NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it just me, or do a lot of FT nations have ships that are insanely huge and impossibly armed? I have tried to be on the more sane side of vessel design, trying to match such ships as those in Freespace 2, I-War (Independence War), etc. And I try to stay away from having nothing but an entire fleet of 6 km long super battleships. Or 150 m ships that have more weapons than the Death Star.

Am I the only one or are there more like me out there?

DO info. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8381392#post8381392)

If people go overboard on ships, weapons and their sizes and if they are a young nation more so, then you must insist upon a few trade offs in RP's.

For example if they have their big ship at the front, keep a small task force there out of range, and then send most of you fleet to hit their undefended outposts. Who said you ever had to engage a big ship?

They can't be too fast, have a large ammount of consumables, and are rather vulnerable from the back :)

The more bigt ships you have the lower the small ships you build. They must be upkept.

I myself am the NS player with the Death Star, though I also have an entire NS alliance supporting it with me. Would I ever send the Death Star out on a whim... No not really, firstly it's a plot device unless my situation is drastic, secondly to launch it and have it in service requires a lot.

It's crew is over one million, weapons and supplies are just insane, supporting fleet needs to be huge, and it drains assets away from softer targets. I like to keep my big stuff in orbit of important worlds unless something important comes up.

If people go overboard on ships, weapons and their sizes and if they are a young nation more so, then you must insist upon a few trade offs in RP's.

For example if they have their big ship at the front, keep a small task force there out of range, and then send most of you fleet to hit their undefended outposts. Who said you ever had to engage a big ship?

They can't be too fast, have a large ammount of consumables, and are rather vulnerable from the back :)

The more bigt ships you have the lower the small ships you build. They must be upkept.

I myself am the NS player with the Death Star, though I also have an entire NS alliance supporting it with me. Would I ever send the Death Star out on a whim... No not really, firstly it's a plot device unless my situation is drastic, secondly to launch it and have it in service requires a lot.

It's crew is over one million, weapons and supplies are just insane, supporting fleet needs to be huge, and it drains assets away from softer targets. I like to keep my big stuff in orbit of important worlds unless something important comes up.

I've seen you around/read you enough that I recognize the legitimacy of your space force... as I've seen you build up your alliances so the combined resources allows you to build and upkeep large numbers of star destroyer like vessels... so you're fine by my standards.

I just wish people would play a little more realistic... that is all.

Well, I think the crews should be cut down, since most of the ship might be automated.

I keep my biggest ships closing to my worlds that way logistics won't be a problem.

I don't see anything wrong with having the odd large ship, for prestige purposes if nothing else. Some of them do get a little ridiculous though (I remember the brief time when Hataria tried to enter FT with a ship the size of a red giant star, which made me chuckle). The larger ones are probably best left as plot devices rather than mainstream ships, if only to keep the fun-factor alive.

Closest thing UFIP has to that size is a 6km tall starbase, and that thing can hold twenty-odd of their largest starships in its main hangar. Granted, I have shamelessly pilfered everything from ST TMP era, although I had to uprate them a fair bit to prevent them from being uncompetitive in NS (which is a shame, 'cause I wanted to keep 'em canon, but that's life really, and it's not really noticeable).

It's not just you. In fact, it's a good idea to, if you're starting an RP, to put up an OOC thing saying "no giant fleets puhleeze". Otherwise there's a rather large chance of you getting slapped in the face with one by a nation for which such a giant fleet makes no sense. Now, I get why the Galactic Empire has a giant fleet. I understand why the various nations bent on intergalactic genocide have giant fleets. What I don't understand are the rather baseline nations of rather baseline humans having the same.

Now, a giant fleet alone isn't bad. But a giant fleet full of bigass ships (as in, ones that are >200 meters), is. Add on that "great armor/shielding and wapooons" and you have a winner of the "oh God, I forgot to add that OOC addy saying no giant fleets, didn't I?" award. It'll be even worse if the person in question claims that this giant fleet is just a small part of their entire armada. :eek:

I myself try to keep it somewhat believable. My entire space force is just shy of 20 ships (the principle being that 2-3 are built a year), and only four are large (3000 ft long). The rest are cruisers/destroyers and corvettes. As for tech., the weapons are near-FT, rail guns, linear cannons etc. The only exception is the large particle cannon in my ships.

To a certain extent, it does depend on the nation's history. A loyal colony of a much larger nation will probably be able to call in a couple of huge ships with decent weaponry for major emergencies, as might part of a dissolved union (Take a look at the former Soviet countries, half of them have got nukes despite none of the needed production facilities or nuclear programs.)

I agree with DO. When ever I RP with a FT nation, I try to stick to more realistic sizes, usally based on Star Trek or Star Wars designs. I mean, lets face it. A fleet of 300m long, advanced, powerfull cruisers can easily take out a big, cumbersome vessel. Granted, not all super-sized ships are easy targets, and not all smaller ships are better. My bigest issue with FT ships is that everyone I would encounter has a massive fleet of super-advanced ships that can do anything. undetectable, defended against any kind of weapon, faster than any other, and bigger then hell. As I always say to George Lucas, "Can you back up your so-called 'science' with real facts?" Now, I understand RP'ing as an alien race means you can't use real science, as a degree of fantasy is required. But still, try to be a little realistic. I RP'ed with a guy who said his ship had, "ten shields raised around it's thickly armored hull. Three stolen Xanthalian triple shields and a hull hugging last resort shield. The two main magnetic cannons, which could fire anything from millions of bowling ball sized spheres to slugs the size of houses. The ship showed more of it's uniqueness... a hundred different weapons of half a dozen designs and species started firing. Missiles, plasma, Atlantean phasers, smaller magnetic cannons and the starboard mag-cannon". Call me crazy, but this sounds like a little much...

This conversation is not new to Future Tech, I think one of the biggest problems is the unrealistic time frame for damages taken to ones standing fleet. It is very necessery to take into account that when a Star Destroyer is lost, it is going to take quite some time to replace. I would like to see this reflected in RP's more than the realistic ship design.

How can wars be won if both sides have infinite units? Smaller nations in NS FT are at a disadvantage, they can be crushed by the big boys because of the difference in ship numbers. Which sadly is why some nations resort to wank rather than diplomacy and forming alliance to aide their cause in a more realistic pattern.

The larger nations in FT will normally have better designs for their vessels than the smaller nations, quite simply because we have gone through more RP's on these forums.

We know what to expect, we know what wank to face.

I myself use canon Star Wars vessels most of the time. I like the size and firepower and I think they are more than a match for really any other vessel out there.

But if someone were to come to me and insist that his ten layers of shielding means he wins all the time, then I would promptly fit my turbolasers with shells that do damage in the tetra gigaton range.

Guess I'll be open about it. I have developed a series of destroyers, or more exactly, battlecruisers, which sacrifice having some massive caliber gauss cannons for instead having lots of 120mm gauss cannons, and equally sacrifices a single much more powerful particle beam for several with the same damage capability, and also they sacrifice having any flight wing for carrying other ships to be able to carry a considerable amount of launch cells for several types of missiles and additional fusion reactors. However there are no more than five of them and the largest is 800 meters long. The fleet I have available, not counting spaceplanes and boarding ships, despite the fact of total automation of menial labor and industrial processes and of the fact that they extract metal and thermal power right from their planet mantle by digging some really deep boreholes, is of 5 battlecruisers, 14 cruisers, 12 frigates and 55 corvettes. I don't have space fighters as large as WWI fighter planes which seem to be in a "WW2 in space" because in a realistic FT they would be completely useless.

Finally, I decided to provide measures of the amount of damage each weapon can provoke in joules or tons depending of the type of weapon, using as basis the available data on the already designed weapons power of an open-source game called VegaStrike, where 500 MJ/sec weapons for smaller vessels and relativistic particle beams do exist, provided they have enough power to support firing them for more than a few times per minute without losing all the power from their capacitors.

http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/Weapons:Beam

But if someone were to come to me and insist that his ten layers of shielding means he wins all the time, then I would promptly fit my turbolasers with shells that do damage in the tetra gigaton range.

I agree. I'm trying to use my own designs, but i base my technology on canon trek, wars, halo, etc.

What I don't understand are the rather baseline nations of rather baseline humans having the same.

To defend themselves against the Galactic Empire and the various nations bent on intergalactic genocide, perhaps? :p

Size (of ships) matters not. I mean it's not like someone will go "Shit. My cruiser is 120 meters long and yours is 121, I lose!"

At least I hope not.

I think general power levels (power and energy) matter more. Looking around at Star Trek, Star Wars and Babylon 5 I notice that ST has the lowest levels of power (something like a few MW for a ship phaser), Babylon 5 higher (on the order of a few to a few hundred TW) and Star Wars just ridiculously high powered (troop transports with defense guns in the PW range...).

Weapons powers (at least with beam weapons) can be a rough indicator of general tech level.

But even so, it's still not like anyone is going to say "Shit. My cruiser has only 250 MW of total power compared to your cruiser's 251 MW... I lose, again!"

Back before I gave up on posting due to lack of replies, the largest ship in my fleet was 7km, and was essentially the product of an entire world dedicating its resources to military production. Minus the odd 1-2km long carrier and most of the other ships I maintained were in the 250-500m range, and degeneracy reactors for all!
Though I'm no ship designer. I probably over/underloaded them in terms of weapons/fighters, but meh.
I thought it was pretty good for being based on an anime :P

Size (of ships) matters not. I mean it's not like someone will go "Shit. My cruiser is 120 meters long and yours is 121, I lose!"

At least I hope not.

I think general power levels (power and energy) matter more. Looking around at Star Trek, Star Wars and Babylon 5 I notice that ST has the lowest levels of power (something like a few MW for a ship phaser), Babylon 5 higher (on the order of a few to a few hundred TW) and Star Wars just ridiculously high powered (troop transports with defense guns in the PW range...).

Weapons powers (at least with beam weapons) can be a rough indicator of general tech level.

But even so, it's still not like anyone is going to say "Shit. My cruiser has only 250 MW of total power compared to your cruiser's 251 MW... I lose, again!"

I agree. Although, power is still not the deciding factor. ST phasers may have less power then others, but they are much more precise weapons, where a turbolaser, with many times the energy, shoots uncontrolled bolts. I'm not trying to start a trek-vs-wars thing here. just pointing out that it can be dificult to compare different universes tech to each other...

To defend themselves against the Galactic Empire and the various nations bent on intergalactic genocide, perhaps? :p

You make it sound like a bad thing :D

Generally for ship power and toughness I use the rule 1000 per billion population, with lower ship numbers = better quality, and higher = lesser quality. People can try to technobabble their way into higher abilities, but generally I ignore that in favor of the rule.

If you have a population of 8 billion but only 20 ships, those will be some tough ships, if you have 100 million population, and 1000 ships, I do not care about your tachyon pulse laser of deflector dish doom, it is a card board cut out.

But over all, the battles between nations should always be about the plot of the story. People should desire what is the best story, not how bad can I OMG PWN you.

My ships tend to be massive because everyone else has done so. My ships use a combination of Star Trek and Star Wars technology.

I would like to keep ship sizes small but that rarely happens.

Mine are showy and intimidating and I like it, even if they might not have the best weapons, they get the job done. Honestly I prefer a good ground war to space combat...

Size (of ships) matters not. I mean it's not like someone will go "Shit. My cruiser is 120 meters long and yours is 121, I lose!"

This is closer to what I was thinking: "Shit. My cruiser is 200 meters long and yours is 2 kilometers and I have a hundred of mine and you have 500 of yours!"

WITHOUT much difference in nation size or even RPd size.

In NS FT, you need to apply some suspension of disbelief for things to work fine, but when people do crazy things like that, it breaks down. Badly.

I agree. Although, power is still not the deciding factor. ST phasers may have less power then others, but they are much more precise weapons, where a turbolaser, with many times the energy, shoots uncontrolled bolts. I'm not trying to start a trek-vs-wars thing here. just pointing out that it can be dificult to compare different universes tech to each other...

It can be difficult to be specific, but energy production is a key indicator for general technological levels. I wasn't even thinking but now I remember about the Kardashev scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) which basically claims the same thing (and also cultural predictions? which I would be disregard as unquantifiable).

And yes, plz no STvsSW!

This is closer to what I was thinking: "Shit. My cruiser is 200 meters long and yours is 2 kilometers and I have a hundred of mine and you have 500 of yours!"

WITHOUT much difference in nation size or even RPd size.

In NS FT, you need to apply some suspension of disbelief for things to work fine, but when people do crazy things like that, it breaks down. Badly.

Which is why, IMO, the '1000 ships per million people is sort of silly to me.
I'm at almost 10,000,000,000 people now. Which means I COULD, theoretically, claim 10,000 capital ships.
Seems kinda silly, considering I only have three planets, one of which is only inhabited because of a massive need for resources due to an invasion of kilometer star-eating bugs from space.
Even fitting that many ships in a single system would be no fun at all :P

Good, at least there are a few like me around... but it seems the big problem then that the majority of the FT playing population is going overboard on their ships... We should encourage them to be more reasonable by not enlarging our own vessels to compete. Perhaps even confronting them directly about it and giving helpful suggestions.

Well, my Navy is about 5,000 ships in total, including Battleships, Battlecruisers, Cruisers and Destroyers. Of that number, most of them patrol a DMZ with an NPC Empire that I created. The most ships I can place into one battle zone is about 500.

I agree. Although, power is still not the deciding factor. ST phasers may have less power then others, but they are much more precise weapons, where a turbolaser, with many times the energy, shoots uncontrolled bolts. I'm not trying to start a trek-vs-wars thing here. just pointing out that it can be dificult to compare different universes tech to each other...

Apart from the fact that Star Trek Battleships dart about like fighters whereas ST Battleships are slow and sluggish.

Apart from the fact that Star Trek Battleships dart about like fighters whereas ST Battleships are slow and sluggish.

You mean SW Battleships.

You mean SW Battleships.

Yes I did Smartarse :p

You make it sound like a bad thing :D

It is. >_>;

Apart from the fact that Star Trek Battleships dart about like fighters whereas ST Battleships are slow and sluggish.

cause ST ships are much 'smaller'. ex, Enterprise-E is 700 meters long, while a Imperial-class Star Destroyer is 1,300 meters long, and much more bulkier. I'm am NOT doing a ST-vs-SW, here. Just cutung an example for my view that smaller, more manuverable ships, when controled corectly, can easily defeat a bigger, sluggish 'barge'. Similar to how Germany's fleet of small submarines in WW2 was just as deadly as Britain's fleet of powerfull battleships.

(side note: I compare ST to SW because I really don't know much about other SciFI universes' ships...)

Well some people have massively insanely armed ships just because of their Nation's history and situation. Like myself and Chron our techbase is centered around somewhat slower heavily armored and armed battleships. Weapons like Nova Cannons and Lance batteries are often not in short supply but there is also a very wide variance in battleships. They focus around getting in close to use the multitudes of weapons batteries that dot the surface of the vessels. This all stems from our canon where our forces have been embroiled in war for millions of years against all manner of threats. So mighty battleships were constructed that may not be able to match most in speed but they are able to surpass most faster ships in armor and sheer firepower. There are tradeoffs that are done like US said. Also with our tech base we have the price that very little innovation is achieved for our technology because current technology is considered a holy relic.

Generally for ship power and toughness I use the rule 1000 per billion population, with lower ship numbers = better quality, and higher = lesser quality. People can try to technobabble their way into higher abilities, but generally I ignore that in favor of the rule.

If you have a population of 8 billion but only 20 ships, those will be some tough ships, if you have 100 million population, and 1000 ships, I do not care about your tachyon pulse laser of deflector dish doom, it is a card board cut out.

But over all, the battles between nations should always be about the plot of the story. People should desire what is the best story, not how bad can I OMG PWN you.

That 'rule' is complete nonsense. China has a population of over a billion, whereas the United States has a population of roughly 350 million. China's bluewater navy (if you could even call it that) is much smaller, and yet the ships they do have are pretty crap in comparison.

The capabilities of starships are based on political motivations, economic ability, and yes, technology level of the people building them. One ten billion nation might be able to build more ships of higher capabilities than another ten billion nation if their economy and political situation allows them to do so.

Apart from the fact that Star Trek Battleships dart about like fighters whereas ST Battleships are slow and sluggish.

Only in the post-Roddenberry series, where they were dumbed-down anyway.

That 'rule' is complete nonsense. China has a population of over a billion, whereas the United States has a population of roughly 350 million. China's bluewater navy (if you could even call it that) is much smaller, and yet the ships they do have are pretty crap in comparison.

The capabilities of starships are based on political motivations, economic ability, and yes, technology level of the people building them. One ten billion nation might be able to build more ships of higher capabilities than another ten billion nation if their economy and political situation allows them to do so.



Only in the post-Roddenberry series, where they were dumbed-down anyway.

Maybe, but it seems to be the standard FT rule used by most nations on NS, at least the ones that I know of, unless the story itself dictates otherwise. It does help to keep down the wank, which can go easily unchecked by (insert non-sense technobable here)

Maybe, but it seems to be the standard FT rule used by most nations on NS, at least the ones that I know of, unless the story itself dictates otherwise. It does help to keep down the wank, which can go easily unchecked by (insert non-sense technobable here)

Really it just tips the balance one way or the other, depending on which way you look at it. On the one hand you get a ten billion nation claiming to have fifty ships, just one of which can single-handedly annihilate entire enemy fleets. On other, you get somebody claiming to have twenty thousand ships which routinely outnumber anybody they come across. A lot of people seem to go for both approaches at the same time though.

The one and only way to eliminate 'wank' (I really wish there was a different word to use for that!) in roleplay stories is through OOC cooperation and respect. There's no need for daft rules when you achieve that. And without that cooperation and respect, those daft rules won't work anyway.

I too agree the 'rule' is a good general guidline for most nations to base their fleets off of. However you're also dealing with political and economical motivations in this equation I'm roughly a 6 billion nation so if I have 6000 ships that are around a 100 to 200 meters that that's all I can have? See you also have to base things off of the size of the ships. It's just that so much goes into the development and design of a fleet you can't use just one piddly rule to base that off of. For instance my nation is a WH40K IoM nation and I utilize a fleet of 8000 naval vessels. This is because I remember when Chronosia was my size he used that same number so I felt it was a solid number to go off of for quite some time. I also feel that since the primary focus of the culture and economy is wars and crusade short of the Mechanicum which falls under a different culture that it was an appropriate solution. Also my standing ground forces is a slightly larger percentage since that is what the culture is geared towards. My military also draws from modified criminals and handicapped individuals modified with bionics and surgeries.

Basically in essence what I am saying is you can't judge a book by it's cover if you want a concrete 'rule' to RP with it should be discussed and a set of 'rules' or guidelines should be discussed in depth. Because you have to look at this from the way Nationstates was meant to be looked at by political, cultural, and economical standpoints. In FT this takes a far greater deal of time and examination because we aren't set in the past or the present but rather in the future when any multitudes of cultural changes and differences could exist throughout the stars.

Really it just tips the balance one way or the other, depending on which way you look at it. On the one hand you get a ten billion nation claiming to have fifty ships, just one of which can single-handedly annihilate entire enemy fleets. On other, you get somebody claiming to have twenty thousand ships which routinely outnumber anybody they come across. A lot of people seem to go for both approaches at the same time though.

The one and only way to eliminate 'wank' (I really wish there was a different word to use for that!) in roleplay stories is through OOC cooperation and respect. There's no need for daft rules when you achieve that. And without that cooperation and respect, those daft rules won't work anyway.

That I completely agree with, and for open threads is what the rule is generally applied to. Respect is needed for a great story, and the story should be the only real reason to RP. When it comes to closed stories, where each nation over MSN or other methods talks about everything then as always things change and the guide line is not needed.

True but unless it is a case of all out war that rule shouldn't matter much because in reality no nation will ever deploy their entire fleet for one endeavor outside an invasion.

I too agree the 'rule' is a good general guidline for most nations to base their fleets off of. However you're also dealing with political and economical motivations in this equation I'm roughly a 6 billion nation so if I have 6000 ships that are around a 100 to 200 meters that that's all I can have? See you also have to base things off of the size of the ships. It's just that so much goes into the development and design of a fleet you can't use just one piddly rule to base that off of. For instance my nation is a WH40K IoM nation and I utilize a fleet of 8000 naval vessels. This is because I remember when Chronosia was my size he used that same number so I felt it was a solid number to go off of for quite some time. I also feel that since the primary focus of the culture and economy is wars and crusade short of the Mechanicum which falls under a different culture that it was an appropriate solution. Also my standing ground forces is a slightly larger percentage since that is what the culture is geared towards. My military also draws from modified criminals and handicapped individuals modified with bionics and surgeries.

Basically in essence what I am saying is you can't judge a book by it's cover if you want a concrete 'rule' to RP with it should be discussed and a set of 'rules' or guidelines should be discussed in depth. Because you have to look at this from the way Nationstates was meant to be looked at by political, cultural, and economical standpoints. In FT this takes a far greater deal of time and examination because we aren't set in the past or the present but rather in the future when any multitudes of cultural changes and differences could exist throughout the stars.

No "rule" is set in stone in a free style RP. FOr instance if we were to RP some thread, I would like to talk to you OOCly first and dicuss everything from tech, to policy etc... Hopefully a comprimise would be reached and then we could have fun, thus eliminating the need for the guide line. Really it is a blanket platform to use when OOC talks are not available for any given reason, but again nothing is set in stone.

I have a FT population of 8 billion, but only 6% of that are humans, the rest are aliens.....The number of my ships are less then a thousand.

I base my navy off of the Hiigaran Navy from the Homeworld 2 mod "Homeworld PDS". These ships are designed by relative pros when it comes to maintaining realism in a sci-fi environment.

What many players tend to forget is that every ship has to be built, crewed, and maintained. Warships on active duty require massive amounts of resources just for keeping them at peak efficiency and combat readiness.

Having said that, I have taken into account that a lot of NS II FT roleplayers use Star Wars tech or some variation thereof. Knowing that, I have purposely tweaked the canon technology of Homeworld PDS to suit my own needs. I incorporate real-world concepts and fringe experiments that, surprisingly, tend to have attributes superior to your average handwavium. Example - my aggregated carbon diamond nanorod armor, also known as ring carbon and "carbonan", is a real life experimental material which, should it be successful, will have outstanding properties. It is estimated that one centimeter of ring carbon armor will be roughly equivalent of 100,000 centimeters of Rolled Homogenous Armor. I combine this with an adaptation of Silicone-Impregnated Reusable Ceramic Ablators, a real-world material that is used on newer atmospheric re-entry vehicles, to provide very advanced passive protection against both ballistic and energy attacks.

However, due to my nation's relatively paranoid nature, they try to engage at long range. Bombardment cannons, my rail-accelerated proton-antiproton annihilation missiles, are meant to be launched from across the system at the enemy, along with barrages of standard, low detectibility solid-core railgun slugs. They do this because, due to their extensive protection, all capital ships are very, very slow. Feazanthian capital ships simply lack the acceleration and maneuverability to engage in close quarters.

Just remember to build weaknesses into your ships, and you'll be fine.

I forgot to mention that my cloaking technology I grabbed from Star Trek (pre-Nemesis) and armor technology from Homeworld/2... so the techno babble comes directly from the text in the show/game.

As for the population, I only play the population of my nation on nationstates... so I have a population similar to Earth's at the moment... so I would assume I could create about as many ships as currently exist on earth, if not more so.

That 'rule' is complete nonsense. China has a population of over a billion, whereas the United States has a population of roughly 350 million. China's bluewater navy (if you could even call it that) is much smaller, and yet the ships they do have are pretty crap in comparison.

Yes, but this is Nationstates. For the selfsame reasons that larger nations are automatically considered more powerful in modern tech, they're considered more powerful in future tech. Everyone's the USA when it comes to their navy.

While there are "realistic" considerations, it's a nice rule of thumb which prevents spacedy battle degenerating into all-out numberwanks, like they did oh-so-routinely back in '03-'04. Because, when you get right down to it, if I decide my population are god-men who can transform matter and energy with their very minds, I can then decide that my fleet is going to vastly outclass your puny human fleets.

Which means everyone decides to wank as much as possible in order to not be seen as weak, which is no fun for anyone. Of course, the rule can be shrugged by mutual agreement of all participants, in order to make RP better, which happens as often as not. But, without it, we'd descend into even smaller cliques than we already form.

That 'rule' is complete nonsense. China has a population of over a billion, whereas the United States has a population of roughly 350 million. China's bluewater navy (if you could even call it that) is much smaller, and yet the ships they do have are pretty crap in comparison.

The capabilities of starships are based on political motivations, economic ability, and yes, technology level of the people building them. One ten billion nation might be able to build more ships of higher capabilities than another ten billion nation if their economy and political situation allows them to do so.
However, assuming all things are equal (tech level, economic power, etc), the 1000 per billion rule (well, guideline) works reasonably well. After all, you can spend ten million dollars and get an Abrams, or you can spend ten thousand and get a pick-up with a machine gun bolted to the bed. After all, most (well, a very large portion) of players are going to have Frightening economies, 100% tax rates, and a 50% or higher military budget. Therefore, it really just comes down to how much money you're throwing into each ship, which is what the 1000 ship rule tries to show.

Also, the technology level thing tends to be a bit difficult to work with. For example, countries such as 3rd Spanish States and his FT branch (which I don't recall) play very hard FT, taking into account delta-V, acceleration limits, etc. This is fine, but when they choose to RP with someone like, say, me (Type 2.x civilization with in-depth knowledge of gravitics, inertial dampeners, matter to energy conversion, and cheap transmutation of elements, along with virtually instantaneous FTL), it tends to just not work. Heck, even you, with your exawatt phasers (which is kinda silly in my opinion, especially given your reactor tech, but hey, do what you want) would wipe the floor with him but be utterly annihilated by my technology. This would seem to rule out even considering RPing with one another. The above rule provides at least some method of providing some sort of common ground without people simply devolving into stat wank.

However, assuming all things are equal (tech level, economic power, etc), the 1000 per billion rule (well, guideline) works reasonably well. After all, you can spend ten million dollars and get an Abrams, or you can spend ten thousand and get a pick-up with a machine gun bolted to the bed. After all, most (well, a very large portion) of players are going to have Frightening economies, 100% tax rates, and a 50% or higher military budget. Therefore, it really just comes down to how much money you're throwing into each ship, which is what the 1000 ship rule tries to show.

We can hardly talk about realism and then proclaim most nations to have frightening economies AND 100% tax rates in the same sentence, but that's a matter of game mechanics more than anything else.

Also, the technology level thing tends to be a bit difficult to work with. For example, countries such as 3rd Spanish States and his FT branch (which I don't recall) play very hard FT, taking into account delta-V, acceleration limits, etc. This is fine, but when they choose to RP with someone like, say, me (Type 2.x civilization with in-depth knowledge of gravitics, inertial dampeners, matter to energy conversion, and cheap transmutation of elements, along with virtually instantaneous FTL), it tends to just not work. Heck, even you, with your exawatt phasers (which is kinda silly in my opinion, especially given your reactor tech, but hey, do what you want) would wipe the floor with him but be utterly annihilated by my technology. This would seem to rule out even considering RPing with one another. The above rule provides at least some method of providing some sort of common ground without people simply devolving into stat wank.

And this is exactly why OOC cooperation and respect is required, not pointless arbitrary rules that can't be enforced. Otherwise you get situations where people will proclaim exawatt phasers (petawatt phasers, actually, they'd only deliver exawatts if they all fired simultaneously) to be 'kinda silly' whilst uttering in the same breath that they would be utterly annihilated by their own technology. Statistics are meaningless, factbooks are just fun to write and offer some degree of reference material.

When you join a roleplay, you scale the technology level of the nation involved to comply with the circumstances. Exawatts, yottatons, megabananas etc have no relevance, partly because phasers don't exist anyway, but mainly because only the story matters and the fantastical technology is just a setting for that story. If the story requires a starship to be overpowered and boarded, it will be overpowered and boarded, regardless of what statistics are placed in a factbook of either nation. Else, you're doing nothing more than playing a game of numbers, and I got bored with mathematics shortly after I finished school (well, long before actually, my maths teachers all hated me). Have you ever read a good story where, instead of characterisation and descriptive narrative, the principle manners of storytelling are detailed technological analyses and spreadsheets listing how many watts of firepower are exchanged?

I can't recall one...

And this is exactly why OOC cooperation and respect is required, not pointless arbitrary rules that can't be enforced. Otherwise you get situations where people will proclaim exawatt phasers (petawatt phasers, actually, they'd only deliver exawatts if they all fired simultaneously)

Wait, what theoretical reason would there be for exawatt lasers to be impossible?

And yes OOC cooperation and respect are good things. So are internal consistency and plausibility.

When you join a roleplay, you scale the technology level of the nation involved to comply with the circumstances.

No I don't. That simply makes no sense to do. Ever read a good story where the character kept changing height and weight based on the height and weight of people he encounters? Me neither.

My nation is my character.

I simply wouldn't bring it into RP's where it wouldn't fit.

Exawatts, yottatons, megabananas etc have no relevance, partly because phasers don't exist anyway, but mainly because only the story matters and the fantastical technology is just a setting for that story.

"Just a setting." When did setting become suddenly unimportant? Particularly in sci-fi?

Setting is a fundamental part of "story," so I see no reason to skimp over it and shrug and say, "Watts, shmotts!" other than pure intellectual laziness and sloppiness. It's the same with any kind of writing.

If I wanted a story where the setting is unimportant I definitely wouldn't set it in a futuristic space opera universe.

Have you ever read a good story where, instead of characterisation and descriptive narrative, the principle manners of storytelling are detailed technological analyses and spreadsheets listing how many watts of firepower are exchanged?

I can't recall one...

Why do you assume having the supposedly meaningless statistics automatically means that roleplaying consists of spreadsheets?

The statistics are there as a setting reference, in the same way that Tolkien's maps are there as references. (Do note that Tolkien's books do not consist of detailed map analyses and spreadsheets listing how many miles it is from each place to the other.)

Wait, what theoretical reason would there be for exawatt lasers to be impossible?

And yes OOC cooperation and respect are good things. So are internal consistency and plausibility.

I never said anything about them being impossible...

No I don't. That simply makes no sense to do. Ever read a good story where the character kept changing height and weight based on the height and weight of people he encounters? Me neither.

My nation is my character.

I simply wouldn't bring it into RP's where it wouldn't fit.

By Otagia's reasoning, then, that would be most of them! Flexibility is key. If we were writing a straight and clean cut novel this wouldn't even be an issue, but NS is more like collaborative story writing (with the exception of those members who are out to 'win', whatever that means). This kind of inflexibility is exactly what causes most FT roleplays (and MT ones for that matter) to either fade into inconclusive nothingness or devolve into OOC bickering.

You don't have to change the character of your nation, just recognise that 'heavy weapons cause heavy damage, light weapons cause light damage' where appropriate, if you catch my drift. Perhaps it would be better if I made no attempt to assign arbitrary figures to any of UFIP's ships, like most seem to do, then there'd be no inconsistency involved. Then, I've got no problem at all with being flexible when appropriate.

"Just a setting." When did setting become suddenly unimportant? Particularly in sci-fi?

Setting is a fundamental part of "story," so I see no reason to skimp over it and shrug and say, "Watts, shmotts!" other than pure intellectual laziness and sloppiness. It's the same with any kind of writing.

If I wanted a story where the setting is unimportant I definitely wouldn't set it in a futuristic space opera universe.

Putting words into my mouth and calling me intellectually lazy and sloppy! That's the respect thing gone too, I guess. I never said it was 'unimportant'. You don't write a story about the setting, though, you write a story in a setting. A lot of stories could be set anywhere and remain fundamentally similar, science fiction just opens up more plot options. Just look at Star Wars - it could just as easily have been written in a classical fantasy setting as it could in a science fiction setting, without too many changes being required to the overall plot. A setting without a plot is a useless thing indeed, on the other hand.

Kinda like a kettle. The kettle is required for any cup of tea, but the water boiling inside is what you're really interested in, 'cause when it's all over and the thing starts to whistle, it's not the kettle that you drink. Perhaps it could be handy to go over the technical blueprints of the kettle, but at the end of the day I'm not bothered how it works, just so long as it's there to boil my water for me.

Why do you assume having the supposedly meaningless statistics automatically means that roleplaying consists of spreadsheets?

The statistics are there as a setting reference, in the same way that Tolkien's maps are there as references. (Do note that Tolkien's books do not consist of detailed map analyses and spreadsheets listing how many miles it is from each place to the other.)

Because that's exactly what you often see in RPs by those players who place too much emphasis on how uber their technology is. No characters, or at least none that have any 'soul' to them, and endless lists of how many ships they have and how much damage they should be doing to their 'weaker' opponent.

I don't understand the techno babble that you two are using... I don't put wattage in my weapons... I just assume my weapons are what they are story wise. For all intensive purposes... if my ships fight against other ships of relatively close technologies (it helps when they use game or TV show tech), I will assume that they are pretty even and the rp will show that. I prefer fights with even technologies, just because you can rp the fights better (and longer). It is more fun for two ships to slug it out then one ship to utter destroy the other while sustaining almost no damage... unless again, it makes the story better.

EDIT - All I show is the basics of a ship... not how powerful it truly is. Its power is determined by the rp it is in.

I don't understand the techno babble that you two are using... I don't put wattage in my weapons... I just assume my weapons are what they are story wise. For all intensive purposes... if my ships fight against other ships of relatively close technologies (it helps when they use game or TV show tech), I will assume that they are pretty even and the rp will show that. I prefer fights with even technologies, just because you can rp the fights better (and longer). It is more fun for two ships to slug it out then one ship to utter destroy the other while sustaining almost no damage... unless again, it makes the story better.

EDIT - All I show is the basics of a ship... not how powerful it truly is. Its power is determined by the rp it is in.

Thanks, that's what I'm trying to say in my round-about kind of way.

Interstellar Planets, I'm not entirely sure if you're operating under the same definition of the rule we all play. Although "one thousand ships per billion people" is what it's most commonly referred to, at heart, it boils down to this.

In future tech, a two billion nation is twice as powerful as a one billion one, provided neither player feels like stepping down their power. A ten billion nation is five times as powerful as a ten billion one. You are, by no means, required to have a thousand ships per billion people. You can have ten, or ten million. It's just there to indicate that, like in modern tech, population is the primary measure of power.

Of course, there are people who don't play by these rules - they seem to be pointless arbitrary rules to them, and therefore, they disregard them. The rules can't be enforced, except through who you choose to roleplay with. The vast majority of FT roleplayers subscribe to the 1000-ship per billion rule, and thus, if you choose to disregard the population setting for power, you place yourself outside of roleplaying with the majority of FT roleplayers. Because, really, even godmodding is an arbitrary rule. It can't be enforced - threads aren't closed for godmodding. The only way rules are enforced in roleplay is with the acceptance of those rules by the players.

And, since the majority of players accept the population = power version of things, it's considered a rule.

When you get right down to it, you're arguing against a position that simply doesn't exist. I'm a fairly high-tech nation, but others, like, say, Kanuckistan, could demolish me with little to no effort technology-wise. He's also taken damage from kiloton-level weapons to his major spaceships in RPs where that was all his opponents are fielding.

Nobody advocates a game of numbers - rather, being elitist bastards who secretly despite anyone who joined the game after '04, we use the rule to enforce our own power and keep the little man DOWN!

Well, shit. That secret's out.

In all seriousness, though, the rule exists because it regulates roleplay fairly well. When I join a thread with ten other people in it, it gives me a standard that I can measure myself against. It means everyone has a relative idea of where, militarily speaking, they stand, even if it's not perfectly fair. It also means that massive haggling over power isn't necessary - if we removed the billion/thousand ship rule, there'd be no basis for interaction between nations. You'd probably only play with a scant few people you knew well and felt that you could agree with.

In the same manner, Trostia and Otagia are arguing against a position that isn't really there. You seem to think that they're advocating stat-driven RP, and they seem to think you're advocating the abolishment of any numbers, whether they be lengths, populations, or power outputs, from RP. Of course, neither of those are true.

Trostia, when Interstellar Planets talks about scaling technology, he doesn't mean it in the manner that you change what your ships are, fundamentally. You just change the way they interact with others. In the same way that, in an RP, if your character is a ninja with five hundred different kinds of martial prowess and an equal number of goodlooking and deadly hairstyles, and their character is just a bog-standard human with a sword, and the entire RP is a fight...

You don't have the ninja cause the normal guy to spontaneously combust in the first two seconds. That's fucking boring. Rather, you just tone him down - he's still a kickarse ninja, he just doesn't decapitate the man with his eyebrows, instead, he has actual trouble fighting him. Thus, instead of one post where you teleport above him and summon dragons of molten lava to crush his bones into nothing, and then a massive OOC bitchfest which lasts the rest of the thread, you end up with a nice thread.


Draconic Order, your thread's been hijacked by a FT argument. Congratulations. You're now officially part of the continuum.

Also, just so I'm offering usable advice to everyone, here's something you can take away and use for the rest of your FT days.

The anime ninja rule. It's quite simple. The more ninjas that are onscreen, the easier they are to kill. Therefore, a nation with five thousand five kilometre ships has five thousand five kilometre cardboard ships. Another nation, the same size, with a hundred fifty metre ships, has ships that are more akin to avenging gods of doom and fire than they are to mere spaceships. Per cubic metre, that is.

So, if someone keeps pulling ships out of their butt, keep reminding yourself that, no matter how many ninjas are onscreen, they're still the same strength. A thousand ninjas are the same as one.

Nice little explanation.

True about the numbers and strength of individual ships. Personally speaking, I never battle with more than two dozen ships of which half will be battleships. I could, if forced, field more but then RPing is lost amongst the numbers as you try to explain what's happening across the board. Smaller numbers of ships are better as you can RP the battle between them and not just give a general description of the battle.

Maybe some people prefer to do it that way. I don't.

I have a couple of FT Nations...

Mainly The Garbage Men and Nova Bazalonia.

I don't like "wars", why? because they lose the soul of RPing, which is collaborative story telling. But Skirmishers and other "small group" interactions/battles are fine.

Because there the emphasis is totally different...

As far as plausibilty and internal consistency... somethings with a proper set up can be just totally ignored.

For example with TGM, Despite all being apart of one corporation, managers and supervisors run their own "divisions" or "offices" "Labour Units" whatever you want to call them, as their own personal fiefdoms. One group is totally seperate from the other and one does not talk to the other. Of course as long as the upper bosses are kept happy. The various bosses can do whatever the heck they like.

As for HT's anime ninja rule, I love it...
Large amounts of people/ships generally mean less trained.

This is also known as the Stormtrooper Effect, I believe.

Ninja effect sounds cooler though! Good posting HT.

Also, the technology level thing tends to be a bit difficult to work with. For example, countries such as 3rd Spanish States and his FT branch (which I don't recall) play very hard FT, taking into account delta-V, acceleration limits, etc. This is fine, but when they choose to RP with someone like, say, me (Type 2.x civilization with in-depth knowledge of gravitics, inertial dampeners, matter to energy conversion, and cheap transmutation of elements, along with virtually instantaneous FTL), it tends to just not work.

Third Spanish States(MT/EPMT, 2018-2050), Third Commune(PMT, 2050-2120), Solar Communes(FT, 2120 - 2180s)

I RP it as being in the 2180s(or in 2170s) for now, although a major storyline will push it into 2500 later... and I mean really later(2 billion inhabitants OOC NS population)

Solar Communes is a Type I.x civilization, basically they can tap more than the power of an entire planet, but less than the entire power of a sun. They dig some really deep boreholes for that that go straight to the mantle of their more hospitable planet, Gliese 581d while gas giant mining of Gliese 581b powers fusion reactors.

Regarding the ninja rule, I prefer the previously agreed upon roleplay over it. And consider Solar Communes existing in a parallel universe were most FTL travel doesn't work(and those which does are ridiculously dangerous and limited to a few points where the fabric of space is torn apart with a parallel universe of chaos), FT gravitics makes as much sense as the 1800s ether and where 10g is the maximum theoretical limit of acceleration a starship could achieve. Also regarding protection, if your entire fleet armed with energy weapons, you would be hard pressed to get some coilguns because their armor technology is optimized against directed-energy weapons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_energy_weapon#Tactical_considerations_.26_problems)

About these rules, I know they might be a tad restrictive should you decide for a reason to get into their solar system. but it's the only way to ensure a chance besides wanking.

Yes, but previously agreed upon RPs are boring. I don't want to know who wins beforehand, I don't want to have to decide before the RP starts what will happen. I follow the one thousand per billion rule, and I just don't feel like thinking about 5,000 ships, so I have 1,000 very large, more powerful ships. This way, I have 7 ships, and I can still compete with the nearby lunatic that brings in 50 ships for no reason.

I never said anything about them being impossible...

You certainly seemed to imply that it was, as if there is something inherently different about exawatt lasers than petawatt lasers. Oh well.

By Otagia's reasoning, then, that would be most of them!

Indeed, and that's why I don't RP in *most* threads or situations. Works well for me; least retconning, fewest OOC arguments, fewest silliness with Jedis flying in on Borg cubes.

Flexibility is key. If we were writing a straight and clean cut novel this wouldn't even be an issue, but NS is more like collaborative story writing (with the exception of those members who are out to 'win', whatever that means). This kind of inflexibility is exactly what causes most FT roleplays (and MT ones for that matter) to either fade into inconclusive nothingness or devolve into OOC bickering.

No, most roleplays fade into such because of inherent and unresolvable player differences and thematic/conceptual differences between states/civilizations/universes/whatever.

I agree that roleplaying is a lot like collaborative story writing, but it isn't the same thing, and not just because of powergamers. It's because you and I are not simply taking roles as storytellers, we are playing the roles of specific characters as well, characters often in conflict.

Ideally no one would care. Ideally everyone would lose often in wars, because losing wars are interesting stories. But, because of the nature of roleplaying, we have to consider what the character would do and are no longer impartial observers but invested participants who choose sides.

And if you don't think you're choosing sides, just imagine what would be required for you to be cool with another nation totally destroying yours. I mean wiping it out. All the people and culture and such. You'd kinda want to protect that, right? So you could keep playing? Sure, the ending might be dramatic, but then it's all over.

Putting words into my mouth and calling me intellectually lazy and sloppy! That's the respect thing gone too, I guess.

I didn't call you anything. Calm down and look at what I said without searching for personal insults that aren't there.

Trust me, you can ask the mods on this one, when I do flame people I don't usually make a secret of it. ;)

I never said it was 'unimportant'. You don't write a story about the setting, though, you write a story in a setting. A lot of stories could be set anywhere and remain fundamentally similar, science fiction just opens up more plot options. Just look at Star Wars - it could just as easily have been written in a classical fantasy setting as it could in a science fiction setting, without too many changes being required to the overall plot.

Just the name, the setting, the dialogue, most of the plot, the entire atmosphere of it all....

Star Wars would not be Star Wars if it was set in 19th century France. You could say the plot is similar, yes, but it is now fundamentally different (for example, it is no longer sci-fi).

Because that's exactly what you often see in RPs by those players who place too much emphasis on how uber their technology is. No characters, or at least none that have any 'soul' to them, and endless lists of how many ships they have and how much damage they should be doing to their 'weaker' opponent.

I've never seen one spreadsheet in one roleplay ever since I started with NS.

Character-less? Well, the only character everyone is truly guaranteed for is the NS itself, as a political/diplomatic entity in conflict with others. The NS is in fact the main character, the way I see it - everyone else is just along for the ride. I don't need to read about the character developments of ship captains every time I want an International Incident to roleplay. I'm fine with knowing nothing but what *happens.*

Trostia, when Interstellar Planets talks about scaling technology, he doesn't mean it in the manner that you change what your ships are, fundamentally. You just change the way they interact with others. In the same way that, in an RP, if your character is a ninja with five hundred different kinds of martial prowess and an equal number of goodlooking and deadly hairstyles, and their character is just a bog-standard human with a sword, and the entire RP is a fight...

You don't have the ninja cause the normal guy to spontaneously combust in the first two seconds. That's fucking boring. Rather, you just tone him down - he's still a kickarse ninja, he just doesn't decapitate the man with his eyebrows, instead, he has actual trouble fighting him. Thus, instead of one post where you teleport above him and summon dragons of molten lava to crush his bones into nothing, and then a massive OOC bitchfest which lasts the rest of the thread, you end up with a nice thread.


Why would I want to RP a fight with a ninja if my guy is just a bog-standard human in the first place?
Or vice versa?

To me that's just plain boring, no matter what.

And what you are talking about is toning down the effects the ninja has on others. But I don't control that part in RP - no one does, unless they are godmodding and insist on controlling others'. And toning down those effects is also not in my purview - all I can do is describe the ninja's attempts.

On the other hand, others could tone themselves UP. What's wrong with that? It bothers me because it leads to escalation, and yet I don't see anything fundamentally different between that and 'toning down' as it were.

I draw the line at this: If a ship is larger by a wide margin than a Super Star Destroyer (Executor-class) then its just stupid and made from cardboard.

I draw the line at this: If a ship is larger by a wide margin than a Super Star Destroyer (Executor-class) then its just stupid and made from cardboard.

Define wide margin. SSDs are 19 kilometers, my Superdreadnought is stated at 22 kilometers.

What I just love about FT, is how some nations are capable of instantly mobilizing and then instantly deploying 100% of what should be their navy in 6 different threads at once.

Yet somehow, that same navy is present in each thread, and fully capable of protecting tradelanes from pirates, and keeping the peace in sovereign territory..even thought it's all thousands of lightyears away.

Way to have "sensors" that pick up data before the light/EM signatures/wtf has even reached your vessel..

Mine are showy and intimidating and I like it, even if they might not have the best weapons, they get the job done. Honestly I prefer a good ground war to space combat...

I have to give an Amen to that. Ground combat allows considerably more fleshing out of characters and lets personal struggles and mental challenges enter a story much easier. It turns a general description into an actual plot, along with subplots and structure. The best FT isn't always about how your things perform; it's how the story runs its course.

Agree with Trailers, as well. However, I'm gonna admit that that's virtually impossible to police, unless someone is monitering every thread a player's in.

Thrashia - I'd say that's a little too drastic. Large ships can provide an intimidation edge as well, making that a psychological weapon. Sure, they're bigger targets, but also they can have their uses. Granted, you don't want a ton of those - that's a waste of resources when you can build a smaller ship for the same or better efficiency - but they have their purposes. Consider what's inside the ship, not just the exterior.

Regarding Numbers vs. Fleet Size - I'm flexible with it, pretty much, as long as a player can detail enough about his ships/fleet/etc. Not a huge deal to me if a smaller nation happens to have some more ships come in that are still tough - there's always imagination to make up for what may be statistical disadvantage. If it helps the story out, which is what's primarily important in NS, than it's workable - and beneficial.

The big space ship debate has been going on forever. The way I see it is that you'll need massive warships if your plan on waging war over interstellar distances. With most typical FTL, aside from Star Wars that is, you'll be spending a lot of time traveling from point A to point B.

For example if your nation using jump gates like in Babylon 5 or Heavy Gear, there is a lot of time spent traveling in system, as these vessels move slower than light when outside of Hyperspace/Tannhauser Anomaly.

Then you got your Star Trek type FTL, where you're moving pretty fast...just not all that fast.

Then there's your Star Wars, where you can cross the galaxy in a couple of days.

Now, "what does this all mean?" you ask?

Well, in my first example your warships will be spending a lot of time moving from place to place. So a warship would have to be pretty damn big. Why? Well it has to be able to carry a lot of supplies like troops, ammunition, food, spare parts, fuel, etc.

In Star Trek you got the same idea, except it's not as vital as you will have a fairly steady supply chain moving around relatively quickly, as compared to the first guys who would have to wait possibly a few months to get resupplied, thus meaning your ships can be smaller because you don't need as much cargo space.

And in Star Wars, well...they can get entire Armies onto planets in hours and keep supply ships moving in hourly. So I reckon your massive warships can be devoted to carrying suitably large weapons and bombs for killing.

Now, my FTL is based on the first example...And Sith is obviously the third.

My largest ship is 2.098km in length and is designed to fight far away from home base. Most of its size is devoted to carrying supplies for a protracted campaign far from home and resupply.

Sith's Star Destroyer doesn't have to worry about that so much, because if it starts to run out of ammo, fuel, etc, it just flies to the nearest star base, which is probably no more than a few hours away, and then flies back. Where as my ship would have to travel weeks or months to do the same.

And I forget what my point is...Oh, right.

So basically, what I'm saying is...if you follow the first example, if your ships are designed to go to other systems and start fights it'll probably be no match for a similarly sized vessel that is designed to sit in orbit of a planet and carry big guns...and why? Because more of its size can be devoted to carrying weapons, fighters, missiles and other such nasty devices, while your ship has half as much space for that because it needs to carry the necessities of life.

When you use Star Wars type technology...your ship doesn't really have that problem. When you're like Auman, you are actually constrained by the limitations of logistics. I reckon it's a play preference issue.

I think my rant is over now.

Good post, Auman, and good points. Logistics is a thing generally underrepresented in the FT world, and generally better drawn-out in MT and PMT. A lot of it can be attributed to what people use in their ships, or their various purposes - if a civilization sticks closer to home, ie, than they don't need larger supply caches aboard their ships. Additionally, if the crew is primarily droids, for instance, then they wouldn't need so many food and medical supplies.

You, my friend, just summed up what I had fumbled with in five paragraphs in just one.

How the hell did that happen...

Good post, Auman, and good points. Logistics is a thing generally underrepresented in the FT world, and generally better drawn-out in MT and PMT. A lot of it can be attributed to what people use in their ships, or their various purposes - if a civilization sticks closer to home, ie, than they don't need larger supply caches aboard their ships. Additionally, if the crew is primarily droids, for instance, then they wouldn't need so many food and medical supplies.

I use logistics... however, I usually set up a fleet staging point near the target system where the logistic ships can sit, and the rest of the fleet can jump to target. Only after the target system is clear, or my attacking fleet needs to retreat, do the support ships re-enter the equation. However, usually the guard is light, so a good commander can capitalize on the fact that he could strike the support fleet and cut off supply lines while my main fleet is engaging them somewhere else.

You know...

Not every ship has to carry tons of supplies for their crew when they leave home. You can have dedicated logistics vessels, basically freighters, and warships that have relatively little space for supplies. Just enough they'd survive X days without resupplying. Leaves a lot more space for ammunition, fighters and whatever on the ships that actually are meant to carry them.

And I mean you could bring the freighters with your fleet that just went through the jumpgate/whatever anomaly if you know where you're going. As a part of your fleet. Sure, freighters are vulnerable to attack, but so would be a giant ship with tons and tons of food/water/whatever on it with far less ammo and other equipment related to fighting when ships filled to the brim with ammo and other stuff show up.

And as a pointless side note, Babylon 5 is a bit of a bad example for the first FTL type since they have capital ships capable of opening their own jumpgates.

Before-post edit (how's that even possible!): And Draconic Order there went pretty close to what I was going to say. Bah, I still wanted to post this. :p

You know...

Not every ship has to carry tons of supplies for their crew when they leave home. You can have dedicated logistics vessels, basically freighters, and warships that have relatively little space for supplies. Just enough they'd survive X days without resupplying. Leaves a lot more space for ammunition, fighters and whatever on the ships that actually are meant to carry them.

And I mean you could bring the freighters with your fleet that just went through the jumpgate/whatever anomaly if you know where you're going. As a part of your fleet. Sure, freighters are vulnerable to attack, but so would be a giant ship with tons and tons of food/water/whatever on it with far less ammo and other equipment related to fighting when ships filled to the brim with ammo and other stuff show up.

And as a pointless side note, Babylon 5 is a bit of a bad example for the first FTL type since they have capital ships capable of opening their own jumpgates.

Before-post edit (how's that even possible!): And Draconic Order there went pretty close to what I was going to say. Bah, I still wanted to post this. :p


Halo's probaly a better example for the first type of FTL given long travel times of weeks or more to get across really small areas of space (for humanity, at least) - but that's me not knowing anything about Babylon 5.

As for logistics - freighters are always a thing you can carry around, but they become really attractive targets, forcing ships of the fleet with the freighters that accompany them to spend time and ordinance defending such ships. It's really where you want to split your benefits - do you want to split focus in carrying freighters, or sacrifice space by carrying supplies in warships? It's more of a style thing, as I see it. Additionally, using technology like a replicator from ST can reduce much of the consumables needed for carry. Also, taking supplies on planetary drops and runs can restock loads mid-mission for longer-term prospects, so that's a possibility as well.

Indeed, and that's why I don't RP in *most* threads or situations. Works well for me; least retconning, fewest OOC arguments, fewest silliness with Jedis flying in on Borg cubes.

Some of us RP a great deal in many threads and situations. Your conception of the game works only when you follow, well, your way of playing it. For those of us who are more active, failing to scale-down or up has a sharp tendency to force us into near-inactivity.



No, most roleplays fade into such because of inherent and unresolvable player differences and thematic/conceptual differences between states/civilizations/universes/whatever.

My bold, but, there's what the idea of scaling-up solves. We attempt to make sure there's as few of those unresolvable differences as possible.


On the other hand, others could tone themselves UP. What's wrong with that? It bothers me because it leads to escalation, and yet I don't see anything fundamentally different between that and 'toning down' as it were.

But it's not "toning up", or "toning down". It's "toning equal". The idea is that various nations are equal, except for the fact of their population. Therefore, the only assumption you're allowed to make is that you're equal on that ground. That assumption has kept me out of more FT arguments and saved more RPs than I've ever been in.

Some of us RP a great deal in many threads and situations. Your conception of the game works only when you follow, well, your way of playing it.

Well, you got me there, it does work for me.


My bold, but, there's what the idea of scaling-up solves. We attempt to make sure there's as few of those unresolvable differences as possible.

But it's a form of wank. It's "gosh, your ships are so much larger. Mine are now bigger so neither of us has to feel insecure." Why not just determine scale beforehand, and for example, not sending in the entire fleet all the time? Or not getting into RP's with civilizations orders of magnitude more powerful or, if so, not complaining when space battles are lopsided?

But it's not "toning up", or "toning down". It's "toning equal". The idea is that various nations are equal, except for the fact of their population.

But this is a patently absurd concept. ESPECIALLY in a futuristic setting that could span through thousands of years of technological development... suddenly everyone is equal no matter what? So like, if there was a futuristic equivalent of Europeans colonizing and invading a futuristic equivalent of the Americas, there'd be no futuristic equivalent of gunpowder weapons, steel armor and weapons, cavalry? No advantage to one side or the other?

Therefore, the only assumption you're allowed to make is that you're equal on that ground. That assumption has kept me out of more FT arguments and saved more RPs than I've ever been in.

It's like some sort of communism.

What I just love about FT, is how some nations are capable of instantly mobilizing and then instantly deploying 100% of what should be their navy in 6 different threads at once.

Yet somehow, that same navy is present in each thread, and fully capable of protecting tradelanes from pirates, and keeping the peace in sovereign territory..even thought it's all thousands of lightyears away.

Way to have "sensors" that pick up data before the light/EM signatures/wtf has even reached your vessel..

*nods head reverently*

Indeed. With the exception of when my home system was being attacked a hella long time ago, I've never used more than 10 to 40 ISDs in any one rp; and most times even less than 10.

Agree with Trailers, as well. However, I'm gonna admit that that's virtually impossible to police, unless someone is monitering every thread a player's in..

My point is, we shouldn't have to police that sort of thing. You need to be accountable to yourself. At the moment, 70% of my total navy is deployed along with most of the ESUS in an all out invasion of a canon Trek galaxy. All thats left is a skeletal protection, very few ground forces, and barely enough ships to patrol my borders. Trade lanes are pretty much wide open to piracy, and I wont magically warp in half a legion to deal with any unforseen home threats either. My navy stays where it is till the RP is done, or my forces are somehow routed, and even then I'll play it as taking IC months for my men to come home. Same way I don't rofl instant FTL all over the place. It should take days of hyperspace flight or whatever you use to get to a destination..

[/rant]

What's the general consensus on teleportation in FT? Couldn't that possibly be used to supply ships at long distance?

My point is, we shouldn't have to police that sort of thing. You need to be accountable to yourself. At the moment, 70% of my total navy is deployed along with most of the ESUS in an all out invasion of a canon Trek galaxy. All thats left is a skeletal protection, very few ground forces, and barely enough ships to patrol my borders. Trade lanes are pretty much wide open to piracy, and I wont magically warp in half a legion to deal with any unforseen home threats either. My navy stays where it is till the RP is done, or my forces are somehow routed, and even then I'll play it as taking IC months for my men to come home. Same way I don't rofl instant FTL all over the place. It should take days of hyperspace flight or whatever you use to get to a destination..

[/rant]

Yes, that's is something really problematic. Now regarding travel times I for example, once I decide it's the time for it, would end up with some "bizarre" sort of Far FT stuff. Basically something like massive ships which have two-digit or even three-digit kilometers long supercolliders capable of generating micro black holes in space which can destroy everything that is nearby them but require all the full power of the ship to be fired or something like that as a drawback(killing engines and shields temporarily) and kinetic-kill gauss cannons capable of firing solid core high density projectiles very close to the speed of light as primary weapons(which according to project rho (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#rbomb) makes them have the same potential damage capability as if they were made of antimatter) with precise calculations to have chances of hitting even the those ships which have 1600g acceleration, but which still cannot surpass the speed of light and thus will take years, decades, centuries or millennia depending on how far are their destinations.

You could fit a truly massive supercollider inside a decent ship if you used a double helix acceleration ladder..

But it's a form of wank. It's "gosh, your ships are so much larger. Mine are now bigger so neither of us has to feel insecure." Why not just determine scale beforehand, and for example, not sending in the entire fleet all the time? Or not getting into RP's with civilizations orders of magnitude more powerful or, if so, not complaining when space battles are lopsided?

It's as much wank as assuming your tanks are on par with the other guys, when you spend as much on them. And, again, you're misinterpreting what I say. Probably because you've got a silly idea of what I'm saying fixed in your head, and don't want to let go of it, which is what listening would require.

We don't magically scale up ship size. We magically match ship strength. Dimensions aren't changed, how the two ships interact is changed. The scaling doesn't mean that all ships are magically equal - the strength of my ships is just determined by population and number of ships, still. The basis for power is just your nation, not what awesomecool fleets you feel your nation should have.

But this is a patently absurd concept. ESPECIALLY in a futuristic setting that could span through thousands of years of technological development... suddenly everyone is equal no matter what? So like, if there was a futuristic equivalent of Europeans colonizing and invading a futuristic equivalent of the Americas, there'd be no futuristic equivalent of gunpowder weapons, steel armor and weapons, cavalry? No advantage to one side or the other?

Precisely. Because we have no realistic standard for deciding whether or not fantawanktronium is any better than omgwtfbbqlasers. If you assume that lolcatguns do the same damage as omgwtfbbqlasers to rolfcoptertronium, there's no arguments over who's wank is better. And, again, you've failed to read what other people (and myself), have said. You're not equal "no matter what". Equality is just there, barring any other agreement between the players. Equality is assumed unless some other form of mutual agreement on power stands between individuals. So, instead of Star Trek automatically losing to Star Wars, people can play using one tech or the other without being hopelessly outclassed (or easily winning) when they come up against each other.

It's like some sort of communism.

OMG WE ARE TEH COMMIES! RUN EVERYBUDDY!

I ten to balance things out when it comes to my uber-ships.

e.g. base-ships are the size of NYC and are impossibly armed (just like DO is complaining about), but in order to get anywhere, they need their own fleet of tugs. That, and they eat up so much money to maintain that only one or two ever exist in my fleet at a time.

Carriers and heavy cruisers are 5+ km long, pack insane firepower, but take a long-ass time to build and a loss of a single one could cripple my fleet.

I tend to not take the realistic approach and simply rely on pre-existing fiction to provide statistics for my vessels.

*snip*


OMG WE ARE TEH COMMIES! RUN EVERYBUDDY!

HT wins the argument.

Right. This far into the thread I probably can't say anything someone else hasn't already said, but here goes.
I'm not a big nation. 2 billion pop. From almost the very beginning (the "very beginning" was when I was trying to have a superbadass fleet that I thought everyone else had) I've had a fleet of roughly a hundred ships, not counting ships I've aquired though means other than construction and medical ships. This is a comfortable place. It means no huge RPG battles with thousands of ships, and everyone gets confused, and people start arguing and the whole thread gets kicked in the teeth. It means I have two, three ships at a place, and they do whatever the hell they need to do. Granted, there are times when one needs a certain amount of ones fleet out. I do not always adhere to my own rules. But generally I'd rather keep my ships close at hand, and in small but good quality numbers.
As to ships size, well, I've never really seen the point. Huge ships aren't that essential, unless you want to scare the crap out of your enemy. Generally a fleet of smaller ships can accomplish the same thing as a single larger ship, although this then decends into the argument HT was talking about, which I call "The Ninja Rule", being that, quote, the more ninjas there are on-screen, the easier they are to kill. One ship in one place is a lot more fun to RP than a hundred ships in one place.

To defend themselves against the Galactic Empire and the various nations bent on intergalactic genocide, perhaps? :p

They could always use the almighty Ignore Canon.

It's as much wank as assuming your tanks are on par with the other guys, when you spend as much on them.

Not at all. One can assume, in modern tech, that most tanks are roughly on par with one another. But in a timespan of much larger - the thousands of years included, potentially, in future tech - you have to look at the context. Technology. History. Because it's not all just conveniently in one time period and one setting, so describing that setting in more detail is in fact a necessity.

And, again, you're misinterpreting what I say. Probably because you've got a silly idea of what I'm saying fixed in your head, and don't want to let go of it, which is what listening would require.

...

We don't magically scale up ship size. We magically match ship strength.

Yeah, I get it. The unarmored aztec warrior suddenly is as strong in combat as an armored horseman with a gun. The 1940s style tank suddenly has a chance against an Abrams. No can do, doesn't make sense and loses plausibility.

Dimensions aren't changed, how the two ships interact is changed. The scaling doesn't mean that all ships are magically equal - the strength of my ships is just determined by population and number of ships, still.

by NS population?

The basis for power is just your nation, not what awesomecool fleets you feel your nation should have.

Yeah, but what fleets my nation DOES have is based on what I DO roleplay my nation to have. It's got very little to do with my nationstate because the nationstates game model does not model population growth at all realistically, and because it gives an unfair advantage simply to people who started playing the game earlier, and because a NS population wouldn't apply to giant futuristic space empires, particularly with different species etc.

That's why we were talking about making a story instead of, you know, number-wank.

Precisely. Because we have no realistic standard for deciding whether or not fantawanktronium is any better than omgwtfbbqlasers.

Energy, power, time, distance, mass. These provide a realistic standard even with fictional substances or technologies. A 500 MW fantawanktronium blaster is indeed more powerful than a 250 MW omgwtfbbqlaser, because this is literally true. But perhaps the latter has a greater range. The battle begins with the omgwtfbbqlasers opening fire as the two sides close in.

Setting can help fashion stories, and that is particularly true in military stories and in sci fi.

If you assume that lolcatguns do the same damage as omgwtfbbqlasers to rolfcoptertronium, there's no arguments over who's wank is better.

That works, for people who are willing to assume that. Of course people who are so willing to agree with your methods and such anyway, wouldn't be much of a source for player conflicts in the first place.

And, again, you've failed to read what other people (and myself), have said. You're not equal "no matter what". Equality is just there, barring any other agreement between the players. Equality is assumed unless some other form of mutual agreement on power stands between individuals.

So, instead of Star Trek automatically losing to Star Wars, people can play using one tech or the other without being hopelessly outclassed (or easily winning) when they come up against each other.

Heh, I guess coming up with their own tech that works for what they want and not getting into situations where they have to choose between altering their 'strength' (capabilities and nature) and losing is too advanced a concept. Oh well.

OMG WE ARE TEH COMMIES! RUN EVERYBUDDY!

Communism too seems to flout this arbitrary standard of equality (despite it really not making sense from any angle). It's nothing to run away from, just a sad bit of irrationality.

[QUOTE=Greater Trostia;13492615]
Energy, power, time, distance, mass. These provide a realistic standard even with fictional substances or technologies. A 500 MW fantawanktronium blaster is indeed more powerful than a 250 MW omgwtfbbqlaser, because this is literally true. But perhaps the latter has a greater range. The battle begins with the omgwtfbbqlasers opening fire as the two sides close in. QUOTE]

So, what you're saying is that instead of my ships being equal to yours, for the sake of simplicity, or following the 1k per/anime ninja rule, where in a single ship per million population is average, 5 ships per million population are below average, and 1 ship per 5 million is above average, we have to play the numbers game. So, instead of being able to look at a ratio of population to fleet size and compare the two, and then compare the two ratios to get an idea of power balance, I must accept that the player who uses Necrons can own everyone, that Star Wars oneshots Star Trek, and that B5 Sharlins can in turn oneshot an ISD. Rather than having a balanced playing field where "My five billion petawatt lasers shoot at you" is not countered by "My shields can absorb two hundred billion petawatts before taking damage." and ending in a stalemate where no one can hurt anyone. That's EXACTLY what happens. His name was Seaquest, look it up, learn from his mistakes and do not advocate his fallacy of numberwanking stats is better than numberwanking ships in total. They're both wrong, and that kind of bull headed ignorance and arrogance is why FT never goes anywhere.

Energy, power, time, distance, mass. These provide a realistic standard even with fictional substances or technologies. A 500 MW fantawanktronium blaster is indeed more powerful than a 250 MW omgwtfbbqlaser, because this is literally true. But perhaps the latter has a greater range. The battle begins with the omgwtfbbqlasers opening fire as the two sides close in. QUOTE]

So, what you're saying is that instead of my ships being equal to yours, for the sake of simplicity, or following the 1k per/anime ninja rule, where in a single ship per million population is average, 5 ships per million population are below average, and 1 ship per 5 million is above average, we have to play the numbers game.

Would you please re-read what you just wrote? You're saying I'm advocating a "numbers game," yet what you advocate is using a "rule" involving dividing my NS population by some arbitrary number based on an arbitrary number of ships per population. That's a number game!

In your game, having higher NS population meant better. In my game, having a higher power output meant having a higher power output. I think the latter is better since power is power across the universe, while fleet ratios to population is something that would have so many variables as to be essentially arbitrary. And I might add that not everyone RP's with their NS population, particularly in future tech where it again wouldn't be plausible.

So, instead of being able to look at a ratio of population to fleet size and compare the two, and then compare the two ratios to get an idea of power balance, I must accept that the player who uses Necrons can own everyone, that Star Wars oneshots Star Trek, and that B5 Sharlins can in turn oneshot an ISD.

If you're going to use a Sharlin from B5, you shouldn't complain if it is overshot by something else. Don't fight that something else if you can't stand the thought of losing. Or choose to modify your thing from the beginning so that it isn't a B5 Sharlin and can't be said, correctly, to have X capabilities and powers.

I think that's better than choosing a B5 Sharlin, but having it suddenly increase in strength if it happens to run across a Star Destroyer. Easier too. Just pick your stuff and stick with it.

Rather than having a balanced playing field where "My five billion petawatt lasers shoot at you" is not countered by "My shields can absorb two hundred billion petawatts before taking damage. and ending in a stalemate where no one can hurt anyone. That's EXACTLY what happens.

I send 500 ships, you send 50, yours are 10 times stronger if our populations are the same, so it ends in a stalemate because of OOC disagreement. On the other hand, if you know the general capabilities of one side and the other you can do some thinking and figure out who would win. It's really not that hard with some common sense.

As for a level playing field - there is nothing to prevent you from getting things to "hurt" people, if that's what you really want as a player. Similarly there is nothing to prevent you from simply avoiding situations where anything you create is 'destroyed.'

But in my mind, this NS - population limiting thing is not at ALL a level playing field. It's skewed heavily in favor of "old" NSers vs newbies.

His name was Seaquest, look it up, learn from his mistakes and do not advocate his fallacy of numberwanking stats is better than numberwanking ships in total. They're both wrong, and that kind of bull headed ignorance and arrogance is why FT never goes anywhere.

Use of numbers is not numberwanking. Ugh, you people are getting so sensitive.

Communism too seems to flout this arbitrary standard of equality (despite it really not making sense from any angle). It's nothing to run away from, just a sad bit of irrationality.

Actually, I just made fun of the fact that you compared freeform roleplay which has little or no bearing on people's lives to a totalitarian, oppressive ideology responsible for the deaths of millions. I'm guessing you also accuse the moderators of fascism when they decide to lock a thread?


Now. Your argument thus far stands that your fleet should be as powerful as the largest number of joules you can conjure up, that we should all have an extensive knowledge of spaceships, physics, and not only this, but the relative specifications of fictional ships in order to decide who out of any two players will win a given combat.

Also, apparently, you want to be an uberempire, and disregard those generally-accepted standards of NS population = power.

Y'know what? I'm cool with that. But at this point, your arguments are irreconcileable with mine - our viewpoints are based on different foundations, and thus there's never going to be an agreement here. Essentially speaking, you're advocating the "largest number I can dream up", or "Seaquest" model of future-tech, which has already been thoroughly reviled by the majority of players.

Mainly because what you advocate does lead to massive hateful bitchfests and OOC conflicts, in lieu of actual RP.

Now, my model ain't perfect. I'm not denying that. Mainly because, yes, it rewards the people who join earlier, and pegs power to an arbitrary number that has little to with how you RP. It also means that older players who are arseholes can help ruin the little guy's day, and that most brilliant five-million nation won't get the same level of respect as an equally brilliant five-billion nation.

On the upside, it works.

In the Dahanese Commonwealth, I roleplay politics and economy as being limiting factors in their production of a larger space fleet. At the moment, they are restricted to the handful of ships their member races managed to bring along with them after a brutal war that ravaged their region of the galaxy. So they have 16 capital ships at the moment, five of which were previously unarmed. But most of them fairly powerful, with Kasvagorian Annihilators for example being able to engage a few run-of-the-mill Star Destroyers single-handedly, even though they're less than 800 metres long. That is the largest ship they have, though.

With the Ashen Empire of Ermor, the only limiting factors when it comes to fleet sizes are resources and the possible bickering between leaders of different parts of the Empire. The Ashen Empire is a case of full military - they're all undead, after all. Of course, a grand majority of their fleet would be beyond subpar when compared to ships used by the living. They don't need life support, no food and pretty much no creature comforts.

They also don't actively pursue universal genocide at all times because, you know, they have billions of years of time to finish their objective of exterminating every living creature. In effect this means that they can just continue to build up their fleets and seem disinterested when it comes to fighting the living 99% of the time.

Basically, due to its nature, the Ashen Empire is like a cancer that's spreading across the host body.

And why did I post this? Well, cuz others were giving their own examples...

Looking in to this argument, I should put my method of dealing with things in to this / my 2 cents.

I have been moving my country icly towards more of a realistic (as possible) setting in my politics. As in I cant just go declare war on some one for no reason, icly my population would look at my government like WTF, and Icly my government has to keep support up for wars they did approve, like WW2 compared to Vietnam. My people wont support a Vietnam like war for long. Seeing as I rp a Democratic Federation, that poses a risk to order in my country I.e Civil disobedience, economic shutdown yada yada.

As for my ships, I tend to keep my fleet small, as I believe in quality over quantity , I may have fancy ub3r tech based off of half life two but low tech lasers, nukes, and radiation weapons still work against them and they can do damage. I don't put yields or measurement in watt's/ joules in my ship specs, because frankly over doing numbers is retarded, and it detracts from the true reason of rping on here in the first place. To make a story and have fun, if some schmuck came up to me in an rp with an ooc note saying his ship fired a laser worth so and so watt's I would most probably ignore the number and take damage according to the rp/ how many times I've been hit before, were he shot and how far away he shot me from.

My entire fleet consist of 1600 ships, and out of those 1600, 600 are capital ships the remaining 1000 are escorts, the advantage of people, my size or even some what smaller with a small fleet is that their ships individually are more powerful than say a guy with double the number of ships, but the disadvantage of this is, nations like us cant fight many wars on multiple fronts, we just don't have the ships to do so, it would spread us pretty thin..

any way just my 2 cents...

Actually, I just made fun of the fact that you compared freeform roleplay which has little or no bearing on people's lives to a totalitarian, oppressive ideology responsible for the deaths of millions. I'm guessing you also accuse the moderators of fascism when they decide to lock a thread?

You still seem to think I "accused" anyone of being anything in the first place. I compared an idealism - equality above common sense.

And no, I don't accuse the moderators of fascism.

Now. Your argument thus far stands that your fleet should be as powerful as the largest number of joules you can conjure up

Yes, in the same way that my characters hair color is whatever color I can conjure up.

, that we should all have an extensive knowledge of spaceships, physics

Now we're entering strawman zone.

You don't need "extensive knowledge," but you know, if you have NO knowledge (to the point of repeatedly dismissing scientific standards as "zomgfwtfbbq" etc) then perhaps you should choose a genre of roleplaying that isn't so specifically science- and spaceship-oriented.

Write what you know.

, and not only this, but the relative specifications of fictional ships in order to decide who out of any two players will win a given combat.

They are something to take into account, when said fictional ships are in a fight.

Because I dunno about you, but I don't see a roleplay as "two players" in "combat." Maybe that's why I don't get bent out of shape about who wins and am more concerned with the how and why.

Also, apparently, you want to be an uberempire, and disregard those generally-accepted standards of NS population = power.

My main nation is 10.7 billion strong. I am an "uberempire" as it is. I disregard that because I see no reason why my having started a NS here a few years ago should mean my roleplayed nation is somehow more powerful than yours. It makes no sense at all.

Furthermore, because of the NS pop growth mechanism, NS's with higher populations will *ALWAYS* have higher NS populations than newer NS's. Always and until the end of time. That doesn't seem very fair, that folks like me should get a blanket advantage over folks like you simply because I got here first.

If my nation is more powerful, it should be because it IS more powerful as roleplayed, not because of anything about WHAT TIME I started playing the game!

Y'know what? I'm cool with that. But at this point, your arguments are irreconcileable with mine - our viewpoints are based on different foundations, and thus there's never going to be an agreement here. Essentially speaking, you're advocating the "largest number I can dream up", or "Seaquest" model of future-tech, which has already been thoroughly reviled by the majority of players.

Who said anything about "largest" numbers? That's another strawman.

Mainly because what you advocate does lead to massive hateful bitchfests and OOC conflicts, in lieu of actual RP.

And your NS population rule doesn't? "LOL u can't roleplay that, u only have 150 million pop. Wait a few months." How many times have you seen that kind of thing? I've seen it happen enough so that I rarely if ever bother roleplaying except in closed situations. Just because you advocate the use of different standards doesn't mean those different standards lead to a peaceful, creative utopia with nothing but solid roleplaying.

Now, my model ain't perfect. I'm not denying that. Mainly because, yes, it rewards the people who join earlier, and pegs power to an arbitrary number that has little to with how you RP. It also means that older players who are arseholes can help ruin the little guy's day, and that most brilliant five-million nation won't get the same level of respect as an equally brilliant five-billion nation.

On the upside, it works.

You just conceded that your standards are arbitrary, they make no sense from an RP perspective, they are unfair and can easily lead to abuses. In light of that I fail to see how you can continue to defend it.

Yes, in the same way that my characters hair color is whatever color I can conjure up.



Now we're entering strawman zone.

You don't need "extensive knowledge," but you know, if you have NO knowledge (to the point of repeatedly dismissing scientific standards as "zomgfwtfbbq" etc) then perhaps you should choose a genre of roleplaying that isn't so specifically science- and spaceship-oriented.

