Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[Excidium Planetis]

Ah, used a standard KE calculator - not a relativistic one. My bad.

Wait, that's still one GT. Hmmm.

The calculator I used gave me approximately 1.25 GT. Not that much more, but .25 GT is a lot of energy.

[Alfordshire]

Out of curiosity, however, why did you decide on 10 light-seconds? Presuming an unguided shell (otherwise it would be a missile..?) such a shot would miss any target capable of even modest maneuvering. Sorry Excidium. Couldn't resist.

The solution then, is to not fire one 250 pound projectile, but to fire 250 one pound projectiles over a large area. Try dodging that!

Darn tootin'! Or 2500 1/10th pound projectiles! At .75c... Yeah. They would make a mess. Which (baring all of the engineering details) would suggest that they'd be better firing 'grapeshot' out of these things than a single will-miss shell. Even assuming multiple guns, the overlap of multiple 'hits' would be more likely to cumulatively overwhelm the enemy shield generator than lobbing... 20 shells that *will miss* 99.99% of the time.

Which, again brings us back to engineering. A 250lb shell doesn't 'sound' like a lot when you consider... I'm afraid to ask how big these ships are... but when you start to consider how much hull volume they use, how much hull volume their feed systems use, how much hull volume their maintenance systems use... You might well end up with a ship that is basically 'all gun + ammo'. Which isn't to say that's a bad thing. 10ls engagement range is 'reasonable' for a siege gun designed around reducing static/newtonian targets.[/quote]

Elysian ships are a gun, missiles and capacitors taped to a shield generator and a centimeter of composite to act as a radiator. Crew accommodations are under the gun or right next to it, and are extremely sparse. These sorts of guns are found on cruiser weight and up, with the frigates receiving a gun that fires at 0.2c - 500 pounds, a little more practical.

Most ships clock in at 0.75-0.5 klicks. The railgun usually takes up 50%-75% of the ships space. It's a weird combination of a coilgun and a railgun that uses copious amounts of macguffins to deal with heat generation and other shenanigans.

Hmmm, grapeshot? Lemme quickly nab that!

[Kassaran]

I'm presently imaging a Hulk watermelon, or kinetic kill weapon watermelons. Not sure which is funnier

"This recruits, is a 2 kilo Citrillus Lanatus. Feel the weight."

"Every 5 seconds, the main accelerator near the Kassaran deep space laboratories shifts one extra-dimensionally across vast distances in deep space using highly experimental and dangerous technologies."

"It impacts with the force of 50-megaton bomb. That is the same yield as the largest hydrogen bomb ever used on Earth, the Soviet Tsar Bomba."

"That means, Shrodinger is the deadliest sunnuva bitch in space - when observed."

Relevant to the current conversation. Have you tried accelerating watermelons?

[Alfordshire]

Hmm.

Right, I was thinking about the main AsHM of the ETO - the Reaper KKV Launch Platform. It accelerates to 0.45c-0.1c after a extremely long burn period crossing a few light-minutes or light-seconds, then releases three KKVs designed to swiss-cheese enemy ships and core important parts such as engines.

Is this viable? The c-fractional speeds are gained by burn-periods lasting a few hours to a day by constant bursts of 1G thrusters.

[Sunset]

Hmm.

Right, I was thinking about the main AsHM of the ETO - the Reaper KKV Launch Platform. It accelerates to 0.45c-0.1c after a extremely long burn period crossing a few light-minutes or light-seconds, then releases three KKVs designed to swiss-cheese enemy ships and core important parts such as engines.

Is this viable? The c-fractional speeds are gained by burn-periods lasting a few hours to a day by constant bursts of 1G thrusters.

Against a like-level opponent? Sure. Or against one that is standing still or newtonian motion only.

Really, what you should be doing is putting your intelligence services to work figuring out what your likely opponents are fielding and then designing weapons/ships to counter them. So the slightly more precise-but-imprecise answer to your question is... 'It depends'. That said, unless working out all of this stuff is really interesting to you (and I'm kinda assuming it is), it would be more time-effective to skip working out their exact capabilities and focus on your writing abilities. Which - to cut back to my own advice (how self-serving...) would include things like writing or at least describing your intelligence-gathering capabilities, working with your RP partners to establish how successful or not they are, writing or describing your manufacturing/industrial capabilities, writing up some characters that will be your primary point of interface in any RP...

Having just experienced this myself, it really doesn't matter how 'neat' your weapon systems are and how well documented they are if no one wants to read the post (and thus reply to it) because it is dull as dishwater. Meanwhile you can skimp on a lot of technical details if you offer up an interesting, well-written, and enjoyable post. So to cut back to your question?

Yeah. That sounds fine. It depends.

[Birina]

Hmm.

Right, I was thinking about the main AsHM of the ETO - the Reaper KKV Launch Platform. It accelerates to 0.45c-0.1c after a extremely long burn period crossing a few light-minutes or light-seconds, then releases three KKVs designed to swiss-cheese enemy ships and core important parts such as engines.

Is this viable? The c-fractional speeds are gained by burn-periods lasting a few hours to a day by constant bursts of 1G thrusters.

Against a like-level opponent? Sure. Or against one that is standing still or newtonian motion only.

Really, what you should be doing is putting your intelligence services to work figuring out what your likely opponents are fielding and then designing weapons/ships to counter them. So the slightly more precise-but-imprecise answer to your question is... 'It depends'. That said, unless working out all of this stuff is really interesting to you (and I'm kinda assuming it is), it would be more time-effective to skip working out their exact capabilities and focus on your writing abilities. Which - to cut back to my own advice (how self-serving...) would include things like writing or at least describing your intelligence-gathering capabilities, working with your RP partners to establish how successful or not they are, writing or describing your manufacturing/industrial capabilities, writing up some characters that will be your primary point of interface in any RP...

Having just experienced this myself, it really doesn't matter how 'neat' your weapon systems are and how well documented they are if no one wants to read the post (and thus reply to it) because it is dull as dishwater. Meanwhile you can skimp on a lot of technical details if you offer up an interesting, well-written, and enjoyable post. So to cut back to your question?

Yeah. That sounds fine. It depends.

This, to me, seems completely off base. Pick up any great novel or novela. Dubliners? The Old Man and the Sea? Moby Dick? Tom Sawyer?

They all have one obvious thread in common: The author prattling on nonstop about how every piece of technology in their book works. Who can forget when Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are rowing down the Mississippi and Mark Twain takes two pages to detail exactly how the oar blades interact with the viscera in the water (and in fact repel water to propel the boat!)?

Who cares if the technology in those stories would be every day to the people in the story?! That's what makes good writing. And if you find any evidence to the contrary, well, I reject it on principle. I wrote this, I'll have you know, on my Electronic Personal Computer which functions by sending electromagnetic signals, via a key-to-board interface, to a system of coaxial cables, and then to fiber optic cables (which actually beam LIGHT, PEW PEW!) to a magnificent piece of technology called The Internet. Riveting stuff. Now if you'll excuse me I need to make myself some tea in my Electrical Water Boiling Device and put some slices of bread into the Bread Doublecooker that converts electrical energy into thermal energy in order to, effectively, cook the bread again.

[Lord Dominator]

I don’t think Sunset is saying to not put the technical detail in, just that you don’t need to - after all, while more complicated perhaps, compelling technical reading is just as good rp as compelling less-technical reading.

[Sunset]

This, to me, seems completely off base. Pick up any great novel or novela. Dubliners? The Old Man and the Sea? Moby Dick? Tom Sawyer?

They all have one obvious thread in common: The author prattling on nonstop about how every piece of technology in their book works. Who can forget when Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are rowing down the Mississippi and Mark Twain takes two pages to detail exactly how the oar blades interact with the viscera in the water (and in fact repel water to propel the boat!)?

Who cares if the technology in those stories would be every day to the people in the story?! That's what makes good writing. And if you find any evidence to the contrary, well, I reject it on principle. I wrote this, I'll have you know, on my Electronic Personal Computer which functions by sending electromagnetic signals, via a key-to-board interface, to a system of coaxial cables, and then to fiber optic cables (which actually beam LIGHT, PEW PEW!) to a magnificent piece of technology called The Internet. Riveting stuff. Now if you'll excuse me I need to make myself some tea in my Electrical Water Boiling Device and put some slices of bread into the Bread Doublecooker that converts electrical energy into thermal energy in order to, effectively, cook the bread again.

That was fantastic, thank you. Though I would suggest that toast is one of the greatest culinary inventions of all time and that the Maillard Reaction is overlooked only by food barbarians and mastication despots!

That said, and to keep things slightly on-topic, there's ample room for description in prose but that I submit to you (not you specifically but the room at large) that it is best occupied by answering the 'when/where/why/what/who/how' of a given character or scene rather than bogging oneself down in technical minutia. Unless, of course, that is one's goal as per an appropriate usage of parody or satire.

As far as that whacky goblin-thing is concerned? I have seen compelling - or at least humorous - technical writing before but it is usually character-driven and typically not done in the heat of battle. If I might draw a particularly poor connection..?

I play tabletop. Correct that. I used to play a lot of tabletop - D&D, etc - but, well... Now I don't. But one of the problems with tabletop - for me - is when someone takes a long-ass time to determine just exactly what their character's action is going to be. Ask the GM what's going on, look at where all the minis are, check their spell list, check a couple sourcebooks, get distracted by one of Sunset's off-color jokes... Thus a six-second action (eight, after inflation) becomes a twenty minute ordeal. What's my point, you might ask? Well, tabletop RP is collaborative story telling. The GM sets the scene, the wizard plays the same wizard whether it's Faerun or Shadowrun, and I try my best to derail the plot. But someone who takes a long time setting up their perfect action is just like a writer who explains the technical minutia in the middle of a battle.

Except... Take a look at the published authors. They don't. Often, in fact, battles have literal pages and chapters of lead-up and are then over in paragraphs. They are punchy, sharp, quick - often chaotic - much like real combat is. And I would offer the personal opinion that this is deliberate. Because pacing is important, both in good tabletop and good writing.

Now you might say to yourself, 'self, not only is this man an idiot (fair) but in a competitive RP environment how does one compete without showing just how awesome their words are?' My answer is 'you don't'. To follow the rabbit trail under the deck and through the hedge, I'm of the opinion that - just like tabletop - the best enemies are NPCs and not your fellow party members. No one likes a PKer. That isn't to say there's not a difference between killing a party member and getting a party member killed. The second can be hilarious, especially if it's that wizard.

But if you must dive into the technical details... Well, that's what maintenance threads are for. Don't read mine unless you like off-color jokes.

[New Visayan Islands]

This, to me, seems completely off base. Pick up any great novel or novela. Dubliners? The Old Man and the Sea? Moby Dick? Tom Sawyer?

They all have one obvious thread in common: The author prattling on nonstop about how every piece of technology in their book works. Who can forget when Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are rowing down the Mississippi and Mark Twain takes two pages to detail exactly how the oar blades interact with the viscera in the water (and in fact repel water to propel the boat!)?

Who cares if the technology in those stories would be every day to the people in the story?! That's what makes good writing. And if you find any evidence to the contrary, well, I reject it on principle. I wrote this, I'll have you know, on my Electronic Personal Computer which functions by sending electromagnetic signals, via a key-to-board interface, to a system of coaxial cables, and then to fiber optic cables (which actually beam LIGHT, PEW PEW!) to a magnificent piece of technology called The Internet. Riveting stuff. Now if you'll excuse me I need to make myself some tea in my Electrical Water Boiling Device and put some slices of bread into the Bread Doublecooker that converts electrical energy into thermal energy in order to, effectively, cook the bread again.

That was fantastic, thank you. Though I would suggest that toast is one of the greatest culinary inventions of all time and that the Maillard Reaction is overlooked only by food barbarians and mastication despots!

