Advice Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[SquareDisc City]

On top of that, those with planetary shields must consider:
1) How in the blue blazes do you get your energy from your lolDysonsphere to your planet? Don't tell me you beam it using massive energy relays, please, just no. If you have that much energy that you can transmit across space, you should be using it to burn the enemy warships like ants under a magnifying glass, not powering some pansy defensive energy shield.
2) If you have AM, by the Devil's Grandmother, where are you getting it all from? All the AM-harvesting schemes I've heard that work on an viable level exist in space- please explain how you get that highly volatile resource to your besieged planet.

1) How in the blue blazes do you expect your energy relays to be able to hit the mobile enemy warships at interplanetary distances? 2) You don't, you use what you've stockpiled. Like in any siege, you hope the enemy runs out of supplies before you do. Of course this may mean you need other forces, say from other systems or your allies, to obstruct the enemy supply lines.

Whilst I agree with you completely, power becomes less of a problem when you siphon it direct from your star.

A competent besieging force would cut that siphon. (A force that can't, but tries the siege anyway, is incompetent!)

[Arthropoda Ingens]

Why do both of you assume a planetary shield would require a large energy source? The job of a shield is to safely dissipate the energy that impinges on it. Depending on exact mechanism (if any is described) the power requirements could be modest.

Regardless of the precise handwavium that justifies the shield, simply projecting said shield over the entirety of a planetary surface is likely (not guaranteed, but I would assume highly probable) to require a significant amount of energy. Simply look at the amount of power we put in to transmitting an electrical grid across the world, as a very small-scale somewhat relevant near-example. I refer to Newton for my further logic: In order to oppose a force, one needs an equal and opposite force. By some means your shield has to oppose or absorb the incoming force of the explosive/energy/mass that is beating on its shield by some means, be it dissipation or another mechanism.

In my opinion, and in that of several sci-fi writers with whom I am quite familiar, shields actually take more energy to protect their subject from weapons-fire than the energy required to fire said weapons in the first place. So, if your enemy is bombarding you with enough energy to crack your planetary crust and immolate the surface, you must put the equivalent (or more) energy into your shield to stop said planetary holocaust.

Which isn't exactly difficult to do, given that a planetary shield would've $Arbitrary_Amount_Of_Time to be booted up, and on account of not requiring things like propulsion, be a lot more mass efficient than spaceships.

Even if one assumes that a shield can be weakened bit by bit (With pretty entertaining side effects, given that the energy being removed from the shield, and the energy dissipated by the shield have to go somewhere), it's going to take a while to break it down. There'd of course be limiting factors - the capacity of a shield is going to be limited depending on how much mass one invests in it -, but well. Planets with their trillions of tonnes worth of infrastructure have plenty of mass that can be dedicated to them. And planetary-scale power production should do pretty well in 'Refuelling' such a shield in case of an attack.

A few billion tonnes worth of planetary shield infrastructure, and a few months to charge it... Should take a pretty major fleet and a significant amount of time to break something like that.

[The Akasha Colony]

Regardless of the precise handwavium that justifies the shield, simply projecting said shield over the entirety of a planetary surface is likely (not guaranteed, but I would assume highly probable) to require a significant amount of energy. Simply look at the amount of power we put in to transmitting an electrical grid across the world, as a very small-scale somewhat relevant near-example. I refer to Newton for my further logic: In order to oppose a force, one needs an equal and opposite force. By some means your shield has to oppose or absorb the incoming force of the explosive/energy/mass that is beating on its shield by some means, be it dissipation or another mechanism.

In my opinion, and in that of several sci-fi writers with whom I am quite familiar, shields actually take more energy to protect their subject from weapons-fire than the energy required to fire said weapons in the first place. So, if your enemy is bombarding you with enough energy to crack your planetary crust and immolate the surface, you must put the equivalent (or more) energy into your shield to stop said planetary holocaust.

Which isn't exactly difficult to do, given that a planetary shield would've $Arbitrary_Amount_Of_Time to be booted up, and on account of not requiring things like propulsion, be a lot more mass efficient than spaceships.

