New NESes, ideas, development, etc

Technology! If there is no widespread destruction, 700 years of "preindustrial society" is a stretch IMHO. I mean, the abandoned factories, the paperwork, the piles upon piles of paperwork, the documentation, the piles upon piles of documentation, etcetera should have been utilized, given the human propensity to do things like that.

Unless, of course, the collapse was caused by some sort of idiocy disease.
 
QFT. There isn't exactly some sort of neo-Luddite movement or something. It's either mega-disaster or stupidity-disease.
 
I like a GMO inflicted Stupidity disease alt ;)
 
I was thinking that most of humanity was killed off, and that only recently have the tribes become self sufficient enough to start thinking outwards...
 
EDIT: Bad idea. This post should probably be deleted.
 
I was thinking that most of humanity was killed off, and that only recently have the tribes become self sufficient enough to start thinking outwards...
I'm kinda curious as to how killing off most of humanity doesn't fall under "widespread destruction."
 
Retroactive deletion.
 
I didn't think of this until reading that post, but won't warfare in Africa continue to be difrent from elsewhere for a while?
 
And? They're just stuck using earlier Marks of equipment than everybody else. For example, assuming a T-55 is (arbitrarily) a Level 7 design, it remains high-end in Africa while the rest of the world is at, say, Level 9 through 11. Their Infantry is also rated lower in progression as is their training.

This type of system can accommodate a wide instance of circumstances, such as the fact the Honduras and El Salvador were strafing each other with vintage P-51s during the Football War while America was bombing SAM sites with supersonic F-4s in Vietnam.
 
Role: Commando (RC)
[...]
Role: Infiltrator (RI)
Is the difference between these two sort of like the difference between something like the Rangers and the German WWI Sturmtruppen?
Symphony D. said:
Powered: Atomic (PA)
Powered: Nuclear (PN)
Maybe I'm just dumb (okay, not a maybe :p), but what's the difference between the two of these?
Symphony D. said:
Stealth: Active (TA)
Does this refer to, I don't know, a stealth ability that can be turned on and off as opposed to being solely based on the construction and geometry of the vehicle in question?

Other than that, everything looks great, and I understand it passably. Woo! :D
 
Is the difference between these two sort of like the difference between something like the Rangers and the German WWI Sturmtruppen?
Sort of. Infiltration will basically become obsolete beyond a certain point in time, like Night-Fighter.

Maybe I'm just dumb (okay, not a maybe :p), but what's the difference between the two of these?
What's the difference between an atomic bomb and a nuclear bomb? The fact that the distinction has been made in that field, but not in others, is a failure on the part of politicians and talking-heads to exercise practicality in their verbiage. Atomic should be used exclusively to fission reactions, while nuclear should be reserved for fusion reactions. Alternately this can be made explicit, though that's less traditional.

Does this refer to, I don't know, a stealth ability that can be turned on and off as opposed to being solely based on the construction and geometry of the vehicle in question?
What does "active" tend to mean when placed in a context like "active sonar?" :p
 
What's the difference between an atomic bomb and a nuclear bomb? The fact that the distinction has been made in that field, but not in others, is a failure on the part of politicians and talking-heads to exercise practicality in their verbiage. Atomic should be used exclusively to fission reactions, while nuclear should be reserved for fusion reactions. Alternately this can be made explicit, though that's less traditional.

What is the strategic diffrence between the two?
 
What is the strategic diffrence between the two?
Atomic Bomb: 5 - 200kt
Nuclear Bomb: 0.1kt - lim→∞

Do the math. :p

Alternately, fission reactors are less powerful, less politically acceptable (ie: you will pretty much never be allowed to put one in a plane unless you're an evil Stalinist dictatorship), more dangerous, less efficient, and harder to fuel. Fusion reactors are more powerful, more efficient, from relatively to exceptionally easy to fuel, moderately to completely-not dangerous, and imminently politically acceptable.

Put another way: you only see fission reactors on ships, because if they get blown up the junk is stuck in the ocean, not in your backyard. You could see fusion reactors on just about anything big enough to carry them.
 
Take a look at me now...
 
God, Abaddon (or whoever made that pic), have some consideration! Not all of us have high-speed broadband internet access! You could have saved that as a GIF (215 KB) or a JPEG (160 KB at 95 quality), not as that nigh-1-megabyte monster!

EDIT: I noticed the one at the game thread was 600 KB (though I didn't bother actually looking at the pic). Adding 300 KB to an already-huge picture is a horrible act of injustice against us low-speed Netizens!
 
If you could do me the honours? I don't have the programs to mess around with file size. I was under the impression .pngs were small sorry!
 
Spoiler Out of thread topic--really, don't open it if you're not Abaddon :
Here, the same pic in three different formats (PNG, GIF, and JPEG), all of a slightly lower quality (though JPEG is really the only real horrible one):





See? The filesize of the three pics combined is lower than the original, without any appreciable decrease in quality (except, of course, with the JPEG one--I hate JPEG, but it can get the smallest filesize of pics with sufficient sacrifice in quality).

I suggest that you get Paint.NET if you have the .NET framework already (or are willing to get it) or GIMP--or something else similar, but the latter is quite popular and the former is what I use--if only to prevent future acts of apparent hostility against those who have dial-up or slower.

Of course, there are additional steps you can take in consideration of others, like bringing your pics to site like this one (it really just reduces the number of colors, which you can readily do with the picture-editors).

A bit off-topic in this off-topic thing, decreasing the filesize of watercolor-type pics shouldn't be a problem at all.
 
Top Bottom