That said, and to keep things slightly on-topic, there's ample room for description in prose but that I submit to you (not you specifically but the room at large) that it is best occupied by answering the 'when/where/why/what/who/how' of a given character or scene rather than bogging oneself down in technical minutia. Unless, of course, that is one's goal as per an appropriate usage of parody or satire.

As far as that whacky goblin-thing is concerned? I have seen compelling - or at least humorous - technical writing before but it is usually character-driven and typically not done in the heat of battle. If I might draw a particularly poor connection..?

I play tabletop. Correct that. I used to play a lot of tabletop - D&D, etc - but, well... Now I don't. But one of the problems with tabletop - for me - is when someone takes a long-ass time to determine just exactly what their character's action is going to be. Ask the GM what's going on, look at where all the minis are, check their spell list, check a couple sourcebooks, get distracted by one of Sunset's off-color jokes... Thus a six-second action (eight, after inflation) becomes a twenty minute ordeal. What's my point, you might ask? Well, tabletop RP is collaborative story telling. The GM sets the scene, the wizard plays the same wizard whether it's Faerun or Shadowrun, and I try my best to derail the plot. But someone who takes a long time setting up their perfect action is just like a writer who explains the technical minutia in the middle of a battle.

Except... Take a look at the published authors. They don't. Often, in fact, battles have literal pages and chapters of lead-up and are then over in paragraphs. They are punchy, sharp, quick - often chaotic - much like real combat is. And I would offer the personal opinion that this is deliberate. Because pacing is important, both in good tabletop and good writing.

Now you might say to yourself, 'self, not only is this man an idiot (fair) but in a competitive RP environment how does one compete without showing just how awesome their words are?' My answer is 'you don't'. To follow the rabbit trail under the deck and through the hedge, I'm of the opinion that - just like tabletop - the best enemies are NPCs and not your fellow party members. No one likes a PKer. That isn't to say there's not a difference between killing a party member and getting a party member killed. The second can be hilarious, especially if it's that wizard.

But if you must dive into the technical details... Well, that's what maintenance threads are for. Don't read mine unless you like off-color jokes.

Most of this may have gone over my head... but I think that 'technical details' belong in the forums (or in Dispatches), NOT in roleplay - they should exist to ground a world, NOT fluff up your single-sentence war post. In a battle, does a soldier outline their weapon's mechanics? Perhaps a tidbit about how they cleaned it earlier but it's a cheap weapon that could still get them killed...

Notice: this comment was provided by a person who read the first page of this thread, took a few notes, and has no tangible experience with technology in roleplay.

[Birina]

[spoiler=editedsnip]That was fantastic, thank you. Though I would suggest that toast is one of the greatest culinary inventions of all time and that the Maillard Reaction is overlooked only by food barbarians and mastication despots!

That said, and to keep things slightly on-topic, there's ample room for description in prose but that I submit to you (not you specifically but the room at large) that it is best occupied by answering the 'when/where/why/what/who/how' of a given character or scene rather than bogging oneself down in technical minutia. Unless, of course, that is one's goal as per an appropriate usage of parody or satire.

As far as that whacky goblin-thing is concerned? I have seen compelling - or at least humorous - technical writing before but it is usually character-driven and typically not done in the heat of battle. If I might draw a particularly poor connection..?

I play tabletop. Correct that. I used to play a lot of tabletop - D&D, etc - but, well... Now I don't. But one of the problems with tabletop - for me - is when someone takes a long-ass time to determine just exactly what their character's action is going to be. Ask the GM what's going on, look at where all the minis are, check their spell list, check a couple sourcebooks, get distracted by one of Sunset's off-color jokes... Thus a six-second action (eight, after inflation) becomes a twenty minute ordeal. What's my point, you might ask? Well, tabletop RP is collaborative story telling. The GM sets the scene, the wizard plays the same wizard whether it's Faerun or Shadowrun, and I try my best to derail the plot. But someone who takes a long time setting up their perfect action is just like a writer who explains the technical minutia in the middle of a battle.

