StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I wanted people's opinions on what you feel the appropriate technology level of the rebooted, radiation-free SDNWorld STGOD would be. Some want it to be the same time and place as the last, minus Shepnukistan, some want it to be in the same time and place as the last, minus Shepnukistan and nukes in general, others want the same time put a new place, and still others want a new map and for it to be set in the very early 1900s.

Vote away!

I'd like it to be medieval in technology, say, about 1000 AD.

Modern Level of technology, with mabye a few things a bit (a decade or two at most) more advanced.

Zor

I wouldn't mind early 20th century.

I'm partial to 1900s as well, might actually get me to stay in the game this time.

Mid 20th maybe?

Modern tech.

Modern tech.

Modern technology (SDN 2012 level, the level of destruction event). Early XX century is just too predictable and it will go HoI soon, whereas new research gets us to develop some potentially studied right now stuff... and use it for bolstering mankind's scientific knowledge.

Modern, with some of our projected "next ten years" possibilities thrown in that we'd developed.

retro sci-fi

bring out the brotherhood of steel powered armour...

Well, I may not be joining this, but has anyone consider the 16th Century as a viable time period? No nukes or tanks, and Conquistadors!

Kronos wrote:Well, I may not be joining this, but has anyone consider the 16th Century as a viable time period? No nukes or tanks, and Conquistadors!

You've been reading 163X haven't you?

Modern tech is boring, I'd much rather have a battlefleet

I will get rich selling electrical shavers.

I support early 1900s. Trench warfare and exploitation of natives for the win!

What era we do is really all about what people want to do. If everyone wants full scale war, we have to go back in time. But being modern doesn't mean no war. People would just have to be happy with proxy wars and insurgencies. Personally I'd like to stay modern as that gives small countries more to do. In total war scenarios in the 1900's forward we'd be steam rolled. It would be like playing Norway in Hearts of Iron.

The concept I've devised really only works in the modern era.

mind you I really wouldn't mind going "Fallout" ....

I say 1930's, no radar's baby tanks and machine guns for everyone!

Raj Ahten wrote:What era we do is really all about what people want to do. If everyone wants full scale war, we have to go back in time. But being modern doesn't mean no war. People would just have to be happy with proxy wars and insurgencies. Personally I'd like to stay modern as that gives small countries more to do. In total war scenarios in the 1900's forward we'd be steam rolled. It would be like playing Norway in Hearts of Iron.

Umm you’d be steamrolled way worse in the modern era. In the modern era a small nation will have no hope of holding air superiority, thus allowing an attacker to totally destroy your infrastructure and mechanized military. At that point the only line of resistance left open to you is a guerrilla war.

Back before and even during WW2 a small nation would actually be much better able to defend itself with proper preparation. You can afford weapons that are fully equal to those of even the great power (towed artillery, forts, early tanks, machine guns, you can’t build an F-22 Raptor of any of them) and you could have a massive army for you size through conscription in a way that you just don’t see in the modern era anymore, except maybe North Korea. Air power is a threat, but it can't go blowing away every bridge and tank in the country with ease.

Mr Bean wrote:I say 1930's, no radar's baby tanks and machine guns for everyone!

1930 would be a great starting point, aircraft are just starting to push the 200mph barrier and become a serious weapon of war but the battleship is still king.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Umm you’d be steamrolled way worse in the modern era. In the modern era a small nation will have no hope of holding air superiority, thus allowing an attacker to totally destroy your infrastructure and mechanized military. At that point the only line of resistance left open to you is a guerrilla war.

Back before and even during WW2 a small nation would actually be much better able to defend itself with proper preparation. You can afford weapons that are fully equal to those of even the great power (towed artillery, forts, early tanks, machine guns, you can’t build an F-22 Raptor of any of them) and you could have a massive army for you size through conscription in a way that you just don’t see in the modern era anymore, except maybe North Korea. Air power is a threat, but it can't go blowing away every bridge and tank in the country with ease.

Mr Bean wrote:I say 1930's, no radar's baby tanks and machine guns for everyone!

1930 would be a great starting point, aircraft are just starting to push the 200mph barrier and become a serious weapon of war but the battleship is still king.

Well in the modern era I could conceivably be part of an alliance with a nuclear deterrent. Hopefully that would make people think twice about seriously invading a small nation. Proxy wars would be the order of the day. Really though small nations are pretty worthless in either scenario. Just don't have the production to do much against the big boys in a major war.


That said I could go either way on time frame. The 30's could be very interesting as wars don't immediately turn into a nuclear exchange. Would larger nations have colonial Empires, s they are still in vogue? That would make the third world zones a lot easier to handle.

We can start Janurary 1st 1930 with the same two weeks=1 year timeline as last time, with end date of December 31st 1945 which means a almost eight month long game and all the restrictions of the 1930's. Eariliest you can pull off any kind of useful Radar is 1934, Nukes are off limits until 1943 and costs lots of money to develop.

Don't know what kind of world we'd be using however.