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 Coversation 2
Talk about anything and everything here, no matter if it relates to the group or not.
Permalink
| January 27, 2013, 2:02 pm
Quoting jack kenyon
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
(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?

You can get mad at me right now but I have the same tic that McCall does about realism, or at least semi-realism (I try to make everything I build at least plausible 700 years from now). I have thought about this Sky-Carrier idea too, but the only way I have found that something like that could be even plausible is if it were in an extremely high orbit, almost high thermosphere to be able to float and not crash back down to earth because of it very un-aerodynamic design and extreme weight. And then assuming all that is sorted out, it'll be f***ing hot there, like 3,000 F on a good day.

Just giving out some information about my research on this topic, as Nemisis said, we are a Sci-Fi alternate reality type group so if you make and say it works, it works. (Just please give some kind of Science-y description for how it works, even if you made everything up)



Quoting PALADIN .
Guys, any of you having problem with uploadin photos? 'Cuz when I preview my page before publishing it, all the pics are broken.

I don't know if you are experiencing the same issue I am, but the site has been running super slow for me the lest few weeks and if the pictures dont load after a while the broken link appears, even if it is actually there.

-----
I posted this idea before, but I was hoping to generate some new opinions on it so I copied and pasted my old post.

If everybody wanted, I could maek the game bigger than what it is now. After the map is filled up, the factions become nations and battle for the planet. After the planet was been completely captured and sufficient wars have been fought, we will spread to the stars, to become galactic empires. I could make a space map, making spacebound tech okay, and ground tech still relevent, 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 27, 2013, 2:21 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
I posted this idea before, but I was hoping to generate some new opinions on it so I copied and pasted my old post.

If everybody wanted, I could maek the game bigger than what it is now. After the map is filled up, the factions become nations and battle for the planet. After the planet was been completely captured and sufficient wars have been fought, we will spread to the stars, to become galactic empires. I could make a space map, making spacebound tech okay, and ground tech still relevent, 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.


That would be epic, now I wonder how space battles go because of FTL drive?

Permalink
| January 27, 2013, 5:13 pm
Quoting Tyro Cook
I'm really annoyed with the pages. It sucks to go to so much work on a creation and get absolutely no feedback whatsoever....

I know that feel bro. I have to accounts, the other was for Bionicles. I get like 2-3 comments. Have I stopped MOCing? Don't let the lack of comments discouage you. And if it will make you feel better, I think everyone in this group agrees your MOCs are phenomenal. It'd be sad to see you go, some of your MOCs have been quite an inspirationn for me. Also you are one of the important members that keep groups like this alive, due to great MOCs and the fact you're willing to go to war.
Permalink
| January 29, 2013, 12:38 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook

Just giving out some information about my research on this topic, as Nemisis said, we are a Sci-Fi alternate reality type group so if you make and say it works, it works. (Just please give some kind of Science-y description for how it works, even if you made everything up)

I'm not going to get mad at you, you haven't openly criticised me. I dont think I will have any troubel with coming out with a whole load of Sci-fi nonsense slash future science slash something i heard in halo. I spend most of my day doing so! (:
Permalink
| January 29, 2013, 2:12 pm
 Group moderator 
"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."

Look, I'm sorry about causing you distess on your birthday, but imagination goes two ways. For example, laser armed airships are certianly imaginative, and if you want to build one that's perfectly fine. However, I can use imagination too, resulting in ablative armor to counter laser defenses, and hypersonic missiles to reach the target as fast as possible.

As Mr. squid has already said, LDD is quite challenging, sometimes more than plastic Lego (especially stuff like tank treads :P ). Don't be so quick to judge.

As for being willing to research the plausability of stuff, what does that have to do with anything? I do it all the time, even to sci-fi like star wars and warhammer 40k. I'm sorry if I killed your idea, but I like weapon systems to be at least somewhat plausible, and minigun AA isn't.

Imagination is fine and all, but weapon systems should actually have some logical restraints on their performance (and if a person builds a well-thought out counter, the counter should be effective), otherwise we will end up with tanks that shoot fighters out of the air from 30 miles away (*derp* they can shoot that far, so surely they can knock them out of the sky, right? *derp*)and other silly stuff like that. See what I mean? Anyway, Mr. Squid has some good ideas on how to improve your concept, it sounds like you plan on introducing them, correct?

PS: Nightmaresquid, good luck shooting down a stealthy fighter that never gets closer than 100 miles away to fire a BVR missile and them immediately hightail it out of there. Oh, and you have 59 seconds until their hypersonic mach 8 missiles impact, leaving VERY little time to react.
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 2:55 am
 Group moderator 
Ok, Matthew, I was a little short of restraint when I wrote that. I have also found it irritating when someone builds a mediocre model and gives it ridiculously OP and unrealistic stats, but as Nightmaresquid pointed out, it is down to the CM and if the model backs up the claims then there ought to be no problem. I am not trying to make my craft OP, I could say it has a max speed of 40,000 kmph, has impenitrable shields and can target 1000 missiles at once with a small army of lasers. Instead, I have given it a low top speed (subsonic) , solid conventional armor (though strong) and a reasonable capability to defend itself. I understand now that I was hasty to classify the Miniguns as point defense weapons, and although I am keeping them, I will be using them for close support. I am not trying to say you cannot be realistic, but for once I want to let loose some futuristic fantasy, as (other than halo) I have never built these things before.
I have also commented before on one of your models that I envy your ability on LDD, I was referring to the unlimited piece options that eliminate improvisation and the lack of physics meaning structural integrity is unneccesary, as well as the fact that your choice to build in this way allows you to make vast numbers of models in the time it takes for people like me to make one large or a few small MOCs. Can we just agree to disagree and put this behind us.
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 2:54 pm
 Group moderator 
Ok, Matthew, I was a little short of restraint when I wrote that. I have also found it irritating when someone builds a mediocre model and gives it ridiculously OP and unrealistic stats, but as Nightmaresquid pointed out, it is down to the CM who wins and if the model backs up the claims then there ought to be no problem. I am not trying to make my craft OP, I could say it has a max speed of 40,000 kmph, has impenitrable shields and can target 1000 missiles at once with a small army of lasers. Instead, I have given it a low top speed (subsonic) , solid conventional armor (though strong) and a reasonable capability to defend itself. I understand now that I was hasty to classify the Miniguns as point defense weapons, and although I am keeping them, I will be using them for close support. I am not trying to say you cannot be realistic, but for once I want to let loose some futuristic fantasy, as (other than halo) I have never built these things before.
I have also commented before on one of your models that I envy your ability on LDD, I was referring to the unlimited piece options that eliminate improvisation and the lack of physics meaning structural integrity is unneccesary, as well as the fact that your choice to build in this way allows you to make vast numbers of models in the time it takes for people like me to make one large or a few small MOCs. Can we just agree to disagree and put this behind us.
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 2:56 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Ok, Matthew, I was a little short of restraint when I wrote that. I am not trying to make my craft OP,


Matthew said that his stealth aircraft cannot be seen propperly, and can fire BVR missiles.

