All this non-consensus about theater and doctrine and all of that has me thinking: You can cut the complexities if you just drop the idea of doing a nonfiction RP. Even if you don't want an RP where you need to a Wikipedia professor to talk about fire arms and armor classifications you still would need to be considerably knowledgeable about the operation at hand. More than just simply having a vague idea, or you yourself won't work it as well as it should. It'd be the history/lore equivalent of trying to hold a pistol like a rifle.

[img]http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/aa/aa/aaaa63_4865015.jpg[/img]

This back and forth with tl;dr posts really has me believe more that what's needed more is less a historical exploration of the Boer Wars (which I'm sure not many people know about) or Operation Desert Storm which most anyone here wouldn't even be old enough to remember seeing on the news, let alone the presidency of Bush Senior.

These are all fantastic and well and good but to approach them with any sort of scope or context without having to grapple with the technical specifications of the M16 just keeps it too complicated. And then you got the politics associated with it too. Someone's bound to get mad if you pick and interpret the wrong war the wrong way. But if you want to do away with realism and have something approachable I'm going to say: go fiction.

And on that note I'm going to keep up saying it: consider Precipice as what it is beyond a NRP. We got a growing potential for conflict with immense possibility for it being explored at someone's home or on the front. The only serious commitment to have a broad knowing of the world is simply coordination with one or all; long enough to know what's what (which shouldn't be hard, all complexities in it aside) and keeping to date and to speed with the rest of us so you don't fall behind; we do have a constant progression of time (and the more people active the longer I can stretch it if we want to be more detailed).