Advice Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Sertian]

In fact, I think there was a novel or short story or what not that went into this too. The requires quotes are on Atomic Rocket somewhere.

Essentially, the Commander was talking about how he had been convinced that invading, and winning a war, against an alien FT civilization was impossible. For the sheer fact that that the enemy had the advantage of reinforcements coming much faster than his, thus meaning that even though he might be able to do some damage to the enemy, his fleet would get pulverized and the other guy would be in a better shape to counter attack, while his forces were still recovering.

Mind you, I do agree that keeping your systems a secret is a good strategy. That's why nobody knows where my core worlds are! >:D

[Vocenae]

My whole opinion on a planetary shield (be it energy or physical shell) is that it's a goddamn planet. Not only does it have atmosphere, it's an incredibly BIG target. You don't need something like that, it's just impractical and silly, especially considering that most FT nations ICly frown upon wholesale destruction of planetary surfaces. You'll find that the vast majority of FT players have conventional ground forces and tend to only strike military targets from orbit because the prevailing doctrine is that you're there for the planet and it's resources and there's no real point in even fighting if you're just going to scorch the earth.

Not to mention that a planet is fucking BIG. I'm currently involved in fleet combat of almost 600+ vessels in planetary orbit and it doesn't even cover half of the state of Ohio size wise. There's just no reason a civilization would construct something like that to defend against an enemy fleet. Even if you insist upon having it, unless you make it into a giant gunwall you're still going to get enemy troops landing on your planetary surface because the size of your combat area is just going to be too goddamned huge to make it impenetrable.

The sole reason I could see a planetary shell as a viable anything would be for something like the Telos Restoration Project from Knights of the Old Republic II, or because some cosmic event happened while your planet was still MT and survival dictated the construction of a actual physical shield to protect your people from, say, a massive increase in solar energy that would eventually lead to the burnification of all life on your planet or your solar system is a very violent place filled with asteroid and comet swarms that necessitates building such a structure.

In which case you then have a much better plot reason to have it other than 'olol i need this to protect from the bad guise'. How did it force your nation to develop, what are the effects on your people, how old is it, is it in a constant state of disrepair from the sheer size and resources it requires for upkeep? If you simply have to have it, this would be the route I would go to at least seem like you're trying to make it plausible.

In the end, however, I'm just going to tell you that you're probably better off without it.

[Thrashia]

I have planetary shields. It's one of the most common planetary defenses in my tech base.

[Vocenae]

Right, but it's not a giant physical shell of metal that covers half your planet at any given time, unless you're trying to fix Telos via giant fucking terraformer device.

[Sertian]

Actually, I don't think the purpose of a planetary shield is to defend the planet, but rather the things ON the planet. You know, the not so hardy cities and buildings that those usually two legged species live in, the things that can easily wiped out by a stray shot from a dreadnought?

Now granted, MOST powers operate on the 'do not deliberately fire on civilians' philosophy, but not all of them do. You therefor have to come to a decision in your tech base; have a hostile attacking fleet that doesn't care about stray shots against your defenses potentially vaporizing and killing thousands, perhaps millions of people, and more if they deliberately target cities to ruin your economy for a long term war; or invest in some device that at least stalls this so your defenses have a chance to respond (whether it be FTLi, planetary shield, or what not).

Personally, I just invest in an orbital defense strong enough that it can flash fry a Death Star before it could charge its primary weapon, but that's just me.

[Thrashia]

Actually, I don't think the purpose of a planetary shield is to defend the planet, but rather the things ON the planet.

*slaps Sertian for being Captain Obvious*

Personally, I just invest in an orbital defense strong enough that it can flash fry a Death Star before it could charge its primary weapon, but that's just me.

And that kind of defense, which trumps a DS, would be considered a bigger GM (in my book) than the DS...

[Rethan]

Actually, I don't think the purpose of a planetary shield is to defend the planet, but rather the things ON the planet.

*slaps Sertian for being Captain Obvious*

Personally, I just invest in an orbital defense strong enough that it can flash fry a Death Star before it could charge its primary weapon, but that's just me.

And that kind of defense, which trumps a DS, would be considered a bigger GM (in my book) than the DS...

I fail to see how. All it would require is firepower equivalent to a fraction of the DS, mounted on an orbital installation which is probably also a fraction of the size. I can't see anyway how it's more of a GM than a Death Star, in fact I'd say it's probably one of the more sane methods of planetary defence.