Make your craft stealthy "radar, or other fictional jammers, radar absorbing/blocking technology, And put in some small missile launchers "nothing fancy, maybe some poseable technic tubes"


BTW this convo is becoming a bit consuming. It seems wise to end it here.

Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 5:22 pm
 Group moderator 
How about a minecraft Poll.
Who has the craft, do you have it for PC, or Xbox.

Any projects?
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 5:27 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
How about a minecraft Poll.
Who has the craft, do you have it for PC, or Xbox.

Any projects?

I have minecraft for PC with Technic Pack and FTB pack. i am using my brother Johns Account.

Want to create a missile cruiser on Universal Electcity (Feed the Beast) or Volts (technic Pack).
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 6:09 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Ok, Matthew, I was a little short of restraint when I wrote that. I have also found it irritating when someone builds a mediocre model and gives it ridiculously OP and unrealistic stats, but as Nightmaresquid pointed out, it is down to the CM who wins and if the model backs up the claims then there ought to be no problem. I am not trying to make my craft OP, I could say it has a max speed of 40,000 kmph, has impenitrable shields and can target 1000 missiles at once with a small army of lasers. Instead, I have given it a low top speed (subsonic) , solid conventional armor (though strong) and a reasonable capability to defend itself. I understand now that I was hasty to classify the Miniguns as point defense weapons, and although I am keeping them, I will be using them for close support. I am not trying to say you cannot be realistic, but for once I want to let loose some futuristic fantasy, as (other than halo) I have never built these things before.
I have also commented before on one of your models that I envy your ability on LDD, I was referring to the unlimited piece options that eliminate improvisation and the lack of physics meaning structural integrity is unneccesary, as well as the fact that your choice to build in this way allows you to make vast numbers of models in the time it takes for people like me to make one large or a few small MOCs. Can we just agree to disagree and put this behind us.

Well, we actually seem to be agreeing, I was only contending that miniguns aren't capable of being used for point-defense. Now that we both agree on that, as far as I can tell there is no longer a point of contention.
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 7:14 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
How about a minecraft Poll.
Who has the craft, do you have it for PC, or Xbox.

Any projects?

I have all three versions of minecraft, however, I don't have XBOX Live.
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 7:16 pm
I have the live version, but you already know that.
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 7:29 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º

Matthew said that his stealth aircraft cannot be seen propperly, and can fire BVR missiles.

Make your craft stealthy "radar, or other fictional jammers, radar absorbing/blocking technology, And put in some small missile launchers "nothing fancy, maybe some poseable technic tubes"


BTW this convo is becoming a bit consuming. It seems wise to end it here.

Well, there are actually quite a few counters to stealth currently being developed ( to the point some people think stealth aircraft won't be viable in the future) and stealth just means harder to see (rather than invisible). It should also be remembered that shape is extremely important for stealth, meaning that given the same level of stealth tech, an airship couldn't be as stealthy as a dedicated stealth aircraft unless it had the right profile. If the airship was equipped with the right equipment then there is a good chance it could see my fighters, just not as quickly/easily as it could if the fighters were being non-stealthy.

Anyway, I agree that this topic has run it's course.
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 7:38 pm
Wow, an argument ran its self out instead of dropping off do to inactive members. Quite the occasion we have here.

Y'all probably already know I have pc minecraft.
I waste too much money on that game >.<
Permalink
| January 30, 2013, 9:53 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Wow, an argument ran its self out instead of dropping off do to inactive members. Quite the occasion we have here.

Y'all probably already know I have pc minecraft.
I waste too much money on that game >.<

Well, I could have kept arguing, but there didn't seem to be much point. Quit while you are ahead I guess. Anyway, how do you waste money on PC minecraft, it's an one-time purchase...
Permalink
| January 31, 2013, 1:39 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
How about a minecraft Poll.
Who has the craft, do you have it for PC, or Xbox.

Any projects?

got it on PC, making a full size Nimitz class carrier, CVN76
Permalink
| January 31, 2013, 5:50 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º

Make your craft stealthy "radar, or other fictional jammers, radar absorbing/blocking technology, And put in some small missile launchers "nothing fancy, maybe some poseable technic tubes"


Due to something I have heard about called quantum radar, Jamming systems will be rendered obsolete soon, and my craft is far from stealthy, its RCS is probably the size of a continent. I have also heard though, of a possible future method of stealth that invovlves forming a bubble of plasma around the aircraft for short periods of time by electrifying the surrounding air. I am not sure how this would work but like david cook said, if we say it works, it works. This could allow the dreadnought tio penetrate into enemy airspace, then drop the bubble and attack. I would put a leash on this kind of tech though, maybe 1 hour of use then needs to be charged? also, it will not count as a shield in any way, that's the job of the armor.
as to the technic tubes and missile launchers, already installed. they are attatched to the engine mounts and the railguns in the bow. this does though once again bring up Brian K's comment on "why do they armor the heck out of them then leave vital hydraulic lines exposed?"
Permalink
| January 31, 2013, 5:58 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Tyro Cook

The service is free, give it a download and quit complaining about others capabilities ;)

Already have it, but my computer is rubbish which puts me off using it. (it crashes and laaaaags like anything)
Permalink
| January 31, 2013, 6:02 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Now that we both agree on that, as far as I can tell there is no longer a point of contention.

I'm glad we have been able to sort this out.


Permalink
| January 31, 2013, 6:07 am
 Group moderator 
I play minecraft on my xbox everyday all day, I have some great games, but I’m addicted to minecraft, sadly my PC version is all buggy.

Right now I’m working on an adventure map. I’ve spent a whole week planning and making it, still have a lot more to go.

I’ve also done some nice Pvp maps.
I’ve built some cruisers, and castles. I personally find making adventure maps to spend time with other people more satisfying.

Permalink
| January 31, 2013, 7:47 am
Quoting Matthew McCall Anyway, how do you waste money on PC minecraft, it's an one-time purchase...

