Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Rethan]

Do you lot prefer a large fleet of cheap ships, or a smaller fleet of better ships
Im personally in the latter, with ships working on their own or in small groups [/i]

Technically, I suppose you could class me as the "large fleet of cheap ships". The vast majority of Pathogenic vessels aren't dedicated combat warships, and travel in vast fleets easily surpassing a hundred ships. Typically, these huge ass fleets will only have maybe 1 combat vessel for every 10 or so other classes, and everything else is either a planet harvester, a progenitor ship or a planetary assault ship (basically a glorified carrier which unloads hundreds of drones in atmo. These drones are next useless in space). The actual Combat vessels (Rephaim) are incredibly potent, however. Just about enough to protect the rest of the fleet from the lesser races the Pathogenic prey on.

If I'm actually going to war and not picking up some of my kids, then you'll never see a fleet larger than 5 or so Rephaim. The remainder of my vessels tend to stay away from the frontlines, and my Rephaim as a result can use their more lethal weaponry without worrying about looking after their younger siblings.

Then there are the Gods, of which there are 4 and they operate alone. And each single one scares the shit out of any number of Rephaim.

So yeah, I fit in both categories depending on when you encounter one of my fleets. When harvesting, huge with cheap expendable things. When killing, small and powerful.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Russia employs a core of very high quality ships supported by hoards of cheap vessels.

Basically, our battleships are flying fortresses with huge firepower and great defensive abilities, although they are a little slow and their FTL is somewhat limited compared to conventional NSFT standards, but if you get into a slugging match with them they are fully capable of making you regret it.

These are supported by huge formations of torpedo boats, which tend to straddle the line of 'capital ships' in that some of them are corvettes while others can be up to around a hundred meters in length. Their job is basically to fly right up to an enemy and unleash the missile spam. Since torpedoes are designed to kill Earthly battleships in a few hits, they are obviously not something you want to mess with.

There's also a bunch of frigates and cruisers and stuff, but nobody cares about them. They're just not as sexy as the BBs and TBs.

[Strykla]

Russia employs a core of very high quality ships supported by hoards of cheap vessels.

Basically, our battleships are flying fortresses with huge firepower and great defensive abilities, although they are a little slow and their FTL is somewhat limited compared to conventional NSFT standards, but if you get into a slugging match with them they are fully capable of making you regret it.

These are supported by huge formations of torpedo boats, which tend to straddle the line of 'capital ships' in that some of them are corvettes while others can be up to around a hundred meters in length. Their job is basically to fly right up to an enemy and unleash the missile spam. Since torpedoes are designed to kill Earthly battleships in a few hits, they are obviously not something you want to mess with.

There's also a bunch of frigates and cruisers and stuff, but nobody cares about them. They're just not as sexy as the BBs and TBs.

Hmm... Interesting, though I might be able to overcome it.
My capital ships are essentially battlestars with a few upgrades - Namely kinetic barriers. They mostly absorb the kinetic energy of shots and give the incoming shell less mass through ways I probably shouldn't try to explain, though they can be overloaded in extended battle. But the point-defense system is extremely complex.
I use dozens of specially placed 180mm flak cannons that can surround the ship with shrapnel if need be, and are accurate to four meters against a missile or fighter traveling at less than 500 km/s. They can stop groups of missiles, and have a reload time of six seconds. So missile spam is mostly negated. Roughly one in fifty missiles will get through, I'd say. The main cannons could easily smash a ship one hundred meters in length, because the shell itself is a fourth that length and has sixty trillion joules of energy.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

I think people underestimate the upkeep costs of their military. I mean more than just using a probe droid to shine the hull of your ships. To get an understanding of what I mean, read the following (Modern military considerations that are still applicable to our FT armies imho):