Write what you know.



They are something to take into account, when said fictional ships are in a fight.

Because I dunno about you, but I don't see a roleplay as "two players" in "combat." Maybe that's why I don't get bent out of shape about who wins and am more concerned with the how and why.

Your characters hair color has no impact upon his deadliness, unless your character is a blond woman with a massive rack. Arbitrary numbers of pentajoules do affect RP, and combat effectiveness. My infantry carry arbitrarily powerful megawatt range PBCs, because I want them to be able to evaporate just about anything they shoot in a few shots or less.(Wyvern Company=/=Stormtrooper Company). My ships do have a rated output on their heavy weapons batteries, it arbitrarily has so many zeroes in it that I'm not even sure what prefix to put in front of it, but I think the Death Star is green with envy. I don't think I've ever destroyed someones fleet or planet in an instantaneous orgy of relativistic devastation and brute murder. Because those numbers are meaningless and give people like the much reviled seaquest the ability to bitch about things like the immateriality of size, and whether or not Wong is a SW godmodding wanker who ignores everyone elses advantages. I'm a 5.change billion nation. I have 1,000 ships, each is roughly equal to several average ships. What does this do? It means that if I meet someone like Chronosia in a fullup fleet battle, our efforts are equal assuming he has 5,000 ships or thereabouts. If one of my task groups on the other hand(three DDs, 2 CLs, CA, BB) meets a similarly sized formation of his, I have the advantage, because my ships are individually a greater investment of resources and technology. A Facehuggerian Dreadnought(there's like three of them) would eat my task force for lunch on its own, because it represents a MUCH larger investment in resources and time. My method of play is balanced in many ways. If a small nation decides to have fewer ships, it will have the advantage in a small engagement, or numerically equal one. My method gives an opportunity for parity against a larger nation, yours assumes that whoever has the biggest techno-phallus is the winner.

You just conceded that your standards are arbitrary, they make no sense from an RP perspective, they are unfair and can easily lead to abuses. In light of that I fail to see how you can continue to defend it.
And your standards are even more arbitrary, given that anyone can look at the other guy's tech and say "Oh yea, well your 5 petajoule laser is WTFPWNED by my 5 million exajoule laser. LOLOLOL." It reminds me of something I did in grade school: "Well my army has a million tanks." "Well, mine has ten million!" "Well, mine has infinity!" "Well mine has infinity PLUS ONE! Nya!" And you think this is a GOOD thing?

You still seem to think I "accused" anyone of being anything in the first place. I compared an idealism - equality above common sense.

The only difference is that this acts more like a meritocracy than a communistic state. While larger states may have more military power, people still prefer to play with the better writers. We're not enforcing equality. Shit, this is just like real life. You can consider yourself better to anyone you want, but, in general, people prefer to be considered social equals. The guy who decides he has a fifty billion exawatt laser is probably the same guy who refuses to talk to anyone who doesn't speak in fucking iambic pentameter. Nobody plays with (or speaks with) that guy, and everyone goes home happy.


Yes, in the same way that my characters hair color is whatever color I can conjure up.

Precisely. The only difference here being that when you conjure up whatever number you want, the RP starts going down the shitter. If your character's hair is blond, it has no impact on the RP whatsoever.


You don't need "extensive knowledge," but you know, if you have NO knowledge (to the point of repeatedly dismissing scientific standards as "zomgfwtfbbq" etc) then perhaps you should choose a genre of roleplaying that isn't so specifically science- and spaceship-oriented.

Ooh. Nice ad hominem.


They are something to take into account, when said fictional ships are in a fight.

Because I dunno about you, but I don't see a roleplay as "two players" in "combat." Maybe that's why I don't get bent out of shape about who wins and am more concerned with the how and why.

Dude, none of us see roleplays as a combat. Rather, when their ships, fleets, or whatever are in combat, it's a combat between those ships/fleets. The only difference here is that we've taken into account human desires in our model (the desire to win, even in games where there is technically no "win", such as Nationstates), while yours pretends they don't exist.

Just like Communism, incidentally.


Who said anything about "largest" numbers? That's another strawman.

Hardly. Your model allows for people picking the largest numbers they can think of. While you personally may not subscribe to this, it's certainly valid to pick holes in your model when looking at how it would apply to Nationstates as a whole.


Just because you advocate the use of different standards doesn't mean those different standards lead to a peaceful, creative utopia with nothing but solid roleplaying.

Good point. I think you'll find it applies to your argument beautifully.

You just conceded that your standards are arbitrary, they make no sense from an RP perspective, they are unfair and can easily lead to abuses. In light of that I fail to see how you can continue to defend it.

Refer to the last line of my previous post.

In your game, having higher NS population meant better. In my game, having a higher power output meant having a higher power output. I think the latter is better since power is power across the universe, while fleet ratios to population is something that would have so many variables as to be essentially arbitrary. And I might add that not everyone RP's with their NS population, particularly in future tech where it again wouldn't be plausible.


In your game, anyone can declare that their ship has whatever power loadout that they wish, within reason. Therefore there is no standard by which you measure technological level. Everyone has the same fucking ship with the same fucking guns firing the same fucking bolts of light at each other, because no one will want to accept the role of "technologically inferior".

By our standard, those of us who have played longer get the benefit of larger fleets armed with better weapons, and plenty more soldiers to send to the meatgrinder.

In your game, a nation with 8 mil pop can feasibly challenge a nation much larger than it and win, just by stating it has "omg rly gud gunz".

No way that would work, all things would end in stalemate and khaos, noe before you embarass yourself by trying to prove me wrong...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b140/ccrow21/My%20Images/GTFOGUNDAM.jpg

I'll make it brief my final opinion on FT balance:

There is no sense in roleplaying a war between a FT nation in the late 2100s(Like Solar Communes) and another nation in the 10000s(Like where I expect Trailers to be), I believe that something called time line which many tend to ignore is a very effective balancing system for most cases.

Of course, in the 1500s-1600s for example, there were gunpowder age Europeans which owned the Aztecs, however I fear nobody would be interested in roleplaying the one behind the FT technological race. And another thing I would like to suggest, is that while an overall dictatorship where people still have a limited degree of civil rights and economic freedoms wouldn't have the problem I'll mention here, a 100% totalitarian state shaped like the World State from Brave New World or Oceania from Nineteen Eighty-Four, where everybody is continually controlled by the State 24-hours day, would have very little in technological innovation, with most being only gradual improvements over already existing technology.

However I don't think many do consider the influences of a nation culture, society and government over technological progress around. Just as a simpler example, a bioconservative and fundamentalist FT civilization would have a barrier to the progress of biotech and artificial intelligences which fit into the "playing God" argument, while many would not feel comfortable with the idea of cybernetic implants and nanites running through their veins and a grey goo/nano-plague incident would make a FT nation dismiss nanotechnology entirely.

There are many possibilities to find drawbacks and taboos into certain technological venues. On another question, thousands of years are enough for specializations as well. For example, while Solar Communes computer and information technology makes Star Trek and Star Wars robots and holodecks look pathetic, their ships are relatively primitive regarding performance(expected from the fact I take almost entirely Hard Sci-fi stance).

Another example is of a NationState, which by taking a softer FT approach, could have some very powerful and technologically superior ground forces, which coupled with some very advanced teleportation technology would remove the need of dropships landing for incursions and invasions, but they would rely on the momentum of a blitzkrieg to take over a planet, while if failing their forces wouldn't have much chance on space combat.

Finally, I prefer to take an approach that considers habitable planets a rarity, thus making from a simple nuking or slagging of a planet an anti-economic decision, which in turn means an old-styled invasion is preferable, although I don't intend to get into much of wars for now. I wish that the drawbacks from the act of destroying a planet were always taken into consideration, regarding the massive loss of a potential economical opportunity from doing so, and considering that any planet in such condition of lacking orbital defenses would already have its forces almost entirely depleted, an actual invasion wouldn't be a big problem.

The only difference is that this acts more like a meritocracy than a communistic state.

Well, there's quite a few bit more differences. But this is pretty irrelevant.

Precisely. The only difference here being that when you conjure up whatever number you want, the RP starts going down the shitter. If your character's hair is blond, it has no impact on the RP whatsoever.

Neither needs to be the case.

Ooh. Nice ad hominem.

Not at all. First, it was a general "you." Second, my argument is not based remotely on an attack upon your person. Meanwhile you've ignored the very valid point - you are complaining about things that are "spaceship" and "science" oriented.

Well. Almost all sci-fi, and particularly FT RP in NS, is "spaceship" and "science" oriented. It's the meat and potatoes of the genre. So I can hardly sympathize with a general attitude that spaceship and science are concepts that need avoiding at all.

Dude, none of us see roleplays as a combat. Rather, when their ships, fleets, or whatever are in combat, it's a combat between those ships/fleets. The only difference here is that we've taken into account human desires in our model (the desire to win, even in games where there is technically no "win", such as Nationstates), while yours pretends they don't exist.

You've POOPED all over the human desire to win. Have a 100 million pop NS -> You'll never win, you'll never be as good or powerful as those billion plusers. Yeah, you've taken into account the human desire to win, and made it simply equal to playing this game for a longer time than someone else. O

Hardly. Your model allows for people picking the largest numbers they can think of.

Indeed. It also allows for the mocking of such people and the option to not RP with powergamers who want to win a game that cannot be won.

While you personally may not subscribe to this, it's certainly valid to pick holes in your model when looking at how it would apply to Nationstates as a whole.

At least my "model" isn't specifically skewed in favor of arbitrary, irreversible advantages.

Good point. I think you'll find it applies to your argument beautifully.

True, it does. But I think you'll find it was much more relevantly applied to your post.

Refer to the last line of my previous post.

Very well. You are trying to say that, just as you 'conceded that your standards are arbitrary, they make no sense from an RP perspective, they are unfair and can easily lead to abuses,' I somehow have too. Even though I haven't, and in fact my argument basically proves it. Seems like you're just going "I'm rubber n ur glue," but I assure you you aren't and I'm not.

In your game, anyone can declare that their ship has whatever power loadout that they wish, within reason.

In your game, anyone can do the same thing. Unless you're playing a different game than the roleplaying forums of NS and II.

Therefore there is no standard by which you measure technological level.

Um. Except. Science.

You know, as in Science fiction.

Everyone has the same fucking ship with the same fucking guns firing the same fucking bolts of light at each other, because no one will want to accept the role of "technologically inferior".

That's your problem there, not the freedom with which I have to claim whatever RP'd characteristics I want.

By our standard, those of us who have played longer get the benefit of larger fleets armed with better weapons, and plenty more soldiers to send to the meatgrinder.

...which makes no sense from a roleplaying perspective.

In your game, a nation with 8 mil pop can feasibly challenge a nation much larger than it and win, just by stating it has "omg rly gud gunz".

To "win," that larger nation's player would have to recognize the win. Same with your system. This worry is thus silly.

No way that would work, all things would end in stalemate and khaos, noe before you embarass yourself by trying to prove me wrong...

Well, I won't have to try, I'll just have done. ;)

My method of play is balanced in many ways. If a small nation decides to have fewer ships, it will have the advantage in a small engagement, or numerically equal one.

The smaller NS will always be inferior strategically to the larger one. (That is, if the smaller NS cares to go along with your play method. If I was he, I wouldn't, because it's hard-core bullshit.) In a large or extended war or even just battle, he will never be able to compete. That's balanced? 'You can say or do nothing, weakling - laugh at my infinite superiority!'

You say my system is arbitrary, but there's a key difference. On one, the arbitrariness is on irreversible, OOC advantages given, en masse. On mine, the arbitrariness is based on whatever people create and roleplay. The latter allows for much more flexibility and doesn't discount masses of players out of roleplaying how they like based on what amounts to age discrimination.

My method gives an opportunity for parity against a larger nation, yours assumes that whoever has the biggest techno-phallus is the winner.

No, my assumption isn't about simply declaring victory for largest numbers. You have to think about the bloody situation and what is happening, or is roleplayed as happening. Energy is not the same as damage, and power is not the same as "power".

My assumption is that people will consider something more than how many techno-penises they can have because they have played the NS the most penis-days and have the most population-penises out of which they have formed the most powerful techno-splooge in the fewest number of splooge-packets.

Let's compare two nations both mine so neutrality (and not pissing anyone off) is guaranteed. These Nations are... Nova Bazalonia and The Garbage Men

Government Structure/Society...
NB: Council of Dictators there by public ascent. i.e. If the public lost faith in them they'd step down but otherwise are autocrats (CR:Few, Econ:Good, PF:Few)
TGM: Corporate Managerial structure... All political desicious are made by higher ups and you cannot challenge the office nor the decision (CR:Supurb, Econ: All-con, PF: Outlawed)

Assuming equality other areas to be mentioned and elaborated, It's clear that the government structure and society of TGM is more conducive to war/battles than NB. and so would have a slightly better than slight advantage.

Population:
More people more people to call on to fight....
NB: 3.393
TGM: 3.042

In terms of potential military size NB is leading, however combined with the social aspects. I'd say it's dead even at this point. Even I'd say the society would reduce the size. of the army which could vome from NB.

Money/equip

More money the better equipped and trained an army is... This is dependent on the size of your military spending per capita.

This is where we need something not NS, while the NS feeds gives us defense budget %ages. We need a way to convery the nation stats into a working budget. And this is exactly what NSEconomy does as well as some others (Though most are probably based on NSEconomy)

For this case I will use NSTracker for both, purely because NB is in Lazarus
NB: Defense: B$3,373,716,372,874.85 19%
TGM: Defense: P$6,133,949,012,131.20 47%

This is where TGM really shines out, if it where as a whole to attack NB, ignoring alliances and other interference. This is where it's advantage really lies.

So that's the "stats" done... however there are also other things to consider RP-only things...

Strategy...

The Strategies used in RP will make or break any RP, and will make any war. It's the generals strategies and tactics that can really turn the tide of any war. Dash and Run ... Lure into an Ambush, straight head on or distraction attack. Full force, or covert insertion

Though while stats TGM has a significant advantage it's what they do that can really determine the game.

Another thing people need to remember, is that if they are using stats, you need to be aware of the vulnerabilities of the stats. If you are high power and high tech, you may be able to stop some attacks but you leave yourself open to others.

finally is sheer RP...

NB: Civilians are concentrated on one planet, which they basically practically never leave. The defenses around the planet will be formidable, but if they are broken by ships then there is a chance that NB might be totally wiped out. They can call on their entire fleet to defend because they have no reason to unnecessarily spread the troops.

TGM: However are spread out who knows where through out civilised and not so civilised space integrated to a degree in all the places where they are. Which means alot of things firstly basically there is no way to actually properly destroy them, it would be unfeasable to say the lest. However each individual grouping only has a very limited number of resources to call on. More than that and it's repair,scrounge. jerry-rig what you can.

So basically what I'm saying is that a basic understanding of RPing is taken on the role of your nation. A structure a knowledge of it's strengths, weaknesses, playing up your strengths while mitigating your weaknesses just like any real nation would do.