I might donate to servers >.>
Permalink
| January 31, 2013, 9:50 pm
 Group moderator 
David, a deal is a deal right.
Permalink
| February 1, 2013, 7:56 pm
Quoting Christian Bish
David, a deal is a deal right.

yep, i was just about to mention it, all the tech to your stats, and I'll take it off of mine signifying the trade.
Permalink
| February 2, 2013, 11:25 am
Anyone want to make an alliance, it's basic idea is everyone supports eachother, I suply infantry and the other person suplys vehicle
Permalink
| February 3, 2013, 6:21 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Hunter Beck
Anyone want to make an alliance, it's basic idea is everyone supports eachother, I suply infantry and the other person suplys vehicle

You need to bring something more substantial to the table, infantry for vehicles is not a good trade. Try tanks in return for aircraft or something similar, then people will be more interested. If building tanks is a problem, I know how pricey tracks are, then make some planes to trade. They are much easier to make look good, and use fewer parts.
Permalink
| February 4, 2013, 3:26 pm
Planes are impossible to make look good >.>
If you've got some tracks, then just make one side with tracks and photograph that. That's what I do, I'm too lazy to find the rest of my tracks >.<
Permalink
| February 4, 2013, 10:17 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Planes are impossible to make look good >.>
If you've got some tracks, then just make one side with tracks and photograph that. That's what I do, I'm too lazy to find the rest of my tracks >.<

That's actually ingenious. XD
Permalink
| February 5, 2013, 3:22 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Planes are impossible to make look good >.>
If you've got some tracks, then just make one side with tracks and photograph that. That's what I do, I'm too lazy to find the rest of my tracks >.<

I feel like an idiot now! I have spent over 60 pounds (80 dollars) total on tracks via bricklink. I guess it was more for my benefit that for the photos though. Do you really think planes are that hard? if you are working on a real one and want landing gear and complex shapes in a small package then yeah, I guess but fictional ones? just do what feels right, use some angled pieces, a streamlined cockpit glass piece and maybe some landing gear if you have time and bam! a decent looking plane.
Permalink
| February 5, 2013, 3:47 pm
Quoting jack kenyon
I feel like an idiot now! I have spent over 60 pounds (80 dollars) total on tracks via bricklink. I guess it was more for my benefit that for the photos though. Do you really think planes are that hard? if you are working on a real one and want landing gear and complex shapes in a small package then yeah, I guess but fictional ones? just do what feels right, use some angled pieces, a streamlined cockpit glass piece and maybe some landing gear if you have time and bam! a decent looking plane.

I usually get going really well shaped. Then I run out of pieces and it ends up looking horrible >.<.

I've been experimenting with miniature models, and they seem to come out well though.
Permalink
| February 5, 2013, 10:13 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
That's actually ingenious. XD

It looks good on camera, but it gives a sense of incometion for the builder.
It also allows me to put more road wheels on, so that's a plus.
Permalink
| February 5, 2013, 10:15 pm
I mean vehicles of infantry, I mean vehicles, aircraft, and ships for the best infantry (I HAVE A WEAPONS SQUAD THE CAN TAKE OUT AN ENEMY COMPANY WITH EASE, ON THEIR OWN!), so I have a good deal for everyone.
Permalink
| February 5, 2013, 10:43 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Hunter Beck
I mean vehicles of infantry, I mean vehicles, aircraft, and ships for the best infantry (I HAVE A WEAPONS SQUAD THE CAN TAKE OUT AN ENEMY COMPANY WITH EASE, ON THEIR OWN!), so I have a good deal for everyone.

Wait... what? O_0 When I go to your homepage, I don't see any creations, and what makes you think that infantry with equipment that allows them to win 1:16 odds will be allowed? XD
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 1:15 am
I'm adding that soon, as soon I know how to get pics on.
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 9:51 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Hunter Beck
I'm adding that soon, as soon I know how to get pics on.

I'll say it agian. What makes you think infantry with tech that allows them to massacre forces 16 times larger than them will be allowed? (even soldiers equiped with power armor going agianst such odds and winning isn't that plausible assuming that their opponents are competent and sufficently armed.)
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 12:59 pm
A infantry company is dead, a Mechanized Infantry have a smaller chance, and can't handle armor and heavy weapons. So it's equaled out.
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 4:12 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Hunter Beck
A infantry company is dead, a Mechanized Infantry have a smaller chance, and can't handle armor and heavy weapons. So it's equaled out.

Could you be a bit more coherent? You still haven't exsplained both how your infantry can massacre agianst 1:16 odds (it can't be with uber power armor, they aren't considered conventional infantry in this group, and would likely still lose), and now you are saying a squad of 9 soldiers can win agianst 1:16 odds plus roughly 18 IFVs? Do you understand how insane this sounds?
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 4:38 pm
The squad has 3 MG teams with a gunner with a quad barreled MMG a Juggernant with 2 Tommy guns and Juggernant armor, and Ammo Suppiler with a rifle, in each. So you see what I mean.
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 6:52 pm
Aight, lets take a step back here
A squad ~10 men
A whatchamacallit (too lazy to go back and find out exactly what he said the unit was) 120-160 men

Honestly, those guys could have absolutely everything in their favor, but still be overwhelmed.

Then we add in the vehicles of the enemy unit (squads carry no vehicles) which will include ~20 IFV/APC's with various armaments.

Unless these infantry are all in hardsuits, they wouldn't even stand a chance.
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 10:04 pm
Quoting Hunter Beck
The squad has 3 MG teams with a gunner with a quad barreled MMG a Juggernant with 2 Tommy guns and Juggernant armor, and Ammo Suppiler with a rifle, in each. So you see what I mean.

Tommy guns are WWII era
Juggernaut=Harduit?
Quad barreled MMG? I'm not sure what an MMG is, but anything quad barreled isn't going to be foot mobile
Permalink
| February 6, 2013, 10:12 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Hunter Beck
The squad has 3 MG teams with a gunner with a quad barreled MMG a Juggernant with 2 Tommy guns and Juggernant armor, and Ammo Suppiler with a rifle, in each. So you see what I mean.

Nope, I still disagree. Mechanised Infantry also has heavy firepower like machine guns and missile launchers, so I'm not seeing an advantage here for your squad. And when there are 16 soldiers for every one of your own, and there are two IFVs for every one of your soldiers, there's basically no other possible outcome but the squad getting wiped out. Even assuming they were all equiped with power armor, I'm still not seeing them win here due to them still being outgunned and outnumbered. Anyway, I agree with Vallkirimrl's thoughts on the squad loadout.
Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 12:21 am
I said a SMALLER CHANCE, and I mean 50/50 or 40% chance of the squad winning, and the Tommy Guns are Lego SMGs with a big clips. MMG= Medium machine Guns ( which is why there's a ammo suppiler) and The Juggernant armor is based of COD's.
Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 12:39 am
I would like to add my thoughts. What makes you think that when this OP overkill squad is spotted, infantry will be sent? Why would not the other side just send an airstrike? Some tanks, choopers maybe?
Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 2:46 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Hunter Beck
I said a SMALLER CHANCE, and I mean 50/50 or 40% chance of the squad winning, and the Tommy Guns are Lego SMGs with a big clips. MMG= Medium machine Guns ( which is why there's a ammo suppiler) and The Juggernant armor is based of COD's.
I think it would be better if you back down on this one Beck, I have seen arguments over much less major plausability errors than this. Just change the stats for your squad to make them less powerful (like US marines kind of powerful, not spartan II powerful) and accept that you typed something without thinking it through, then Matthew will have no problem.

Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 1:34 pm
 Group moderator 
I’ve been thinking about my position in power, and have decided that having two admins in one alliance possibly isn’t that fair, so I demoted my self to moderator.

I will still be very active in this group, and will help when needed, and am working on a large project right now,
I suggest Matthew McCall as a suitable replacement.

Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 3:34 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Nope, I still disagree. Mechanised Infantry also has heavy firepower like machine guns and missile launchers, so I'm not seeing an advantage here for your squad. And when there are 16 soldiers for every one of your own, and there are two IFVs for every one of your soldiers, there's basically no other possible outcome but the squad getting wiped out. Even assuming they were all equiped with power armor, I'm still not seeing them win here due to them still being outgunned and outnumbered. Anyway, I agree with Vallkirimrl's thoughts on the squad loadout.

heavy armor, and hard suits are in different categories. David gave some pics to show what a heavy soldier is. Heavy is just a guy with a lot of armor on him, and a LMG, Hardsuits would be more of a guy in armor with hydrolics, and would be much bigger than him.
Sort of like a mini mech.

But anyway I believe the Infantry caps are for wartime, you can start with any amount you chose.

Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 4:04 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
heavy armor, and hard suits are in different categories. David gave some pics to show what a heavy soldier is. Heavy is just a guy with a lot of armor on him, and a LMG, Hardsuits would be more of a guy in armor with hydrolics, and would be much bigger than him.
Sort of like a mini mech.

But anyway I believe the Infantry caps are for wartime, you can start with any amount you chose.

Yes, I'm aware of the difference, I was saying even if his troops theoretically all had power armor the odds still would be stacked against them.
Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 5:18 pm
I'm reforming my formations to make them fare.
Permalink
| February 7, 2013, 10:48 pm
 Group moderator 
Stayed up all night working on the AVF (was APC), it will have five variants; Morter, Medic, Sniper APC, Cargo, and mobile AA APC. I don'd make them look preitty <- Bad speeling, they are made to be sturdy but trying to make sure they look nice.
Permalink
| February 8, 2013, 9:43 am
 Group moderator 
God, so much snow and it was late.
Permalink
| February 8, 2013, 2:44 pm
 Group moderator 
Is it possible to add Experiment Vehicles.
Permalink
| February 10, 2013, 9:05 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
Is it possible to add Experiment Vehicles.

If by experimental you mean vehicles that circumvent the rules, no. So no "experimental" lasers, shields, super weapons, ect...
Permalink
| February 11, 2013, 12:22 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
If by experimental you mean vehicles that circumvent the rules, no. So no "experimental" lasers, shields, super weapons, ect...

No, I mean something like the UEF Fatboy from Supreme Commander minse the Lasers, shields and super weapons.
Permalink
| February 11, 2013, 8:14 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
No, I mean something like the UEF Fatboy from Supreme Commander minse the Lasers, shields and super weapons.

Why exactly would you want a mobile factory? It wouldn't be allowed to produce extra stuff...
Permalink
| February 11, 2013, 9:10 am
I have been super busy with a lot of schools and personal stuff, so much so that I have neglected my LEGO's for a whole three weeks, which is unheard of, and makes me kind of sad... I will continue to moderate a publish the map, but I'm afraid to say that you wont be seeing a lot of other participation from me.
Permalink
| February 17, 2013, 12:02 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Cook
I have been super busy with a lot of schools and personal stuff, so much so that I have neglected my LEGO's for a whole three weeks, which is unheard of, and makes me kind of sad... I will continue to moderate a publish the map, but I'm afraid to say that you wont be seeing a lot of other participation from me.

Same here, but if you have time, can you upload my factions emblem, it's on my home page.
Permalink
| February 18, 2013, 1:27 pm
I've just started using LDD and have made a model, but I want to know how to take photos without the backgrounds (Sand, Jungle etc), like you do Matthew McCall.

Thanks in advance.
Permalink
| February 21, 2013, 9:29 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Broken Bricks
I've just started using LDD and have made a model, but I want to know how to take photos without the backgrounds (Sand, Jungle etc), like you do Matthew McCall.

Thanks in advance.

Ctrl+K is for screen shots.
Permalink
| February 21, 2013, 9:40 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Broken Bricks
I've just started using LDD and have made a model, but I want to know how to take photos without the backgrounds (Sand, Jungle etc), like you do Matthew McCall.

Thanks in advance.

You could also use the "snip" tool. Really, either way works.
Permalink
| February 21, 2013, 10:20 am
 Group moderator 
Just wondering what everyone thinks, does anyone else think that bipedal mechs (chicken walkers) are hugely impractical? They are either under armoured or too big for practical use and even small missiles could topple them. Speed would be their advantage over rough terrain but in a city? I can see infantry hiding in a doorway, then sticking some C4 on a leg. Boom, and you have one crippled walker. They would also be limited in what weapons they could carry by the recoil. I am not sure about railguns but conventional artillery would be a no go as it would knock them over. On the other hand I can see a four or six legged design working, or maybe have a third stablising leg for firing heavy weapons, like the AT AP walker. I am just curious about your opinions. Also, Matthew McCall will probably know, do railguns/mac cannons recoil? I would think that if the magnets push the projectile then yes, but if they pull it, then wouldn't the force be exerted on the structure of the weapon, not on the vehicle firing it? It is just that I was reading halo fall of reach and it describes super MAC guns mounted on orbital stations, and it occurred to me that the recoil of the several hundred ton projectile would throw the stations out of orbit.
Permalink
| February 24, 2013, 11:49 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Just wondering what everyone thinks, does anyone else think that bipedal mechs (chicken walkers) are hugely impractical? They are either under armoured or too big for practical use and even small missiles could topple them. Speed would be their advantage over rough terrain but in a city?

