Noble713
Posts: 53
Joined: 1/11/2011
From: Japan (US expat)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WoodMan
By your logic the USA, China and Russia should all share exactly the same military hardware then, if its just a case of taking technology of the same level (which they have) and sticking it in a certain size box  But of course they don't.
USA, Russia, China: different hardware
Actually, we pretty much *do* use the same hardware.
Towed and self-propelled artillery:
US/NATO: 155mm. Russia/China: 152mm
Main Battle Tank Cannons:
US: 120mm smoothbore. UK: 120mm rifled. Russia/China: 125mm smoothbore
Rifle Cartridges:
US: 5.56x45mm Russia: 5.45x39mm China: 5.8x42mm
Fighter Cannons:
US F-35: 25mm w/180 rounds Russian Su-30MKI: 30mm w/150 rounds
Armored Vehicles:
US: stopped using open-topped tank destroyers in favor of main battle tanks
Russia: stopped using heavy assault guns in favor of main battle tanks
Fighter Forces:
US: mix of twin-engine heavy air superiority jets (F-15,F-22) and single-engine interceptors/bomb trucks (F-16, F-35)
China: mix of twin-engine heavy air superiority jets (Su-30,J-11) and single-engine interceptors/bomb trucks (J-10)
Given rough technical parity, differences in hardware are not due to racial characteristics that somehow render certain configurations impossible, but do to conscious choices regarding policy and strategy by whoever is in charge at that time.
Here's another example: The Russians build generally lighter APCs, IFVs, and MBTs than most of the Western World. Due to the geography and poor infrastructure of their country and Soviet operational/tactical doctrine, they stressed the need for speed and cross-country mobility (including basic river fording with almost no prep-time). Israel, in contrast, builds gigantic, heavily armored vehicles. Their small population size places a greater importance on crew survivability and their generally defensive posture and heavily-urbanized surroundings precludes the need for peerless mobility. If the Russians wanted to build Israel's Namer IFV in Real Life (tm) or in Distant Worlds they could, but under your system they could not, because they would inexplicably run out of "Armor Hard Points" because they are too aggressively-minded. Same race as before, same characters calling the shots, but the situation on the ground has changed and they need to adapt immediately. That doesn't mean the Namer IFV is the optimum overall design and everyone should be fielding exactly that, it just means that if it is the one configuration at just the right time, they have the option to pursue it.
quote:
Take Ferangi as an example, they are obsessed with trade, if we changed that trait to obsessed with war wouldn't we see a difference in their ship designs? I guess we would.
Anyway as I said I've given up as I seem to be somewhat of a lone voice on this issue so nevermind.
Making ship designs equal makes the best economy the best military power. If everyone has the same quality ships then the race that can afford the most of them will be the best military power. This is in my experience Shandar, Securan, Ugnari, Teekan, Gizurean. Ironically 4 of those races are pacifists.
Isn't that the whole purpose of these lines in the race files:
'Overall Ship Design Focus: 0=Balanced, 1=Speed/Agility, 2=Power, 3=Efficiency
OverallShipDesignFocus ;3
'Tech Focus 1: 0=None, 1=Beams, 2=Phasers, 3=Rail Guns, 4=Torpedoes, 5=Bombard Weapons, 6=Missiles, 7=Area Weapons,
8=Ion Weapons, 9=Fighters, 10=Armor, 11=Shields, 12=Reactors, 13=Main Thrust Engines, 14=Vectoring Engines,
15=HyperDrives, 16=Hyper Disruption, 17=Construction, 18=Damage Control, 19=Targetting, 20=Countermeasures, 21=Sensors, 22=Medicine, 23=Recreation
TechFocus1 ;0
'Tech Focus 2: 0=None, 1=Beams, 2=Phasers, 3=Rail Guns, 4=Torpedoes, 5=Bombard Weapons, 6=Missiles, 7=Area Weapons,
8=Ion Weapons, 9=Fighters, 10=Armor, 11=Shields, 12=Reactors, 13=Main Thrust Engines, 14=Vectoring Engines,
15=HyperDrives, 16=Hyper Disruption, 17=Construction, 18=Damage Control, 19=Targetting, 20=Countermeasures, 21=Sensors, 22=Medicine, 23=Recreation
TechFocus2 ;0
If you set a race to Speed/Agility with a focus on Medicine and Recreation, does that not yield a race with ships perpetually behind the power curve in combat power? If it's WAD then we don't need an additional system. If it's not then that's a bug to be fixed.....and we don't need an additional system.
< Message edited by Noble713 -- 3/8/2012 4:05:55 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Community Request - Customized Designs - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread