NationStates Jolt Archive


MT ignoring FT - What's the problem...? [OOC]

Arani
21-06-2005, 13:59
I'm seeing this a lot in II, and have to wonder about it - why is it that most people seem to think that the tech levels can't mix? I read recently in a thread about this person talking about how they planned to seize an enemy's space assets - the immediate response went along the lines of 'Are you FT? Because if you are, he has the right to ignore you.'

Okay - yes, of course he has the right to ignore the person - he has the right to ignore anyone - but I wonder: Why would he want to? What is it about someone who has different tech (even totally superior tech) than you that makes them ignore-worthy? Doesn't anyone else find it more interesting to mix tech levels, rather than this 'play within your own limited social circle' kind of RPing?

There seems to be a big 'It's not fair that they have laser cannons while I'm running around with mere guns!' mentality. Well let me invoke Kitsylvania's Law of Technology - an AK-47 will kill you just as dead as a particle beam cannon. And even if you get plowed into the ground - so what? You open up a new avenue or RP. And if you don't want to get plowed into the ground - organise it with the other guy! These are basic NS RPing theories that have been around for years, people.

So, to conclude this waffle: I think that these blanket ignores on people of other tech levels is stupid, limiting, and unfair. I really don't see why tech levels can't coexist and enrich each other's game. Mixing tech levels can add a lot of strange and generally more interesting situations - and if they're genuinely godmodding - then ignore them. But until then, why not enjoy the zanniness which they enter, rather than the dull 'real world wannabe' realism that people seem to be trying to inject?

Of course - maybe I'm just in the wrong forum and should relocate my RPing to Nationstates...
Kampfgarten
21-06-2005, 14:16
I think it depends...

Generally I want to play MT. But there is no clear line between MT and FT. Many FT you'll find here, is actually kinda Sci-Fi already. But wouldn't it be boring to ignore anybody who cannot 100-percently prove that his weapon systems do already exist and work IRL?

I think, every FT opponent deserves an individual judgement wether or not one would like RP-ing or not. Personally, I wouldn't ignore someone, just because he has got a superior space technology, as long as the one performs a good-written and fair RP.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons for having MT or FT only Threads. In general FT people would only smile at me if I'd interfere with their scenarios with my MT. On the other hand, an MT nation asking for oil or coal does not want FT nations offering dark matter or warp crystals.
Majeristan
21-06-2005, 14:17
The biggest problem that I see with some FT players is their use of the uber advanced technology as an unbeatable device when they want to fight a MT: "OMG I have deflector shields!!! Your puny .357 does nothing. I PWN J00!!!" Some of the worst offenders NEVER take damage from any modern day missiles or anything of the sort and they choose to see their tech advantage as the panacea to all their problems with some "weakling" MT country.

If you normally play as a FT country and you're *desperate* to play with a MT country, you either have to establish some MT forces or come to an agreement where you try to be fair to the MT country in combat. Perhaps that laser weapon that isn't supposed to be advanced enough to use against space borne assets actually works as theorised and destroys your ortillery platform. Perhaps that missile somehow finds a hole in your space fighter's shields and destroys it. But many MTers will not play with a FT country that chooses to be unreasonable about the tech advantage.

And before anyone goes and dismisses this as some n00b's rant, I've been playing NS for over a year now and have been on I.I. almost every day since I started.
Arani
21-06-2005, 14:27
Nevertheless, there are good reasons for having MT or FT only Threads. In general FT people would only smile at me if I'd interfere with their scenarios with my MT. On the other hand, an MT nation asking for oil or coal does not want FT nations offering dark matter or warp crystals.

Well yeah, if people are zipping around in space you don't have many practical ways to get involved - but if they ignored you OoCly when you tried to get involved, that would be more like what I'm talking about. I don't get the impression that FT people have the same ignoring problem against MT nations that MT have against FT.
The second example can be RPed its way out of. After all - how are MT nations going to work these things? If the nation is giving this technology away for free too, well - that's pretty dodgy RP. But then, maybe if a MT nation was more open to mixing and accepted an offer or using dark matter, many interesting possibilities open. If they want to stay as MT - Well, I'm sure that dark matter has some screwy results when used wrongly, that might convince that nation to never touch the stuff again and just stick with coal.
Is progression partially into a new tech level (accepting some new technologies and integrating them) really such a bad thing?

The biggest problem that I see with some FT players is their use of the uber advanced technology as an unbeatable device when they want to fight a MT: "OMG I have deflector shields!!! Your puny .357 does nothing. I PWN J00!!!" Some of the worst offenders NEVER take damage from any modern day missiles or anything of the sort and they choose to see their tech advantage as the panacea to all their problems with some "weakling" MT country.

That's good old fashioned godmodding - ignore them :) (unless it's preplanned, which would be funky)
Kampfgarten
21-06-2005, 14:29
The biggest problem that I see with some FT players is their use of the uber advanced technology as an unbeatable device when they want to fight a MT: "OMG I have deflector shields!!! Your puny .357 does nothing. I PWN J00!!!"

Yeah, but often I've seen similiar cases in MT. I don't even remember whether it was FT or MT actually, but this new soldier training program that claims that it needs 350 or so regular soldiers to defeat 1 single absolvent of that training...
imported_Vermin
21-06-2005, 14:41
I've seen several cases where one side simply claimed to be superior, one such case ended in a heated discussion and a good RPer quit NS.
I would never rp with Future Tech, I simply dont believe in it(sounds stupid but isnt). I cant imagine the things that some people write, It doesnt ineterst me. So I dont RP with FTers.
If you want to RP with MTers: play MT yourself. The Merchant Guilds for instance long had(and may still have) an MT part and an FT part. Or take Unified Sith and Bob-Bob. Just to name a few.
Kampfgarten
21-06-2005, 14:43
But then, maybe if a MT nation was more open to mixing and accepted an offer or using dark matter, many interesting possibilities open. If they want to stay as MT - Well, I'm sure that dark matter has some screwy results when used wrongly, that might convince that nation to never touch the stuff again and just stick with coal.

Good one! But no FT is necessary for causing accidents like this. Remeber Tshernobyl.

By the way, I think, many claimed MT nations aren't even aware of how FT they already are. Let's take fusion energy. Nowhere IRL it's really providing a meaningful part to the national energy. Neither are there any IRL fusion plants - as far as I know - nor can anybody estimate their risks yet. But it has already been produced successfully in experiments at the end of the 20th century IRL, so: MT or FT???
Arani
21-06-2005, 14:55
@ imported_Vermin:

Well, it's impossible to argue with 'I just don't want to', because there's no logic to it. Guess that's just your choice to miss out on opportunities to RP without any good reason. *shrugs*

However, I think your last paragraph shows that you missed the point. I want more openess between the tech levels, not splitting my nation into seperate dimensions so I can interact with MT and FT. My nation is fundamentally a mixture of MT and FT anyway, and such a split would absolutely not work.
Allemande
21-06-2005, 15:01
Okay - yes, of course he has the right to ignore the person - he has the right to ignore anyone - but I wonder: Why would he want to? It's not the superior tech. It's the fact that when I'm RP'ing, I'm writing a story. If I want to write a Robert Ludlum thriller, then d_mn it that's what I want to write. If I want to write a Tom Clancy or Larry Bond novel, then that's what I want to write, etc.

It's the same reason why I reserve to right to ignore magic if I choose to do so. If I'm writing a story about a nuclear confrontation, or a modern naval engagement, or special ops, I don't want someone to show up with a troll or a dragon or a wizard and blow the whole ambiance of the thing for me. Thus, in a similar vein, if I'm running an MT space exploration (akin to Ben Bova's Mars stories), I don't want to see the Klingons suddenly show up and blow the whole mood; if I'm running an STL FT thread (something I'm cooking up in my twisted mind), I don't want some Star Wars fan to "jump in from hyperspace", because that violates the basic tenets of the tale.

Back when I used to play D&D (in the salad days of the game, when it was still just one paper-bound rulebook) people would mix and match legends in a way that I found repugnant; mixing Tolkien with Homer does neither any justice. Obviously, this is personal taste, so YMMV.

But now let me ask the obvious counter-question: when you want to jump into a thread where MT players are already present, and that's the established milieu, why can't you ratchet down to MT in order to meet them? Justify it however you want (eg., the Prime Directive), but it seems to me that it's easier and less of a problem for FT nations to go MT than for MT nations to allow FT.
imported_Vermin
21-06-2005, 15:13
@ imported_Vermin:

Well, it's impossible to argue with 'I just don't want to', because there's no logic to it. Guess that's just your choice to miss out on opportunities to RP without any good reason. *shrugs*

However, I think your last paragraph shows that you missed the point. I want more openess between the tech levels, not splitting my nation into seperate dimensions so I can interact with MT and FT. My nation is fundamentally a mixture of MT and FT anyway, and such a split would absolutely not work.

I could just jump into a dumb n00b thread where nukes fly around as if they came free with a soda. But I dont, because I dont like those threads, i missed an opportunity there, and i'm glad i missed it.
I dont like FT stuff, so for me its not really a missed opportunity to RP. Why should I do something I dont like?

nice post Allemande. I can fully agree on everything you wrote.
The Eastern-Coalition
21-06-2005, 15:33
Why? Heck, I'm FT and I'm tempted to ignore FT. A better question would be 'why not?'.


FT players, the majority at least, RP in a ridiculous style drawn straight from television. The basic method for every encounter is as follows: something happens. Fleet appears. Fleet shoots at what happens. I tried to do a thread once, about my nation attempting to use its first ever FTL device, but with something bizarre happening as a result. So many nations from so many different places jumped in with so many fleets that just happened to be in the area that I gave up. My comparatively small, crippled vessel was boarded by so many different nations at the same time that I didn't have enough crew to deal with them all, much less enough characters. Basically, if MT players stopped ignoring FT players, there'd be so many fleets mysterious appearing above modern-day Earth that you wouldn't be able to see it anymore. Unless every single thread ever made became invite-only.
A large number of FT players apparently have no concept of politics. Of any sort. Everything is either good or evil, and so must be RPed in a flamboyantly stereotypical way. I blame Star Wars for that, myself, but whatever. Some MT players share this bizarre trait, but the ratio is nowhere near as enormous. But even in MT some degree of diplomacy exists. In FT land, diplomacy involves making a fleet appear from nowhere right by whatever's going on at the time, and then shooting at it after a brief "my ship's bigger than yours" conversation.
A few MT players are interested in RPing in a realistic political environment, in modern times with modern technology. I've been here with one nation or another since about June/July last year and haven't seen much realism of any sort, but they can at least try. And FT isn't compatible with that -- how many Super Wanked Destroyers do you see flying around in real life? Half of the stuff going on in FT land would be impossible even in FT land, let alone modern times. As such, those people will only accept such things if they get involved in one of those fun 'aliens invade the Earth!' threads.
A lot of people are here to 'win', rather than have fun or write a good story. MT players stand a very good chance of being destroyed by the orbital sperm bombardment of the Artificially Enlarged Penis-class starships of FT nations, and thus the ones who play to 'win' ignore them. FT players who want to 'win' will generally give them a good reason to do so by refusing to accept that their technology isn't indestructible -- see any number of the nations who use "im FT u no, i can easly crush you!!" as a threat for more information.


If there's a fun story, like the 'aliens invade the Earth!' one I mentioned, a few MT players generally relax their ignores and have fun. But for the most part they have every reason to ignore FT players, and I don't blame them.
Arani
21-06-2005, 15:47
Ach! My post got chewed up!

Anyway - I agree with Allemande's point about the genre mixing - if you're trying to simulate a certain genre - some things just don't work. However, most threads here aren't trying very hard to do this - so I don't see how it's valid to them.