[Thrashia]

I fail to see how. All it would require is firepower equivalent to a fraction of the DS, mounted on an orbital installation which is probably also a fraction of the size. I can't see anyway how it's more of a GM than a Death Star, in fact I'd say it's probably one of the more sane methods of planetary defence.

That sounds like a super-laser to me. Kind of like...this. A ship with the equivalent firepower of a fleet combined with a super laser that is a fraction of the DS. Truly, that sounds like the planetary defense idea that you seem to be mentioning, but naturally attached to an orbital station and not a ship in it of itself, or am I wrong in my interpretation?

I personally consider any kind of "super laser" to be a GM. That, and I consider it lazy.

[Rethan]

I fail to see how. All it would require is firepower equivalent to a fraction of the DS, mounted on an orbital installation which is probably also a fraction of the size. I can't see anyway how it's more of a GM than a Death Star, in fact I'd say it's probably one of the more sane methods of planetary defence.

That sounds like a super-laser to me. Kind of like...this. A ship with the equivalent firepower of a fleet combined with a super laser that is a fraction of the DS. Truly, that sounds like the planetary defense idea that you seem to be mentioning, but naturally attached to an orbital station and not a ship in it of itself, or am I wrong in my interpretation?

I personally consider any kind of "super laser" to be a GM. That, and I consider it lazy.

Wank, maybe. Certainly not a GM.

Such uber lasers to me make more sense in orbital installations than on a ship anyway. Super lasers have their place in RP, just as missile spam and WMDs do. It's a particularly powerful weapon available to a person's military, and so long as they realise that making a super laser is more difficult and resource intensive than making a regular laser and don't start spamming thousands of the things everywhere than there's nothing wrong with it.

Compared with some of the other things being thrown around the FT arena, a super laser is kind of tame.

[Sertian]

Who said anything about a super laser? Overwhelming firepower in orbit doesn't have to be from one weapon, or even one INSTALLATION.

The defenses I utilize are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of 160-200m attack satellites spread throughout orbit, supported by a network of other satellites (for things such as sensors and perhaps remote power generator to beam the required energy to them via microwaves or some such), all tied to a soft AI that is programmed to respond fast enough to fry something within a few seconds in case someone gets the smart idea of dropping a super weapon as close as they can with FTL. Since their primary armament is the same primary armament of my warships, a plasma/particle beam that throws around the energies of city leveling thermonuclear warheads squeezed into a half meter or so diameter beam, I imagine several hundred such beams guided and trained on an approaching offender would make quick work of a hostile fleet, especially if its caught by surprise. It also has the added benefit of quite the light show, as hundreds of bright white streaks of death all surge from across the planets orbit to the offensive object.

And it is quite probably overkill, but when your tech base doesn't include strategic shields (or shields of almost any sort except those that require a conversion core, and that just to cover a 300-1000m ship, yet alone an entire planet or city), or FTLi, the only way to reliably protect your civilians is to vaporize the guy before he can start firing shots (or very many shots). Well, that, and trying your best not to have people know where your citizens live, but its always nice to have a back up.

[Arteria Zoness]

"a bigger GM than the DS..."?

Aaaaah,.... nah?

Let's break this down into a simple comparison.

You are saying that a few thousand space stations with guns on them is more of a god mod than a lol huge mobile moon? Not to mention the fact that that moon is equipped with a laser that shatters planets.
In recap;
A valid (and easy to do) defensive method even being done in IRL at this moment (to a lesser extent of course) is supposedly more of a god mod than a massive metal object that could interfere with our planet's gravity and magnetic field, that also happens to be armed with he power or an entire fleet, can carry an entire fleet, is capable of traveling between star systems, and can blow up lol huge space rocks without getting obliterated in the process?

Yeah, no.
In all honesty, you are better off with the satellites. At least you can have more of them, and deal more damage.

[Sertian]

On another topic, this is a matter of a bit of curiosity for me. I'm doing some work on a frigate within the Empire (since I might be using them in a bit, and I enjoy trying to create the technical information behind my technology, if only for fun), which utilizes a 100-150m spinal mounted plasma-rail canon. Right now, it fires a 1 kilogram projectile (probably tungsten) at 3.5% the speed of light, roughly equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb. Now, said ship typically accelerates to 4% the speed of light (it's the fastest ship in the fleet), so what would be the speed of this projectile when fired from the ship going at 4%?

