NationStates

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2011 9:39 pm**

Telviran fleet arrangements these days work on a "whatever is handy/appropriate" basis, like a space navy Kampfgruppe. This is mainly because about half the fleet vanished along with the core of our Empire, so we don't have much to work with.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 12:45 am**

Mozarabic Cordoba wrote:
OMGeverynameistaken wrote:In other news, I made a slight redesign of the Suvorov class:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/589/suvorov.png

Damn Imageshack and its not having thumbnails anymore :\

You people and your artistic ability. *Shakes fist* I tried to make a dhow for Cordoba and it turned out looking like an oil supertanker.

I don't see the problem with an Arabic navy made of oil supertankers...

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 1:26 am**

Mozarabic Cordoba wrote:
OMGeverynameistaken wrote:In other news, I made a slight redesign of the Suvorov class:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/589/suvorov.png

Damn Imageshack and its not having thumbnails anymore :\

You people and your artistic ability. *Shakes fist* I tried to make a dhow for Cordoba and it turned out looking like an oil supertanker.

>sultanate
>oil supertanker

this is not a coincidence...

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 3:11 pm**

How large is that ship?

Posted: **Wed May 11, 2011 11:02 pm**

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:In other news, I made a slight redesign of the Suvorov class:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/589/suvorov.png

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...*can't breathe anymore*

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 12:04 am**

INDEED. Be envious of our superior ship...building...stuff!

Final design...FOR NOW:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/589/suvorov.png

Nick said it needed a centerpiece gun, so I put a 43m diameter railgun on it. It shoots battleships. MADE OF GOLD.

@TFU
1.8km, about.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 11:57 am**

That looks, alot larger than 1.8 km in scale I mean.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 12:14 pm**

The Fedral Union wrote:That looks, alot larger than 1.8 km in scale I mean.

Scale seems fine. Rough calculations puts it at about 1m² per 3x3 pixel box

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 12:16 pm**

Damn, wish my MSPaint skills were at LEAST good!

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 1:18 pm**

The Fedral Union wrote:That looks, alot larger than 1.8 km in scale I mean.

An ISD is about 1.6km, I believe. That's what the scale's there for.

Some of the parts are probably a bit off in comparison, but I'm far too lazy to go around making everything to scale every time I want to throw a ship together in MSpaint.

@Saurisia
Half of it's modified stuff from Wolf's Shipyard. It's mostly a matter of copy/pasting.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 1:26 pm**

OMG, that ship is, quite frankly, ridiculous. That ship would need to be significantly larger in order to accommodate such a large number of weapon batteries. Not to mention that the placement of those weapons is equally ridiculous, since the destruction of one could trigger a train-reaction explosion that reaches inside the ship (this estimate based upon whatever munitions or connecting hardware attaches each turret to the main ship). Also, this ship would require extremely powerful shields, since by using so much energy to power its weapon systems, the engine output must be negated by sheer necessity; which in turn repeats the previous point of it being too small.

My opinion? Scrap at least 1/3rd of those weapon batteries and enlarge it by half a klom.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 1:37 pm**

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:
The Fedral Union wrote:That looks, alot larger than 1.8 km in scale I mean.

An ISD is about 1.6km, I believe. That's what the scale's there for.

Some of the parts are probably a bit off in comparison, but I'm far too lazy to go around making everything to scale every time I want to throw a ship together in MSpaint.

@Saurisia
Half of it's modified stuff from Wolf's Shipyard. It's mostly a matter of copy/pasting.

Ahhh...

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 3:54 pm**

Thrashia wrote:OMG, that ship is, quite frankly, ridiculous. That ship would need to be significantly larger in order to accommodate such a large number of weapon batteries.

Says you. Considering this particular drawing contains no references to power outputs, consumption of power per weapon, or even the width of the ship, you might ask for such details before you start making judgments.
Of course, while I can tell you that the ship is 180m wide at the midpoint, for the other two I'll tell you that it produces "enough" power and that each weapon consumes a "lot" of power. Those are metric measurements, BTW.

Not to mention that the placement of those weapons is equally ridiculous, since the destruction of one could trigger a train-reaction explosion that reaches inside the ship (this estimate based upon whatever munitions or connecting hardware attaches each turret to the main ship).

Not really, no. Since explosive munitions are fairly rare and railguns do not require explosive propellants and are not, generally, prone to exploding dramatically when shot. This also assumes that a large amount of such explosives would be present in each turret prior to firing, Russian ships have central magazines. It would be bloody stupid to keep large amounts of ammunition for each gun in a turret that's already crowded.
In conclusion, your estimate is silly.

Also, this ship would require extremely powerful shields,

Which it has. And very good armor as well.