Troop Support Considerations
1) Are rations in ready supply?
2) Where are extra rations stored?
3) The durability of the storerooms and buildings where the rations are stored.
4) What weapons can the storage facilities resist in case of attack?
5) How do they appear from the air?
6) Rationing the rations: projections?
7) Sustainable and Unsustainable ration planning, appended increase or decrease based on casualties.
8 ) Water filtration centers.
9) Is there an adequate supply of water?
10) How many water filtration centers are required to keep every soldier supplied?
11) Estimates of foreign disease or infection due to alien environment.
12) Types of disease and contagion.
13) Influence of new disease brought with troops on the local civilian population.
14) List of established medical facilities.
15) Clear and updated stock list of those established medical facilities.
16) Training regimes and training schedules to keep the soldiers prepped and occupied.
17) Condition of present weapon supplies, both in the field and storage.
18) Ammunition supplies, both in field and storage.
19) Projections for how long both weapons and ammunition will last.
20) Exact numbers of soldiers in units, which are understrength, which are "green," who are their officers, which have access to armor or other.
21) Supply depot centers and the establishment of distribution plans.
22) Administration of supply depot centers and the required man-power to effectively transport the required supplies and ammunition to battle troops.
23) Clear access to and from such depot centers.
24) Consideration of air power in regards to transport of supplies if not applicable from the ground.
25) Defending supply routes to and from the "front lines."

...and the list continues. Most of the rest would be considered subjective to the location, time, and place of where combat or military maneuvers would take place. Most of the above is also in consideration of ground operations, on a planet. For the Fleet or Space navies, a similar tact needs to be taken:

In SPAAAACE
1) How long can a fully crewed ship last on its own power, fuel, and rations?
2) Battle fatigue and casualties. Are replacements in ready supply and in readily accessible areas for R&R?
3) Does the ship carry with it a prepped repair crew or does the nature of your ship require dockyards and heavier work? (dependent)
4) Can your fleet readily guard supply convoys and direct pathways (fastest route between point A and B) of your front line and your base of supply?
5) Forms of communication. Can the enemy jam your long range transmissions for reinforcement? If so, what can you do?
6) Establishing "lines of communication" in order to ensure both ready supply routes and ease of transport.

...that's all I have time to think on. Work, work, work...

Focusing this hard on a strategic idea like logistics leads to RTS-style roleplaying. It is not good form, tbh. I've seen few decent fiction novella focus solely on strategic aspects of a war. Actually, one. It either takes an extremely talented writer, or an extremely large amount of luck to pull off.

[Allanea]

We are not writing fiction here. WE're playing a game.

[Thrashia]

When it comes to logistics, nothing cheeses me off more than the assholes that claim their necessity or lack thereof for a military. Nationstates is a game with no system of rules. Interaction is based on one thing, intent. If a military with no logistics to speak of is supposed to function like one with immense logistics chains, then it will so for all intents and purposes. There is no way in hell you'll be able to engage in mass combat without that fundamental understanding. Fatal logistical flaws don't exist in nationstates, they never have and they never will. There will be those who continue to lie to themselves about their highly detailed logistics chains being better than their opponents... But that just leads to arguments and arguments ruin stories. If these means that armies living entirely of the land have numerical and technological parity with armies featuring intricate logistics networks, so be it.

If I'm in an war RP with a nation, I will RP "with the intent" of cutting his lines of communication, targeting industrial targets, and isolating his military. There is nothing difficult with this idea. It's the same concept as people posting their casualties in a war thread. If you claim to not need small details like logistics, then why in the hell should we consider the posting of casualties? It's all about intent so maybe we should just spend months writing back and forth about cool stories about how my army smashes head-on against your army and then once of us gets tired of writing, they declare the other winner...because that's all I'm getting out of your little comment here.

I don't believe in the idea of better logistics chains, merely that one a player uses is efficient to his needs. If he considers it to be efficient to his army's requirement then I recognize that fact and then work out strategies for the RP to destroy it. Once/if that has been destroyed, is it not fair for me to expect that as a result my opponent's military will be weaker or forced to retreat or otherwise be compelled by my military action?

I mean, really, it's not that difficult a concept. I'm not expecting everyone to have a detailed logistic plan or something, simply an understanding that there are dimensions to military action and existence that goes beyond stating "I have these troops and these are their awesome looking uniforms." I'm stating all this in a very hyperbolic manner, but I really don't know how else to put it.

[Terraius]

Just to fuck with you guys, I'm training a small corp of Ewoks to destroy all your fancy armies. You will rue the day you tried to mock the Teddies...

I KNEW IT.