My bet is that its roughly less than 7.5% C, but I don't know how much relativity would butt in at these speeds and I can't seem to find the equation or a calculator to figure it out.

[Thrashia]

On another topic, this is a matter of a bit of curiosity for me. I'm doing some work on a frigate within the Empire (since I might be using them in a bit, and I enjoy trying to create the technical information behind my technology, if only for fun), which utilizes a 100-150m spinal mounted plasma-rail canon. Right now, it fires a 1 kilogram projectile (probably tungsten) at 3.5% the speed of light, roughly equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb. Now, said ship typically accelerates to 4% the speed of light (it's the fastest ship in the fleet), so what would be the speed of this projectile when fired from the ship going at 4%?

My bet is that its roughly less than 7.5% C, but I don't know how much relativity would butt in at these speeds and I can't seem to find the equation or a calculator to figure it out.

The shell will only be fired from the ship at 7.5% of C if both the projectile and the ship are on a parallel or identical trajectory. If the ship is moving perpendicular to the fired round, then it will only being going 3.5% with some variables added in for the complexity of moving at top speed and firing at the same time. (Not unusual for most space fights, but there are different combat speeds that most navies have developed in order to still be mobile and fire accurately)

If the identical trajectory is the manner in which the round is fired, then that projectile would be moving at 13,020 mi/sec.

[The Ruivan Empire]

I have a question on my tech that I use,

My technology borrows HEAVILY off of the Star wars, Halo, Star gate and some tech that i made up my self, (for example Anti-matter Turbolasers. Things like that.)

of course i tone it down from being the super destructive power like it is in their universes. my question is is it good to borrow AND modify existing tech from these sources to suite my needs or is that something of a no-no.

[YellowApple]

I have a question on my tech that I use,

My technology borrows HEAVILY off of the Star wars, Halo, Star gate and some tech that i made up my self, (for example Anti-matter Turbolasers. Things like that.)

of course i tone it down from being the super destructive power like it is in their universes. my question is is it good to borrow AND modify existing tech from these sources to suite my needs or is that something of a no-no.

I personally don't see anything wrong with that, and from my observation, that's actually pretty common practice here in NS, both in and out of FT. I know I do roughly the same thing (my tech is specifically based on that of the Hiigarans from Homeworld 2, with miscellaneous influences from other media).

---

I do have a question of my own:

I've noticed that a large number of players rely upon large ships (upwards of 1 kilometer in length) to do everything, with very little use of strike craft (100-200 meters in length) in their tactics. Shouldn't the opposite be true? Sure, the larger vessels can wield superior firepower, but the strike vehicles would be more adept to evading said firepower and performing quick strikes on big, lumbering battlecruisers, and I would imagine a well-planned bombing strike would be quite devastating to a capitol-class vessel.

For reference, consider the Pacific Theater of the RL World War II; the battleships and cruisers were quite inconsequential with the introduction of air power in naval battles, and thus carriers became more vital, as anti-ship fighters could outmaneuver ship defenses and deliver a destructive payload more effectively than a warship.

Unless there's some compelling reason why fighters and bombers are not as useful in FT tactics as they are in MT and PMT tactics, I would imagine having a larger emphasis on smaller strike craft and a lesser emphasis on lolhueg starships (other than carriers) would be the most ideal approach for me as YellowApple enters the new frontier. Thoughts?

[Vetokia Prime]

I have a question on my tech that I use,

My technology borrows HEAVILY off of the Star wars, Halo, Star gate and some tech that i made up my self, (for example Anti-matter Turbolasers. Things like that.)

of course i tone it down from being the super destructive power like it is in their universes. my question is is it good to borrow AND modify existing tech from these sources to suite my needs or is that something of a no-no.

I personally don't see anything wrong with that, and from my observation, that's actually pretty common practice here in NS, both in and out of FT. I know I do roughly the same thing (my tech is specifically based on that of the Hiigarans from Homeworld 2, with miscellaneous influences from other media).

This. Thrashia is a modified Empire, with his own spin on everything with it, and Khandosia did a 40k puppet which inspired a number fo others plus was going off in its own direction.

---

I do have a question of my own:

I've noticed that a large number of players rely upon large ships (upwards of 1 kilometer in length) to do everything, with very little use of strike craft (100-200 meters in length) in their tactics. Shouldn't the opposite be true? Sure, the larger vessels can wield superior firepower, but the strike vehicles would be more adept to evading said firepower and performing quick strikes on big, lumbering battlecruisers, and I would imagine a well-planned bombing strike would be quite devastating to a capitol-class vessel.