[qute]since by using so much energy to power its weapon systems, the engine output must be negated by sheer necessity; which in turn repeats the previous point of it being too small.[/quote]
I repeat 'says you.' Our power generation facilities are quite up to the task, thank you. As to speed, inertialess, reactionless drives are fun.

My opinion? Scrap at least 1/3rd of those weapon batteries and enlarge it by half a klom.

I was considering adding projections to the side for more 6" guns. And maybe a couple more 18 inchers as well.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 4:38 pm**

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:
Thrashia wrote:OMG, that ship is, quite frankly, ridiculous. That ship would need to be significantly larger in order to accommodate such a large number of weapon batteries.

Says you. Considering this particular drawing contains no references to power outputs, consumption of power per weapon, or even the width of the ship, you might ask for such details before you start making judgments.
Of course, while I can tell you that the ship is 180m wide at the midpoint, for the other two I'll tell you that it produces "enough" power and that each weapon consumes a "lot" of power. Those are metric measurements, BTW.

Not to mention that the placement of those weapons is equally ridiculous, since the destruction of one could trigger a train-reaction explosion that reaches inside the ship (this estimate based upon whatever munitions or connecting hardware attaches each turret to the main ship).

Not really, no. Since explosive munitions are fairly rare and railguns do not require explosive propellants and are not, generally, prone to exploding dramatically when shot. This also assumes that a large amount of such explosives would be present in each turret prior to firing, Russian ships have central magazines. It would be bloody stupid to keep large amounts of ammunition for each gun in a turret that's already crowded.
In conclusion, your estimate is silly.

Also, this ship would require extremely powerful shields,

Which it has. And very good armor as well.

[qute]since by using so much energy to power its weapon systems, the engine output must be negated by sheer necessity; which in turn repeats the previous point of it being too small.

I repeat 'says you.' Our power generation facilities are quite up to the task, thank you. As to speed, inertialess, reactionless drives are fun.

My opinion? Scrap at least 1/3rd of those weapon batteries and enlarge it by half a klom.

I was considering adding projections to the side for more 6" guns. And maybe a couple more 18 inchers as well.[/quote]

One must have a proper amount of casemated side guns. Just would not be right without them!

Pity the popoffkas did not work well

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 4:53 pm**

I should note I find this to be a glass house with stones case.

Thrash DO you HAVE any idea what a Teraton could do ? seriously. Before going and using canon wars yields (that aren't realistic by a far margin ) you should do a little research. ISD's would BOIL. The Crew would be dead with the amount of energy they claim (retardedly).

What if I don't want to have guns with 90 trillion teraton yields.. Vague number values exist for a reason. Your ISD has a power output of X. I can simply say my ship has a value of X*10.

Mind you I don't play by hard scifi rules I mean seriously "I have singularity missiles" but I wont rp as your weapons having devastating effect on any ship I have thats equiv in role or grater (unless you give me a good gosh darn reason. Since By now since SW tech is the stock of or used to be the stock of NS , everyone and their mother would have a defense against them.) I think I'm justified.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 5:13 pm**

I have found through reading other people's posts over the years that assigning values to weapon yeilds only promotes numberwanking. Description of the effects of the weapon on the other hand allows one to remain in the story without some silly number bursting the bubble of disbelief and drag you out of the story.

Seriously, woudl you rather read a story that contains an argument about ever increasing mathematical values of weapon yeilds in the middle of a battle scene or one which instead describes the effects of the weapons being used? Most people would want the latter rather than the former.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 5:33 pm**

Of the topic of weapons (and number ratings of weapons) I thought I'd ask some questions about something I've been pondering. (Currently) I play the Sertian Empire as a... Somewhat realistic/plausibility as I can, trying to keep things 'possible' with a few thousand years of technological advancement with the exception of altering the dimensions of magnetic fields and space-time. Because of this, it means that a significant portion of my ships weight must be dedicated to hydrogen fuel for their torch drives, yet because having your ship be a gigantic hydrogen tanker with weapons is somewhat boring I've claimed the manufacturing expertise to store hydrogen in a super-critical fluid state (where it's practically a solid), and thus while 90% of my ship's weight is hydrogen, it only occupies 10% of the volume.

Currently this is the system used on my warships, with fun huge pressure explosions for a critical hit to the hydrogen container (even though 33-50% of it should be depleted if the ship is at 'peek' velocity). However, I've been pondering switching over to a dimensional pocket containment system for hydrogen in the future, thereby eliminating all carried fuel mass and perhaps requiring a smaller volume (I'm thinking you'd want to keep enough hydrogen 'in universe' however to cancel your momentum in case something horribly wrong happens and your access to a non-euclidean pocket of space is disrupted, but then again the ship could just FTL to one of the core worlds and be slowly decelerated by another ship, but that's digressing). However, I plan to keep my current model of ships for... Well, the conceivable future, which means this new system might never see the light of day. That, and it would make designing the interiors of these bloody things easier. So I'm wondering if I should just do a minor retcon and state that the current design of warships (which already have numerous 'radical' Dimensional technology such as their shields and power cores) use the dimensional pocket design rather than the standard 'explosive keg of compressed hydrogen' design.

