Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kot]

so, prisoners and targets are covered elsewhere already. what we want to ban is chemical, biological and radioactive weapons it seems.

Realistically speaking, we may not even know what a radioactive weapon is just yet.

[10ebbor10]

A sigint slot seems boring. I mean it has 2 options : "Improve cypher, or break enemy cypher"

[tryrar]

A sigint slot seems boring. I mean it has 2 options : "Improve cypher, or break enemy cypher"

Which is why I'm not sold on that idea-it was just something to mention.

[andrea]

Kot, I am puzzled by that as well. But it is in most already proposed treaties. I guess we are worried about radium/radon weapons.

[coleslaw35]

This is extremely off topic, but could I get a size comparison of Forenia to something real? I've been imagining it as about the size of Hawaii (Big Island).

[Taricus]

I think we can just piggyback onto the non-proliferation treaty for radioactive weapons to be honest.

[Sensei]

This is extremely off topic, but could I get a size comparison of Forenia to something real? I've been imagining it as about the size of Hawaii (Big Island).

Stayin' vague. If I give anything close to a number people will start arguing about effective aircraft ranges or something.

[coleslaw35]

This is extremely off topic, but could I get a size comparison of Forenia to something real? I've been imagining it as about the size of Hawaii (Big Island).

Stayin' vague. If I give anything close to a number people will start arguing about effective aircraft ranges or something.

Heh, I can see where you're coming from. My bad.

Also, (sorry for the questions) what did you use to make that map of Forenia?

[andrea]

I get the feeling that the aircraft ranges would be ridiculously low if we had more accurate dimensions. Either that, or Forenia isn't as small as described.  A can of worm better left unopened.

[Sensei]

Iituem made the map.

[Elephant Parade]

I think the question we should ask ourselves about treaty bans is this: would banning it be fun?

Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are probably worth banning, since whoever develops one first wins. On the other hand, banning chemical weapons serves no purpose except to move the game closer to reality—and what's the fun in that? The worst arguments so far have been about how close things are to reality, so I don't see how a realistic treaty would improve things.

No, the treaty should ban overpowered/omnipresent things, so that we have to get creative. For example, it could ban engines, wheeled vehicles, or guns. The last one is probably a bit extreme, but we could do it.

Sensei, will we be able to revise the treaty in the future? Treaties seem like a good way to remove overpowered/unfun stuff.

[Playergamer]

Nothing in the treaties against HP ammo? Hmm. I'm not sure if I should add that to a suggestion or not.

[Sensei]

Yes, you can keep the ability to ratify amendments to the treaty in the future.

[Elfeater]

Nothing in the treaties against HP ammo? Hmm. I'm not sure if I should add that to a suggestion or not.

Why not? Lets throw it on.

[VoidSlayer]

For the code breaking and ciphers and such, we can assume that high command has taken control of or create a new sigint that operates independently of the design agencies.

If we actually create some kind of new machine or something, like a digital radio receiver or whatnot, then that would be relevant but the actual creation and decoding of the ciphers could be left "high command".