Some good points, but what information are you basing your facts off of, as of today we can only speculate on what technology will be used in the future.
How do you know that an advanced computer couldn’t calculate the amount of recoil from the main weapon system, then stabilize the body when in fires.
How do you know that the hydraulics, "or another system that hasn’t been invented yet" couldn’t support the weight of heavy armor.

For example in halo, there are lots of reasons why the mac guns could stay in orbit, maybe because the guns have on board gravity fields that keep them in place. or that they produce an equal amount of thrust in the opposite direction when they fire.

The C4 is a better point, big mechs wouldnt function on a city. But then again what makes you think the "hiding" soldier wouldnt be spotted. Is it impossible for mechs to have thermal optics, or sensitive scanners, or sensors to detect him. What happens if its being supported by other vehicles, or soldiers.
Permalink
| February 24, 2013, 12:17 pm
Is there anyway in which we can get non-active members to become active again, because there is only about 6 active people out of 21.
Permalink
| February 24, 2013, 3:52 pm
 Group moderator 
Dang, Only one person looked a the Posiden. Please comment and any advice is also apperciated.
Permalink
| February 24, 2013, 4:34 pm
All of Kenyon's points are valid. I can't see a mech used for scouting or front line use, as a 2 legged would, because treads/wheel are better suited. I can see a use for mechs used as fire support, a 6 legged artillery mech for example. The only bipedal mech I could see working is a very small one, designed to add more punch to an infantry unit.
Permalink
| February 24, 2013, 10:11 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Just wondering what everyone thinks, does anyone else think that bipedal mechs (chicken walkers) are hugely impractical? They are either under armoured or too big for practical use and even small missiles could topple them. Speed would be their advantage over rough terrain but in a city? I can see infantry hiding in a doorway, then sticking some C4 on a leg. Boom, and you have one crippled walker. They would also be limited in what weapons they could carry by the recoil. I am not sure about railguns but conventional artillery would be a no go as it would knock them over. On the other hand I can see a four or six legged design working, or maybe have a third stablising leg for firing heavy weapons, like the AT AP walker. I am just curious about your opinions. Also, Matthew McCall will probably know, do railguns/mac cannons recoil? I would think that if the magnets push the projectile then yes, but if they pull it, then wouldn't the force be exerted on the structure of the weapon, not on the vehicle firing it? It is just that I was reading halo fall of reach and it describes super MAC guns mounted on orbital stations, and it occurred to me that the recoil of the several hundred ton projectile would throw the stations out of orbit.

Yes, I agree that when it comes to bipedal mechs, anything besides the smallest sizes are simply a bad idea. The shape of a mech prohibits it from having the same level of protection of a conventional vehicle, and giant mechs are a sollution looking for a problem (AKA useless). Having legs also increases the chances of chatostrophic damage when hit due to falling.

Recoil is also a valid objection, just look at humans as an example. A human can easily stand while firing a smaller sized firearm (aka an autocannon), but when trying to fire an large sniper rifle (aka 120 mm gun) while trying to stand he will fall over. The same logically would aplly to mechs, so if they were to mount large caliber weapons, they would have to brace themselves. This would result in stationary mechs during combat, which is a major disadvantage.

Anyway, yes, railguns and other similiar weapons have recoil (equal and oposite reaction applies to them to), and the more powerful they are the greater the recoil. This means any railgun a bipedal mech could mount would have to be underpowered compared to railguns mounted on something more stable. One thing that should be remembered is that while Halo's MAC are relatively (sorry XD ) realistic compared to many other popular sci-fi franchises, the series still can hardly be considered a hard sci-fi series.

Oh, by the way, MAC cannon is a rather silly thing to say: Mass Accelorator Cannon Cannon ;)
Permalink
| February 25, 2013, 12:00 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
All of Kenyon's points are valid. I can't see a mech used for scouting or front line use, as a 2 legged would, because treads/wheel are better suited. I can see a use for mechs used as fire support, a 6 legged artillery mech for example. The only bipedal mech I could see working is a very small one, designed to add more punch to an infantry unit.

I agree with all your points, even to how I designed my mechs (my mechs are used for infantry support and transporting an anti-aircraft laser).
Permalink
| February 25, 2013, 12:08 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Some good points, but what information are you basing your facts off of, as of today we can only speculate on what technology will be used in the future.
How do you know that an advanced computer couldn’t calculate the amount of recoil from the main weapon system, then stabilize the body when in fires.
How do you know that the hydraulics, "or another system that hasn’t been invented yet" couldn’t support the weight of heavy armor.

For example in halo, there are lots of reasons why the mac guns could stay in orbit, maybe because the guns have on board gravity fields that keep them in place. or that they produce an equal amount of thrust in the opposite direction when they fire.

The C4 is a better point, big mechs wouldnt function on a city. But then again what makes you think the "hiding" soldier wouldnt be spotted. Is it impossible for mechs to have thermal optics, or sensitive scanners, or sensors to detect him. What happens if its being supported by other vehicles, or soldiers.

I have no doubt a mech could stabilize itself while firing a weapon with a large amount of recoil, but on the move? Not to much.

The weight of the armor isn't nearly as big of a problem (esspecially assuming carbon nanotube armor and other similiar future materials), but rather that the shape of a humanoid mech is simply not optomised agianst projectiles.

That is an interesting point about equal thrust you bring up, which just so happens to be how my hovertanks manage recoil (this means they can't fire their primary weapons without massive deceleration).

Anyway, yes, any intelligently designed mech will have sensors to detect infantry, although it would be safe to assume tactics/tech would be developed to try and negate this at least somewhat.
Permalink
| February 25, 2013, 12:22 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º


all valid counter arguments, just wanted to know what people thought. I guess that computers would help and that the soldiers could be detected from far away, removing the threat of an ambush. Oh, and I am not basing my ideas on anything, just something that occured to me when I built a mech a few years back.
Permalink
| February 25, 2013, 4:42 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
The weight of the armor isn't nearly as big of a problem (esspecially assuming carbon nanotube armor and other similiar future materials), but rather that the shape of a humanoid mech is simply not optomised agianst projectiles.

I guess it all depends on the shape of the mech. If the armor is sloped at the front of the mech, it would be better, but then it would depend on if you can manage to put slope on a bipedal mech.

Permalink
| February 25, 2013, 11:09 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
I guess it all depends on the shape of the mech. If the armor is sloped at the front of the mech, it would be better, but then it would depend on if you can manage to put slope on a bipedal mech.