Even if one assumes that a shield can be weakened bit by bit (With pretty entertaining side effects, given that the energy being removed from the shield, and the energy dissipated by the shield have to go somewhere), it's going to take a while to break it down. There'd of course be limiting factors - the capacity of a shield is going to be limited depending on how much mass one invests in it -, but well. Planets with their trillions of tonnes worth of infrastructure have plenty of mass that can be dedicated to them. And planetary-scale power production should do pretty well in 'Refuelling' such a shield in case of an attack.

A few billion tonnes worth of planetary shield infrastructure, and a few months to charge it... Should take a pretty major fleet and a significant amount of time to break something like that.

Depending on the series, it often seems as if the dissipated energy ends up going into the target ship anyway. Watching a Star Trek movie makes one wonder why they even bother with shields; the bridge consoles seem to all explode anyway regardless of whether the shot hit the shields or the hull. Within four shots in The Undiscovered Country, Chang's Bird of Prey has Enterprise's bridge filled with smoke, flames, and damaged cabling, while engineering is also starting to fall apart, and only then does Scotty say the shields are 'weakening.'

[Sertian]

We all know that the Federation forgot how to build surge protectors anyway.

[Vocenae]

In the far future of the 23rd century, there are only randomly exploding operations consoles.

[The Akasha Colony]

We all know that the Federation forgot how to build surge protectors anyway.

And evidently manufactures critical control interfaces out of explosive components. Detcord for internal wiring? Thermite for paneling? Sounds good bro. While you're at it, could you design me a hostile-environment urban patrol vehicle?

[SquareDisc City]

Explanation 1: In reality, the Federation is easily powerful enough to be hegemonic over the entire galaxy. Kirk, Picard, and so on are sent out on their missions for a bit of fun, and it would be no fun if everything was calm and tranquil on the bridge during combat.
Explanation 2: The Federation command could make ships that didn't have everything go wrong inside during combat, but they feel this would promote weakness in their officers and crew, so they allow the bad conditions to occur to toughen them up.

[Zebian Syndicate]

Welp. Ya know,... I'm a defensive minded player at heart.
And reading this thread, -trying to catch up after a while and all- well, it was just plain painful.
I WAS going to do this super big mega long ass ultra post about how orbital superiority is just as massively over rated as aerial superiority in MT. But you knew that already. That, and how people ought not be dismissive, as it's the surest way to get one's ass handed to them on a silver platter after the most humiliating defeat of their lives.
But I realized about halfway through that I was wasting my time, that it was a terrible idea to argue a point where people were unlikely to change their minds for what ever reason. Whether they might not have understood, or they just didn't want to admit that they were wrong. Plus, there was just so much stuff to address.
From this day forth, I'll just try to only point out the glaringly wrong assumptions so I don't end up wasting nearly as much time in the future. Speaking of which,...



I find the notion that a planet is defenseless once it has been put under siege by enemy ships to be the most ridiculous thing since someone proposed using swarm tactics and trench warfare against a tactical swarm species. Your ships have no more power than even a mediocre defensive set up. The problem is, the planet has a freaking stockpile of resources and was likely already very prepared for you to come. I would not be surprised if a properly prepared world could wait out your siege by decades, even with your supply lines. And then there's that fact that planets are fucking huge. I don't really need to say anything more about that,...and if I do, I'm genuinely concerned about you!

Planetary defenses also can't be so easily dismissed so carelessly, as I see all too often. I'll be brief though,...
For every Terra-watt an attacker can put into their lasers, a defender can (and rightly should) have a Ptera-watt in their shields. Especially considering these defenses were designed to protect an entire planet. From things like world sterilizing radiation bursts, enormous rocks of doom, and apocalyptic crust shattering kabooms? This means that more more you attempt to downplay the feasibility of planetary shields or weapons, the more you're shooting yourself in the foot by making your own ships seem that much weaker. How can you possibly claim that a weapon with such yields capable of as much global scale destruction as even the most nightmarish apocalypse that are being produced by what is essentially for all intents and purposes a hand cranked flash light some people somehow consider superior to what would essentially equate to the alternator in a diesel engine? It's ridiculous to look at.
And considering your comparatively ultra compact version on your ship will be putting out horrendous levels far and surpassing beyond anything we could comprehend in the modern day, just how many exponents more could one facility several orders magnitude larger put out? That's why I personally believe that anyone who dismisses the practicality of surface to space weaponry and defenses so nonchalantly and in such self assured manner are idiots, plain and simple.
(And before I get backlash about this seemingly presumptuous rant (sure as hell sounds like it to me!) I'd like to point out that I wouldn't bring it up if someone hadn't said it. I don't remember who, and I ain't going to dig through the past five or six pages to find a handful of names.)

