|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:26 pm
Not really... what exactly is your definition of "scientific"?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:50 am
Ok, proven on facts or at least based on scientific hypothosis that has supporting evedince. But that would limit some if not many guilds. Like mine, in the book its based off of, they have instant travel and the M.D.D, neither of which i or my colleges and scientificly prove, so if we have to prove them, certin guilds might take a lose or 2 in their ability to make war.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:02 pm
I say we don't have to worry about science in some guilds we have mages, sorcerors, wizards, hedge wizards, dragons and gods. Some have technology that technically can't exist. For instance the Bunnywrench Army with all its damage resetting at 3.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:25 pm
So the rule of the concile is we dont have to be completely scientific. That makes my life a hell of a lot easier.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:58 pm
Since when were we a council?
We're an Order, which is like a council, but not ninja
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:09 pm
An order? That means you are the last say in everything.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:50 am
it was sort of an expression.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:42 pm
Night, I was joking around, please stop taking everything I say so seriously....
Even if this is a "professional" situation, I prefer to take a light hearted approach to it, therefore correcting your post to such a small level that it didn't matter was fun to do.
To end this, I repeat.... please settle down.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:04 pm
Pakuun Night, I was joking around, please stop taking everything I say so seriously.... Even if this is a "professional" situation, I prefer to take a light hearted approach to it, therefore correcting your post to such a small level that it didn't matter was fun to do. To end this, I repeat.... please settle down. I am calm and settled. You dont seem to understand, im not getting agitated, im just saying. Your the one who seems to get worked up.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:19 pm
NightPredator11 Pakuun Night, I was joking around, please stop taking everything I say so seriously.... Even if this is a "professional" situation, I prefer to take a light hearted approach to it, therefore correcting your post to such a small level that it didn't matter was fun to do. To end this, I repeat.... please settle down. I am calm and settled. You dont seem to understand, im not getting agitated, im just saying. Your the one who seems to get worked up. Night, calm down, don't be so defensive. What you are doing now is called projection, where you take how you are feeling, and 'project' it onto another, which is a psychological defensive mechanism. But as for the science and whatnot, I think that it can be combined in with the WMD rule, and just make a rule that states that nothing can be too overly powerful when compared to other armies. Meaning; if there are too guilds with only modern grounds forces, then one cannot possibly have something that will trump the other army. For each technological (and magical) level, we need to ensure that it's balanced, in one way or another. We may have to resort to only ruling this by judging and arbitration though, and have to concrete rules for it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:07 pm
I would like to motion for the use of NPCs as viable. If you're a pilot of a two-crew fighter, and no one wants to be your WSO, then you can very well do your job. If you are the owner of a country guild and no one wants to join, you're entirely unable to defend yourself.
I would also like to motion against "McFlying" as the AMP calls it. It's basically a form of god-modding, but there are a few things that are different. Not that I'm a member yet or anything, but just a few suggestions.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:24 pm
Skyburn If you are the owner of a country guild and no one wants to join, you're entirely unable to defend yourself. The point in showing that you are a decent leader is that you have members in your guild, I personally say that guilds with no members should be screwed, as thier punishment for not being able to get any members.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:59 am
Pakuun Skyburn If you are the owner of a country guild and no one wants to join, you're entirely unable to defend yourself. The point in showing that you are a decent leader is that you have members in your guild, I personally say that guilds with no members should be screwed, as thier punishment for not being able to get any members. Here here. And besides, you're not supposed to be running huge armies with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and tanks and ships and whatnot. The largest I see any of these armies being is in the hundreds range, and that's with full member count and perhaps NPCs as gaurds to a base or something. However, the fighter jet example is viable.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:39 am
Pakuun Skyburn If you are the owner of a country guild and no one wants to join, you're entirely unable to defend yourself. The point in showing that you are a decent leader is that you have members in your guild, I personally say that guilds with no members should be screwed, as thier punishment for not being able to get any members. No effective war is fought with less than thousands of soldiers. You need tanks, apcs, artillery, carriers, destroyers, cruisers, fighters, bombers, AWACs, multiple varieties of cargo aircraft, attack aircraft, helicopters, snipers, light-infantry, paratroopers, medics, commanders, et cetera. Did I mention all the mechanics and other non-combatants? Punishment for not getting members? I hardly see that as needing punishment, as you can't mind-control other people. In fact, the best guilds I've seen often have no more than a couple of members. The worst guilds I've seen often have anywhere from no members to a full fourty. It just depends. Good members are hard to come by. Ones who try and dodge bullets arn't. Even if you have good members for a country: A:"Okay, I have three infantry-man and one helicopter pilot. GO STORM THAT BASE!" B: "Umm, sir, that's a country. Some people see using thousands of NPCs as easy. It's not; it takes a different sense of tactical know-how. You have to be able to micro-manage like never before, and you must be able to know what units are best where, what hazards you will encounter, et cetera. You need the gift of foresight; in small combat foresight is a hindrance if you actually know how to fight. It's not simple; the only reason why it seems so is because some people I know have perfected the art of using NPCs. There is no such thing as a 100 man army. That's not even a company. Space forces without a full fleet, staffed by 8,000 crew? Now that's madness. A Country Guild without more than 200,000 people in their military?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:54 am
Yes, but the point of this is to display your RPing prowess as an individual, not as one able to control thousands. It's easy for me to conjure from thin air an army, and have them do my bidding. However, if I am able to issue commands to real people, and have them carry them out properly, that takes real skill, and real leadership. This is more an art than a number crunching arena. If you don't like it, then that's too bad.
Oh, and by the way, 'the best guilds only have a few members'? I believe you just said that because you can't find anyone as likeminded to you as you'd like, and as such, you'd still like to believe you have the greatest thing ever. It's okay, most of the elitists on O/M do.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|