Well, that is why I specified humanoid, a differently shaped mech could theoretically have sloping armor at least from some angles.
Permalink
| February 25, 2013, 11:39 am
Sorry for my lack of inactivity, I've been really busy with school, Tests, homework everyday, and plus, I'm kind of my schools mascot. :P so i'll try and get something uploaded soon.
Permalink
| February 25, 2013, 10:12 pm
Quoting Daniel Boone
Sorry for my lack of inactivity, I've been really busy with school, Tests, homework everyday, and plus, I'm kind of my schools mascot. :P so i'll try and get something uploaded soon.


Same; School, life, and family stuff all have been really bogging me down. I'll try to go active again.
Permalink
| February 27, 2013, 2:49 pm
 Group moderator 
Squid, I noticed we both have eagles in our emblems, but I was wondering if I can have your email so we can discuss tactics when there is a war. I am guessing you already have David Cooks.

Permalink
| February 28, 2013, 12:55 pm
Colin, you've got a few stats that are too high.
First, you military is about 1/2 of you country, shoot for an 8th to a 12th.
You really shouldn't hav numbers of 100 or higher, especially on aircraft, considering this is your first week of production.
Permalink
| February 28, 2013, 11:20 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Colin, you've got a few stats that are too high.
First, you military is about 1/2 of you country, shoot for an 8th to a 12th.
You really shouldn't hav numbers of 100 or higher, especially on aircraft, considering this is your first week of production.

While I agree on the first part, might it actually be a good thing to give new members a bigger boost to allow them to have a chance at catching up? What are your thoughts about this?
Permalink
| February 28, 2013, 11:44 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
While I agree on the first part, might it actually be a good thing to give new members a bigger boost to allow them to have a chance at catching up? What are your thoughts about this?

I agree, otherwise large nations could simply pick on the new members...
Permalink
| March 1, 2013, 10:30 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Squid, I noticed we both have eagles in our emblems, but I was wondering if I can have your email so we can discuss tactics when there is a war. I am guessing you already have David Cooks.

I dont have anyones Email, Ive been talking to david over xbox live. I would much rather make a private group on the pages to discuss strategies.
Permalink
| March 1, 2013, 11:15 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
I dont have anyones Email, Ive been talking to david over xbox live. I would much rather make a private group on the pages to discuss strategies.

sounds like a better option. Can you remove my email from your comment and I will remove it from mine, I dont want to leave it up
Permalink
| March 1, 2013, 2:24 pm
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Colin, you've got a few stats that are too high.
First, you military is about 1/2 of you country, shoot for an 8th to a 12th.
You really shouldn't hav numbers of 100 or higher, especially on aircraft, considering this is your first week of production.

I realize that. The reason I gave myself such high numbers is because I haven't been active for a while, so I imagine that our manufactories have been working along while I was absent.
Permalink
| March 1, 2013, 4:10 pm
Quoting Colin Small
I realize that. The reason I gave myself such high numbers is because I haven't been active for a while, so I imagine that our manufactories have been working along while I was absent.

Forgot you had a country all along e.e

You should raise you population and lower your total men though. 900k is unsustainable.
Permalink
| March 1, 2013, 11:15 pm
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Forgot you had a country all along e.e

You should raise you population and lower your total men though. 900k is unsustainable.

Right then; Fair enough.
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 12:06 am
What does everyone think about creating a Wiki (probably using Wikia) for DnC II? For example, everyone could create a page for their nation (or company) and post things such as political structure, statistics, and various other details and fluff about their creations?
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 3:37 pm
Quoting Colin Small
What does everyone think about creating a Wiki (probably using Wikia) for DnC II? For example, everyone could create a page for their nation (or company) and post things such as political structure, statistics, and various other details and fluff about their creations?

Sounds like fun
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 6:59 pm
Quoting Vallkirimrl _
Sounds like fun

Especially because I used to play a game with a similar concept. They used a wikia and it was widely successful.
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 7:06 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Colin Small
What does everyone think about creating a Wiki (probably using Wikia) for DnC II? For example, everyone could create a page for their nation (or company) and post things such as political structure, statistics, and various other details and fluff about their creations?

That's... actually a pretty cool idea.
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 7:19 pm
I've started the wiki, but please, please, please do not add anything until I give the okay.
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 7:29 pm
Quoting Colin Small
I've started the wiki, but please, please, please do not add anything until I give the okay.

Scrap That Idea. Here's the link. But make sure to use an infobox (see the infobox template) when making your nation's page. dnc2.wikia.com
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 7:43 pm
Quoting Colin Small
Scrap That Idea. Here's the link. But make sure to use an infobox (see the infobox template) when making your nation's page.

Also, if anyone knows how to use infoboxes, and knows how to use and create wikias, please step forward. It seems that I am unable to create infoboxes, and I am most likely doing something wrong.
Permalink
| March 2, 2013, 8:37 pm
Everyone has the okay to work on the wiki. Costigar's page is up.
Permalink
| March 3, 2013, 12:10 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Colin Small
Everyone has the okay to work on the wiki. Costigar's page is up.

Can you give me the Address for the site.

Never Mind.
Permalink
| March 3, 2013, 1:13 am
Quoting Christian Bish
Can you give me the Address for the site.

Never Mind.

Feel free to use my page as an example.
Permalink
| March 3, 2013, 1:39 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Colin Small
Feel free to use my page as an example.

How did you upload your pictures on to the wiki page?
Permalink
| March 3, 2013, 12:20 pm
Quoting Christian Bish
How did you upload your pictures on to the wiki page?

Look at the top right corner of your screen. There should be a button labeled "Contribute". Click that, then select upload photo. Then, when editing your page, click on the button to add a photo.
Permalink
| March 3, 2013, 12:22 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Colin Small
Look at the top right corner of your screen. There should be a button labeled "Contribute". Click that, then select upload photo. Then, when editing your page, click on the button to add a photo.

Thanks man, I have my page set up now.
Permalink
| March 3, 2013, 2:49 pm
Is anyone else having problems with not being able to see images on mocpages?
Permalink
| March 4, 2013, 2:42 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Broken Bricks
Is anyone else having problems with not being able to see images on mocpages?

Yeah, computer and I pad cannot view them.