[Avenio]

Depending on the series, it often seems as if the dissipated energy ends up going into the target ship anyway. Watching a Star Trek movie makes one wonder why they even bother with shields; the bridge consoles seem to all explode anyway regardless of whether the shot hit the shields or the hull. Within four shots in The Undiscovered Country, Chang's Bird of Prey has Enterprise's bridge filled with smoke, flames, and damaged cabling, while engineering is also starting to fall apart, and only then does Scotty say the shields are 'weakening.'

I'm also reminded of a scene in the Voyager episode 'Scorpion' where the titular ship is hit by weapons-fire from a Species 8472 bioship and begins to tumble through space, and, ignoring the artificial gravity, inertial dampeners and whatever else they have installed, everyone on the bridge falls out of their chairs and has to crawl back to their consoles in order to even react to the blow. Is it really that hard for the Federation to build spehss seatbelts?

[Thrashia]

Explanation 1: In reality, the Federation is easily powerful enough to be hegemonic over the entire galaxy. Kirk, Picard, and so on are sent out on their missions for a bit of fun, and it would be no fun if everything was calm and tranquil on the bridge during combat.
Explanation 2: The Federation command could make ships that didn't have everything go wrong inside during combat, but they feel this would promote weakness in their officers and crew, so they allow the bad conditions to occur to toughen them up.

From a military standpoint both of those "explanations" are fundamentally retarded.

[Sertian]

Explanation 1: In reality, the Federation is easily powerful enough to be hegemonic over the entire galaxy. Kirk, Picard, and so on are sent out on their missions for a bit of fun, and it would be no fun if everything was calm and tranquil on the bridge during combat.
Explanation 2: The Federation command could make ships that didn't have everything go wrong inside during combat, but they feel this would promote weakness in their officers and crew, so they allow the bad conditions to occur to toughen them up.

From a military standpoint both of those "explanations" are fundamentally retarded.

Preeeeetty much this. There isn't really a valid, in universe excuse for it. It's pretty much all there for on-screen effects and drama.

[Hurun]

Welp. Ya know,... I'm a defensive minded player at heart.
And reading this thread, -trying to catch up after a while and all- well, it was just plain painful.
I WAS going to do this super big mega long ass ultra post about how orbital superiority is just as massively over rated as aerial superiority in MT. But you knew that already. That, and how people ought not be dismissive, as it's the surest way to get one's ass handed to them on a silver platter after the most humiliating defeat of their lives.
But I realized about halfway through that I was wasting my time, that it was a terrible idea to argue a point where people were unlikely to change their minds for what ever reason. Whether they might not have understood, or they just didn't want to admit that they were wrong. Plus, there was just so much stuff to address.
From this day forth, I'll just try to only point out the glaringly wrong assumptions so I don't end up wasting nearly as much time in the future. Speaking of which,...



I find the notion that a planet is defenseless once it has been put under siege by enemy ships to be the most ridiculous thing since someone proposed using swarm tactics and trench warfare against a tactical swarm species. Your ships have no more power than even a mediocre defensive set up. The problem is, the planet has a freaking stockpile of resources and was likely already very prepared for you to come. I would not be surprised if a properly prepared world could wait out your siege by decades, even with your supply lines. And then there's that fact that planets are fucking huge. I don't really need to say anything more about that,...and if I do, I'm genuinely concerned about you!

Planetary defenses also can't be so easily dismissed so carelessly, as I see all too often. I'll be brief though,...
For every Terra-watt an attacker can put into their lasers, a defender can (and rightly should) have a Ptera-watt in their shields. Especially considering these defenses were designed to protect an entire planet. From things like world sterilizing radiation bursts, enormous rocks of doom, and apocalyptic crust shattering kabooms? This means that more more you attempt to downplay the feasibility of planetary shields or weapons, the more you're shooting yourself in the foot by making your own ships seem that much weaker. How can you possibly claim that a weapon with such yields capable of as much global scale destruction as even the most nightmarish apocalypse that are being produced by what is essentially for all intents and purposes a hand cranked flash light some people somehow consider superior to what would essentially equate to the alternator in a diesel engine? It's ridiculous to look at.
And considering your comparatively ultra compact version on your ship will be putting out horrendous levels far and surpassing beyond anything we could comprehend in the modern day, just how many exponents more could one facility several orders magnitude larger put out? That's why I personally believe that anyone who dismisses the practicality of surface to space weaponry and defenses so nonchalantly and in such self assured manner are idiots, plain and simple.
(And before I get backlash about this seemingly presumptuous rant (sure as hell sounds like it to me!) I'd like to point out that I wouldn't bring it up if someone hadn't said it. I don't remember who, and I ain't going to dig through the past five or six pages to find a handful of names.)