Except... Take a look at the published authors. They don't. Often, in fact, battles have literal pages and chapters of lead-up and are then over in paragraphs. They are punchy, sharp, quick - often chaotic - much like real combat is. And I would offer the personal opinion that this is deliberate. Because pacing is important, both in good tabletop and good writing.

Now you might say to yourself, 'self, not only is this man an idiot (fair) but in a competitive RP environment how does one compete without showing just how awesome their words are?' My answer is 'you don't'. To follow the rabbit trail under the deck and through the hedge, I'm of the opinion that - just like tabletop - the best enemies are NPCs and not your fellow party members. No one likes a PKer. That isn't to say there's not a difference between killing a party member and getting a party member killed. The second can be hilarious, especially if it's that wizard.

But if you must dive into the technical details... Well, that's what maintenance threads are for. Don't read mine unless you like off-color jokes.

Most of this may have gone over my head... but I think that 'technical details' belong in the forums (or in Dispatches), NOT in roleplay - they should exist to ground a world, NOT fluff up your single-sentence war post. In a battle, does a soldier outline their weapon's mechanics? Perhaps a tidbit about how they cleaned it earlier but it's a cheap weapon that could still get them killed...

Notice: this comment was provided by a person who read the first page of this thread, took a few notes, and has no tangible experience with technology in roleplay.

Hi, there, welcome to NationStates. I am Birina. First of all, let me assure you, everything I wrote did indeed go over your head. But that's not a mark against you so much as it is a mark in my favor about how awesome I am. You see, my nation is a "satirical" nation. The word "satirical" means that if you like what I write and think it's funny, you interpreted it as intended and if you don't like it that means you didn't read it correctly. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what that word means. I've been using it in sentences where I put it in quotation marks with growing confidence to see how people react and I'm fairly certain I've nearly homed in on its actual meaning.

That out of the way, you are completely correct and that is the point that Sunset and I were both making... with varying degrees of sarcasm.

Ultimately, no matter the technology level, you want to write what you enjoy writing. If that writing is pleasurable for others to read as well that is certainly ideal. But that actually takes effort. There's a reason most people aren't best selling authors but any jackass can have a diary, right? Also use quotes, not spoilers.

[Sunset]

Most of this may have gone over my head... but I think that 'technical details' belong in the forums (or in Dispatches), NOT in roleplay - they should exist to ground a world, NOT fluff up your single-sentence war post. In a battle, does a soldier outline their weapon's mechanics? Perhaps a tidbit about how they cleaned it earlier but it's a cheap weapon that could still get them killed...

Notice: this comment was provided by a person who read the first page of this thread, took a few notes, and has no tangible experience with technology in roleplay.

As much as I really want to trigger another one of Birina's replys...

This is pretty much spot-on - again, per my opinion and analysis of published authors. The key is timing and pacing as well as the construction of the particular piece of writing. A soldier complaining about the quality of their weapon in the middle of a battle would be a good way to slow the pace of a particular set of paragraphs down - before suddenly ramping it up in those few sentences where that quality is put to the test; 'the gun went 'click'. And if your war post ends up having to be a single sentence? Well; sometimes that happens.

[Santheres]

I'm going to leave a general reminder here that this is an OOC help thread; if you're not going to post in good faith, then it is better if you do not post at all.

[Kyrusia]

Notice: this comment was provided by a person who read the first page of this thread, took a few notes, and has no tangible experience with technology in roleplay.

You're golden. Tech is all window dressing - and I say that as someone with a penchant for going into onerous detail (for my own enjoyment and factbooking) about random things no one but myself is really interested in.

[Sskiss]

Notice: this comment was provided by a person who read the first page of this thread, took a few notes, and has no tangible experience with technology in roleplay.

You're golden. Tech is all window dressing - and I say that as someone with a penchant for going into onerous detail (for my own enjoyment and factbooking) about random things no one but myself is really interested in.

