibus Warfar ships.

I am planning on making some landers sometime in the future, I might trade with you once they are built. lets carry this on in ITF.
Permalink
| January 18, 2013, 4:44 pm
 Group moderator 
LCACs are now done with testing and now ready for deployment.
Permalink
| January 18, 2013, 6:59 pm
 Group moderator 
just some information on the Air Dreadnought.
It will be the biggest MODEL in the group (its minifig scale) and it will weigh in at about 8Kg.

Armament will include 2 mjolnir railguns (I will also be mounting these on a mammoth artillary vehicle) 2 100mm cannons, 2 1.5Kt cruise missiles, 16 heavy anti armor missiles, 4 long range missiles with various possible warheads, 6 anti aircraft missies, 4 anti air/missile infra red lasers, all rounded off nicely by 24, yes, 24 Miniguns in quad mounts.

To scale with the figs it is about 35/40 metres long and is powered by a fusion reactor driving 6 large turbine engines. I will class it as a destroyer on the production chart as it doesn't fit with any other aircraft type.

I will also name them individuallly. (Dreadnought, the flagship/Avenger/Indomitable/Titan/Thor.

Armor will be Titanium A like the ships in Halo, but only 50cm thickness, still weighing in at 200 tons, equal to one of brian kescenovitz's foundation class mechs. Piece count at around 4000.
Permalink
| January 23, 2013, 6:23 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
just some information on the Air Dreadnought.
It will be the biggest MODEL in the group (its minifig scale) and it will weigh in at about 8Kg.

Armament will include 2 mjolnir railguns (I will also be mounting these on a mammoth artillary vehicle) 2 100mm cannons, 2 1.5Kt cruise missiles, 16 heavy anti armor missiles, 4 long range missiles with various possible warheads, 6 anti aircraft missies, 4 anti air/missile infra red lasers, all rounded off nicely by 24, yes, 24 Miniguns in quad mounts.

To scale with the figs it is about 35/40 metres long and is powered by a fusion reactor driving 6 large turbine engines. I will class it as a destroyer on the production chart as it doesn't fit with any other aircraft type.

I will also name them individuallly. (Dreadnought, the flagship/Avenger/Indomitable/Titan/Thor.

Armor will be Titanium A like the ships in Halo, but only 50cm thickness, still weighing in at 200 tons, equal to one of brian kescenovitz's foundation class mechs. Piece count at around 4000.

No offense, but something like that just seems begging to get shot down. I could see just a few fighters bringing it down by launching a salvo of missiles to overwhelm the point defense and destroy critical systems, or just a tank firing it's railgun at it, pretty much instantly coring it (not far fetched, tanks have brought down helicopters with their main guns in real life, and helicopters are MUCH smaller and more manueverable than a "flying fortress".) However, this does sound like quite a achivement from a builders point of view.
Permalink
| January 24, 2013, 1:48 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall

Yeah, I thought someone was going to say that.
The main idea was for a heavy weapons platform to operate in conjunction with much smaller vehicles, like a task group. the point defense on the air dreadnought is intended as a last resort, using the IF lasers and escorts as a primary defence. also, I couldn't envisage anything better for destroying missiles than the wall of lead put out by 24 miniguns. I completely understand your point (remind me not to attck you with these) but I will preferably be kepping them at a distance to take advantage of the huge arsenal they carry (especially the railguns)

Permalink
| January 24, 2013, 2:45 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Quoting Matthew McCall

Yeah, I thought someone was going to say that.
The main idea was for a heavy weapons platform to operate in conjunction with much smaller vehicles, like a task group. the point defense on the air dreadnought is intended as a last resort, using the IF lasers and escorts as a primary defence. also, I couldn't envisage anything better for destroying missiles than the wall of lead put out by 24 miniguns. I completely understand your point (remind me not to attck you with these) but I will preferably be kepping them at a distance to take advantage of the huge arsenal they carry (especially the railguns)

Well, the thing is, a minigun isn't as good as you would think for point defense. Yes, over a thousand RPM is nice and all, but there is more we need to factor in than rate of fire.

We can take a quick look at several miniguns:

GAU-19:
cartridge: .50 BMG
Rate of fire: 1-2 thousand RPM
Effective Range: 1,800 m
Max Range: 6,000m

GAU-17:
cartridge: 7.62x51mm NATO
Rate of fire: 2-6 thousand RPM
Max Range: 3,280m

As you can see, it would seem that either you go heavy caliber, long range, low rate of fire, or you can go small caliber, short range, high rate of fire. Either way, 6 kilometers is considered to be a long-range minigun, and neither of these miniguns are anywhere near as powerful as a CIWS.

OK, so now that we have looked at some minigun attributes, we need to factor in how these miniguns are aimed. If the answer is manually-aimed, hitting a missile is pretty much hopeless, the gunners would be lucky to even see it before it hit. Not only that, but due to the miniguns having to cover all sides, perhaps only half of them could be brought to bear in any one direction.

Anyway, now we look at missile speed, which is very important for figuring out the engagement time the miniguns are allotted. Hypersonic missiles seem to be the future when it comes to missiles, with several countries around the world building working prototypes. Hypersonic means at least Mach 6, which converts to slightly over two kilometers a second. In other words, minigun point-defense literally has only 1-3 seconds to engage, and that's assuming they start firing at their max range (AKA too far away to actually expect to hit).