I find this to be true. Hmmm...Ideas of Science!!

[The Akasha Colony]

Depending on the series, it often seems as if the dissipated energy ends up going into the target ship anyway. Watching a Star Trek movie makes one wonder why they even bother with shields; the bridge consoles seem to all explode anyway regardless of whether the shot hit the shields or the hull. Within four shots in The Undiscovered Country, Chang's Bird of Prey has Enterprise's bridge filled with smoke, flames, and damaged cabling, while engineering is also starting to fall apart, and only then does Scotty say the shields are 'weakening.'

I'm also reminded of a scene in the Voyager episode 'Scorpion' where the titular ship is hit by weapons-fire from a Species 8472 bioship and begins to tumble through space, and, ignoring the artificial gravity, inertial dampeners and whatever else they have installed, everyone on the bridge falls out of their chairs and has to crawl back to their consoles in order to even react to the blow. Is it really that hard for the Federation to build spehss seatbelts?

Ironically, the refit Enterprise in the early movies does have a restraining mechanism (the arms of the chairs can swing inward to secure the thighs to the seat). Other restraints occasionally appear, but like much of the Federation in general, that concept of standardization seems to have been thrown out. The Enterprise's bridge completely changes from movie to movie, and newer-model TNG-era ships do away with the iconic saucer section entirely.

I find the notion that a planet is defenseless once it has been put under siege by enemy ships to be the most ridiculous thing since someone proposed using swarm tactics and trench warfare against a tactical swarm species. Your ships have no more power than even a mediocre defensive set up. The problem is, the planet has a freaking stockpile of resources and was likely already very prepared for you to come. I would not be surprised if a properly prepared world could wait out your siege by decades, even with your supply lines. And then there's that fact that planets are fucking huge. I don't really need to say anything more about that,...and if I do, I'm genuinely concerned about you!

Planetary defenses also can't be so easily dismissed so carelessly, as I see all too often. I'll be brief though,...
For every Terra-watt an attacker can put into their lasers, a defender can (and rightly should) have a Ptera-watt in their shields. Especially considering these defenses were designed to protect an entire planet. From things like world sterilizing radiation bursts, enormous rocks of doom, and apocalyptic crust shattering kabooms? This means that more more you attempt to downplay the feasibility of planetary shields or weapons, the more you're shooting yourself in the foot by making your own ships seem that much weaker. How can you possibly claim that a weapon with such yields capable of as much global scale destruction as even the most nightmarish apocalypse that are being produced by what is essentially for all intents and purposes a hand cranked flash light some people somehow consider superior to what would essentially equate to the alternator in a diesel engine? It's ridiculous to look at.
And considering your comparatively ultra compact version on your ship will be putting out horrendous levels far and surpassing beyond anything we could comprehend in the modern day, just how many exponents more could one facility several orders magnitude larger put out? That's why I personally believe that anyone who dismisses the practicality of surface to space weaponry and defenses so nonchalantly and in such self assured manner are idiots, plain and simple.
(And before I get backlash about this seemingly presumptuous rant (sure as hell sounds like it to me!) I'd like to point out that I wouldn't bring it up if someone hadn't said it. I don't remember who, and I ain't going to dig through the past five or six pages to find a handful of names.)

The Maginot Line justification. Certainly, it's been true that assuming both sides have the same resources in a confined space, spending them on defenses will be more cost-effective in terms of firepower than spending them offensively. After all, barring the German monsters of WWII, self-propelled artillery has not really been the match in range and per-shell power as heavy fortress guns (and the German ones could barely be called mobile).