But now let me ask the obvious counter-question: when you want to jump into a thread where MT players are already present, and that's the established milieu, why can't you ratchet down to MT in order to meet them? Justify it however you want (eg., the Prime Directive), but it seems to me that it's easier and less of a problem for FT nations to go MT than for MT nations to allow FT.

I'm hardly saying that MT should all bump themselves up to FT, which would be the correct original question for this counter question :)
What you're suggesting is essentially the 'split nation into two dimensions' thing except with bad IC justification. I don't see why NS needs stuff like this when one of its major points is the big jumble of different nations which should, in theory, work to create something more diverse than a few bland catagories such as 'Future tech' and 'Modern tech'.

The Eastern-Coalition: So basically you're saying that FT attracts far more n00bs with no sense of appropiate roleplay in certain situations...?
I wouldn't really know - I've been out of touch with NS for a long time, so I don't know who most of these people are, let alone how good at RPing they are *shrugs*

Well, I think I'll move into the Nationstates forum anyway - it seems a lot more tech-mixing plot-twistingly friendly, while here it does seem that most people want to win or play in their own small groups. Maybe mixing like I propose just doesn't work if people aren't interested in the messy Nationstates-y story-with-random-weirdarse-stuff thing that I like so much :)
Automagfreek
21-06-2005, 15:56
Welcome back Arani.

There are two different (for lack of a better word) 'factions' in NS. The FT players generally stick to the NS forum, where gameplay is more about the actual story not so much war and 'winning'. The MT players stick to II, where gameplay is more about 'winning', and who's stats are closest to real life.

This is basically the way things have settled, and I doubt anything is going to change it. Some FT players RP in II, and some MT players RP in NS, but my above statement generally is what holds true.
Majeristan
21-06-2005, 16:12
Well, it's impossible to argue with 'I just don't want to', because there's no logic to it. Guess that's just your choice to miss out on opportunities to RP without any good reason. *shrugs*It doesn't have to be logical to be right for the player.

I choose not to RP with FTL fleets running around, ortillery flying every which way, and aliens with energy shields. I've already done the whole FT RPing thing (I became a GM of such a RPG back in the early days of the Internet when pretty much everybody was on dialup. With 14.4 k modems.) That's my right to do so.

To use one example, Central Facehuggeria has said he makes accomodations for strictly MT players. Using my example, a bullet or a missile was unusually lucky and managed to get through his shields and damage his ship or there may have been some malfunction in his crew's shielding mechanism and the MT player scored a kill. Whether you have a Star Trek-like disruptor, a Colt .45, or an arrow or a catapult with a huge rock, they all kill you.
Gyrobot
21-06-2005, 16:26
It can also be a problem against tyranic regimes in RPs, lets face it. There are few democratic nations and the Dictators outnumber us, has several alliances and when there are nations who care, they are either a month or less old. That is a problem. FT allows some nations to on par against despots so they can protect themselves. And remember defeat FT with MT is a very commendable task.
Tekania
21-06-2005, 16:35
Most FT type nations are the pop in and start shooting types.

Popping in isn't the problem (there are various FTL's, and most will just be popping in near or far for the encounter).

The problem is "firing types".

Most of the FT states appear to be rogues, privateers or Conquistadors. Running around trying to steal, seize, or conquer everything in their sight.

They wank assets into the RP midway. And badger those who did not accept them earlier (even though such were undeclared or are part of nations NOT RP'ing in that thread).

There seems to be little of the "peaceful explorers".

FTL types are pointless to contest upon. There are countless flavors of FTL type. It is more important to RP the situation, than worry about technology content. Wormholes, Warp, Transwarp, Jump, Fold, and Hyperdrive will be seen everywhere. Differing nations have differing technologies. This is normal. I could care less if you're using any of those. Or if you're just a PMT/NFT using generation ships (you're welcomed in the RP... let's worry more about character than technology).... Part of the fun of FT is intermixing differing themes and styles (Otherwise why would the Furry Conflict be so popular).
The Kraven Corporation
21-06-2005, 16:37
Im currently playing with and against some FT players, its quite enjoyable but im not at a [dis]advantage like MT players as my nation is MT/FT borderline.. we have VTOLs, and Body armour... and some things you might call future tech, such as Cloned soliders and pyschological reconditioning to make our soldiers totaly loyal and carry out orders without question but we dont fly about in space ships or shoot lazers... i dont mind playing against any kind of Nation as long as the RPing is good...
Allemande
21-06-2005, 16:41
I could just jump into a dumb n00b thread where nukes fly around as if they came free with a soda.Don't they?!?

You've taken away my incentive to develop nukes. I guess I'll just stick to my peaceful fission demolitions. <sniff>
Majeristan
21-06-2005, 16:42
The way you portray your mentality about FT vs. MT is part of the problem Gyrobot. You seem to paint FT as this huge panacea that makes you all but impossible to beat with a MT country and you're trying to justify an unfair advantage under the guise of evening the odds. The RP I think you're alluding to is one where you were trying to plan an attack on El Caudillo. In that case, you were getting ready to try to dogpile a then-9 million pop country out of the game when he or she was doing an outstanding job as a new RPer.

It seems like you don't want to play the game to do anything but win. Where's the desire to tell a good story? Where's the sense of wanting to see a promising new RPer evolve into the next Pantera? Or the next Generic Empire? I'm sick of people who population wank, "OMFG! Im much larger than j00! I winzz!!!!111" and who techwank, "OMG! I'm FT. You're MT. I PWN J00!!!!"
Ilek-Vaad
21-06-2005, 16:47
OOC: I agree with Majeristan's comments earlier. FT nations tend to want their technology to 'trump' anything else. I routinely will do diplomatic RP's with FT nations and generally try to be inclusive, but I draw the line at giant spacefleets instantly materializing to destroy everything in sight.

Just about every FT nation that I have rp'ed with, when it comes down to weaponry, either a.) refuses to budge and stands firm on their technology being so advanced that MT can never touch it or b.) attempt to negotiate a bit and use 'MT' forces, but an FT nations concept of MT still invariably includes lasers, microwave weaponry, space ships, and ortillery.

I'm usually willing to compromise, but so far I have yet to meet an FT nation that will compromise, so I ignore them.

I think that is entirely reasonable. With most FT nations actually rping thousands of years in the future, the temporal distance between my MT nation and FT nations is justifiable in itself to ignore nations that have yet to even come into existance.

EDIT: I also have a huge personal problem with anyone using technology that can't be explained. even theoretically. I try and put that side, but it is hard.
Allemande
21-06-2005, 16:56
However, most threads here aren't trying very hard to do (genre mixing) so I don't see how it's valid to them.Absolutely. And for those players and threads, you may have a valid complaint (but see the posts about n00bishness).

What you're suggesting is essentially the 'split nation into two dimensions' thing except with bad IC justification.Well, not exactly. I have precisely one FT nation; a handful more at PMT. I do have some nations I classify as "WS" (Weird Science), kind of a mish-mash of 30's pulp and late 19th century early sci-fi, though, so for purposes of discussion we could treat those nations as FT.

Thing is, I can play those nations as MT without really changing much of anything; I just tone down the futuristic/pulp element and focus on the human side of things. Ultimately, after all, RP is (or should be) about feelings, ideas, and human interaction (even aliens are humans in weird costumes, at least in most tales, good or bad). I don't have to come far OOC to make this work.

I guess if I were you, I'd ask myself: how much does my technology define me (or rather, my people). If you're writing good fiction, the answer ought to be "not a lot". Of course, there will (and should be) threads that deal with the strangeness of it all. My primary reason for inventing an STL FT concept is to deal with the social (re: human) consequences of interstellar commerce that takes decades to happen. You could do something similar with life in micro-gravity, or in a closed habitat, or in a world without natural death, whatever. But even then, its still about people - or should be.

I don't see why NS needs stuff like this when one of its major points is the big jumble of different nations which should, in theory, work to create something more diverse than a few bland categories such as 'Future tech' and 'Modern tech'.Then create your own. I have, with my WS (Weird Science), EMT (Early Modern Tech), and PT (Prehistoric Tech) categories (not to mention, again, the STL/FT subcategory).
Mikosolf Corporation
21-06-2005, 17:02
I mostly RP modern tech because I feel that (despite stat wanking) the tech can take more of a sideline and let the human side come through. Though I have seen some good FT ones a lot are just yelling about tech (or can be, not to say MT is often much better...) So I don't see a reason to ignore FT, I feel that my space fairing MT nation (some FT aspects like FLT) is trading with these peoples, which opens me up for some intersting ideas which I am yet to do.

So don't ignore, just choose not to RP with them like you can do with anyone else.
Tekania
21-06-2005, 17:07
OOC: I agree with Majeristan's comments earlier. FT nations tend to want their technology to 'trump' anything else. I routinely will do diplomatic RP's with FT nations and generally try to be inclusive, but I draw the line at giant spacefleets instantly materializing to destroy everything in sight.

Just about every FT nation that I have rp'ed with, when it comes down to weaponry, either a.) refuses to budge and stands firm on their technology being so advanced that MT can never touch it or b.) attempt to negotiate a bit and use 'MT' forces, but an FT nations concept of MT still invariably includes lasers, microwave weaponry, space ships, and ortillery.

I'm usually willing to compromise, but so far I have yet to meet an FT nation that will compromise, so I ignore them.

I think that is entirely reasonable. With most FT nations actually rping thousands of years in the future, the temporal distance between my MT nation and FT nations is justifiable in itself to ignore nations that have yet to even come into existance.

EDIT: I also have a huge personal problem with anyone using technology that can't be explained. even theoretically. I try and put that side, but it is hard.

My FTL can be explained theoretically, since the "Kraskinov Drive" is a wormhole creator/manipulator (Sergei Kraskinov, Relativity Expert, St. Petersburg Observatory, Russia) is where the "theory" is derived from.

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/lancer.jpg
SK-10 Lancer StarNavigator, small deployable Kraskinov Wormhole Generator...

Most forms of weapons are also explainable, in theory.
"Photon Torpedoes" are merely Matter/Antimatter annihilators. Zero-Point explosives use Quantum Theory to increase energies

PArticle Cannons are just that (using streams of particles, of various type (depending on technology))

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/instagator.jpg
Instigator Type Mobile Particle Cannon, HoverArtillery

Ion cannons are big EMP Shockwave generators.

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/mauler.jpg
Mauler Type Mobile Planetary Ion Cannon (Tracked)

Shields come in various forms from being particulate, EM field, or graviton based ideas (all explainable, in part, as theory).
Ilek-Vaad
21-06-2005, 17:17
OOC: But I think we'd both agree that they are FT ;)

I would never allow any of the technology just mentioned to be included into a MT rp, not that people haven't tried.

My rule of thumb is that anything that has been sucessfully tested can be used as MT or PMT. I'm willing to accept production scale fusion reactors based on actual experiments, or pebble bed fission reactors, both have been verified as possible and plausible (maybe not practical at this point) by modern science.

Wormhole technology, while theoretically plausible, has yet to be proven or actually demonstrated in an actual replicable experiment.

I also tend to allow equivalents, say if a nation built a tank with a laser cannon instead of conventional cannon (which is plausible, and probably practical in the near future) so long as it is the equivalent in power of say a 165mm smoothbore.................equivalent to a known and verifiable technology.

In a nutshell, my gut says don't accept anything unless I can put my hands on it today, but for rp I use a lighter standard, and of course in a diplomatic rp, technology can always take a back seat to the story.
Tekania
21-06-2005, 18:17
OOC: But I think we'd both agree that they are FT ;)

I would never allow any of the technology just mentioned to be included into a MT rp, not that people haven't tried.