I hope that's both understandable and helpful to my view. For war, any war, it's never as simple as X attribute means Y or whatever. It's how your nation (according to the stats and according to things that are beyond stats work)

The smaller NS will always be inferior strategically to the larger one. (That is, if the smaller NS cares to go along with your play method. If I was he, I wouldn't, because it's hard-core bullshit.) In a large or extended war or even just battle, he will never be able to compete. That's balanced? 'You can say or do nothing, weakling - laugh at my infinite superiority!'

First of all I agree with you, however you are assuming said nations will work on their own. If all nations are or were on the same level in this game then things would get rather boring. However, we have a diplomatic element which should be more present in Nationstates than the war factor.

Smaller nations are bound by their strategic limitations when it comes to war with larger states on a 1v1 scenario. Yet FT is rarely simply two walls of ships striking each other.

A smaller nation can force a larger player to play realisticly, for example sending in terrorist strike groups, sabotage, raiding supply lines and demanding an appropriate civil, military and political response within their nations.

Yes, if said larger state is a dictatorship, insane and goes for all out war then the smaller nation could be crushed, unless he/she gets some help.

Diplomacy in Nationstates is the key. If you make allies and treaties you can go for help if you know war is brewing, or if war has just "happened" then you have somewhere to fall back on.

Larger nationstates like mine pick on the little guys, because we can. But we are often amazed at the strategic sneakiness of nations and players forced into desperate situations ICly.

Do we win all the time? No, not really. Coreworlds is still alive -_- and Asfaltum escaped. Klington went refugee and raided Imperial lines for years, Godular has fought the Empire tooth and nail since his birth. They were smaller nations, yet they survived . . . just.

Larger nations are harder to crack, but they also have more to lose and have a lot more to defend. Use it and think, don't act like a moron and demand a level field.

As a sidenote I think I have taken your entire post out of context, but I'm going to throw this up anyway.

Relating to that Sith...

What happened with you and TGM perhaps was one of the most sneakiest things that could have happened... Joined to appease you and then quit when we'd established themselves making it very hard for the Sith to deal with us simply by our distributed hierarchy.

Relating to that Sith...

What happened with you and TGM perhaps was one of the most sneakiest things that could have happened... Joined to appease you and then quit when we'd established themselves making it very hard for the Sith to deal with us simply by our distributed hierarchy.

Do you think that bringing this to our attention is the best course of action?

You've POOPED all over the human desire to win. Have a 100 million pop NS -> You'll never win, you'll never be as good or powerful as those billion plusers. Yeah, you've taken into account the human desire to win, and made it simply equal to playing this game for a longer time than someone else. O

Good thing theres no such thing as an alliance..

In other news, the "billion plusers" had to start out under the heal of those big bad '02 nations, back when having 500mil pop was the essence of pwn. We've worked for this for years. Think more.




At least my "model" isn't specifically skewed in favor of arbitrary, irreversible advantages.

Oh, you mean like to totally valid advantages say the US or UK has over a third world country? ._. I see where you're coming from, it would be totally unrealistic to move that sort of thing to NS. Good job. You're sharp. [/sarcasm]




In your game, anyone can do the same thing. Unless you're playing a different game than the roleplaying forums of NS and II.

You need to work on reading comprehension. A 5 mil nation (With, say, the exceptions made for RP puppets) playing canon FT will never be able to afford a superwtfroflsaurusuberhammerofgod dreadnought capable of taking on entire star systems..

Unless, of course, they play by your totally anarchic and slightly asinine rules that don't have rules. x.x

HOW DARE YOU IGNORE THE GTFO GUNDAM.




Um. Except. Science.

You know, as in Science fiction.

..Because the answer "Um. Science" answers how a 5 mil nation can take on a 500mil nation. Completely. Way to clear that up.

Good thing no one made an NS economy or NS tracker, that would make everything so much easier. In fact, I think Ill go make them now...

One last quote I think you missed.



http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b140/ccrow21/My%20Images/GTFOGUNDAM.jpg

Now, now, fellows...
What nobody seems to be taking into account is the simple fact that NS is FREEFORM roleplay...you can play however you want, with whoever you want.
Nobody is making you RP with anybody else unless you want to.
So...if you dont like somebodys BILLION TRILLION TERAWATT PHAZORZ, dont RP with them...

IMO...there's nothing wrong with a bit of space opera. It makes things more interesting. Hard sci-fi is great and all, but not really my thing. I like giant robots that shoot ultra-pwn-beams. I like thousand-kilometer long d00m kr00zarz. I like ultra-pwntanium armor. Used in moderation, of course. Such things should be reserved for more...scripted events, let us say, and dropping them randomly into every battle you RP sort of wears on the...wow factor, I guess.
But an occasional thousand-kilometer long d00/\/\ kr00zer with pwntanium armor, placed strategically in the right circumstances, is a great way to boost RP a bit, despite being slightly implausable in the purely hard-sci-fi universe.
Of course, some people may well not accept that, which is fine. I'm not going to FORCE them to play with me. T'would be rather dumb, forcing somebody to RP.

What if the rp was going fine, and then someone like you played your "d00/\/\ kr00zer." Wouldn't you be forcing those already in the rp to "play with you?"

I wouldnt, at least, not without confirming that said d00/\/\ kr00zer would be welcome in that particular RP.
If not, I'd have to work with my regular fleet of regular doom cruisers.
Besides, I'm the sort of person who'se allergic to joining any RP thats past the first or second page. So the probability of this hypothetical d00/\/\ kr00zer suddenly appearing is quite small.

EDIT:
And I quite agree, that sudden, unwanted, appearances of d00/\/\ kr00zers are bad RP. Such appearances should be discussed first, as I said, 'scripted events', as it were, are the best places for such items, giving them clearly defined roles so that they dont run amok and destroy the RP, as opposed to their targets.

Also, lol timewarps.

Now, now, fellows...
What nobody seems to be taking into account is the simple fact that NS is FREEFORM roleplay...you can play however you want, with whoever you want.
Nobody is making you RP with anybody else unless you want to.
So...if you dont like somebodys BILLION TRILLION TERAWATT PHAZORZ, dont RP with them...

IMO...there's nothing wrong with a bit of space opera. It makes things more interesting. Hard sci-fi is great and all, but not really my thing. I like giant robots that shoot ultra-pwn-beams. I like thousand-kilometer long d00m kr00zarz. I like ultra-pwntanium armor. Used in moderation, of course. Such things should be reserved for more...scripted events, let us say, and dropping them randomly into every battle you RP sort of wears on the...wow factor, I guess.
But an occasional thousand-kilometer long d00/\/\ kr00zer with pwntanium armor, placed strategically in the right circumstances, is a great way to boost RP a bit, despite being slightly implausable in the purely hard-sci-fi universe.
Of course, some people may well not accept that, which is fine. I'm not going to FORCE them to play with me. T'would be rather dumb, forcing somebody to RP.

What if the rp was going fine, and then someone like you played your "d00/\/\ kr00zer." Wouldn't you be forcing those already in the rp to "play with you?" Since they probably wouldn't want to leave the ok rp just because this thing showed up.

EDIT - This is exactly the reason I have complained about most of the FT nations here... Every thread I join/create has a few "d00/\/\ kr00zer" nations that show up...

I'm not saying you in particular... just people who even think about "d00/\/\ kr00zers"... I do not, and abhor others for thinking about them.

Then I wouldnt use them in any hypothetical future RP's with you. Any particular d00m kr00zers I developed would, for the sake of the RP, happen to be on the other side of the galaxy at the time.
Perhaps not logical, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut more fun for those involved.

I wouldnt, at least, not without confirming that said d00/\/\ kr00zer would be welcome in that particular RP.
If not, I'd have to work with my regular fleet of regular doom cruisers.
Besides, I'm the sort of person who'se allergic to joining any RP thats past the first or second page. So the probability of this hypothetical d00/\/\ kr00zer suddenly appearing is quite small.

EDIT:
And I quite agree, that sudden, unwanted, appearances of d00/\/\ kr00zers are bad RP. Such appearances should be discussed first, as I said, 'scripted events', as it were, are the best places for such items, giving them clearly defined roles so that they dont run amok and destroy the RP, as opposed to their targets.

Also, lol timewarps.

I'm not saying you in particular... just people who even think about "d00/\/\ kr00zers"... I do not, and abhor others for thinking about them.

What if the rp was going fine, and then someone like you played your "d00/\/\ kr00zer." Wouldn't you be forcing those already in the rp to "play with you?" Since they probably wouldn't want to leave the ok rp just because this thing showed up.

EDIT - This is exactly the reason I have complained about most of the FT nations here... Every thread I join/create has a few "d00/\/\ kr00zer" nations that show up...

What you do is tell them to leave. Those nations that plough large vast vessels into every RP are morons. The big ships should only ever be used for a fleet admiral or an emperor. They are mobile fortress worlds, they are desinged to protect what is inside just as much as what is outside. When they take said ships into action ask the player OOCly through the tg system or over MSN, how likely it is for his ship to be here and remain, when there are more likely threats abroad.

Like Chaos for example.

Like the Empire for example.

No one should ever deploy their largest ships for the smallest scenario when a cruiser could do just fine.

It's like the British Empire sending in the HMS hood to deal with a shoplifter in Westminster.

But! If the player is rping a moronic Naval command, then request it to be reflect in his tactics, build quality and design and performance.

You know, I've used this nation A LOT, and it just seems that my post count never goes up. Let this test it.

What you do is tell them to leave. Those nations that plough large vast vessels into every RP are morons. The big ships should only ever be used for a fleet admiral or an emperor. They are mobile fortress worlds, they are desinged to protect what is inside just as much as what is outside. When they take said ships into action ask the player OOCly through the tg system or over MSN, how likely it is for his ship to be here and remain, when there are more likely threats abroad.

Lets not forget how much effort and expense it takes to move/supply the things.

When I use the bigshipz, I try to be a little realistic, deploying support craft and non-combatant support vessels along with it.

Really, most FT threads warrant little more than a handful of frigates let alone even a cruiser.

Lets not forget how much effort and expense it takes to move/supply the things.

When I use the bigshipz, I try to be a little realistic, deploying support craft and non-combatant support vessels along with it.

Really, most FT threads warrant little more than a handful of frigates let alone even a cruiser.

True, when RPing a thread, the most I will send in is a Destroyer or a Cruiser. Maybe a Dreadnought if they're chasing Pirates or criminals of some description.

I think that MASSIVE ships just ruin an RP completely. I HATE them.

Despite having two of said massive wank ships because economically I can, I'm inclined to agree and I barely use them unless it's one of those 'galactic war of apocolyptic proportions' threads. The money really could have gone elsewhere...

The biggest I'll go these days are one of my four ships of the line for the really bad cases e.g. new nation breaks out of its system and begins conquering close to/in my territory. Everything else meriting a big ship gets a small Raven class capital ship which I use as an overall workhorse.

Sending them in any other situation is simply overkill. A small Attack Ship usually does the trick (we're going from over a thousand crew to about 40).

Do you think that bringing this to our attention is the best course of action?

Probably not, but as I already explained TGM's greatest strength is it'sa distribution, a massively synchronised, organised and resource managed.

Not only are you going to have to deal with my defenses but that of our host nations. And anyway I would presume they'd still be operating within Sith and all other GE nations.

True, when RPing a thread, the most I will send in is a Destroyer or a Cruiser. Maybe a Dreadnought if they're chasing Pirates or criminals of some description.

I think that MASSIVE ships just ruin an RP completely. I HATE them.


They aren't a thing to be hated..just used in moderation. And why would you ever send a dreadnought to anything outside of a full scale war?

I consider anything around 3 km a battleship/dreadnaught.

Since they seem to be the basic size of ship for many nations (all of which I believe are "n00bs" because they can't think for themselves and so follow the current trend), I pretty much ignore them. I will not take them seriously. However, nations like Chronosia, Unified Sith, and Gaian Ascendancy have earned the respect needed to field those ships as standard (specifically Chronosia because W40k ships are larger than any other sci-fi space opera, their torpedoes are a few hundred meters long!).

I consider anything around 3 km a battleship/dreadnaught.

Since they seem to be the basic size of ship for many nations (all of which I believe are "n00bs" because they can't think for themselves and so follow the current trend), I pretty much ignore them. I will not take them seriously. However, nations like Chronosia, Unified Sith, and Gaian Ascendancy have earned the respect needed to field those ships as standard (specifically Chronosia because W40k ships are larger than any other sci-fi space opera, their torpedoes are a few hundred meters long!).

Size does not define function. I'm going to assume the vessel to which you refer, and which likely started this is my Intervention class Destroyer, which is a 3 kilometer long screening element of the Imperial Anderman Navy. Its primary focus is point defense and speed. It has a few heavy weapons, maybe 40 turrets, and an extensive defensive and secondary armament, as well as missile batteries. My 10.5 kilometer Revenge class Battlecruiser on the other hand, mounts something in the range of 200 heavy weapons(depending on the mood I'm in), a much more varied secondary armament, and less missile tubes, with more PD, because they're usually used alone or in small numbers, where speed and firepower can be brought to the fore, and standoff ability is less important due to heavier shields and armor. Battleships are larger still at 13 kilometers long by about 2 wide, and mount 300ish(again, depending on my mood) heavy turrets, a large broadside missile armament and secondary battery, and an enormous amount of point defense, because they usually operate solo, or with a light task force screen. Now, on the far end of the spectrum, sits the Icon of Dread, one of ten Superdreadnoughts of the Andermani Fleet. At 22 kilometers long, its purpose is to murder anything and everything in its path. It mounts some 500 heavy turrets, and has enough secondary battery to be its own screening element, as well as enough point defense to stop most task forces butt cold.

Now, what, you may ask, is the point of a 22 kilometer long Superdreadnought? Well, partly because Setian design philosophy was highly influenced by the Imperium of Man, and partly because they believe that having one 22km Superdreadnought is better than having more, smaller, less individually dangerous units. Much as Sith portrays his Star Destroyers as Battleships that take alot of beating(I won't get into that debate here), I portray my ships as top of the line, numerically scarce machines of war, whose only purpose is the utter annihilation of the human race.(long story, don't ask, especially since I'm questionably allied to the Imerial Remnant). Think Necron Tomb Ships, think Super Star Destroyers, think in terms of the most dangerous and largest vessels you can, and you'll kindof get where this nation is going. I could have 600 meter long Battlecruisers with 12 guns and adequate point defense, but that makes absolutely no sense for this race.

Long story short, I, for one, do not at this point simply use big ships in insane numbers because I can. I use big ships in what I believe are reasonable numbers because that's how my nation works, if you do not like the logic, tough shit, I don't like the idea of my nation being forced to conform to your limited and exclusive ideas on what is proper.

I consider anything around 3 km a battleship/dreadnaught.

That kinda leaves all those cargo ships screwed then, eh?

Long story short, I, for one, do not at this point simply use big ships in insane numbers because I can. I use big ships in what I believe are reasonable numbers because that's how my nation works, if you do not like the logic, tough shit, I don't like the idea of my nation being forced to conform to your limited and exclusive ideas on what is proper.

That's fine... I never wanted everyone to conform. I just will try to avoid rps with you. Or... fly a thousand A-Wings into your bridges.

I really don't see anything wrong with having large ships if you've got the economic wherewithal to back it up and use the vessels appropriately. I hate to say this, but if you've got it, flaunt it. 2km capital ships are a common sight in Dominion space with the other only widely seen vessel exceeding that being carriers and, of course superfreighters. I've got seven warships that are larger, and like I said before they're mainly to make a big impression or force an end to the conflict.