[Karaig]

Just to fuck with you guys, I'm training a small corp of Ewoks to destroy all your fancy armies. You will rue the day you tried to mock the Teddies...

I KNEW IT.

Please, any gun could kill an Ewok. Noobs, watch how its done...
....
....
Wait what's this?
....
NOOOOO IT'S KID FRIENDLY PLOT ARMOUR!!!!!!!

[The Soviet Technocracy]

We are not writing fiction here. WE're playing a game.

It is text-based, tbh, which automatically leads me to think of it as a collaborative novella/world building project.

Then again I did make this thread.

[Allanea]

It has story-telling components. But story-telling it's not its only function. Gameplaying (and indeed some powergaming) are legitimate components too.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

It has story-telling components. But story-telling it's not its only function. Gameplaying (and indeed some powergaming) are legitimate components too.

Agreed, although I find my personal writing style lends itself to more of a novella focusing on characterisation. That is, using the plot as a framework with which to explore characters, not using characters to advance the plot.

Both are completely legitimate, though, and I retract my previous statement.

[Sskiss]

I have found all this talk very interesting. The main reasons for my navy being what it is, is ultimately based on the physiology of the race as a whole. Basically, a Sskiss fleet is a large number of fast highly manueverable small to medium sized vessels (50 - 400 meters) which reflects their ancient pack hunting tactics in taking down larger 'prey' in the form of (often) larger enemy vessels. Larger vessels exist, and these are all system based. Another reason for this doctrine, is that the Sskiss occupy too many systems to make constructing larger vessels worthwhile. i.e: to many resources in one place is generally not a good idea if you already occupy a large number of systems. Larger vessels, like their smaller counterparts, can only be at one place at one time...

The individual Sskiss vessel 'business end' is all located in the front. Which of course, reflects the Sskiss themselves, that is, deadly. The weaponry is all spinal mounted.

[Allanea]

Also, another important point to explore is that military detalization can be a part of worldbuilding.

Consider: military planning hinges not only on practicality (or all of us would be sporting vaguely-similar military forces, with only the colors of their hats differing a bit), but on how a given nation evolves, it's geographic and economic demands (in the real-world, Israel uses tanks with the engine placed in the front of the vehicle - while everybody else places it in the rear), as well as the culture's subjective understanding of military needs and solutions (look at the design differences between AK and AR rifles). Military worldbuilding is - if it floats your boat - another window onto your nation's culture, history, and economics.

[guess who is going to be doing his Ph.D. in military history]

[Sskiss]

Also, another important point to explore is that military detalization can be a part of worldbuilding.

Consider: military planning hinges not only on practicality (or all of us would be sporting vaguely-similar military forces, with only the colors of their hats differing a bit), but on how a given nation evolves, it's geographic and economic demands (in the real-world, Israel uses tanks with the engine placed in the front of the vehicle - while everybody else places it in the rear), as well as the culture's subjective understanding of military needs and solutions (look at the design differences between AK and AR rifles). Military worldbuilding is - if it floats your boat - another window onto your nation's culture, history, and economics.

[guess who is going to be doing his Ph.D. in military history]

An excellent point Allanea. This is what I attempted, although inadvertently in my last post.

[Saurisisia]

Hm, I've been wondering, are Nukes viable in FT or is it better to go with something else?

[The Fedral Union]

Don't worry about it Nukes are still viable, they don't have to be like modern weapons plenty of nations use supped up versions them.

[Saurisisia]

Nukes are still viable just make them larger or use anti-matter

Hm, okay.

But I heard someone say it's not good to use them in space.

[The Fedral Union]

They're perfectly fine they just wont have the shock wave they do in a planets atmosphere, the radiation, EMP, and heat though will still be there. And if you're talking about capital grade weapons your fine and dandy.

[Saurisisia]

They're perfectly fine they just wont have the shock wave they do in a planets atmosphere, the radiation, EMP, and heat though will still be there. And if you're talking about capital grade weapons your fine and dandy.

Ah, okay, thanks!

So, I guess Supernukes are more viable in FT than regular nukes, eh?

[Nfhd]

I'm extremely new to RPing and all these discussions. But what it looks like to me is that when people do Future Tech they seem to lean to the side of technology that is in stargate for example hyperdrives or Lasers or shields. Is this the case or am I just making a bad assumption.