For reference, consider the Pacific Theater of the RL World War II; the battleships and cruisers were quite inconsequential with the introduction of air power in naval battles, and thus carriers became more vital, as anti-ship fighters could outmaneuver ship defenses and deliver a destructive payload more effectively than a warship.

Unless there's some compelling reason why fighters and bombers are not as useful in FT tactics as they are in MT and PMT tactics, I would imagine having a larger emphasis on smaller strike craft and a lesser emphasis on lolhueg starships (other than carriers) would be the most ideal approach for me as YellowApple enters the new frontier. Thoughts?

The realists (Or fun-killers as they might be better named. Just kidding guys. No really. Someone tell Feaz to stop glaring at the screen, I can tell he's doing it D: ) would quote Project Rho at you, citing that a smaller craft wouldn't be more manoeuvrable because it can't produce the output of a bigger ship's engines.

Some people just don't like them. I know Huerdae uses large strike bombers, but they're fairly large for their size as compared to what may be considered the 'average' in NSFT. And regarding the defences comment, in a world where we can blanket space with saturation nukes, laserheads, point-defence lasers/autocannon and the like, we're going to naturally be able to deal with such things better.

If you're going the route of using carriers to expand, you need to;
A. Make sure that they are getting sufficient protection from smaller ships such as frigates/destroyers to act as meatshields for them.
B. Make sure your strike craft can both take on enemy strike craft as well as enemy ships. Versatility is a good thing.
C. Endo/exoatmospheric craft are your friends. They'll be able to fight the enemy in space as well as be used for ground support.

[Rethan]

I have a question on my tech that I use,

My technology borrows HEAVILY off of the Star wars, Halo, Star gate and some tech that i made up my self, (for example Anti-matter Turbolasers. Things like that.)

of course i tone it down from being the super destructive power like it is in their universes. my question is is it good to borrow AND modify existing tech from these sources to suite my needs or is that something of a no-no.

I personally don't see anything wrong with that, and from my observation, that's actually pretty common practice here in NS, both in and out of FT. I know I do roughly the same thing (my tech is specifically based on that of the Hiigarans from Homeworld 2, with miscellaneous influences from other media).

---

I do have a question of my own:

I've noticed that a large number of players rely upon large ships (upwards of 1 kilometer in length) to do everything, with very little use of strike craft (100-200 meters in length) in their tactics. Shouldn't the opposite be true? Sure, the larger vessels can wield superior firepower, but the strike vehicles would be more adept to evading said firepower and performing quick strikes on big, lumbering battlecruisers, and I would imagine a well-planned bombing strike would be quite devastating to a capitol-class vessel.

For reference, consider the Pacific Theater of the RL World War II; the battleships and cruisers were quite inconsequential with the introduction of air power in naval battles, and thus carriers became more vital, as anti-ship fighters could outmaneuver ship defenses and deliver a destructive payload more effectively than a warship.

Unless there's some compelling reason why fighters and bombers are not as useful in FT tactics as they are in MT and PMT tactics, I would imagine having a larger emphasis on smaller strike craft and a lesser emphasis on lolhueg starships (other than carriers) would be the most ideal approach for me as YellowApple enters the new frontier. Thoughts?

Space =/= Ocean.

If I could find a single post which clarified it, in any kind of realistic terms fighters are a waste of resources and almost entirely useless in an FT setting. Also, the idea that larger ships are slower is kind of...wrong. Dependant upon your tech, a larger ship can pack in more fuel, bigger engines and a bigger reactor than a smaller ship. As such it is capable of greater acceleration, longer times between refuelling and pumping out more power to its weapons and shields. A single large ship could be well capable of simply shrugging off incoming small ship fire while simultaneously firing off far more missiles/kinetic rounds/lazorz in retaliation. Imagine it this way, you can fire at a tank with your rifle all you want. It's going to have blown you up long before you punch a hole in its armour. A bit of an exaggeration but it should deliver my point.