My rule of thumb is that anything that has been sucessfully tested can be used as MT or PMT. I'm willing to accept production scale fusion reactors based on actual experiments, or pebble bed fission reactors, both have been verified as possible and plausible (maybe not practical at this point) by modern science.

Wormhole technology, while theoretically plausible, has yet to be proven or actually demonstrated in an actual replicable experiment.

I also tend to allow equivalents, say if a nation built a tank with a laser cannon instead of conventional cannon (which is plausible, and probably practical in the near future) so long as it is the equivalent in power of say a 165mm smoothbore.................equivalent to a known and verifiable technology.

In a nutshell, my gut says don't accept anything unless I can put my hands on it today, but for rp I use a lighter standard, and of course in a diplomatic rp, technology can always take a back seat to the story.


Laser and Particle/Plasma are both equivalents. Particle/Plasma cannons have the same drawbacks as other "mass" based weapons (such as conventional cannons/guns), since they fire a "mass" at an object. And some require "ammunition" of sorts, similar to conventional weapons (Plasma and Neutron particle cannons require it; exotic cannons such as nadion do not, since they "generate" the needed particles from their power system) [ST type Phasers are Phased streams of Nadion Particles, only requiring a powerload, and not seperate amunition (as with Neutron and Plasma cannons, both require a "ammunition" source to opperate, the power system providing infeed for the cannons accellerator)]. Ion Cannons are similar to localized nuclear detonations (to take advantage of their EMP shockwaves), to disable electronic systems. Though the EMP has no effect on mechanics or people.

HoverTanks and other equipment may very by state. Some are more "conventional" than others, using aircusions; others operate by more tech-savy means (graviton or maglev). Assuming shields are not an issue (none of my FT ground equipment uses shields, only composite armor), they would be on equal par with more conventional modern tech military forces.

Most of the fighters can be far different. My starfighters are designed equally for atmospheric and space attacks. Same goes with bombers

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/osprey.jpg
SB-40 "Osprey" Strategic Bomber

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/aurora.jpg
C-190 "Aurora" Assault Transport (Dropship)

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/wasp.jpg
SF-27 "Wasp" Starfighter (Going out of production)

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/manta.jpg
XSF-29 "Manta" Starfighter (New)

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/interceptor.jpg
SI-37 "Raptor" StarInterceptor
Mini Miehm
21-06-2005, 19:06
Why? Heck, I'm FT and I'm tempted to ignore FT. A better question would be 'why not?'.


A large number of FT players apparently have no concept of politics. Of any sort. Everything is either good or evil, and so must be RPed in a flamboyantly stereotypical way. I blame Star Wars for that, myself, but whatever. Some MT players share this bizarre trait, but the ratio is nowhere near as enormous. But even in MT some degree of diplomacy exists. In FT land, diplomacy involves making a fleet appear from nowhere right by whatever's going on at the time, and then shooting at it after a brief "my ship's bigger than yours" conversation.
A few MT players are interested in RPing in a realistic political environment, in modern times with modern technology. I've been here with one nation or another since about June/July last year and haven't seen much realism of any sort, but they can at least try. And FT isn't compatible with that -- how many Super Wanked Destroyers do you see flying around in real life? Half of the stuff going on in FT land would be impossible even in FT land, let alone modern times. As such, those people will only accept such things if they get involved in one of those fun 'aliens invade the Earth!' threads.
A lot of people are here to 'win', rather than have fun or write a good story. MT players stand a very good chance of being destroyed by the orbital sperm bombardment of the Artificially Enlarged Penis-class starships of FT nations, and thus the ones who play to 'win' ignore them. FT players who want to 'win' will generally give them a good reason to do so by refusing to accept that their technology isn't indestructible -- see any number of the nations who use "im FT u no, i can easly crush you!!" as a threat for more information.


If there's a fun story, like the 'aliens invade the Earth!' one I mentioned, a few MT players generally relax their ignores and have fun. But for the most part they have every reason to ignore FT players, and I don't blame them.


Ok, you have seriously oversimplified diplomacy in FT, I've been diplomaticizing(my word, no one else can use it, you owe me a quarter just for reading it) with FT for a while now, in fact before I send out a fleet to help someone there will most likely be negotiations, unless I like the person, then they'll get the help anyway.

Again you discount the amount of diplomacy that occurs in FT, there's alot more than you seem to believe, if a new nation makes an FT intro post then I'll have a small fleet just happen to be in the area, and then there will be diplomacy as I make contact with the people of the civilisation and try to do my diplomatic thing, which is actually really hard in MT, since everyone is very violent about their diplomacy(FC and the current El Caudillo phenomena as an example).

I can't argue with that last point, it's true.
Mini Miehm
21-06-2005, 19:15
OOC: I agree with Majeristan's comments earlier. FT nations tend to want their technology to 'trump' anything else. I routinely will do diplomatic RP's with FT nations and generally try to be inclusive, but I draw the line at giant spacefleets instantly materializing to destroy everything in sight.

Just about every FT nation that I have rp'ed with, when it comes down to weaponry, either a.) refuses to budge and stands firm on their technology being so advanced that MT can never touch it or b.) attempt to negotiate a bit and use 'MT' forces, but an FT nations concept of MT still invariably includes lasers, microwave weaponry, space ships, and ortillery.

I'm usually willing to compromise, but so far I have yet to meet an FT nation that will compromise, so I ignore them.

I think that is entirely reasonable. With most FT nations actually rping thousands of years in the future, the temporal distance between my MT nation and FT nations is justifiable in itself to ignore nations that have yet to even come into existance.

EDIT: I also have a huge personal problem with anyone using technology that can't be explained. even theoretically. I try and put that side, but it is hard.


OK, heres my anti-ubertech(FT) versus punytech(PT) example.

Watch star wars: ROTJ and watch the endor(Ewoks) fights specifically, little furry critters beat high tech(previously mentioned ubertech) through tactics, skill and hefty dose of really big rocks and primitive weapons, it can be done, one example I used to use was the big steel rod, it went like this:

After beating the guards to death with his big steel rod, (insert character here) used the rod to destroy the engines, and then ran for his life before the engines overloaded and killed him.
Praetonia
21-06-2005, 19:26
I ignore FT because:

1) The FT nations are too powerful, and would just go around destroying the MT nations. Mini Miehm - I'm sure that's true if the enemy FT nation isnt expecting an attack, and is wearing full body armour that's somehow suseptible to rocks that generally wouldnt even kill a normal human, but that rarely ever happens. An FT nation would just fire ortillery. The MT nation is effectifly nuked and cant fire back.

2) They would screw up the MT setting. The MT nations would jsut buy FT off of the FT nations to get an edge, and then everyone would do it, and then MT would jsut become FT.

3) Im jsut not interested. If I wanted to RP space ships and laser etc etc etc then I would be FT myself. I dont, and so I'm not.
Mini Miehm
21-06-2005, 19:34
I ignore FT because:

1) The FT nations are too powerful, and would just go around destroying the MT nations. Mini Miehm - I'm sure that's true if the enemy FT nation isnt expecting an attack, and is wearing full body armour that's somehow suseptible to rocks that generally wouldnt even kill a normal human, but that rarely ever happens. An FT nation would just fire ortillery. The MT nation is effectifly nuked and cant fire back.

2) They would screw up the MT setting. The MT nations would jsut buy FT off of the FT nations to get an edge, and then everyone would do it, and then MT would jsut become FT.

3) Im jsut not interested. If I wanted to RP space ships and laser etc etc etc then I would be FT myself. I dont, and so I'm not.


You must have missed the "Big Steel Rod" reference, the point I'm making is that if you ignore it out of hand, not on an individual basis, then you lose alot of the best players, and that just sucks, I say that an AK can kill anything if you use it right, shields overload, armr shatters eventually, or has weak points that can be exploited, walkers have joints, hovertanks have fans, and if they don't they have either maglev or anti-grav, which, while harder to counter, still has weaknesses, anti-garv does poorly in extremely rough terrain that tracked tanks can handle without much trouble, maglev can be beaten by more magnets, everything has a weakness, I think most people just lack the imagination to find the weaknesses in FT.
Gaian Ascendancy
21-06-2005, 19:38
Interesting to note that pretty much the enture argument here is about MT vs. FT weapons. Hell, most of the rps around here are too military oriented. Shouldn't more MT vs. FT or such be rather FT in MT, or MT finds FT character, or something like that.

If anyone read through my Exile thread, it was about an FT character that returns to his MT roots and even finds an unexpected MT love that 'goes' back to his FT realm (..along with a few other details. =^^= )

I found FT my favorite to focus on, but I deliberatly made the characters MT based from the start to create threads to focus at times on the character's past. Being forced into war theads actually gets a bit annoying after awhile for me, and character interaction is a bit more important, when you already know the foundation they are based on, and what they live with.
Mini Miehm
21-06-2005, 19:46
Interesting to note that pretty much the enture argument here is about MT vs. FT weapons. Hell, most of the rps around here are too military oriented. Shouldn't more MT vs. FT or such be rather FT in MT, or MT finds FT character, or something like that.

If anyone read through my Exile thread, it was about an FT character that returns to his MT roots and even finds an unexpected MT love that 'goes' back to his FT realm (..along with a few other details. =^^= )

I found FT my favorite to focus on, but I deliberatly made the characters MT based from the start to create threads to focus at times on the character's past. Being forced into war theads actually gets a bit annoying after awhile for me, and character interaction is a bit more important, when you already know the foundation they are based on, and what they live with.

The initial basis of discussion was MT ignoring FT because of their weapons and technology, so it's to be expected that weapons and technology are going to be the ones that get the most attention.
Tekania
21-06-2005, 19:52
I ignore FT because:

1) The FT nations are too powerful, and would just go around destroying the MT nations. Mini Miehm - I'm sure that's true if the enemy FT nation isnt expecting an attack, and is wearing full body armour that's somehow suseptible to rocks that generally wouldnt even kill a normal human, but that rarely ever happens. An FT nation would just fire ortillery. The MT nation is effectifly nuked and cant fire back.

Ortillery is generally bad form. Though, you can exploit this. For an enemy FT type ship to reliably target a planet, it has to be in orbit. Which makes it suseptible to MT type orbital attacks (nukes). A nuke will damage a ship just as well.

I'd call bad form, however, on over use of ortillery. Seems illogical and impractical for a ship to bombard a planet from orbit. If there is assult occuring, seems more likelt to deploy ground assets via dropships/transports. And fight in a more "conventional" manner.


2) They would screw up the MT setting. The MT nations would jsut buy FT off of the FT nations to get an edge, and then everyone would do it, and then MT would jsut become FT.

Unlikely.


3) Im jsut not interested. If I wanted to RP space ships and laser etc etc etc then I would be FT myself. I dont, and so I'm not.

Not all FT takes place in "space" between ships. While ships may be involved. It would be better for land/air attacks between MT armor and marines, and FT armor and marines.

I have my own share of FT armor.

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/rhino.jpg
"Rhino" HoverTank

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/mustang_apc.jpg
"Mustang" HoverAPC

More or less equivalent to the MT counterparts. Just using small particle cannons, and trackless... As opposed to traditional tracks and kenetic weapons.
Gyrobot
21-06-2005, 21:07
The way you portray your mentality about FT vs. MT is part of the problem Gyrobot. You seem to paint FT as this huge panacea that makes you all but impossible to beat with a MT country and you're trying to justify an unfair advantage under the guise of evening the odds. The RP I think you're alluding to is one where you were trying to plan an attack on El Caudillo. In that case, you were getting ready to try to dogpile a then-9 million pop country out of the game when he or she was doing an outstanding job as a new RPer.