Unfortunately, it only holds true on the assumption that the enemy cannot simply make spaceborne versions of whatever planetary defenses you're using. If you've got a big reactor on the planet, why can't they build a big reactor in space? One could say it wouldn't be very mobile (which is supposedly why you'd put it on a planet), but depending on engine type, with its massive power output, it could very well be quite maneuverable, assuming it were constructed to withstand such movements. The normal constraints that prevent the practical movement of such large equipment on Earth are of less consequence in space. The argument seems to be that you can build Big Things on planets, but I can find no reason why you can't build Big Things in space, particularly if you expect your enemy to also have Big Things. Yes, planets are big and all. But space is bigger.

It also seems to assume that the ships involved must for some reason be small and weak, whereas considered broadly, there is no reason for this to necessarily be true in a generalized FT setting. Of course, NS FT has decided that ships for the purposes of RP will most likely be relatively small, but there is no inherent reason why this should be so, since if a space-faring nation has the ability to construct something large on a planet's surface under the influence of gravity, it should not be that much harder to construct a similarly-sized object in space, free from most of the influence of gravity.

The only things you lose by making them spaceborne are a ready source of raw material that can be cannibalized from the planet (which may be limited anyway depending on the population's resource-processing equipment and can be overcome by bringing some yourself), and the anchorage provided by the sextillions of tonnes of rock and metal that compose the world you're trying to defend (which only matters if force is transmitted through your shields, which the vast majority seem to ignore). The loss of geothermal energy output is relatively minimal since any Earth-like planet will derive the vast majority of its energy from the local star (174 petawatts of solar radiation vs. 44.2 terawatts of geothermal energy for Earth), and even more likely from dedicated reactors (like the ones you're bringing). And the loss of anchorage is made up for through the increased maneuverability of freestanding space structures/ships, allowing them to avoid being hit, and if hit, move back into position.

The advantages to be gained from such a set up is that you can move it around at will, and in so doing, invest the resources to make it a top-class system that can be employed against any target, while the opponent must distribute their resources across their planets. You could make, say, a capital-grade mobile system, forcing the opponent to install a similar system on each of their worlds in order to fend you off. For every one reactor you add to your siege fleet, the enemy must add one reactor to each of their worlds to maintain parity, and if you choose to attack a particular world, every reactor save the one on that planet will have been a wasted investment, which is the very reason why fixed defenses went out of vogue. Concentration of force on the tactical level is also possible, allowing the entire offensive system to be concentrated against a fraction of the defensive system, leaving all of the defender's guns on the far side of the planet somewhat useless. Without a giant planet to shield, the mobile reactors could divert more power to offensive uses, although this requires the assumption that shielding a wider area takes more power, an assumption that many but not quite all make.

Of course, the enemy could also make a system of mobile fortifications to counter yours, but then you've basically gone back to a fleet battle, except with big planetary grade equipment rather than ships.

So yes, if the enemy happens to have enough resources to build on each one of their planets a system capable of putting out more defensive power than your entire nation can muster in offensive power, then indeed, their planetary defenses cannot be ignored and will most likely repel you. Of course, if they had this large a resource base, their actual navy should be strong enough to ensure you're never besieging them in the first place!

[SquareDisc City]

Changing the subject. If a human civilization had spent several generations on a world with low gravity, something like moon-level, would people be able to do big jumps and flashy aerial moves that would make for cool fight scenes, or would the body have developed with weaker bones and muscles thus precluding such?

[Yes Im Biop]

Changing the subject. If a human civilization had spent several generations on a world with low gravity, something like moon-level, would people be able to do big jumps and flashy aerial moves that would make for cool fight scenes, or would the body have developed with weaker bones and muscles thus precluding such?

Probably option 2

[Ularn]

Changing the subject. If a human civilization had spent several generations on a world with low gravity, something like moon-level, would people be able to do big jumps and flashy aerial moves that would make for cool fight scenes, or would the body have developed with weaker bones and muscles thus precluding such?

Humans from lower gravity worlds would likely be taller than Earth humans, but with a weaker bone and muscle structure. For them, doing acrobatics in Earth's Orbit would be like us trying to do them in a planet with twice Earth's gavity. So no, they couldn't.

Conversely, humans from a high gravity world would probably be shorter, stockier but also physically stronger and tougher than us. They probably could do acrobatics in Earth's gravity, the same as we could on the moon. It just might not look terribly graceful - picture The Matrix with Verne Troyer playing Neo!