Of course, not everyone has the technological ability to make lolhueg ships efficiently. They require exponentially more resources and longer build times than smaller ones (never mind the huge increase in crew requirements), and in a lot of cases having five 200m craft is easier and cheaper than a 1000m one. Not to mention, if you have only one big ship it can't be in five places at once like the five smaller ones can be.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

And some of us maintain that our 400 meter long craft are just as capable as the 4km craft some people insist on using as their base ships

Also, I try to make use of the full range of ship types in my fleet, from strike craft in the form of flexible cruisers-class ships (such as the Alexander Nevsky.) I am quite fond of them. But I also like my lolhuge battleships too, although I think the fact that there are so few of them makes them more fun to use

[YellowApple]

The realists (Or fun-killers as they might be better named. Just kidding guys. No really. Someone tell Feaz to stop glaring at the screen, I can tell he's doing it D: ) would quote Project Rho at you, citing that a smaller craft wouldn't be more manoeuvrable because it can't produce the output of a bigger ship's engines.

Some people just don't like them. I know Huerdae uses large strike bombers, but they're fairly large for their size as compared to what may be considered the 'average' in NSFT. And regarding the defences comment, in a world where we can blanket space with saturation nukes, laserheads, point-defence lasers/autocannon and the like, we're going to naturally be able to deal with such things better.

If you're going the route of using carriers to expand, you need to;
A. Make sure that they are getting sufficient protection from smaller ships such as frigates/destroyers to act as meatshields for them.
B. Make sure your strike craft can both take on enemy strike craft as well as enemy ships. Versatility is a good thing.
C. Endo/exoatmospheric craft are your friends. They'll be able to fight the enemy in space as well as be used for ground support.

But physics doesn't work like that; sure, the fighters have smaller amounts of thrust, but they also have lower masses, and thus lower inertia. They would still be more maneuverable. Just because there's no gravity or friction doesn't mean that Newton's Laws of Physics can be ignored. Though that is a very good point.

As for the points on carriers, duly noted. YellowApplan strike craft are already capable of both endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric operation even in their late PMT setting (thanks to the use of scramjets and integrated rocket thrusters). And yeah, the "meatshield" tactic was how it was in RL naval operations too, so I see little problem with using the same technique.

Space =/= Ocean.

If I could find a single post which clarified it, in any kind of realistic terms fighters are a waste of resources and almost entirely useless in an FT setting. Also, the idea that larger ships are slower is kind of...wrong. Dependant upon your tech, a larger ship can pack in more fuel, bigger engines and a bigger reactor than a smaller ship. As such it is capable of greater acceleration, longer times between refuelling and pumping out more power to its weapons and shields. A single large ship could be well capable of simply shrugging off incoming small ship fire while simultaneously firing off far more missiles/kinetic rounds/lazorz in retaliation. Imagine it this way, you can fire at a tank with your rifle all you want. It's going to have blown you up long before you punch a hole in its armour. A bit of an exaggeration but it should deliver my point.

Of course, not everyone has the technological ability to make lolhueg ships efficiently. They require exponentially more resources and longer build times than smaller ones (never mind the huge increase in crew requirements), and in a lot of cases having five 200m craft is easier and cheaper than a 1000m one. Not to mention, if you have only one big ship it can't be in five places at once like the five smaller ones can be.

Sure, there's the differences of technology and dimension, but other than that, are there really that many differences between naval and space warfare?

I'm not saying that bigger ships are slower (according to at least simplified physics calculations, a constant thrust with no friction would theoretically result in infinitely-fast travel). What I am saying is that larger ships, having more inertia, are harder to accelerate, and thus less maneuverable. Let's look at the definition of force:

F = ma

Thus,

a = F / m

Now sure, we can say that "m" in this ratio is counteracted by a higher "F" from the thrusters on larger ships, but that higher "F" requires a larger engine, which thus diverts more power away from weapons, life support, electronics, and other power-hungry components of a capital-class vessel. In order to reach the same "a" as a smaller vehicle, we're taking huge shortcuts in what we can actually do with the vessel.

This is not even including the issue of steering, which is actually something I could use some explanation of: exactly what is the best method of steering? I know small steering thrusters are used in RL spacecraft, and those would be effective for smaller vehicles, but given the sheer mass - and therefore, inertia - of larger ships, that would require some pretty powerful and bulky steering thrusters to have anything near the turn speed of a strike craft.

[Ularn]

Disclaimer: Everything that follows should be read knowing I'm something of an Atomic Rocketeer.

There is both an upper and lower limit to what sizes are useful in an FT setting. Too big and it can't evade fast enough, whereas fighters are pointless since they can't achieve anything an ordinary missile couldn't.