It seems like you don't want to play the game to do anything but win. Where's the desire to tell a good story? Where's the sense of wanting to see a promising new RPer evolve into the next Pantera? Or the next Generic Empire? I'm sick of people who population wank, "OMFG! Im much larger than j00! I winzz!!!!111" and who techwank, "OMG! I'm FT. You're MT. I PWN J00!!!!"

I am sorry if I was being a jerk, but lets examine the powerful nations such as the parthians. The parthians have a population of 4 billion and serveral large allies as well. Do I got allies? Hell it is hard for me to start getting attention or even posters (check out topics made by me in international incidents, most of them have zero posts not counting bumps and tags if I am lucky I may get one poster). If I was MT and the parthians itches to pick me off, I am all but done for. That is my 2 cents.
Praetonia
21-06-2005, 21:35
Ortillery is generally bad form. Though, you can exploit this. For an enemy FT type ship to reliably target a planet, it has to be in orbit. Which makes it suseptible to MT type orbital attacks (nukes). A nuke will damage a ship just as well.
Nuclear missiles wouldnt do anything to an FT ships. They would hit the shields and explode (as in combust) or they would be destroyed by point defence cannons.

I'd call bad form, however, on over use of ortillery. Seems illogical and impractical for a ship to bombard a planet from orbit. If there is assult occuring, seems more likelt to deploy ground assets via dropships/transports. And fight in a more "conventional" manner.
Why is it impractical? The ship has a reactor that can (presumably) keep the weapons firing as long as it is functional. It can just sit there until it annihilates the MT nation. MT nations will just become colonies of FT nations and their ub3r pwnz0r tekz0rz.

Unlikely.
So you think that no FT would ever sell anything to an MT nation ever? I call your unlikely and raise you an "Impossible".

Not all FT takes place in "space" between ships. While ships may be involved. It would be better for land/air attacks between MT armor and marines, and FT armor and marines.
And the FT stuff would have armour impenetrable to MT weaponary (and no obvious weak spots like tracks) and they would also be able to destroy anything the MT player tried to use in one shot. And they can do all this while moving at twice the speed. If they even bother to land, as discussed above.

You still havent countered my point about not actually wanting to interact with FT nations, although since its personal choice I dont see how you could argue it.
Tekania
21-06-2005, 21:56
Nuclear missiles wouldnt do anything to an FT ships. They would hit the shields and explode (as in combust) or they would be destroyed by point defence cannons.

Says who? A nuclear strike will do as much damage to shields/armor as any other weapon of comparible energy. You also wouldn't (if you were thinking) have the thing penetrate into the hull... you'ld detonate only in proximity (and let the EMP shockwave do its dirty work against the shields). Point defense, is never 100% accurate.


Why is it impractical? The ship has a reactor that can (presumably) keep the weapons firing as long as it is functional. It can just sit there until it annihilates the MT nation. MT nations will just become colonies of FT nations and their ub3r pwnz0r tekz0rz.

It's impracticle, because there is little purpose to glassing a planet. If you're attempting to assault, and conquer, you need to deploy ground assets (drop ships, marines, tanks, APC's, or the equivalents). Even if you use orbital bombardment, it is only practical to do so in limited areas against hardened military complexes (much as you would use HE/nuke bombs). Arbitrary bombardment accomplishes nothing.


So you think that no FT would ever sell anything to an MT nation ever? I call your unlikely and raise you an "Impossible".

No, I don't think it is either needed, nor would create a domino effect where everyone does it.


And the FT stuff would have armour impenetrable to MT weaponary (and no obvious weak spots like tracks) and they would also be able to destroy anything the MT player tried to use in one shot. And they can do all this while moving at twice the speed. If they even bother to land, as discussed above.

Hover systems use external emmiters, which are as key an area to immobilize as tracks. Armor is just as suseptible to kenetic attacks as energy attacks. What you're claiming is that FT'ers only wank their way out of taking losses and damage. Which is bad form in ANY RP, FT/MT/PT.... Hover is "hover" not flight. Though they can move "faster" they are not as (before mentioned) terrain savvy...


You still havent countered my point about not actually wanting to interact with FT nations, although since its personal choice I dont see how you could argue it.

Except it's not a point. The prefference is based on the prejudiced notion that all FT RP'ers will tech-wank their way out of taking losses. Merely because you think that, doesn't make it true. Nor does it even make it a point.... Your prefference is your own. Don't attempt to make it a practical point (because it isn't).
Kyanges
21-06-2005, 22:08
Says who? A nuclear strike will do as much damage to shields/armor as any other weapon of comparible energy. You also wouldn't (if you were thinking) have the thing penetrate into the hull... you'ld detonate only in proximity (and let the EMP shockwave do its dirty work against the shields). Point defense, is never 100% accurate.

That's just it, too many FT nations have "Star Destroyers". If you ever read a Star Destroyers specs, you'd know that and SD's shields easily repels a nuke. And if you manage to take down one, they have plenty more in reserve. So if the FT player was reasonable, they'd set up a story where one was all they could muster, or something, otherwise, they'd simply shove more ships down the MT players's throat. That's not even covering the "super" star destroyers... Also, with so many nations mounting 23542355235 PDCs on their ships, it is 100%. At least, against what an MT nation could realistically bring up.

In addition, some nations don't even use energy based shields, so EMPs don't even work against them.

Hover systems use external emmiters, which are as key an area to immobilize as tracks. Armor is just as suseptible to kenetic attacks as energy attacks. What you're claiming is that FT'ers only wank their way out of taking losses and damage. Which is bad form in ANY RP, FT/MT/PT.... Hover is "hover" not flight. Though they can move "faster" they are not as (before mentioned) terrain savvy...

There are many SW based nations out there. SW anti-grav is internal, and it is very terrain savvy. How? Well, that's up to the guy who makes them. Your other points here though, I completely agree with.


Basically, the way I see it, is that it all depends on the player, and argueing technical bits won't help you in either side of the argument.

As for the other points, I either simply agree with, or they're between you and Praetonia, which I'll stay out of.

(By the way, nice pics!)
Automagfreek
21-06-2005, 22:19
I am sorry if I was being a jerk, but lets examine the powerful nations such as the parthians. The parthians have a population of 4 billion and serveral large allies as well. Do I got allies? Hell it is hard for me to start getting attention or even posters (check out topics made by me in international incidents, most of them have zero posts not counting bumps and tags if I am lucky I may get one poster). If I was MT and the parthians itches to pick me off, I am all but done for. That is my 2 cents.

Not really, there's always a bigger fish. I'm sure there are people out there who ICly don't care for The Parthians and would......assist in the defense of a nation they attack (provided it is unjustified or an aggressive first strike)....

*looks around, whistles*
Praetonia
21-06-2005, 22:26
Says who? A nuclear strike will do as much damage to shields/armor as any other weapon of comparible energy. You also wouldn't (if you were thinking) have the thing penetrate into the hull... you'ld detonate only in proximity (and let the EMP shockwave do its dirty work against the shields). Point defense, is never 100% accurate.
The nuclear missile would only damage the ship if it exploded beyond the shields, and even then it wouldnt do much damage. The actual "fireball" isnt very big, and nuclear bombs IRL explode above the surface of the earth (several miles) and most of the damage is caused by the resulting huge overpressure of air that crushes everything in its path. Obviously this doesnt work in space. And EMP would be rendered useless by the ship's shields. The only way any weapon can cause any damage to a ship with shields is if it breeches the shields and impacts upon the hull.

It's impracticle, because there is little purpose to glassing a planet. If you're attempting to assault, and conquer, you need to deploy ground assets (drop ships, marines, tanks, APC's, or the equivalents). Even if you use orbital bombardment, it is only practical to do so in limited areas against hardened military complexes (much as you would use HE/nuke bombs). Arbitrary bombardment accomplishes nothing.
An FT nation could easily use orbital bombardment to destroy the military of the defending nation and leave it with no ability to respond to an invasion. If energy weapons are used, then they could be used with reckless abandon on any target that presents itself.

No, I don't think it is either needed, nor would create a domino effect where everyone does it.
It may not be needed, but people are always looking for an "edge", and they would easily be able to get one by buying tech off of FT nations which Im sure they would be happy to provide. Once one nation has the tech, the others have to as well or they cant keep up.

Hover systems use external emmiters, which are as key an area to immobilize as tracks. Armor is just as suseptible to kenetic attacks as energy attacks. What you're claiming is that FT'ers only wank their way out of taking losses and damage. Which is bad form in ANY RP, FT/MT/PT.... Hover is "hover" not flight. Though they can move "faster" they are not as (before mentioned) terrain savvy...
External emmitters... underneath the tank. I dont see how this would be vulnerable. Armour on an FT vehicle would be much stronger, and practically immune to MT rounds. In MT NS HEAT rounds are already obselete. With FT "adamantiwankz0rzmadeuparmourium" KE would be equally useless. And the whole POINT of a hover craft / other such thing is that it's more mobile. In fact, you'd go faster as there is no need for suspension, and there is no friction, even assuming that you didnt have better engine tech from being FT (which you would).

Except it's not a point. The prefference is based on the prejudiced notion that all FT RP'ers will tech-wank their way out of taking losses. Merely because you think that, doesn't make it true. Nor does it even make it a point.... Your prefference is your own. Don't attempt to make it a practical point (because it isn't).
It is a point, and quite independent of the possibility (wait, did I say that? I meant certainty) that the FT player would blow away all opposition (which they would, unless they were deliberately downgrading their stats, which is just silly). I'm really not interested in RPing in a world with loads of random spaceships and uber hover tankz. I want to RP in a world with tanks and ships and HUMANS, which most MT players also want to do which is why they RP MT and ignore FT.
Tekania
21-06-2005, 23:22
The nuclear missile would only damage the ship if it exploded beyond the shields, and even then it wouldnt do much damage. The actual "fireball" isnt very big, and nuclear bombs IRL explode above the surface of the earth (several miles) and most of the damage is caused by the resulting huge overpressure of air that crushes everything in its path. Obviously this doesnt work in space. And EMP would be rendered useless by the ship's shields. The only way any weapon can cause any damage to a ship with shields is if it breeches the shields and impacts upon the hull.

Maybe not one, but several. There is still energy transfer in the attack (roughly 10^16 J, assuming 5 megatons), which sap the shields of that amount of energy (or slightly greater in the process). Enough detonations in proximity, and the shields will go down (EMP may not make it through shields [we'll assume gravimetric or particle, as opposed to ray, ray shielding won't stop physical objects], but it's still going to sap energy. The shields, just like armor only take so much of a beating before they go down.... and a 5-10 megaton nuke is going to do as much damage as a smallish (1.25 million ton nickel-iron asteroid)...


An FT nation could easily use orbital bombardment to destroy the military of the defending nation and leave it with no ability to respond to an invasion. If energy weapons are used, then they could be used with reckless abandon on any target that presents itself.

Orbital bombardment is impractical against mobile targets... to any large effect. It's only used on hardened structures.


It may not be needed, but people are always looking for an "edge", and they would easily be able to get one by buying tech off of FT nations which Im sure they would be happy to provide. Once one nation has the tech, the others have to as well or they cant keep up.

Their are FT nations already. And not everyone is FT.


External emmitters... underneath the tank. I dont see how this would be vulnerable. Armour on an FT vehicle would be much stronger, and practically immune to MT rounds. In MT NS HEAT rounds are already obselete. With FT "adamantiwankz0rzmadeuparmourium" KE would be equally useless. And the whole POINT of a hover craft / other such thing is that it's more mobile. In fact, you'd go faster as there is no need for suspension, and there is no friction, even assuming that you didnt have better engine tech from being FT (which you would).

Tracks are external and under the tank, I don't see how this would be vulnerable.... Take out the emiters (just as tracks) the tank is immobilized....