[YellowApple]

Changing the subject. If a human civilization had spent several generations on a world with low gravity, something like moon-level, would people be able to do big jumps and flashy aerial moves that would make for cool fight scenes, or would the body have developed with weaker bones and muscles thus precluding such?

It depends on where said humans are performing said big jumps and flashy aerial moves. Low-grav -> high-grav = nope. Low-grav -> low-grav = most likely.

[Fata (Ancient)]

If you fitted a humanoid robot, say 8 ft tall, with gravity manipulators that cut the weight of the said robot by say 30% could it then be light enough to walk on normal grass, because no matter how I edit the design of these robot my brother, who fancies himself a master of Ft, says that it is impossible and that they would sink into the ground. Ok just to point out, I'm not talking battle robots, I'm talking about automated construction or vehicle rescue. Like building buildings and turning over crashed cars and pulling people out. Also I can't just switch them with cheap labor, because the new nation I'm planning has a low population due to a disease and now they are pretty much all weak and can pretty much only walk and carry small things. However they foresaw this and pretty much constructed robots that could construct more robots and keep going on until they found a cure for said disease that burdens my people.

[YellowApple]

If you fitted a humanoid robot, say 8 ft tall, with gravity manipulators that cut the weight of the said robot by say 30% could it then be light enough to walk on normal grass, because no matter how I edit the design of these robot my brother, who fancies himself a master of Ft, says that it is impossible and that they would sink into the ground. Ok just to point out, I'm not talking battle robots, I'm talking about automated construction or vehicle rescue. Like building buildings and turning over crashed cars and pulling people out. Also I can't just switch them with cheap labor, because the new nation I'm planning has a low population due to a disease and now they are pretty much all weak and can pretty much only walk and carry small things. However they foresaw this and pretty much constructed robots that could construct more robots and keep going on until they found a cure for said disease that burdens my people.

Depending on the mass of the robot, I wouldn't reckon sinking to be too much of a problem; as long as everything is kept proportional to a human (or, at the very least, maintaining the ratio of footprint area to mass that keeps humans from sinking into the ground with each step), gravity manipulators wouldn't even be necessary.

The problem with humanoid robots, however, is that it's a lot of mechanical complexity with minimal increase in productivity compared to a number of non-humanoid robots. Standing upright requires a lot of energy expenditure and complicated gyroscopic systems in order to keep from falling over; this increases significantly if you expect it to walk. This can be mitigated by either 1) going for a four-leg or six-leg design to add more omnidirectional stability or 2) using a robot with wheels or treads for locomotion rather than legs. Option 2 is the most mechanically-simple approach, and simplicity (more often than not) is better than complexity for a number of reasons (reliability being the primary one).

There's also another approach entirely: give those uber-weak humanoids some robotic exoskeletons. This would help minimize the computational complexity of standing and walking, since it can simply tap into a human's innate ability to stand upright and walk on two legs.

tl;dr: It's not necessarily the mass you ought to be worried about at that scale; it's the mechanical and computational requirements of supporting a humanoid robot instead of a wheeled/treaded or more-than-two-legged robot.

[Avenio]

If you fitted a humanoid robot, say 8 ft tall, with gravity manipulators that cut the weight of the said robot by say 30% could it then be light enough to walk on normal grass, because no matter how I edit the design of these robot my brother, who fancies himself a master of Ft, says that it is impossible and that they would sink into the ground. Ok just to point out, I'm not talking battle robots, I'm talking about automated construction or vehicle rescue. Like building buildings and turning over crashed cars and pulling people out. Also I can't just switch them with cheap labor, because the new nation I'm planning has a low population due to a disease and now they are pretty much all weak and can pretty much only walk and carry small things. However they foresaw this and pretty much constructed robots that could construct more robots and keep going on until they found a cure for said disease that burdens my people.

If you have gravity manipulators you could just as feasibly make them float a foot off of the ground and never have to worry about them tearing up peoples' lawns. Assuming there aren't any power/size constraints, of course.