That, or I could just say there was a retrofit/slight redesign in newly produced ships somewhere down the line, although I doubt I could get a plot point out of it.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 5:44 pm**

Balrogga wrote:I have found through reading other people's posts over the years that assigning values to weapon yeilds only promotes numberwanking. Description of the effects of the weapon on the other hand allows one to remain in the story without some silly number bursting the bubble of disbelief and drag you out of the story.

Seriously, woudl you rather read a story that contains an argument about ever increasing mathematical values of weapon yeilds in the middle of a battle scene or one which instead describes the effects of the weapons being used? Most people would want the latter rather than the former.

Quite. I just classify my weapon's ability based on simple, relative terms to give people an understanding of what sort of damage they can do. A 6" gun is a cruiser weapon and will deal nicely with lesser capital ships. A 12" gun is a fairly standard capital ship weapon designed for brawling with other capital ships. Anything OVER 12" is getting into the 'scary' range and if you see a gun with a caliber over 20" you're looking at the space combat equivalent of a laxative (it goes in one end if your ship and everything else comes out the other.)

Why bother with more details? If I say "HERPDA DERP MY GUN SHOOTS YOU WITH 24x10^9001 GIGADERPS OF FORCE" it just promotes the "WELL MY ARMOR CAN WITHSTAND 24.1x10^9001 GIGADERPS" argument. And then both sides whip out their calculators and a math duel to the death ensues.

Although I have no opposition to hard FT, just as long as the hard FT crowd doesn't expect everybody else to play by their rules.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 6:28 pm**

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:
Balrogga wrote:I have found through reading other people's posts over the years that assigning values to weapon yeilds only promotes numberwanking. Description of the effects of the weapon on the other hand allows one to remain in the story without some silly number bursting the bubble of disbelief and drag you out of the story.

Seriously, woudl you rather read a story that contains an argument about ever increasing mathematical values of weapon yeilds in the middle of a battle scene or one which instead describes the effects of the weapons being used? Most people would want the latter rather than the former.

Quite. I just classify my weapon's ability based on simple, relative terms to give people an understanding of what sort of damage they can do. A 6" gun is a cruiser weapon and will deal nicely with lesser capital ships. A 12" gun is a fairly standard capital ship weapon designed for brawling with other capital ships. Anything OVER 12" is getting into the 'scary' range and if you see a gun with a caliber over 20" you're looking at the space combat equivalent of a laxative (it goes in one end if your ship and everything else comes out the other.)

Why bother with more details? If I say "HERPDA DERP MY GUN SHOOTS YOU WITH 24x10^9001 GIGADERPS OF FORCE" it just promotes the "WELL MY ARMOR CAN WITHSTAND 24.1x10^9001 GIGADERPS" argument. And then both sides whip out their calculators and a math duel to the death ensues.

Although I have no opposition to hard FT, just as long as the hard FT crowd doesn't expect everybody else to play by their rules.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 8:08 pm**

Those ships remind me of Last Exile. A lot. Also, agreeing that expecting people to make up arbitrary output numbers for weapons in FT is silly. If you think there will be a tech mismatch discuss it before the RP.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 8:10 pm**

Why bother with more details? If I say "HERPDA DERP MY GUN SHOOTS YOU WITH 24x10^9001 GIGADERPS OF FORCE" it just promotes the "WELL MY ARMOR CAN WITHSTAND 24.1x10^9001 GIGADERPS" argument. And then both sides whip out their calculators and a math duel to the death ensues.

I have detailed stats for my ships for my own use. I enjoy crafting them and they help me envision the ships when I write.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 8:45 pm**

On the subject of fleets, we have three systems, our home system and two others. The home system has four active and two in reserve, the second has 3 active and two in reserve, and the last has 2 active and one in reserve. We finally have eight other fleets to serve on campaigns and be sent abroad, with six in reserve. This gives us decent coverage in times of peace and have enough reserves to last a significant war.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 9:32 pm**

I hate OMGs ships because of their resemblance to the Last Exile yet I am conflicted because green is also my favorite color :/

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 11:21 pm**

The WIck wrote:I hate OMGs ships because of their resemblance to the Last Exile yet I am conflicted because green is also my favorite color :/

I feel your pain Wick, I feel your pain.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2011 11:51 pm**

The WIck wrote:I hate OMGs ships because of their resemblance to the Last Exile yet I am conflicted because green is also my favorite color :/

You should stop hating good shows.

NationStates

Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only