I agree with the 'tech is all window dressing' sentiment, but I've found, if done well enough just makes everything that much more believable. In truth, I've found some factbooks very enjoyable to read.

[Allanea]

Well, competitive vs. non-competitive RP is a sliding scale, not an on-off switch. It very much depends on the specific milieu of the people you’re with. In my view it’s useful to be able to adjust this scale depending on what kind of roleplay you’re in, and to be clear with your RP partners as to what your expectations are from each other.

Now, everything I said here is opinion. A lot of very successful (at least, in terms of the fact that they are famous, or they sold a lot of books and made a lot of money at their time) writers do include vast technical descriptions in their books. Homer includes a detailed order of battle in Iliad, Victor Hugo includes a 60-page aside about the Paris Sewers, Jules Verne includes elaborate descriptions of how his protagonists make guncotton and nitroglycerine. In writing that is, shall we say, less classical but also commercially successful, there’s any number of action or survival books where the author goes into a detailed description of the protagonist’s firearms, or the tactics used, or what-have-you. Clearly these are popular and sell lots of copies so we can only presume that their fans presume reading them.

But in the contexts of NationStates roleplay I think there are three forms of describing your stuff.


1) Your Space Warrior’s Technical Manual stuff: What is it? What ‘specs’ does it have? How large is it, compared to other stuff that exists in the setting, or to other stuff that the reader is familiar with from real life? This doesn’t belong in
your roleplay. It belongs in whatever background material you have, your factbook, your what-have-you.

2) Your Napoleon at Austerlitz stuff: What is happening? Are you attacking with the missile or the death ray? The exact level of detail depends on the kind of roleplay you’re involved with, but in my view, it needs to be clear and not exceptionally long-winded.

3) Now we are at the meat of the stuff: what does all of this feel like? What are the emotions, physical senses, etc., that using this gear is like? Does the gun make the earth shudder as it fires, recoiling with fearful force, spreading a slightly sweet, chemical smell, or fire a beam of pure, blue light, making utterly no sound as it does so? Do your mecha dash forward in a loping, predatory gate, or stride to battle, shaking the ground before them? People experience reality through all five senses. I recommend reading real-world memoirs of violence as well as re-reading your favorite novels.

It's useful to have some mental reference, IMO, as to how big / heavy, etc. your stuff is so you can describe it in a consistent way (that’s why shows have writer’s bibles) but evidently some excessively competitive players have given this practice a somewhat bad name. You should do it a little bit at least, and expand if you enjoy it. I enjoy it a lot.

But in short, in a roleplay that is not entirely scripted, the purpose of describing your character’s action is to both engage in a sort of collaborative storytelling… and also, because it’s still a game, and it’s not entirely unscripted, provide your other partners with clear information about what your characters are doing. So it’s probably ideal not to descend into 1,000-word technical descriptions, but you also don’t want to just keep everything vague and non-technical outright.

[The Stellar Union]

This is the only FT advice thread i could find, so sorry if this is gravedigging.

What would be the most realistic way for me to have my warships be able to enter and leave a planets atmosphere? I only want a few of my smaller warships and bombers to be able to enter, along with some transport ships for dropping ground troops. In order for the warship to avoid burning, i think the best way would be to have some kind of heat shield at the front of the ships, and they sort of nosedive into the atmosphere at a angle. For when they want to leave the planets atmosphere, im thinking they might have some sort of thruster in the back dedicated to pushing the ship upwards and out of the atmosphere (Again, only my smaller (by small i mean 100 - 300 meters) would ehrtet the atmospheres of planets and have these kind of thrusters). However my biggest problem is how the ship will hold itself up while floating in the atmosphere, i immediately though of just having engines on the bottom to hold up the ship, but i feel like that is very fuel inefficient and there has to be a better way to do it.

[G-Tech Corporation]

This is the only FT advice thread i could find, so sorry if this is gravedigging.