My largest warship is an 800m Superdreadnought. It's main gun's a relativistic weapon could break an unshielded enemy in half pretty much regardless of their size (though as a balance, it's pretty inaccurate). My smallest is 100m and geared solely to killing enemy missiles, kinetic weapons and fighters). Realistically, Space combat would be like a game of dodgeball with bazookas, making ships any bigger is pointless since the first hit is likely to be a kill. The smaller ships I use are more nimble and harder to hit while still anything above Destroyer size is still able to deal ship-killing levels of damage.

In short, the main perceived advantage of large ships (that they can tank loads of damage) becomes pretty irrelevant when people are throwing weapons with payloads measured in 'Hiroshimas'.

[Santheres]

This is not even including the issue of steering, which is actually something I could use some explanation of: exactly what is the best method of steering? I know small steering thrusters are used in RL spacecraft, and those would be effective for smaller vehicles, but given the sheer mass - and therefore, inertia - of larger ships, that would require some pretty powerful and bulky steering thrusters to have anything near the turn speed of a strike craft.

Yes, it would.

Slap some additional engines around the ship if you need to.

[YellowApple]

This is not even including the issue of steering, which is actually something I could use some explanation of: exactly what is the best method of steering? I know small steering thrusters are used in RL spacecraft, and those would be effective for smaller vehicles, but given the sheer mass - and therefore, inertia - of larger ships, that would require some pretty powerful and bulky steering thrusters to have anything near the turn speed of a strike craft.

Yes, it would.

Slap some additional engines around the ship if you need to.

Alright then. In order to quickly steer, a ship would still have to have some pretty big steering thrusters, then.

Also, how long do engines take to "warm up" in FT capitol-class vessels? I would think that the larger the engine, the longer it would take to reach full power.

[Rethan]

Space =/= Ocean.

If I could find a single post which clarified it, in any kind of realistic terms fighters are a waste of resources and almost entirely useless in an FT setting. Also, the idea that larger ships are slower is kind of...wrong. Dependant upon your tech, a larger ship can pack in more fuel, bigger engines and a bigger reactor than a smaller ship. As such it is capable of greater acceleration, longer times between refuelling and pumping out more power to its weapons and shields. A single large ship could be well capable of simply shrugging off incoming small ship fire while simultaneously firing off far more missiles/kinetic rounds/lazorz in retaliation. Imagine it this way, you can fire at a tank with your rifle all you want. It's going to have blown you up long before you punch a hole in its armour. A bit of an exaggeration but it should deliver my point.

Of course, not everyone has the technological ability to make lolhueg ships efficiently. They require exponentially more resources and longer build times than smaller ones (never mind the huge increase in crew requirements), and in a lot of cases having five 200m craft is easier and cheaper than a 1000m one. Not to mention, if you have only one big ship it can't be in five places at once like the five smaller ones can be.

Sure, there's the differences of technology and dimension, but other than that, are there really that many differences between naval and space warfare?

Yes. In naval warfare, fighters are useful because they can move in a dimension that larger ships can't. Such a problem does not exist in FT. Everyone has the same freedom of movement.

I'm not saying that bigger ships are slower (according to at least simplified physics calculations, a constant thrust with no friction would theoretically result in infinitely-fast travel). What I am saying is that larger ships, having more inertia, are harder to accelerate, and thus less maneuverable. Let's look at the definition of force:

F = ma

Thus,

a = F / m

Now sure, we can say that "m" in this ratio is counteracted by a higher "F" from the thrusters on larger ships, but that higher "F" requires a larger engine, which thus diverts more power away from weapons, life support, electronics, and other power-hungry components of a capital-class vessel. In order to reach the same "a" as a smaller vehicle, we're taking huge shortcuts in what we can actually do with the vessel.

True, but it doesn't negate the other (rather more impressive) advantages of a larger ship. Plus, a smaller ships will have roughly the same percentage of its systems devoted to life support, electronics and so forth (assuming it scales linearly across the board. I know some people have increasing levels of automation on larger ships, meaning the size gets bigger faster than the need for life support and living space does). Assuming a ship 1km length versus a ship 200m in length have equal percentage devoted to the neccessities (life support, for example) the larger ship is still going to have bigger, better, more powerful engines and weapons than the smaller ship.