[Balrogga]

In FT, the most important aspect is working with the other players to compose the story.

Everything else is secondary because without the other players you are only playing with yourself...

[Thrashia]

...without the other players you are only playing with yourself...

[Balrogga]

I am glad at least one person figured out that gag.

[Auman]

Do you lot prefer a large fleet of cheap ships, or a smaller fleet of better ships
Im personally in the latter, with ships working on their own or in small groups

You can't really say which is better for all circumstances. Which is better is going to depend on a whole hell of a lot of factors - what your society is, who your enemies tend to be, what kinds of investment and material capital you have, your... galactography? - just to name a few.

It's pretty easy to figure out what is best for all situations, Derek. You have to go through a simple check list that I will explain now.

1.) Are the Aumanii doing it?
2.) Did the Aumanii make it?
3.) Were you trained and equipped by the Aumanii?

If you answer yes to any of these, you're on an unfailing track to victory in all spheres of interest.

[Auman]

I think people underestimate the upkeep costs of their military. I mean more than just using a probe droid to shine the hull of your ships. To get an understanding of what I mean, read the following (Modern military considerations that are still applicable to our FT armies imho):

Troop Support Considerations
1) Are rations in ready supply?
2) Where are extra rations stored?
3) The durability of the storerooms and buildings where the rations are stored.
4) What weapons can the storage facilities resist in case of attack?
5) How do they appear from the air?
6) Rationing the rations: projections?
7) Sustainable and Unsustainable ration planning, appended increase or decrease based on casualties.
8 ) Water filtration centers.
9) Is there an adequate supply of water?
10) How many water filtration centers are required to keep every soldier supplied?
11) Estimates of foreign disease or infection due to alien environment.
12) Types of disease and contagion.
13) Influence of new disease brought with troops on the local civilian population.
14) List of established medical facilities.
15) Clear and updated stock list of those established medical facilities.
16) Training regimes and training schedules to keep the soldiers prepped and occupied.
17) Condition of present weapon supplies, both in the field and storage.
18) Ammunition supplies, both in field and storage.
19) Projections for how long both weapons and ammunition will last.
20) Exact numbers of soldiers in units, which are understrength, which are "green," who are their officers, which have access to armor or other.
21) Supply depot centers and the establishment of distribution plans.
22) Administration of supply depot centers and the required man-power to effectively transport the required supplies and ammunition to battle troops.
23) Clear access to and from such depot centers.
24) Consideration of air power in regards to transport of supplies if not applicable from the ground.
25) Defending supply routes to and from the "front lines."

...and the list continues. Most of the rest would be considered subjective to the location, time, and place of where combat or military maneuvers would take place. Most of the above is also in consideration of ground operations, on a planet. For the Fleet or Space navies, a similar tact needs to be taken:

In SPAAAACE
1) How long can a fully crewed ship last on its own power, fuel, and rations?
2) Battle fatigue and casualties. Are replacements in ready supply and in readily accessible areas for R&R?
3) Does the ship carry with it a prepped repair crew or does the nature of your ship require dockyards and heavier work? (dependent)
4) Can your fleet readily guard supply convoys and direct pathways (fastest route between point A and B) of your front line and your base of supply?
5) Forms of communication. Can the enemy jam your long range transmissions for reinforcement? If so, what can you do?
6) Establishing "lines of communication" in order to ensure both ready supply routes and ease of transport.

...that's all I have time to think on. Work, work, work...

When it comes to logistics, nothing cheeses me off more than the assholes that claim their necessity or lack thereof for a military. Nationstates is a game with no system of rules. Interaction is based on one thing, intent. If a military with no logistics to speak of is supposed to function like one with immense logistics chains, then it will so for all intents and purposes. There is no way in hell you'll be able to engage in mass combat without that fundamental understanding. Fatal logistical flaws don't exist in nationstates, they never have and they never will. There will be those who continue to lie to themselves about their highly detailed logistics chains being better than their opponents... But that just leads to arguments and arguments ruin stories. If these means that armies living entirely of the land have numerical and technological parity with armies featuring intricate logistics networks, so be it.

I see what you did there.