So here is a likely scenario:
1. The airship is spotted by a flight of 6 fighters at long range.
2. Said fighters launch 2 hypersonic BVR missiles each.
3. Missiles come screaming in at 2,000m+ per second.
4. Lasers engage missiles, destroy several, but since they are protected by ablative armor, the missiles can't be destroyed quickly enough.
5. Miniguns open fire on the remaining 7 missiles, having mere seconds to engage, and bring down 3 of them.
6. The airship gets hit by the remaining 4 missiles and crashes to the ground in a blazing wreck.

Permalink
| January 24, 2013, 11:01 pm
I've decided to leave the group. I can hear SciFi Calling my name. So sorry!
Permalink
| January 25, 2013, 11:09 pm
I think the idea behind an aerial dreadnought is that it's too big to be brought down by a few missile hits.

I do agree though, bigger is rarely better.
I really can't wait to see it though, it sounds awesome :D
Permalink
| January 25, 2013, 11:25 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
I think the idea behind an aerial dreadnought is that it's too big to be brought down by a few missile hits.

I do agree though, bigger is rarely better.
I really can't wait to see it though, it sounds awesome :D

That's not how aircraft work, in general, the bigger/heavier you make them, the harder it is to keep them in the air, and it's own armor will work agianst it. Besides, 35-40 meters isn't as big as you think. Any remotely reasonable dreadnought simply can't be armored well enough to survive a serious hit, let alone 4.

Edit: just realised my C-17 happens to be 53 meters long, and
I do believe there happens to be another aircraft of similar dimensions in this group.
Permalink
| January 26, 2013, 2:15 am
 Group moderator 
For anyone who's interested, here is a good article on the progress the US is making on laser-armed aircraft: http://gizmodo.com/5978740/us-military-to-install-laser-turrets-in-combat-airplanes?utm_source=gizmodo.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation
Permalink
| January 26, 2013, 2:53 am
Sorry I havnt been on as much recently, school has taken up a lot of my time, but I will get the map up in a few minutes, sorry its late.
Permalink
| January 26, 2013, 1:43 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
So here is a likely scenario:
1. The airship is spotted by a flight of 6 fighters at long range.
2. Said fighters launch 2 hypersonic BVR missiles each.
3. Missiles come screaming in at 2,000m+ per second.
4. Lasers engage missiles, destroy several, but since they are protected by ablative armor, the missiles can't be destroyed quickly enough.
5. Miniguns open fire on the remaining 7 missiles, having mere seconds to engage, and bring down 3 of them.
6. The airship gets hit by the remaining 4 missiles and crashes to the ground in a blazing wreck.

OK, Matthew. My patience has run out. Forgive me for showing any kind of imagination in your presence, as this seems to deeply offend you. I am not even going to go into details, I really cannot be doing with this on my birthday.

First point: I would very much like to see you build this with your own two hands, not a computer mouse, before you start criticising it.

Second point: The fact that you are willing to spend your time researching weapon specs to use in your critique of my ideas is very showing. I am fully aware of the real life implausibilty of what I am making, but this is a fictional group, intended for fun, which you have a remarkable talent for killing.
Permalink
| January 26, 2013, 4:48 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
my birthday.

Happy birthday
Quoting jack kenyon
First point: I would very much like to see you build this with your own two hands, not a computer mouse, before you start criticising it.

Ldd is very underrated, it takes a lot of skill to make creations on ldd, its not as simple as most people think, takes a lot of time, is very stressful, and gives you back pains.
Quoting jack kenyon
but this is a fictional group, intended for fun, which you have a remarkable talent for killing.

Very true, this is what Matthew should be considering above all.

The group is 7 hundred years in the future.
Your airship "which he hasnt even seen yet"
is supposedly underpowered? and has modern? era miniguns.

Give it a few fusion reactors, enough to power 100 solid state lasers. (1) fusion power is very realistic, (2) in 700 years they most likely will be A LOT smaller "and lighter"

Think of the battery. a 1980s battery was way more powerfull than a 1950s era battery, but somehow its logical to assume that a 2000s battery has the same power as a 1980s ??? no of course not, as things progress they get smaller, and better.

(3) If your airship has proper radar, and AA defences, his aircraft could be spotted and shot down before they reach your unit.

If your airship could land? it could become less of a target, and could be stable.
Build an AA system "stand alone" to
protect it.

Miniguns are not able to destroy missiles, shooting 70 rounds per second doesnt matter when dealing with small high speed weapons.
Its like trying to shoot a bullet out of the air with another.

(4)
Matthew cant decide these things anyway, so its best to ingnore him if your mad, the CM will decide these things when its time.

(5)
I personnaly like the Idea of a flying aircraft carrier better.






Permalink
| January 26, 2013, 7:52 pm
Guys, any of you having problem with uploadin photos? 'Cuz when I preview my page before publishing it, all the pics are broken.
Permalink
| January 27, 2013, 3:17 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid
(5)
I personnaly like the Idea of a flying aircraft carrier better.

Thanks for all the advice, about the airship and in general. I will probably have an onboard AI to deal with AA and maybe use the miniguns more for short range gunship style close support (they are the smallest of many weapons on the dreadnoughts) it is going to use fusion power driving steam turbines geared to the engines.
And about a flying aircraft carrier, I was thinking midi scale model, build maybe 2 in game and use them as my flagships. do "Spirit Of Gaufran" and "Odin" sound like good names for flying aircraft carriers?
Permalink
| January 27, 2013, 11:04 am
GC1 is full, please continue your conversations in GC2: http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22081&topicid=87398
Permalink
| January 27, 2013, 2:03 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Divide and Conquer II Closed for MaintenanceMilitary


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