[Fata (Ancient)]

Ok lets put it this way, they were originally constructed more for aesthetics than complete productivity. I mean humanoid robots had been in use for over 500 years before the disease hit my people and so they were pretty sleek and smooth after hundred of years to refine the design. But the humanoids were not the only robots, humanoids were pretty much used where they were in public. Like in cities. They were pretty much helper bots kinda like off of the movie I Robot. But a little bigger and stronger. But there were thousands of types of robots crafted to specific jobs that worked in factories and energy plants and pretty much anywhere humans would have no need to go.

The gravity manipulators I use, could be used to create 100% anti-grav but the robots that have gravity manipulators are only equipped with grade E micro-fusion cells, about the size of a soda can. and it would require more than one to go any beyond 35% and then the power requirements pretty much sky rocket after that. Speeders use only 50% anti-grav and they need a grade C which is about the size of a car engine.

[The Akasha Colony]

Ok lets put it this way, they were originally constructed more for aesthetics than complete productivity. I mean humanoid robots had been in use for over 500 years before the disease hit my people and so they were pretty sleek and smooth after hundred of years to refine the design. But the humanoids were not the only robots, humanoids were pretty much used where they were in public. Like in cities. They were pretty much helper bots kinda like off of the movie I Robot. But a little bigger and stronger. But there were thousands of types of robots crafted to specific jobs that worked in factories and energy plants and pretty much anywhere humans would have no need to go.

The gravity manipulators I use, could be used to create 100% anti-grav but the robots that have gravity manipulators are only equipped with grade E micro-fusion cells, about the size of a soda can. and it would require more than one to go any beyond 35% and then the power requirements pretty much sky rocket after that. Speeders use only 50% anti-grav and they need a grade C which is about the size of a car engine.

If an elephant, horse, or rhinoceros (all animals significantly heavier than humans with relatively small footprints) can successfully stand on most types of normal terrain, a slightly taller-than-human robot should have no problem unless you decide to make it out of solid tungsten or some such. Hell, there are probably a number of overweight Americans out there with higher ground pressure than your hypothetical robot.

[YellowApple]

Ok lets put it this way, they were originally constructed more for aesthetics than complete productivity. I mean humanoid robots had been in use for over 500 years before the disease hit my people and so they were pretty sleek and smooth after hundred of years to refine the design. But the humanoids were not the only robots, humanoids were pretty much used where they were in public. Like in cities. They were pretty much helper bots kinda like off of the movie I Robot. But a little bigger and stronger. But there were thousands of types of robots crafted to specific jobs that worked in factories and energy plants and pretty much anywhere humans would have no need to go.

The gravity manipulators I use, could be used to create 100% anti-grav but the robots that have gravity manipulators are only equipped with grade E micro-fusion cells, about the size of a soda can. and it would require more than one to go any beyond 35% and then the power requirements pretty much sky rocket after that. Speeders use only 50% anti-grav and they need a grade C which is about the size of a car engine.

If an elephant, horse, or rhinoceros (all animals significantly heavier than humans with relatively small footprints) can successfully stand on most types of normal terrain, a slightly taller-than-human robot should have no problem unless you decide to make it out of solid tungsten or some such. Hell, there are probably a number of overweight Americans out there with higher ground pressure than your hypothetical robot.

Indeed.

You can minimize ground pressure even further by using lighter materials; I swear by graphene and nanotubes. Gravity manipulators are unnecessary for this purpose, and you'll see a lot of energy gain if you do away with them altogether.

[Vetega]

Okay so I finally pulled my head out my butt.
Obviously I need help. I have drastically reduced mu claims, and I no longer have the lolhuge Hezion. I need help with how to perfect my roleplaying when it comes to space battle. Because. I tend to try and win at all costs. This is bad as I use weapons that are ridiculous in nature. But I'm getting better at it.

[Fata (Ancient)]

Thanks, that helped a lot guys, you have allowed me to perform a strategic strike against my arch enemy... my A-hole brother.

Any ways. What sort of weapon system would you recommend for robots. Not just humanoid, just a system that could be re-sized to fit, my V1 Combat droid, which is basically mini tank platform the size of a ATV and large repeating weapon and rockets, or something small like my V4 scout drone which is pretty much a small 2 winged drone with thrusters.

I was thinking maybe just go with laser, but I always hear people complaining about how weak they are. Or maybe I could just go with kinetic rounds, but for a nation that has micro-fusion cells and gravity manipulators, that just seems too low of tech.