Ah, so KE is useless against my "Rhino" because you say so? I happen to known KE can cause damage to my Duranium Composite armor (as KE will do damage to most other armor and will drain shields) over time (even Sabots will not always work against MT armor, even if they don't penetrate, they weaken the integrity).


It is a point, and quite independent of the possibility (wait, did I say that? I meant certainty) that the FT player would blow away all opposition (which they would, unless they were deliberately downgrading their stats, which is just silly). I'm really not interested in RPing in a world with loads of random spaceships and uber hover tankz. I want to RP in a world with tanks and ships and HUMANS, which most MT players also want to do which is why they RP MT and ignore FT.

There you go, telling me what I will do, and how my stuff works. (Note ID4 aliens being defeated by a laptop computer, and F/A-18 Hornets...). Any good RP'er will take losses, and damage from attacks. It does not matter if they are using Trebuchets against M1A1's or Nukes against a Battlestar or Imperator. Weapons do damage to shields, armor and people.... Doesn't matter if it's a catapult or a Particle Beam.... It still convey's "x" amount of energy, which is taken by whatever it hits. (Picard taking out Borg drones with a Tommygun...).
Kyanges
22-06-2005, 00:01
...(Picard taking out Borg drones with a Tommygun...).

You know that was only three or so drones, and that was before their shields adapted?

But about your orbital bombardment being impractical against mobile targets, that sounds like it's only your weapon systmes talking there. Mobile as in fighters? You're right. Tanks? a single shot from one of those "Uber-lasers" will take out several.

And while you're right about nukes doing damage, the point is, how many nukes will it take? The MT player almost has to godmod his way out of it.

I think that your best point was mentioning that "Any good RPer would..." act such and such. If I were RPing, I'd definitely let MT nations do something too. Even if it would require me setting up extra ordinary circumstances to do so.
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 00:57
I agree that most FT nations have little or no concept when it comes to politics and the economic/technical aspects of operating a space faring nation. I have to correct a great deal of people over the aspects that it would take time to call in a fleet of spaceships, pulling them out of dock and patrols, relaying the info... most FTers love bringing in huge fleets for first contact scenarios... which confuses me to no end because I don't see the reason to pull in so many assets for something as simple as a reconnaissance mission...
The one thing I hate the most, I blame Star Wars and all those other sci-fi movies/television shows/games/books, is these super ships that most FTers are pulling out of their asses. I like to rp a planet nation that uses the NS population and some others do as well, so I have barely created a ship close enough to compete with an imperial star destroyer (using as reference)...
I also like to do the MT vs FT stuff, but all those FTers I've mentioned before create a stereotype that all FT nations are stupid techwankers that can't develop a reasonable tech and storyline... ARGH!
*Rubs temples*
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 00:59
You know that was only three or so drones, and that was before their shields adapted?

But about your orbital bombardment being impractical against mobile targets, that sounds like it's only your weapon systmes talking there. Mobile as in fighters? You're right. Tanks? a single shot from one of those "Uber-lasers" will take out several.

And while you're right about nukes doing damage, the point is, how many nukes will it take? The MT player almost has to godmod his way out of it.

I think that your best point was mentioning that "Any good RPer would..." act such and such. If I were RPing, I'd definitely let MT nations do something too. Even if it would require me setting up extra ordinary circumstances to do so.

Borg drone shields can't adapt to non-energy weapons...
Plus, unless you have incredible clarity (ie. ground spotters), trying to hit a small moving target from outerspace (firing through the atmosphere and all that interference) would be really hard...
Kyanges
22-06-2005, 01:03
Borg drone shields can't adapt to non-energy weapons...

You sure? I could have sworn that I read somewhere that it could... Must've been inaccurate. Alright, never mind about that point.

EDIT: About the orbital bombardment? I don't see what's so hard about it. If this is FT, then you have good computers right? Quantum maybe? If you can accurately calculate hyperspace routes, then I'm sure a little atmospheric interference is nothing.

But before someone screams tech wank or something, just keep in mind, that I feel that it's up to a good RPer to let certain things happen, even if it harms them. Especially in FT.
Tekania
22-06-2005, 01:08
You know that was only three or so drones, and that was before their shields adapted?

Exactly. And how many FT nations deal with practical kenetic warfare? Merely because one is FT, does not mean it is adapted to all forms of conventional warfare.


But about your orbital bombardment being impractical against mobile targets, that sounds like it's only your weapon systmes talking there. Mobile as in fighters? You're right. Tanks? a single shot from one of those "Uber-lasers" will take out several.

I have three normative weapons systems. Point Defense is against fighters. While it has pinpoint accuracy, it's useless at long ranges, or against heavily fortified targets.... The differing levels of antiship cannons, and planetary bombardment capable cannons, are usefull for supression, but not against small targets. (Same with ISD's larger cannons, they can glass a planet.... But they are not well suited to tactical warfare and invasion purposes... you'ld end up destroying everything; which is pointless if your goal is to "conquer" [which mine isn't])...


And while you're right about nukes doing damage, the point is, how many nukes will it take? The MT player almost has to godmod his way out of it.


I'd assume it would take several hundred to drop your average FT nations shields (if you're against an ISD, you've got the added advantage of it lacking virtually any point defense technolgy to take out small moving targets like that). Most, however, will have point defense technology. The key to "winning" when in defense is to keep the enemy from taking the field. A starship (no matter how big) cannot conquer a planet... You need GROUND assets and ground assault... Otherwise you're just in orbit, or comitting genocide against the entire state....

This all, of course, assumes no other FT states come to assist the MT state against an FT invasion force.


I think that your best point was mentioning that "Any good RPer would..." act such and such. If I were RPing, I'd definitely let MT nations do something too. Even if it would require me setting up extra ordinary circumstances to do so.

Play the Empire... underestimate all your foes.... The largest advantage that would occur between a conquesting FT imperial force, against an MT player, is that the FT'er would have a superiority complex... And likely end up on the disadvantaged end when other FT'ers come to defend as well. (Star Wars Battle of Endor.... if the ISD are otherwise occupied.... You only have to worry about the ground troops... who will have little support from their fleet assets); or you'll have a gang of MT'ers on a single FT state... Doesn't matter how big their ship is, it cannot target all ground assets on a planet simultaneously... I certainly think MT'ers have enough creativity to take on an FT invader.
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 01:10
You sure? I could have sworn that I read somewhere that it could... Must've been inaccurate. Alright, never mind about that point.

EDIT: About the orbital bombardment? I don't see what's so hard about it. If this is FT, then you have good computers right? Quantum maybe? If you can accurately calculate hyperspace routes, then I'm sure a little atmospheric interference is nothing.

But before someone screams tech wank or something, just keep in mind, that I feel that it's up to a good RPer to let certain things happen, even if it harms them. Especially in FT.

I don't like the idea that a ship in orbit can, with pinpoint accuracy, hit a fast moving jet with a laserbeam or cannon shell... although I bet its possible... it makes everything almost impossible for the MT player...
Freudotopia
22-06-2005, 01:16
The problem with intermingling, as many here have stated, is the inevitable temptation of the FT nation to godmode. Personally, I find MT roleplaying more enjoyable, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Actually, I'm soon gonna start a sort of "War of the Worlds" RP. The basic theory is that a few FT nations invade Earth, and the MT nations band together to repel the invaders. Should be interesting, if I can pull it off with some organization and avoid the many problems listed here.

So, what do you think about that?

Oh, and one more thing: consider this idea property of ME. No intellectual property theft, or I'll kill you.
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 01:16
I don't like the idea that a ship in orbit can, with pinpoint accuracy, hit a fast moving jet with a laserbeam or cannon shell... although I bet its possible... it makes everything almost impossible for the MT player...

You also have to understand that most FTers are built around battling other FTers, so most likely they would have technology that could be exploited by MTers... like the whole planetary bombardment thing (most FT nations don't do it, prefering to concentrate on space combat).
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 01:19
The problem with intermingling, as many here have stated, is the inevitable temptation of the FT nation to godmode. Personally, I find MT roleplaying more enjoyable, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Actually, I'm soon gonna start a sort of "War of the Worlds" RP. The basic theory is that a few FT nations invade Earth, and the MT nations band together to repel the invaders. Should be interesting, if I can pull it off with some organization and avoid the many problems listed here.

So, what do you think about that?

Oh, and one more thing: consider this idea property of ME. No intellectual property theft, or I'll kill you.

I'd do that... but I don't like getting techwanky (ie. the shield produces 12^44x metajules... or something like that) so I can just concentrate on writing a dramadized piece.
Tekania
22-06-2005, 01:23
I agree that most FT nations have little or no concept when it comes to politics and the economic/technical aspects of operating a space faring nation. I have to correct a great deal of people over the aspects that it would take time to call in a fleet of spaceships, pulling them out of dock and patrols, relaying the info... most FTers love bringing in huge fleets for first contact scenarios... which confuses me to no end because I don't see the reason to pull in so many assets for something as simple as a reconnaissance mission...
The one thing I hate the most, I blame Star Wars and all those other sci-fi movies/television shows/games/books, is these super ships that most FTers are pulling out of their asses. I like to rp a planet nation that uses the NS population and some others do as well, so I have barely created a ship close enough to compete with an imperial star destroyer (using as reference)...
I also like to do the MT vs FT stuff, but all those FTers I've mentioned before create a stereotype that all FT nations are stupid techwankers that can't develop a reasonable tech and storyline... ARGH!
*Rubs temples*


I agree there. I have (after time) developed craft comparible to ISD's... Though I don't have thousands of these ships (like too many of the SW's do).

My largest ship is the "Redemption" Battlestar.... 3km+ long, 3km+ wide... I have a total of 3.

I have about 20 Kali class Battlestars. (3km-x-650km-x-700m)
A total of 46 cruisers (Hampton Class).(1.8km-x-700m-x-350m)
10 Scimitar class strikecarriers.(2.1km-x-1.2km-x-400m)
A few hundred various frigates, destroyers and escorts (All much smaller than ISD's... between 700 and 450 meters).

[And design all my own ships, including civilian craft]

Not possessing some massive uber-fleet of ships I borrowed from somewhere else, is probably inline with my lack of interest in taking on and trying to wipe out MT nations... Most of my fleet is either part of home guard of my core systems.... Or on single ship exploration missions (sometimes fleet convoy escort of freighters) [In which case I may have 2-3 capital ships, and a handfull of smaller escorts or destroyers with 20 or more freighters.... Not 4000 ISD's escorting 4 freighters...... Which reminds me; Why don't many FT'ers show up doing simeple thinks that would be normal, like escorting civilian ships.... Performing some sort of test on new equipment, simple charting missions.... All the mundane stuff a normal spacefarer would do....]
Kyanges
22-06-2005, 01:24
Exactly. And how many FT nations deal with practical kenetic warfare? Merely because one is FT, does not mean it is adapted to all forms of conventional warfare.

Yeah, not many deal with guns. Unless the player has set shields that defend against this. To be honest, I still shoot guns as FT, so I happen to consider this, but once again, it depends on the player.

Good points on the rest, and I agree entirely about the need for ground forces. The only few FT RPs that I've been involved in focus on characters, ground units, and the like and not on fleets.

I think that there really isn't much to say. I think that we both agree that it's really up to the player to be reasonable.
Tekania
22-06-2005, 01:27
The problem with intermingling, as many here have stated, is the inevitable temptation of the FT nation to godmode. Personally, I find MT roleplaying more enjoyable, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Actually, I'm soon gonna start a sort of "War of the Worlds" RP. The basic theory is that a few FT nations invade Earth, and the MT nations band together to repel the invaders. Should be interesting, if I can pull it off with some organization and avoid the many problems listed here.