Permalink
| March 4, 2013, 2:44 pm
 Group moderator 
I have made good progress on the air dreadnought recently. To give some idea of the design, it has a rectangular body, with the two railgun s side by side in the front. There are large sloped doors on the underside for the weapons bay. There are six engines mounted on e sides. Two small ones in front, two big ones in the middle, and two more small ones at the back attached to rear facing boosters. The back has many boosters, like a spaceship. There will be two fins at the back on each side of the craft. It will have large armour plates on top, which will have opening doors to fold out more missile racks. The bridge is at the rear above the fins and between two more boosters with large open intakes on each side. Nestled under the rail guns are the two 104 mm cannons, between which is a large dark glass piece that holds the radars. At the back underneath, there is another glass area that contains more avionics and an anti aircraft missile launcher next to it. The other two launchers are on either side of the bridge. There are four anti air lasers at the front and back on top, and between each pair of engines is a dual missile launcher, plus eight more in the weapons bay, equaling sixteen anti armour missiles. The weapons bay can also hold two cruise missiles or four anti shipping missiles. To Finnish off the arsenal, there are six mountings for quad mini-gun turrets, or more lasers.
Permalink
| March 4, 2013, 2:53 pm
Eeeeh, 'Pages derped yet again....
Permalink
| March 4, 2013, 3:32 pm
 Group moderator 
EFCF is building up a defenceive barrier due to that other countries are prepairing for war. EFCF will announce the The type of defences at a latter time.
Permalink
| March 4, 2013, 3:53 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting PALADIN .
Eeeeh, 'Pages derped yet again....

Yeah :/ The problem still has yet to be fixed.
Permalink
| March 6, 2013, 9:49 am
 Group moderator 
EFCF are now working on a prototype warship that can take to the skies, to make sure that the prototype does not have the same fate as the Airborn Dreadnought that Gaufran had we are equiping it with a stable fussion reactor. The weapons on the prototype ship will be 6 (2x3) Railguns, 8 5in rifles, 10 35mm Auto-cannons, 10 CIWS, 12 VMLS, 8 HMLS. It will be crewed by 95 crew members.
Permalink
| March 6, 2013, 5:44 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
EFCF are now working on a prototype warship that can take to the skies, to make sure that the prototype does not have the same fate as the Airborn Dreadnought that Gaufran had we are equiping it with a stable fussion reactor. The weapons on the prototype ship will be 6 (2x3) Railguns, 8 5in rifles, 10 35mm Auto-cannons, 10 CIWS, 12 VMLS, 8 HMLS. It will be crewed by 95 crew members.
sounds big, mini scale I am guessing! (: about thereactor, I only put that to explain the delays. And the CiWSs, I have taken Matthews point and the six mounts for quad minigun s can also hold extra anti missile lasers or an new type of CIWS that I am coming up with that uses a tri barrell gauss Gatling type cannon to shoot down threats many kilometres further away than a conventional weapon, therefore improving survivability. From the sound of the size of this beast, you will need all the CIWSs you can get. Also, I was hoping someone else would take the concept, otherwise there would be no air navy battles ):

Permalink
| March 7, 2013, 12:22 pm
 Group moderator 
Also, how big is this going to be? 95 crew is huge for an air vehicle. the Air Dreadnought only has seven as it is only about 40 metres long and has a lot of automation. battleships needed large crews because they relied on manual operation of almost everything, but 700 years in the future? Even for a craft several hundred metres in length, 15 would be more appropriate. two pilots, some weapons officers, engineers and radio/ radar operators. there really is no need for such a large crew. also, I would suggest some sort of aircraft/troop carrying capability. battleships became obsolete because they had no real defense agains aircraft. even with ten CIWSs, you will need lots of escorts and it would be good to take advantage of such a large craft. As for troops, I am going to build an air-dropable troop pod that can hold 20 men and equipment to fit in the weapons bay of the dreadnought. I advise that you use the great size of your craft to be something more than just a battleship. such a role can be carried out by much smaller craft, such as mine. take inspiration from the poseidon aircraft carrying battle submarine and make this one huge multi-role package of awesome.
Permalink
| March 8, 2013, 1:18 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Also, how big is this going to be? 95 crew is huge for an air vehicle. the Air Dreadnought only has seven as it is only about 40 metres long and has a lot of automation. battleships needed large crews because they relied on manual operation of almost everything, but 700 years in the future? Even for a craft several hundred metres in length, 15 would be more appropriate. two pilots, some weapons officers, engineers and radio/ radar operators. there really is no need for such a large crew. also, I would suggest some sort of aircraft/troop carrying capability. battleships became obsolete because they had no real defense agains aircraft. even with ten CIWSs, you will need lots of escorts and it would be good to take advantage of such a large craft. As for troops, I am going to build an air-dropable troop pod that can hold 20 men and equipment to fit in the weapons bay of the dreadnought. I advise that you use the great size of your craft to be something more than just a battleship. such a role can be carried out by much smaller craft, such as mine. take inspiration from the poseidon aircraft carrying battle submarine and make this one huge multi-role package of awesome.

Don't forget that there are other peole in the ship such as yowmen, clerks, and cooks along with other people.
Permalink
| March 8, 2013, 3:27 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
Don't forget that there are other peole in the ship such as yowmen, clerks, and cooks along with other people.

None of those are needed. There is no point to having clerks onboard (yeomen are the same things as clerks by the way), and there is no need for cooks when you have rations.
Permalink
| March 8, 2013, 6:42 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Also, how big is this going to be? 95 crew is huge for an air vehicle. the Air Dreadnought only has seven as it is only about 40 metres long and has a lot of automation. battleships needed large crews because they relied on manual operation of almost everything, but 700 years in the future? Even for a craft several hundred metres in length, 15 would be more appropriate. two pilots, some weapons officers, engineers and radio/ radar operators. there really is no need for such a large crew. also, I would suggest some sort of aircraft/troop carrying capability. battleships became obsolete because they had no real defense agains aircraft. even with ten CIWSs, you will need lots of escorts and it would be good to take advantage of such a large craft. As for troops, I am going to build an air-dropable troop pod that can hold 20 men and equipment to fit in the weapons bay of the dreadnought. I advise that you use the great size of your craft to be something more than just a battleship. such a role can be carried out by much smaller craft, such as mine. take inspiration from the poseidon aircraft carrying battle submarine and make this one huge multi-role package of awesome.

Yeah, airships are going to be vulnerable to aircraft even with heavy CIWS usage. Not to mention a large AA railgun is absolutely going to ruin an airships day.
Permalink
| March 8, 2013, 6:44 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Yeah, airships are going to be vulnerable to aircraft even with heavy CIWS usage. Not to mention a large AA railgun is absolutely going to ruin an airships day.

I have plans for a coilgun / gauss CIWS that will have a greater effective range against missiles, and the railguns on my dreadnought will at some point be mounted on a very large ground vehicle to increase my number of weapons to fight such a craft.
Permalink
| March 9, 2013, 9:13 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
I have plans for a coilgun / gauss CIWS that will have a greater effective range against missiles, and the railguns on my dreadnought will at some point be mounted on a very large ground vehicle to increase my number of weapons to fight such a craft.