What would be the most realistic way for me to have my warships be able to enter and leave a planets atmosphere? I only want a few of my smaller warships and bombers to be able to enter, along with some transport ships for dropping ground troops. In order for the warship to avoid burning, i think the best way would be to have some kind of heat shield at the front of the ships, and they sort of nosedive into the atmosphere at a angle. For when they want to leave the planets atmosphere, im thinking they might have some sort of thruster in the back dedicated to pushing the ship upwards and out of the atmosphere (Again, only my smaller (by small i mean 100 - 300 meters) would ehrtet the atmospheres of planets and have these kind of thrusters). However my biggest problem is how the ship will hold itself up while floating in the atmosphere, i immediately though of just having engines on the bottom to hold up the ship, but i feel like that is very fuel inefficient and there has to be a better way to do it.

So, there's a lot of fuzziness here based on where your nation/faction is in terms of tech - but since you're talking about fuel and whatnot, I'm going to take a stab at nothing too fancy.

At a very basic level, the easiest places for a craft with extra-atmospheric and intra-atmospheric capabilities to station-keep and support ground operations are either geosynch orbit or actually landing. Anything else is going to burn a lot of reaction mass to avoid leaving the combat area (in orbital terms), if you're talking thrusters and whatnot.

Heatshields are fine, so long as you have a methodology for thermal dissipation post-entry and either materials sufficient to not excessively degrade in the process, or a means of replacing or repairing said heatshield. Ditto leaving the atmosphere, though that is significantly more complicated from a reusability standpoint if you're concerned about fuel constraints - modern and near-modern fuel sources are going to be pretty bulky to take even small vessels back out of a gravity well after any significant descent.

Basically, you can hang around in geosynch, in which case you don't need to use the heat-shield or any significant reaction mass to push yourself back out into interplanetary space - but then you face the difficulty of whatever troops/munitions you are deploying being capable of making the transit down to the surface themselves.

Or you can fully land on the planet, which solves that issue, but adds the former about fuel and atmospheric re-entry.

Mind you, there are some exotic solutions to your problem. If you could, say, significantly decelerate your landingcraft before reaching the planetary surface, and had tunable lighter-than-air reactions built into your craft, you could theoretically deploy some sort of zeppelin/high atmosphere balloon attached to the vehicles to allow your ships to station-keep in the upper atmosphere with minimal fuel burn to counteract gravity. Or, say, slap a supertensile tether to a larger vessel out in geosynch, then dangle your smaller craft down into the atmosphere. But those might not be meaningfully in your technological horizon.

[Crimetopolis B]

So where would anti-force field bullets fit here? Donot forget. 'What can be devised can be defeated.' Improved rifles, attack dogs and automatic pistols broke the Indian Renegades[1896-1924], The FT-17 tank and fresh American reinforcement broke Trench Warfare[1918]. Defended zones like EL Alamein and Kursk broke the blitzkrieg.

The Vietcong broke America's will to Jungle fight. In turn, they were destroyed in the Tet offensive. The myth of the invincible Third World likewise was shattered in the Toyota War, Panama, Angola, and Desert Storm.

[Dtn]

This is the only FT advice thread i could find, so sorry if this is gravedigging.

What would be the most realistic way for me to have my warships be able to enter and leave a planets atmosphere? I only want a few of my smaller warships and bombers to be able to enter, along with some transport ships for dropping ground troops. In order for the warship to avoid burning, i think the best way would be to have some kind of heat shield at the front of the ships, and they sort of nosedive into the atmosphere at a angle. For when they want to leave the planets atmosphere, im thinking they might have some sort of thruster in the back dedicated to pushing the ship upwards and out of the atmosphere (Again, only my smaller (by small i mean 100 - 300 meters) would ehrtet the atmospheres of planets and have these kind of thrusters). However my biggest problem is how the ship will hold itself up while floating in the atmosphere, i immediately though of just having engines on the bottom to hold up the ship, but i feel like that is very fuel inefficient and there has to be a better way to do it.

If your ship is magic already shouldn’t it just float

Why would thrusters need fuel in the air?