So, what do you think about that?

Oh, and one more thing: consider this idea property of ME. No intellectual property theft, or I'll kill you.

Sounds interesting (though it has been done before, so I would try to patent the idea...).... Not interested in invasion. But I would be glad to assist in defending...I do RP a basic premice of "no direct interference with MT nations" similar to ST's "Prime Directive"... but loose enough to "Visit" and perform diplomatic tasks (as well as defend against FT'ers).
Kyanges
22-06-2005, 01:30
You also have to understand that most FTers are built around battling other FTers, so most likely they would have technology that could be exploited by MTers... like the whole planetary bombardment thing (most FT nations don't do it, prefering to concentrate on space combat).

Very true. I'd actually love to get into a FT RP that involved orginaly developed ground forces, and left the space fleets as simple fire support.

On another note, I'd like to see how they would like Earth to fight off those aliens in that remake of War of the Worlds. (Before the simple bacteria thing pops up of course.) Seeing truely modern tech (Especially our the ground battles.) against obviously FT stuff in a modern movie might give some people new ideas. Seeing as that where most seem to get their material from anyway.
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 01:31
I agree there. I have (after time) developed craft comparible to ISD's... Though I don't have thousands of these ships (like too many of the SW's do).

My largest ship is the "Redemption" Battlestar.... 3km+ long, 3km+ wide... I have a total of 3.

I have about 20 Kali class Battlestars. (3km-x-650km-x-700m)
A total of 46 cruisers (Hampton Class).(1.8km-x-700m-x-350m)
10 Scimitar class strikecarriers.(2.1km-x-1.2km-x-400m)
A few hundred various frigates, destroyers and escorts (All much smaller than ISD's... between 700 and 450 meters).

[And design all my own ships, including civilian craft]

Not possessing some massive uber-fleet of ships I borrowed from somewhere else, is probably inline with my lack of interest in taking on and trying to wipe out MT nations... Most of my fleet is either part of home guard of my core systems.... Or on single ship exploration missions (sometimes fleet convoy escort of freighters) [In which case I may have 2-3 capital ships, and a handfull of smaller escorts or destroyers with 20 or more freighters.... Not 4000 ISD's escorting 4 freighters...... Which reminds me; Why don't many FT'ers show up doing simeple thinks that would be normal, like escorting civilian ships.... Performing some sort of test on new equipment, simple charting missions.... All the mundane stuff a normal spacefarer would do....]

The fact that you even have ships larger than a ISD makes your argument moot... (a typical ISD is around 1.6km)
Tekania
22-06-2005, 01:35
Very true. I'd actually love to get into a FT RP that involved orginaly developed ground forces, and left the space fleets as simple fire support.

On another note, I'd like to see how they would like Earth to fight off those aliens in that remake of War of the Worlds. (Before the simple bacteria thing pops up of course.) Seeing truely modern tech (Especially our the ground battles.) against obviously FT stuff in a modern movie might give some people new ideas. Seeing as that where most seem to get their material from anyway.

I have originally developed ground forces.

Presently consisting of serveral normative "Hover" type armor units (though I do have a mech design possibly being added to the Stellar Marine arsenal soon).

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/fleet/fleet/guardian.jpg
XBM-1 "Guardian" Concept
Tekania
22-06-2005, 01:44
The fact that you even have ships larger than a ISD makes your argument moot... (a typical ISD is around 1.6km)

The Imperator is 1.6km's.... Considering there are SD's (used in the hundreds) ~17km long; it's not.

I have less than 100 ships as large as star destroyers in general. (Between 1.5km and 17km) though none get close to SSD's.... 23 ~3km represents NS YEARS of building in my yards.... (My wasp starfighter has been in service for ~10 years, and is just now being replaced and phased out for my new "Mantas"....

Having 23 ~3km long ships does not equal having 12,000 1.6km long ships.
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 01:51
The Imperator is 1.6km's.... Considering there are SD's (used in the hundreds) ~17km long; it's not.

I have less than 100 ships as large as star destroyers in general. (Between 1.5km and 17km) though none get close to SSD's.... 23 ~3km represents NS YEARS of building in my yards.... (My wasp starfighter has been in service for ~10 years, and is just now being replaced and phased out for my new "Mantas"....

Having 23 ~3km long ships does not equal having 12,000 1.6km long ships.

You didn't hear me...The point I made is this: I said that I have barely scratched the SD's power and you have ships that outclass me by three times or more, and have... what... 24 of them!
How are you comparing yourself to be like me?

-Edit: I appologise... I'm just sick of hearing about FT nations with less than 6 billion people (about RL earth population) having a ship or fleet close to the size of the Empire's in Star Wars that has waaaaaaaay more than 100 trillion people, numbers I can't measure.
It's disgusting that they have the gall into thinking, unless their entire civ lives on the ships and stripmines every planet they come to for materials, that they could build or maintain these monstrocities...
Tekania
22-06-2005, 02:23
You didn't hear me...The point I made is this: I said that I have barely scratched the SD's power and you have ships that outclass me by three times or more, and have... what... 24 of them!
How are you comparing yourself to be like me?

-Edit: I appologise... I'm just sick of hearing about nations with less than 2 billion people having a ship or fleet close to the size of the Empire's in Star Wars that has waaaaaaaay more than 100 trillion people, numbers I can't measure.

I don't have a fleet that large ( I have a problem with it myself ).

On background, the "Hampton" class was originally rolled out as 3 ships, originally called the "Orion-II" battlestar. Designed comparible to the ISD's (and of similar dimentions) [it was later rechristened as theHampton cruisers, after refits, and new battlestar deployment in the Kali].

[Note: The Original Orion Battlestars have been complete phased out]

The Kali was designed as a superiority craft (as well as the new Redemption class) over normal ISD's... And also to be more of a threat to newer and larger SD's being built by some NS'ers. I still, however, do not have a "Fleet" of them (as some NS'ers do) running around pilaging the galaxy. [These things are still less than 1/2 the size of the largest SD's] (I also have a population exceeding 2 billion, which I do account for in RP's).

While these ships are rather large, their crew compliment is relatively smaller than Imperial type ships (more inline with ST crew ratios), given I use more automation than Imperial ships use. My 3km+ Kali has a compliment that is only ~10% of the capacity of a normal ISD, even though it is almost twice as large...[not quite] (~4,000 on a Kali as compared to ~37,000 on an ISD).

Redemptions are new; 3 of them total. And none have even been deployed outside of my own systems yet.... The Kali still represents the "show-of-force" for my fleets outside the Republic... Yet mostly are deployed only on "longrange" missions, or as escorts for large convoys (with maybe 1-2 cruisers, and a handfull of destroyers or escorts). Only twice have more than 2 Kali's been in the same system, while not docked.... And one of those was during a civil war inside one of the Republic member-worlds.... ( I had just about the entire compliment of my naval fleet recalled during the event). And even then, it took time to amass them, as many needed to spend time in dock before redeployment.
Crimmond
22-06-2005, 03:02
Before you read any further, understand this: I did NOT read more than the first two posts of this thread. I do not have the time, nor the inkling to read four pages of what is undoubtedly mostly stupid.

1: I RP BOTH Future and Modern techs. How? I don't give a flying f*ck what tech level you are, as long as you write well and don't call damage/control my characters/be rude OOC and can reasonably explain your technology.

2: Uberfleets I don't like. Same with uberarmies. I have a Marine Corps that is about five times the size it should be. Why? It also controls planetary Navy, Airforce and Army, along with the Coast Gaurd. I have a space fleet numbering less than 200 ships, most of which are unable to leave the Sol System.

3: Giant ships, I don't like. I have just eight Dreadnaughts which barely break 1km. They are my biggest ships ever, they lumber about, have an obscene amount of weapons, but if you do it right, you can cut one in two without trouble.

4: Unstopabble shielding. No such thing. So I came up with the be-all, end-all weapon for shields. A Swarm Missile Barrage. Millions of mini missiles peppering the shields of a ship. Most work be focusing most of the shield strength in one spot, to stop an attack. If you have even half a million hits, what's it going to do? It can't focus everywhere at the same time. So the shields start to fail. Keep firing and soon the missiles overload teh shields and start hitting armor. And then they do the same thing to armor. Pepper it until it's useless. So it works for both FT and MT.

6: Do you know how I can RP with ANY tech level? No, I doubt most of you can. I don't let technology control my nation. I can RP with a nation in the middle of deep space or a nation that sees electricity as a passing fad. In fact... I have!

So, to answer this thread's title:

The problem is the narrow mindedness of the players. If they stopped thinking about tech levels and more about telling a story, NS would be a much better place.
Freudotopia
22-06-2005, 03:08
I'd do that... but I don't like getting techwanky (ie. the shield produces 12^44x metajules... or something like that) so I can just concentrate on writing a dramadized piece.

Good point. When I do this, I'll have to remember not to allow so much of that.
Kyanges
22-06-2005, 03:09
The problem is the narrow mindedness of the players. If they stopped thinking about tech levels and more about telling a story, NS would be a much better place.

Yes!
Arani
22-06-2005, 07:17
Some impressions I've gotten from reading here:

Many people consider war to be a case of winning and losing - with the only positive outcome being to win. I subscribe closer to Crimmond's point of view with war being just another type of story.

MT and FT are incompatible with the first viewpoint - FT unbalances it far too much for this to work.

MT and FT are compatible with the second viewpoint - because tech levels are just another tool which can be used for telling the story.

Most threads in II seem to have the first viewpoint prevailing.

I'm also of the opinion that the first viewpoint doesn't work in a freeform environment, but that's off topic, I suppose.
Draconic Order
22-06-2005, 07:22
I think the two could work together if you have some good rpers...
New Shiron
22-06-2005, 07:26
I don't see any reason that future and modern tech can't RP, if handled right. Some excellent science fiction stories show good examples on how they interact. Turtledoves "World War out of Balance" series, Niven and Pournelle in "Footfall" are just a couple of examples.

The problem with future tech is how disparate things can be. Some use Star Wars systems, which would be practically indistinguishable from magic compared to a modern era helicopter or space shuttle. The technology in the Honor Harrington universe is the same as far as that goes.

Far future tech stories (and the technology they discuss) are generally based on centuries or even millenia of development.

But even technology from the stories by Pournelle involving the "CoDominion" universe would be future tech here, and that technology is really only supposed to be around a century or maybe two ahead of where we are now.

So it depends on the RP. After all, even the Aztecs killed a lot of Spaniards with their bone tipped arrows before smallpox and gunpowder destroyed their empire.
Krioval
22-06-2005, 07:45
I play exclusively FT, and almost exclusively on II, and I have yet to get into a war. In terms of my nation's setup, diplomacy and trade are on par with military, and there's an ethos that stipulates efficiency and honor are the best ways to deal with conflict, often meaning that military intervention isn't the right way to go. Krioval also trades with MT nations - they've certainly got resources (like food) that would be less efficient for Krioval to produce, and Krioval has entire sectors of its economy geared toward producing MT-ish objects at far greater speed and volume than most MT nations could do themselves. Supply, meet demand. I think it helps that Krioval is mostly centered on (NS) Earth.
Vastiva
22-06-2005, 07:53
(I became a GM of such a RPG back in the early days of the Internet when pretty much everybody was on dialup. With 14.4 k modems.) That's my right to do so.

OOC: Whippersnapper... the first modem I owned was 1200 baud, the first I used was <800 baud. You think you had to wait for pages to load! HA! Heck, my first computer didn't have a screen, it hooked up to the television and was still grey and white...