Yes, that type of CIWS is going to be more useful than modern CIWS design by a good amount, but a squadron of 12 fighters each armed with 8 missiles could still theoretically missile-spam an airship to death.
Permalink
| March 9, 2013, 12:14 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Yes, that type of CIWS is going to be more useful than modern CIWS design by a good amount, but a squadron of 12 fighters each armed with 8 missiles could still theoretically missile-spam an airship to death.

Of course, invincible craft are not allowed. The gauss CIWS is not for the dreadnought though, I figured that the minigun mounts could be used to hold more lasers if there was a greater missile threat. The new CIWS will probably be for my navy or to protect said enormous mobile railgun if I ever build it.
Permalink
| March 9, 2013, 1:14 pm
 Group moderator 
Speaking of the dreadnought, I am finally nearing completion. All engines are done, all annoying missing parts have been found, all griebling is complete and the interior is almost done and parts haven't run out yet. Main armour plate on top and the bridge is all that remains to do. OORAH!
Permalink
| March 9, 2013, 1:17 pm
Sorry I haven't bee online in a while, when mocpages wasn't working my computer kept on crashing for some reason, anyway I'm on now!
Permalink
| March 11, 2013, 11:33 am
Quoting Broken Bricks
Sorry I haven't bee online in a while, when mocpages wasn't working my computer kept on crashing for some reason, anyway I'm on now!


Good to see you back!

Also: Don't forget to put your nation on the wikia!
Permalink
| March 11, 2013, 3:12 pm
 Group moderator 
Daaaang, I wasn't the first to post an air warship. I guess I was the trend setter, but what you gonna do? I figured Christian would make it in LDD but not full scale! Oh well, at least I know my competition and mine will look and be much deadlier, though I suspect that he will still build a battleship and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There can only be one answer to this threat, TO THE LEGO ROOM! It must be ready for the war!
Permalink
| March 15, 2013, 1:46 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Daaaang, I wasn't the first to post an air warship. I guess I was the trend setter, but what you gonna do? I figured Christian would make it in LDD but not full scale! Oh well, at least I know my competition and mine will look and be much deadlier, though I suspect that he will still build a battleship and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There can only be one answer to this threat, TO THE LEGO ROOM! It must be ready for the war!

Word of advice, call me Chris not Christian. Yeah, I now yours is deadier then mine but it dont mean how powerful it is but how you utilise it in combat.
Permalink
| March 15, 2013, 1:58 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
Word of advice, call me Chris not Christian. Yeah, I now yours is deadier then mine but it dont mean how powerful it is but how you utilise it in combat.

Ok Chris, thanks for adding me to ur favourites, also, this is actually bigger than mine, by about twenty metres, but mine has crossed the line from an air SHIP, to a very large weapons platform. Is this your battleship? If not, will that be minifig scale too?
Permalink
| March 15, 2013, 3:12 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
Ok Chris, thanks for adding me to ur favourites, also, this is actually bigger than mine, by about twenty metres, but mine has crossed the line from an air SHIP, to a very large weapons platform. Is this your battleship? If not, will that be minifig scale too?

It is a patrol Ship so it is smaller then yours. The Battleship is under constrution and it is big, I mean BIG.
Permalink
| March 15, 2013, 3:20 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
It is a patrol Ship so it is smaller then yours. The Battleship is under constrution and it is big, I mean BIG.

No, I meant that the actual model's larger, in length at least. LDD let's you do that quickly I guess. I think we keep outdoing each other Chris. I announce an air dreadnought, you announce an air battleship, and if I can find the time, I will build a flying aircraft carrier! Our air navies ought to have a fight when they are done. I think there is one thing which gives mine an advantage though, they have plasma stealth, meaning they can ionise the surrounding air, completely screening them from radar, if only temporarily.
Permalink
| March 15, 2013, 4:05 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
No, I meant that the actual model's larger, in length at least. LDD let's you do that quickly I guess. I think we keep outdoing each other Chris. I announce an air dreadnought, you announce an air battleship, and if I can find the time, I will build a flying aircraft carrier! Our air navies ought to have a fight when they are done. I think there is one thing which gives mine an advantage though, they have plasma stealth, meaning they can ionise the surrounding air, completely screening them from radar, if only temporarily.

Ionizing the surrounding Air will just make a big blob of heat so any ships with heat sensors will pick the Plasma Stealth genrator up also the Generator will need a lot of power to run it.
Permalink
| March 15, 2013, 4:37 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Christian Bish
Ionizing the surrounding Air will just make a big blob of heat so any ships with heat sensors will pick the Plasma Stealth genrator up also the Generator will need a lot of power to run it.

Yes, Plasma Stealth means there is going to be a lot of detectable heat, and it isn't 100% radar proof just like a modern stealth aircraft isn't 100% invisible. However, with technology such as fusion reactors, power is not really going to be an issue.
Permalink
| March 16, 2013, 12:43 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Yes, Plasma Stealth means there is going to be a lot of detectable heat, and it isn't 100% radar proof just like a modern stealth aircraft isn't 100% invisible. However, with technology such as fusion reactors, power is not really going to be an issue.

I know that it generates a lot of heat, but infra red cameras can only see so far. Satellites might be able to see it though.
Permalink
| March 16, 2013, 3:58 pm
 Group moderator 
I have posted a spy satelite for the CFF in the war, and my version of Chris' wolverine tank that I got ten of a while ago. I have upgraded them with 178mm railguns and the same clour scheme as my Tyrants. it literally took ten minutes to edit, so all credit to Chris, of course.
Permalink
| March 19, 2013, 2:06 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
I know that it generates a lot of heat, but infra red cameras can only see so far. Satellites might be able to see it though.

Well, infra red (perhaps you mean infared?) isn't the only problem (and I've read that it could theoretically be detected over 100 miles away infared sensors). The plasma cloak would cause all onboard navigation equipment such as radio, compass, radar, and IR to be non-functional while it would be turned on, effectively making the cloaked aircraft flying blind.
Permalink
| March 19, 2013, 2:26 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting jack kenyon
I have posted a spy satelite for the CFF in the war, and my version of Chris' wolverine tank that I got ten of a while ago. I have upgraded them with 178mm railguns and the same clour scheme as my Tyrants. it literally took ten minutes to edit, so all credit to Chris, of course.

Thanks for giving me the credit Jack.
Permalink
| March 19, 2013, 2:37 pm
 Group moderator 
Chris, you gave me ten of them in return for some drones and transport ships. Check your stats.
Permalink
| March 20, 2013, 1:21 pm
Convo way to long, opened General conversation 3.
Permalink
| March 20, 2013, 5:27 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics



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