This is not even including the issue of steering, which is actually something I could use some explanation of: exactly what is the best method of steering? I know small steering thrusters are used in RL spacecraft, and those would be effective for smaller vehicles, but given the sheer mass - and therefore, inertia - of larger ships, that would require some pretty powerful and bulky steering thrusters to have anything near the turn speed of a strike craft.

Realistically, steering thrusters are the only way to alter a ship's course in space. Regardless of the size of said ship, it needs those thrusters which does mean that bigger ships will need bigger steering thrusters for the same agility. Fortunately, a bigger ship can compensate with bigger shield generators/thicker armour and so forth.

[Arthropoda Ingens]

I do have a question of my own:

I've noticed that a large number of players rely upon large ships (upwards of 1 kilometer in length) to do everything, with very little use of strike craft (100-200 meters in length) in their tactics. Shouldn't the opposite be true? Sure, the larger vessels can wield superior firepower, but the strike vehicles would be more adept to evading said firepower and performing quick strikes on big, lumbering battlecruisers, and I would imagine a well-planned bombing strike would be quite devastating to a capitol-class vessel.

For reference, consider the Pacific Theater of the RL World War II; the battleships and cruisers were quite inconsequential with the introduction of air power in naval battles, and thus carriers became more vital, as anti-ship fighters could outmaneuver ship defenses and deliver a destructive payload more effectively than a warship.

Unless there's some compelling reason why fighters and bombers are not as useful in FT tactics as they are in MT and PMT tactics, I would imagine having a larger emphasis on smaller strike craft and a lesser emphasis on lolhueg starships (other than carriers) would be the most ideal approach for me as YellowApple enters the new frontier. Thoughts?

• If Shielding The bigger the spaceboat, the more powerful its shields are (Increasing roughly proportional to ship volume/ mass), and the more capable of surviving being shot at it is
• If Slow FTL The bigger the spaceboat, the more more volume it has available to store supplies and provide the crew with a little bit of living space - much improved endurance in the result

Long story short: As soon as shielding - or alternatively, magical super-materials performing above and beyond the standard periodic table. Just shielding by another name, tbh - becomes available, bigger = better.

There's a mild issue in that there's no standard concerning what determines 'Big' - is it 500 m or 5000 m? -, so folks with substantially varying size standards still have to talk such details out in private (Alternatively, ship sizes of a given nation may vary wildly. Just because)

It's not, of course, that strike craft are fundamentally incapable of causing damage - they can do that just fine. But

• missiles do it cheaper
• for less casualties
• and with a bigger boom per tonne

Consequently, strike craft are thoroughly pointless as an offensive platform.

Now, as a defensive platform, shooting down incoming missiles, that's a different matter altogether. Or as a missile protection platform, shooting down OPFOR missile killer spaceships just like themselves. Here they're perfectly useful (Point defence on the capships themselves being vastly overrated - it does suffer from fundamentally short ranges, as laser/ particle beam effective range is partially determined by aperture size, and macroscopic KE takes ages to reach a target, nevermind the target's ability to evade it at longer distances).

But even in these instances, I'd not make them 'Fighters'. I'd make them something along the lines of corvettes, destroyers, frigates. Small enough that spending anti-cap missiles is a bit of a waste, big enough to be able to tank the damage a, say, fighter could do.

[YellowApple]

-snip-

Yes, large ships are impressive, and I'm not saying they're useless. But, again, more engine means less everything else. It doesn't exactly scale linearly, either; as a ship grows larger in class (fighter > frigate > full-on capitol), life support requirements increase exponentially, considering that (as RPed, at least) many large ships have large rooms, which have to be pressurized and supplied with oxygen. Same idea for other systems; the larger and more abundant engines require more complex automation (thus requiring more computing power) or more manpower operating/maintaining them (thus requiring more life support), the increase in weapons quantity to effectively repel being surrounded by strike craft also requires an increase in computing power or life support for the same reasons - see where I'm going with this? I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea that a lolhueg ship can be as maneuverable or agile as a fighter and have the advertised benefits associated with being a larger ship.

Realistically, I would imagine smaller strike craft are absolutely necessary to balance out the slower change of velocity with larger ships, at least for me ICly, being a younger contender in the intergalactic community.

And there's another issue (and question): oxygen. What are the most common ways of implementing oxygen supply for aerobic life support? I was thinking algae tanks, with the produced oxygen branching into three destinations: breathing, water production, and backup storage. I would think it unrealistic to say that a larger vessel can carry enough oxygen to support its entire crew for a long-duration operation without being able to efficiently produce its own.