[/hijack]
Der Angst
22-06-2005, 09:32
FT players, the majority at least, RP in a ridiculous style drawn straight from television. The basic method for every encounter is as follows: something happens. Fleet appears. Fleet shoots at what happens.Yes, that hurts. Mind, it isn't too different from MT 'My fleet is near your waters!' things.

Incidentally, yes, the lack of originality hurts as well. Too much SW >.< *Hides his canon B5/ Trek puppets under a big carpet*

A large number of FT players apparently have no concept of politics. Of any sort. Everything is either good or evil, and so must be RPed in a flamboyantly stereotypical way. I blame Star Wars for that, myself, but whatever. Some MT players share this bizarre trait, but the ratio is nowhere near as enormous. But even in MT some degree of diplomacy exists. In FT land, diplomacy involves making a fleet appear from nowhere right by whatever's going on at the time, and then shooting at it after a brief "my ship's bigger than yours" conversation.This is, essentialy, wrong. 1. It appears in every level of the technology scale, and 2.

I (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423574)
can (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378974)
provide (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416534)
examples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420427)
proving (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418128)
the (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378700)
opposite (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394936)

There are two different (for lack of a better word) 'factions' in NS. The FT players generally stick to the NS forum, where gameplay is more about the actual story not so much war and 'winning'. The MT players stick to II, where gameplay is more about 'winning', and who's stats are closest to real life.This is, essentially, wrong.

Modern Technology dominated threads on the first NS page:

Example 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=274848)
Example 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354264)
Example 3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416709)
Example 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427057)
Example 5 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424681)
Example 6 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423799)
Example 7 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412542)

And this is leaving out a variety of Mixed Technology threads (Starlight Starbright, North of the Equator).

Now... Decidedly futuristic threads in II... First page only.

Example 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426519)
Example 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425090)
Example 3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427423)
Example 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422493)
Example 5 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423761)
Example 6 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427414)
Example 7 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426918)

Really, statistics kinda disprove you.

Watch star wars: ROTJ and watch the endor(Ewoks) fights specifically, little furry critters beat high tech(previously mentioned ubertech) through tactics, skill and hefty dose of really big rocks and primitive weapons, it can be doneI wouldn't accept the idea of being beaten by Ewoks with my 1000 B.C. Phoenician puppet, yet alone with my ultrawank nations... NS != George Lucas' wet dreams.

1) The FT nations are too powerful, and would just go around destroying the MT nations.Hrm. *Looks at his variety of wanktech nations* No, no they don't. In fact, I happen to have (Had, darn civil war) rather nice releations with some of them.

2) They would screw up the MT setting. The MT nations would jsut buy FT off of the FT nations to get an edge, and then everyone would do it, and then MT would jsut become FT.If this was true, I would have bought invincible 'You need to fire at me for an quarter of an hour, and if its the entire energy of the universe, or my shields wont break' Xanthalian ships & Suncrushing novabombs (I have neither shields nor planet, yet alone sunkilling stuff. Well, not with DA <.<). I would have FTL that lets me travel to another galactic supercluster within a month. However, I don't have FTL, despite a variety of allies having it.

Why?

Because I have a set scenario of the techbase I want to operate with (Because I, well, like it). This changes over time, sure. But I will acquire exactly what I want to acquire, because it fits my internal scenario. I will not acquire anything else, no matter if I could acquire it or not. Why? Because I simply don't want it, oocly.

And when I can oocly decide to ignore the proliferation possibility, why aren't you capable of doing the same while recognising the existence of techwank nations like, well, me?

Nuclear missiles wouldnt do anything to an FT ships. They would hit the shields and explode (as in combust) or they would be destroyed by point defence cannons.
Well, there are those of us who don't have shields (Me). There are those of us who recognise that several megatons worth of Gamma Radiation tend to do rather serious damage (Me).

Admittedly, yes, getting past the point defence would be kinda hard, and I wouldn't be particularly worried about the fairness of having holes in it when the opponent fields godlike CIWS in his/ her MT fleet...

Why is it impractical? The ship has a reactor that can (presumably) keep the weapons firing as long as it is functional. It can just sit there until it annihilates the MT nation. MT nations will just become colonies of FT nations and their ub3r pwnz0r tekz0rz.Why, then, didn't this happen to Gehenna Tartarus, Lavenrunz, me (Before I started up the space program), Vrak, GMC Military Arms, The most glorious Hack and others? All of them recognise rather wanky FT, none of them became colonies.

Oh, and while I'm at it, don't you have relations with Iuthia? *Checks Iuthia's embassy thread* Yes, yes you do. Iuthia has a spacefleet and FTL... Yet, you're not a colony.

And the FT stuff would have armour impenetrable to MT weaponary (and no obvious weak spots like tracks) and they would also be able to destroy anything the MT player tried to use in one shot. And they can do all this while moving at twice the speed. If they even bother to land, as discussed above.
Well... Mine isn't, and it has loads of weak spots. Admittedly, yes, a MT MBT would need to fire first or die, given that its armour would be kinda pointless against ma anti-tank guns...

An FT nation could easily use orbital bombardment to destroy the military of the defending nation and leave it with no ability to respond to an invasion. If energy weapons are used, then they could be used with reckless abandon on any target that presents itself.1. MOST weapons are energy weapons. Your MBT gun? Kinetic energy. Your RPG? Chemical energy.

2. I would oocly suggest a limited conflict scenario. Essentially: Neither nation fights for its survival, but only for a limited goal. This would justify some vague 'diplomatic concerns don't allow us to use orbit-to-ground warfare. As such, the deal would be that the MT opponent loses its orbital infrastructure (Everything satellite based), instantly. In turn, given that the spacedyships aren't used for anything BUT to shoot down everything that exceeds an altitude of 80 kilometers, the MT opponent gets a vast numerical superiority on the ground. Will (s)he manage 1: 1 casualities in numbers? Heck, no. Will (s)he manage 1: 1 casualities in monetary value? Possible. Has (s)he a chance to win a limited conflict over §non-life-thratening-issue? Hell, yes.

But about your orbital bombardment being impractical against mobile targets, that sounds like it's only your weapon systmes talking there. Mobile as in fighters? You're right. Tanks? a single shot from one of those "Uber-lasers" will take out several.There are those who happen to use some vaguely physics-resembling (Admittedly rather excessively techwanky) weapon systems which tend to be environment-specific. What's useful in space can be near-pointless in an atmosphere.

I'm one of them.
Hakurabi
22-06-2005, 11:52
Great. Now I feel absolutely miserable for allowing myself to fall into this 'show up for the fight' RP style. Oh well, I can change that.

At any rate, when in a militaristic RP, I tend to adjust the available forces to correspond to slightly less than the strength of my opponent, often clumping them into individual 'chess piece' type units.

For instance, when The Cassiopeia Galaxy 'invaded' with an impossibly large ship (500-600 thousand times the size of an ISD), I designed a superheavy rail gun that could be employed against extremely large vessels. As a precaution, said cannon was worthless in targeting anything smaller than a super star-destroyer.

But I digress - FT can be RP'd with MT if it is story-driven, and not warfare driven. Even if warfare driven, you could disable enough of your FT gear to make it plausible. Say having an ubertank that was damaged enough in landing that say its shields are weakened, and are penetrable with enough force. Or even make them totally useless!

At any rate, RP'ing is done by mutual consent, and it is possible for two tech-levels to coexist in a quasi-planned RP.
Automagfreek
22-06-2005, 13:51
This is, essentially, wrong.

Modern Technology dominated threads on the first NS page:

Now... Decidedly futuristic threads in II... First page only.

Really, statistics kinda disprove you.



*sigh*

Look at your source. Threads from the first pages of each forum. Perhaps at that time there just happened to be more MT threads in NS and more FT threads in II? I would certainly be interested to see if this is a constant trend, or if it just so happened that you looked at the first pages of each forum at the right time.

Perhaps you should do some more research before 'proving me wrong'. Here is a list of what threads were on the first page of each forum, with the exception of OOC threads.

Future Tech thread in NS

Example 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426415)
Example 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425868)
Example 3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419353)

Modern Tech threads in NS

Example 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427057)

Sports related threads in NS seemed to be the most dominant.

Example 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425626)
Example 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288854)
Example 3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425732)
Example 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=293066)
Example 5 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425643)
Example 6 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427231)
Example 7 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427228)

Modern Tech threads in II

Example 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=421541)
Example 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408008)
Example 3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423179)
Example 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423500)
Example 5 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427053)
Example 6 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350449)

Future Tech threads in II
Example 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425090)
Example 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427429)

Now see, I could say 'really, statistics kinda disprove you', as you did, but that would be ignorant of me because these 'statistics' you refer to change every time you refresh the page. According to my "findings", NS is a 'sports thread dominant' forum.
The Eastern-Coalition
22-06-2005, 13:53
This is, essentialy, wrong. 1. It appears in every level of the technology scale, and 2.

I (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423574)
can (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378974)
provide (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416534)
examples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420427)
proving (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418128)
the (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378700)
opposite (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394936)

This is, essentially, wrong.

If you look up a little, you'll notice where this thread resides. Then notice where all those threads reside, and explain to me how those prove anything other than the fact that the attitude in a completely different forum is, unsurprisingly, completely different?
Tekania
22-06-2005, 14:50
Armor on FT ships are suited mostly for energy absorbtion (surprise, most FT'ers deal with energy based weapons, kenetic weapons are in short order in the FT world, and so little is done (past shield technology) to handle such.

(Note an asteroid impacting with the equivalent force of a 5 megaton nuclear bomb obliterated an ISD's conning tower.... The Sovereign-Class Ent-E took massive damage from impacting with another vessel, with no shields). Most FT hulls in the ST/SW/B5/BSG universes are designed against sheer forces in accelleration and maneuvers; and not against kenetic impacts. (There are exceptions in some genres).

The one point of order are shield technologies. But each has its own weakness.

Particle Shielding:

PArticle shields are designed to deflect high-velocity projectiles. They are uselsss against energy attacks (Ion, EMP, Phaser, Laser, Turbolaser, Blaster, etc.) because the relatively "weak" shield is not designed for those effects (proximity nukes will not be stopped by particle shields).

Ray Shielding:

Ray shielding is much more energy intensive. And does not completely envelope most craft where it is used. It must be properly "aimed" to deflect energy based attacks. This provides another weakness. Disguised ordinacy designed to deliver energy as opposed to concusive force, could bypass an unaware foe using such a system.

Phase Shielding/Gravimetric Shielding:

These are all encompassing. Providing protection against both energy and kenetic weapons. They also are energy intensive (to maintain in battle) as the emitters for the system take the load of a weapon... This energy is then used in two forms, dependent upon configuration, absorbtion shields channel the energy back through the emitters to recharge the shields (Drawback, overload on the shield will blow emitters, causing the entire system to drop); the other is deflection; which dissipates energy from impacts of both weapon types around the shield and back into space... The emitters take the load in dissipation, causing a drop in shield effectiveness comparible to impact energy; and then recharge from the ships own systems. These won't particularly "overload" easily (as with absorbtion type phase shields). But overload will "drain" the system, requiring either a time out for recharge; or a drop of the system and restart: Both types, however, are suseptible to "phased" mass attacks. If weapons are attuned to the phase of the shields, they will pass right through them (Such was designed to allow kenetic and energy weapons from own-ship to fire "through" the shield while it is up....) and thus is exploitable as a weakness in the system.

Particle shields, and weak gravimetric (deflector shields) are used by these craft in normal operation. The hulls cannot withstand much impact force on most FT vessels, and this these "screens" are used forward of the vessel, to protect against normal spatial material found while these vessels cut through space at their relatively fast sublight speeds (and in certain types of FTL (Warp Drive).
Dostanuot Loj
22-06-2005, 15:45
To jump in after reading the first page. (After that you guys seem to be repeating yourselves or something, lol.)