I mean, as larger nations, haven't we earned the right to have that one surefire ace in the hole for when things get bad? They're not invincible and do have their shortcomings, you just have to be willing to search them out.

I consider anything around 3 km a battleship/dreadnought.

Since they seem to be the basic size of ship for many nations (all of which I believe are "n00bs" because they can't think for themselves and so follow the current trend), I pretty much ignore them. I will not take them seriously. However, nations like Chronosia, Unified Sith, and Gaian Ascendancy have earned the respect needed to field those ships as standard (specifically Chronosia because W40k ships are larger than any other sci-fi space opera, their torpedoes are a few hundred meters long!).

Wondered when my nation would be mentioned. (Fully expected a derisive comment first, to be honest.) Just wish there was a way to make my ideas more 'official', since pretty much all Sci-fi I know of, deals with mostly no bigger than stuff in one single galaxy. That's my intent in all my conceited behavior in my FT rping, since I am too comfortable going beyond the normal concepts of 'standard' rping conventions, maybe even Sci-fi ones. Limiting them within 'my' version of reason, won't happen.

I'm going to keep going with that, even if others won't like it. I just can't restrain myself like that, not as long as I don't actively 'harm' others in Rps in the so doing. And since it's hard to put a response fitting without writing a novel about it all, I'll stop my ranting and raving here. =^^=

Size does not define function. I'm going to assume the vessel to which you refer, and which likely started this is my Intervention class Destroyer, which is a 3 kilometer long screening element of the Imperial Anderman Navy. Its primary focus is point defense and speed. It has a few heavy weapons, maybe 40 turrets, and an extensive defensive and secondary armament, as well as missile batteries. My 10.5 kilometer Revenge class Battlecruiser on the other hand, mounts something in the range of 200 heavy weapons(depending on the mood I'm in), a much more varied secondary armament, and less missile tubes, with more PD, because they're usually used alone or in small numbers, where speed and firepower can be brought to the fore, and standoff ability is less important due to heavier shields and armor. Battleships are larger still at 13 kilometers long by about 2 wide, and mount 300ish(again, depending on my mood) heavy turrets, a large broadside missile armament and secondary battery, and an enormous amount of point defense, because they usually operate solo, or with a light task force screen. Now, on the far end of the spectrum, sits the Icon of Dread, one of ten Superdreadnoughts of the Andermani Fleet. At 22 kilometers long, its purpose is to murder anything and everything in its path. It mounts some 500 heavy turrets, and has enough secondary battery to be its own screening element, as well as enough point defense to stop most task forces butt cold.

Now, what, you may ask, is the point of a 22 kilometer long Superdreadnought? Well, partly because Setian design philosophy was highly influenced by the Imperium of Man, and partly because they believe that having one 22km Superdreadnought is better than having more, smaller, less individually dangerous units. Much as Sith portrays his Star Destroyers as Battleships that take alot of beating(I won't get into that debate here), I portray my ships as top of the line, numerically scarce machines of war, whose only purpose is the utter annihilation of the human race.(long story, don't ask, especially since I'm questionably allied to the Imerial Remnant). Think Necron Tomb Ships, think Super Star Destroyers, think in terms of the most dangerous and largest vessels you can, and you'll kindof get where this nation is going. I could have 600 meter long Battlecruisers with 12 guns and adequate point defense, but that makes absolutely no sense for this race.

Long story short, I, for one, do not at this point simply use big ships in insane numbers because I can. I use big ships in what I believe are reasonable numbers because that's how my nation works, if you do not like the logic, tough shit, I don't like the idea of my nation being forced to conform to your limited and exclusive ideas on what is proper.

"numerically scarce machines of war"? What happened to the hundreds of thousands of ships I last recall you fielding?

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/sign0086.gifhttp://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/sign0145.gifhttp://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/sign0024.gifhttp://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/sign0081.gifhttp://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/hitit.gifhttp://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/emot-fry.gif

You know, I've used this nation A LOT, and it just seems that my post count never goes up. Let this test it.

The God of the Post Count is out to get you Sith. Plain and simple. http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/evil9kf.gif

"numerically scarce machines of war"? What happened to the hundreds of thousands of ships I last recall you fielding?


At best it was Tens(because that fleet list still extists, and it was like 13, including parasites), and I don't feel like keeping up with thirteen thousand ships and fighters that I haven't used in nearly two years? Try and keep up Thrashia, we're not stoppin the bus.

That's fine... I never wanted everyone to conform. I just will try to avoid rps with you. Or... fly a thousand A-Wings into your bridges.

You mean those bridges that are intelligently placed deep within the hull to prevent such idiocy? ISDs are a decent design(in theory), that is actually HORRIBLY designed(in actuality). What moron puts his bridge in an exposed position, and limits the firing arc of his primary weapons batteries? And I know, blah blah heaviest shielding. Doesn't matter, still an asinine idea.

At best it was Tens(because that fleet list still extists, and it was like 13, including parasites), and I don't feel like keeping up with thirteen thousand ships and fighters that I haven't used in nearly two years? Try and keep up Thrashia, we're not stoppin the bus.

He did say that it was his last recollection. . . and you answered hin, no need to be nasty.

You mean those bridges that are intelligently placed deep within the hull to prevent such idiocy? ISDs are a decent design(in theory), that is actually HORRIBLY designed(in actuality). What moron puts his bridge in an exposed position, and limits the firing arc of his primary weapons batteries? And I know, blah blah heaviest shielding. Doesn't matter, still an asinine idea.

Well, considering the viewscreen technology in Star Wars is limited to horribly grainy blue-tinted crap, and their holographic technology is pretty basic, I'd say its not such a bad design. In case of a power failure, you can at the very least 'pick up your visual scanning' ;)
The very same reason the ships I based my designs off had large windows opening directly into space. It was a 1980's anime and apparently the bridge crew was doing a lot of their calculations on paper, based on appearances.
But I guess that would be a different thread, wouldnt it? :P

The God of the Post Count is out to get you Sith. Plain and simple. http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Emots/evil9kf.gif

Then it will be purged as a false idol and cast down to hell. . .

He did say that it was his last recollection. . . and you answered hin, no need to be nasty.

I don't believe anyone asked for your input. See? I wasn't being nasty to Thrash, who simply needs to keep up to date, I am being nasty with someone who is arrogant enough to presume to tell me what to do on such a trivial subject. Who gives a damn anyway? Do I offend your sensibilities? Tough. Your arrogance still knows no bound, despite the defunctness of your vast and so-called Empire, and your continued inability to deliver on your threats.

Well, considering the viewscreen technology in Star Wars is limited to horribly grainy blue-tinted crap, and their holographic technology is pretty basic, I'd say its not such a bad design. In case of a power failure, you can at the very least 'pick up your visual scanning' ;)
The very same reason the ships I based my designs off had large windows opening directly into space. It was a 1980's anime and apparently the bridge crew was doing a lot of their calculations on paper, based on appearances.
But I guess that would be a different thread, wouldnt it? :P

Considering the ranges at which they operate, yes, visual would work. On the other hand, banks of MODERN cameras and HDTVs are apparently better than their viewscreen technology. I'll let y'all read into that what you will.

Considering the ranges at which they operate, yes, visual would work. On the other hand, banks of MODERN cameras and HDTVs are apparently better than their viewscreen technology. I'll let y'all read into that what you will.

Which is why most 'modern' starship designs dont feature large, exposed, battleship-like bridges designed to have good lines of sight :P
'Though Star Trek works against that a little bit, but since Star Trek ships seem to explode violently if any given part of the ships sustains enough damage, I guess that would make bridge placement a bit less of a design issue ;)

Which is why most 'modern' starship designs dont feature large, exposed, battleship-like bridges designed to have good lines of sight :P
'Though Star Trek works against that a little bit, but since Star Trek ships seem to explode violently if any given part of the ships sustains enough damage, I guess that would make bridge placement a bit less of a design issue ;)


Well, when you use high energy plasma for everything from toilets, to light bulbs, to $quantumwankcomputers with subgravitic phototropic underwear arrays... I'm surprised they don't explode violently, period.

Well, when you use high energy plasma for everything from toilets, to light bulbs, to $quantumwankcomputers with subgravitic phototropic underwear arrays... I'm surprised they don't explode violently, period.

But...but...ITS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY!

But...but...ITS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY!

I'm almost positive that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. It's only environmentally friendly because it removes those willing to join the "military"(hah, I told a joke. Federation military... Pfft) AND wear unitards. Leaving all the dangerous(non-fruity/metrosexual hippy wimps) men and women to run the country and kill things.

Try and keep up Thrashia, we're not stoppin the bus.

The legal adviser in me hopes you weren't implying a crude joke about the mentally challenged and their vehicular transports as regards going to normal high schools across America...

Well, when you use high energy plasma for everything from toilets, to light bulbs, to $quantumwankcomputers with subgravitic phototropic underwear arrays... I'm surprised they don't explode violently, period.

From what I've heard of Klingon toilets, the high energy plasma is one of the least dangerous things there.

I'm almost positive that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. It's only environmentally friendly because it removes those willing to join the "military"(hah, I told a joke. Federation military... Pfft) AND wear unitards. Leaving all the dangerous(non-fruity/metrosexual hippy wimps) men and women to run the country and kill things.

I actually meant that all wreckage and/or nasty byproducts of starship operation are vaporized pretty quickly. Except when the Feds decide to dick around with the timeline, of course, and said starship stars leaking 'chronotons' or something.
But your thing works too ;)

The legal adviser in me hopes you weren't implying a crude joke about the mentally challenged and their vehicular transports as regards going to normal high schools across America...

I wasn't. Carlos Mencia was. And the legal advisor in you will do what about it exactly? Object? I am unmoved.

@DGNT:

That works too. I think a runaway fusion reactor does better though.

I don't believe anyone asked for your input. See? I wasn't being nasty to Thrash, who simply needs to keep up to date, I am being nasty with someone who is arrogant enough to presume to tell me what to do on such a trivial subject. Who gives a damn anyway? Do I offend your sensibilities? Tough. Your arrogance still knows no bound, despite the defunctness of your vast and so-called Empire, and your continued inability to deliver on your threats.

It is an open thread. . . I believe I am at liberty to comment how I see fit, or is that too arrogant for you?

I have been polite, no need to throw up so much hostility, it's only a game.

I
@DGNT:

That works too. I think a runaway fusion reactor does better though.

But less prettily. I mean, why bother with a mere fusion explosion when a warp-core breach gives you a lovely stream of anti-matter directly into your ships engineering section?

You know, when Skywalker blew up the Death Star.. he killed over a million people. There were hundreds of thousands of civilian contractors and 'alien' dignataries/traders onboard as well as soldiers, pilots, technicians, etc. >.>

You know, when Skywalker blew up the Death Star.. he killed over a million people. There were hundreds of thousands of civilian contractors and 'alien' dignataries/traders onboard as well as soldiers, pilots, technicians, etc. >.>

3,242,944 (and 400,000 droids), according to Wookiepedia :P
Man, that puts Luke up there with Hitler when you consider all his other kills. Do we count DSII? Thats about another 2,000,000 at a guess.
So, Luke himself has a bodycount over five million people...Do we blame him for the Eclipse? >_>

That's what makes it delicious...

That's what makes it delicious...

What, the fact that Luke Skywalker, Hero of the Republic, Savior of the Jedi, and All Around Awesome Guy (who nearly banged his own sister), has a bodycount that would make a Chaos Lord jealous? ;)

There's that, yes :P Makes it easier to damn and demonize the Rebels, and so by proxy, all of Coreworlds et al :P

It's like he wants Tzeentch, Khorne and Slaanesh to love him!

There's that, yes :P Makes it easier to damn and demonize the Rebels, and so by proxy, all of Coreworlds et al :P

It's like he wants Tzeentch, Khorne and Slaanesh to love him!

Now all you have to do is pin Nurgle on him. He did have that thing with the parasites in the Truce at Barkura...

Wow, I've really got to come out of isolation. I know next to nothing about the current intergalactic political situation...

Good thing I'm powerful or I'd be dead! :D

What, the fact that Luke Skywalker, Hero of the Republic, Savior of the Jedi, and All Around Awesome Guy (who nearly banged his own sister), has a body count that would make a Chaos Lord jealous? ;)

One side's war hero of legend, is another's terrorist criminal of scorn. As Obi once said, it all depends greatly on one's own point of view.

Course the Empire blew up Alderaan first, so it's not like the DS didn't have it coming. The DSII would've done the same if not stopped. Serves the empire right for making laughable weak spots in their active designs. Sheesh. =--=;;;

Okay, am I the only one that thinks Star Wars would have been a lot better if someone had edited out all the Jedi? Related, am I the only one who imagines that the average Imperial officer wasn't that bad a guy, and was really just trying to keep order and stuff?

Okay, my FT ethic: Fusion torch engines. Jump nodes (Alderson Drive FTW!). Nuclear missiles. Railguns. PD Lasers.

Yeah. That's right. Hard FT > all.

If I am playing semi-hard (I NEVER do soft, 'cause I'm an elitist dick and such) I usually go for artificial gravity but no shields, and I use fighters because most post-scarcity societies (as FT ones always are) will have a surplus of young men and women who need killing in pointless fighter engagements. It keeps the population manageable. Uh, weapons-wise it's the same, no matter what techbase. Nuclear missiles work just fine against anything unshielded, really. And shields are pure wankery, if common wankery.

One side's war hero of legend, is another's terrorist criminal of scorn. As Obi once said, it all depends greatly on one's own point of view.

Course the Empire blew up Alderaan first, so it's not like the DS didn't have it coming. The DSII would've done the same if not stopped. Serves the empire right for making laughable weak spots in their active designs. Sheesh. =--=;;;

But Luke was supposed to be a Jedi, a defender of peace. I mean, really, he could've NEGOTIATED them to death. Or at least to surrender.
And just imagine all the poor husblandless Cybersheep/Grox/Whatever farm wives now that all those men are dead.

Related, am I the only one who imagines that the average Imperial officer wasn't that bad a guy, and was really just trying to keep order and stuff?
Nah, they were all evil.
Lucas said it, so its canon.
LULZ.

But Luke was supposed to be a Jedi, a defender of peace. I mean, really, he could've NEGOTIATED them to death. Or at least to surrender.
And just imagine all the poor husblandless Cybersheep/Grox/Whatever farm wives now that all those men are dead.

Actually when he did it all, offed the DS and all, he was just a backwater planet hick with delusions of grandeur and a 'thing' for Leia. One lucky ass shot with a voice in his head 'telling' him to do it, was all before he donned the black garb and abused his Father in the end. What does that all tell you?

New Republic Warm Springs Institution, that's what! Who can negotiate when a dead old foggy is in your head, eh? Those lay Imperials that got the cushiest (aside from the Commanders,) assignments since Corusant didn't have a chance I tell you!

But then that whole Jedi bit kinda helped him in the end, plus he's probably a savior to all the creatures and archaeologists on Yavin for preventing the annihilation of that Endor-esc like moon. I mean saving an enclosed ecosystem with a Sith past 'must' count for something. Not that the creatures cared for some foreigners on the run, suddenly bringing all that noise and machinery to their quiet world. I mean Rebels, really... =--=

But we're off topic here.... moving on... big ships rulz!!! =^^=