I play strictly as MT, as in I will not even recognise ETC weaponry as a viable weapon unless the person RPing it can RP good with it, and understand that it's still just a kenetic weapon.
In this sense, I pretty much ignore most FT/PMT.. and heck, even a ton of MT. But I don't ignore all. It depends entirely on who is RPing. So far the only FT nation I have RPed with, or continue to claim relations with ICly (Although it hasn't really been needed) is the Gaian Ascendency.
I don;t mind RPing MT mix with FT, when I'm in the mood to do it. But I'm usually in NS for the military aspect.
Don't get me wrong, I love character RPing diplomacy, it's alot of fun. But I find physically organising and deploying my forces, and "devloping" my weapons technology much more fun.
I'm here to RP with what I hope is a specific idea of what the world could be like, and I prefer to do it with people who don't seem to think "theory" and "laboratory testing" equates to "we can do it now".
I'm happy to make allowances on "not so modern" technology. Like how most of my armoured vehicles that most people use steel or something, are made of equally strong composites (But I RP a nation with virtually no strong metals, so it's safe to assume they'd try and devlope something as a substitute.) Or my wonderful YF-100 Glaive interceptor that can somehow go into space, match speed with the X-15, and turn almost as good as the F-22.

It's down to the individuals in the thread, not nessicarily the technology. This rule applies for me, to all tech levels. Which is why I'm not often around in II, I just don't want to deal with a majority of the people.
Praetonia
22-06-2005, 18:44
I had a massive post typed with loads of responces, but honestly I just cant be bothered any more. Have fun with your random mesh world. I dont think it'll work, but I honestly dont ahve the time or the patience to put up with a lot of pedantic crap that keeps coming up in these arguments. THis is nothing against Tekania or indeed anyone in specific or even this particular argument. I've just had too many of these OOC arguments which (inexplicably) attract dozens of NS goers who dont seem to even understand II. That and they always seem to raise my blood pressure. I have better ways to waste my time.

*wanders back to real life*

[/rant]
Shazbotdom
22-06-2005, 19:01
TO ALL

It depends on what time of day you get on. Some times i see MT dominating the 1st page of II while other times of the day i see FT dominating the 1st page of II. So it's not just "MT Dominates II, FT Dominates Nationstates".





Just pointing something out.....
Mini Miehm
22-06-2005, 19:13
The nuclear missile would only damage the ship if it exploded beyond the shields, and even then it wouldnt do much damage. The actual "fireball" isnt very big, and nuclear bombs IRL explode above the surface of the earth (several miles) and most of the damage is caused by the resulting huge overpressure of air that crushes everything in its path. Obviously this doesnt work in space. And EMP would be rendered useless by the ship's shields. The only way any weapon can cause any damage to a ship with shields is if it breeches the shields and impacts upon the hull.


An FT nation could easily use orbital bombardment to destroy the military of the defending nation and leave it with no ability to respond to an invasion. If energy weapons are used, then they could be used with reckless abandon on any target that presents itself.


It may not be needed, but people are always looking for an "edge", and they would easily be able to get one by buying tech off of FT nations which Im sure they would be happy to provide. Once one nation has the tech, the others have to as well or they cant keep up.


External emmitters... underneath the tank. I dont see how this would be vulnerable. Armour on an FT vehicle would be much stronger, and practically immune to MT rounds. In MT NS HEAT rounds are already obselete. With FT "adamantiwankz0rzmadeuparmourium" KE would be equally useless. And the whole POINT of a hover craft / other such thing is that it's more mobile. In fact, you'd go faster as there is no need for suspension, and there is no friction, even assuming that you didnt have better engine tech from being FT (which you would).


It is a point, and quite independent of the possibility (wait, did I say that? I meant certainty) that the FT player would blow away all opposition (which they would, unless they were deliberately downgrading their stats, which is just silly). I'm really not interested in RPing in a world with loads of random spaceships and uber hover tankz. I want to RP in a world with tanks and ships and HUMANS, which most MT players also want to do which is why they RP MT and ignore FT.


The nuke still hurts the shields, and when the shields are down you can crush a ship with contact nukes, and, contrary to popular belief, space is full of gases, not air, but gases nonetheless, which means shockwaves still happen.

Enmergy weapons are generally inefficient outside a certain range, because they loses energy toanything they come into contact with, like the atmosphere, or anything else, which means they have issues with long range engagements.

I don't care about tech sales.

If the emitters are underneath the hover vehicle, then they can be damaged with mines or other explosives, they're still vulnerable, they can be killed.

I always RP realistically, if you target my walkers joints then you can kill my walkers, if you target my tanks after armor, then the tanks can be killed, if you detonate something beneath my hover units they can be destroyed, or at least crippled.
Majeristan
22-06-2005, 20:10
OOC: Whippersnapper... the first modem I owned was 1200 baud, the first I used was <800 baud. You think you had to wait for pages to load! HA! Heck, my first computer didn't have a screen, it hooked up to the television and was still grey and white...

[/hijack]OOC: I remember my first computer was an Adam. Got it back in the seventh grade. The only thing I used it for was computer games and I couldn't type for [...].

The point of my tirade was that I've played FT before, a long time ago, and I made a conscious decision to play MT this time around. I could play FT if I wanted and I still hold out the right to decide to play it, but right now, I would prefer to stay in my PMT world.
Colerica
22-06-2005, 20:14
That's why I like to incorporate sci-fi and modern into my nation. For example: I'm involved in a new story arc regarding the Sith, but my soldiers all are still humans, they still fire M-16's/M-4's/XM-8's, still drive modern MBT's, still fly modern fighters, and still command modern naval vessels. I strive to reach a nice balance between modern and futuristic.
Crimmond
22-06-2005, 21:09
That's why I like to incorporate sci-fi and modern into my nation. For example: I'm involved in a new story arc regarding the Sith, but my soldiers all are still humans, they still fire M-16's/M-4's/XM-8's, still drive modern MBT's, still fly modern fighters, and still command modern naval vessels. I strive to reach a nice balance between modern and futuristic.
I do the same. I call it the 'Starship Troopers' approach. Starships, hovercraft, etc, but still using good ole' gunpowder and metal to mow down the enemy.
Pantera
23-06-2005, 00:50
I haven't read every post in this thread, nor do I plan to. I will, however, explain my own reasons for steering clear of FT:

My own nation, Pantera, is slightly post-modern tech. Meaning I still use the familiar fighter aircrat, Carriers, Tanks, and infantry, though they are ALL slightly tweaked. My AtmosFighters are modified to skip along at the highest possible altitudes, in near-zero atmosphere. This is mostly for my own peace of mind when I write, but in a head-to head fight, they're really just slightly tweaked Aircraft. My carrier and warships have my own Seawall chainguns and the Fog o' Flak cannons, which are only slightly modified versions of existing RL tech.

The furthest I've strayed from MT is my Silksteel alloys, straight out of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Though it may sound uber, in the end, it's only a prop for my roleplaying. I'll take appropriate losses, and I'll deal out appropriate damage, after all, most modern-tech nations are.... modern tech. We have common ground, so godmodding will be immediately snatched and discarded.

With Future Tech, there is no such common ground. The fantastic nature of the technology means that there is no modifier, here. Who is to say that your uber-lazer-of-f'ing-DOOM won't sear my front-lines? Who is to say that your killer SwarmFighters won't completely annihilate my own air sqadrons?

Self moderation may be possible, here, but in 9 out of 10 situations, the RP will degenerate into "Well, my fighters are obviously superior to your own, seeing as I'm 1000 years ahead of your times, and have cocksmokium crystals powering ALL of my craft."

The only thing that will make your own things superior to my own is for them to be proven in RP. I don't think it's too big of a boast to say that my own Reavers are feared, or at least known as mighty, the world over, but not because of some fancy weapons or armor. Not because 'mY tekk is teh ub0r shyt, butt Ur 0Wn iz lakkyng'. It's because I've been in the thick of the shit a dozen times with a dozen enemy nations, and I've consistantly came out on top, and I didn't do it through massive FT armadas or gargantuan MT alliances.
Crimmond
23-06-2005, 01:29
*golf clap* Very nice Pants.
Der Angst
23-06-2005, 10:26
Now see, I could say 'really, statistics kinda disprove you', as you did, but that would be ignorant of me because these 'statistics' you refer to change every time you refresh the page. According to my "findings", NS is a 'sports thread dominant' forum.Well, the thing is... Given that sports is indeed entirely concentrated on NS, and given that it is indeed both, popular and rather active, it wouldn't be entirely incorrect. Not [i9dominated[/i], but mst certainly the primary source.

As for your statistical sample, I would guess that one could, ah... Mix the two, which would result in *checks* a vaguely similar distribution.

If you look up a little, you'll notice where this thread resides. Then notice where all those threads reside, and explain to me how those prove anything other than the fact that the attitude in a completely different forum is, unsurprisingly, completely different?And given that I'm active in either one, this is absolutely irrelevant for me.

Incidentally, given that you're not nailed to II, neither is it for you.

And FINALLY, nowhere in your post did you mention a specific subforum.

*Also w00ts Praetonia failing to address a single one of his points*
The Eastern-Coalition
23-06-2005, 11:25
And given that I'm active in either one, this is absolutely irrelevant for me.

Incidentally, given that you're not nailed to II, neither is it for you.

And FINALLY, nowhere in your post did you mention a specific subforum.

*Also w00ts Praetonia failing to address a single one of his points*

It's entirely relevant to you if you're going to be posting in this thread. The very first sentence in the original post was "I'm seeing this a lot in II". Therefore, this isn't a discussion about NS and so citing examples from there is what is actually 'irrelevant'.
Praetonia
23-06-2005, 11:47
Angst, I've had it arguing with you. If I wanted, I could reply to each of them (and some of them are downright silly). And then you'd reply to each of mine. And then I'd counter reply etc etc. And what is the point? None. It's just frustrating. Bye.
Der Angst
23-06-2005, 11:50
It's entirely relevant to you if you're going to be posting in this thread. The very first sentence in the original post was "I'm seeing this a lot in II". Therefore, this isn't a discussion about NS and so citing examples from there is what is actually 'irrelevant'.!= 'This addresses only II'.

I was providing examples of threads were it didn't happen. You can access the forum this examples were in, given that it belongs to the game you're playing.

If you're incapable of eitherenforcing a more sane style in wherever you're posting in (I manage it with casual ease) or posting in different forums (I manage it with casual ease), then, well... You can't be helped.
Der Angst
23-06-2005, 11:53
Angst, I've had it arguing with you. If I wanted, I could reply to each of them (and some of them are downright silly). And then you'd reply to each of mine. And then I'd counter reply etc etc. And what is the point? None. It's just frustrating. Bye.It's frustrating to admit that you're having diplomatic relations with a rather futuristic nation (Aforementioned Iuthia) without suffering any of the negative effects you're fearing, thus effectively disproving any and all of your points all by yourself?

... Well, understandable I guess.
The Eastern-Coalition
23-06-2005, 11:58
!= 'This addresses only II'.

I was providing examples of threads were it didn't happen. You can access the forum this examples were in, given that it belongs to the game you're playing.

If you're incapable of eitherenforcing a more sane style in wherever you're posting in (I manage it with casual ease) or posting in different forums (I manage it with casual ease), then, well... You can't be helped.

Oh, I could provide examples of where it didn't happen. I could provide examples of completely different games where it didn't happen. Why didn't I, then? That would be completely off-topic! I may as well provide examples of people swearing in a public place, as that would be just as relevant.

As for me joining NS? I'm surely not worthy of breathing the same air as NSers. I think I'll just steer clear of this entire game as I have been doing, thanks.