Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[The Steppe Empire]

I guess a tank with a Gatling gun would be a sensible weapon to use against like Zerglings or something.

But in any case, yeah, maybe I'll field a turretless version of an M34 MBT with two or four autocannons fixed to the top of the hull.

what I would find scary is a gatling laser cannon.

[The Fedral Union]

I guess a tank with a Gatling gun would be a sensible weapon to use against like Zerglings or something.

But in any case, yeah, maybe I'll field a turretless version of an M34 MBT with two or four autocannons fixed to the top of the hull.

Or just mount a high powered maser (microwave laser) on the thing and torch people.

[Saurisisia]

I guess a tank with a Gatling gun would be a sensible weapon to use against like Zerglings or something.

But in any case, yeah, maybe I'll field a turretless version of an M34 MBT with two or four autocannons fixed to the top of the hull.

Or just mount a high powered maser (microwave laser) on the thing and torch people.

That could be good too.

[The Steppe Empire]

I guess a tank with a Gatling gun would be a sensible weapon to use against like Zerglings or something.

But in any case, yeah, maybe I'll field a turretless version of an M34 MBT with two or four autocannons fixed to the top of the hull.

Or just mount a high powered maser (microwave laser) on the thing and torch people.

That would be scary, a Heat-Ray is always a deadly weapon

Side Note: The Martian Heat-Ray from War of the Worlds is a maser just to let everyone know.

[Saurisisia]

Or just mount a high powered maser (microwave laser) on the thing and torch people.

That could be good too.

Come to think of it, the Maser Tank sounds more interesting than a tank with autocannons. I'll just go with that.

[Strykla]

That could be good too.

Come to think of it, the Maser Tank sounds more interesting than a tank with autocannons. I'll just go with that.

I dunno, a high speed chunk of depleted uranium sounds pretty interesting.

[Tannelorn]

Hmm thats a big debate, ships in orbit. Well there are many reasons you would take your ships out of orbit and still be fighting a ground war. One the enemy also has a fleet in system, and staying over the planet leaves you near motionless and "back lit". Two, their ground defenses and orbitals are too much to risk staying close, thus leaving orbital support sketchy at best.

Three..they use something like a bolo and can shoot back very effectively.
Also, remember modern tanks dont die from the shockwave of a nuke, only the flash can really kill them. The same will be in the future, though you may fire a nuke, its really the epicenter that does the damage, kinetic weapons relying on pure kinetics would have to be so large as to cause permanent geological damage to succeed at wiping out whole formations, crowbar wouldnt do it, a 60 meter 4000 ton rocket would though. Big space lasers are better, but will have much less lethality in blast. Remember most FT vehicles have at least EM screens, which would really help out in these situations.

The poor bastards hit, or near the shockwave [if on the ground] would probably die, but the rest would just keep going. So it wouldn't really effect the outcome of a battle as much, as you would have to literally kill your own fighting troops to stop them. So though you can definetly win a land battle from space, you cant always win a land war that way. Not without destroying your prize.

As for awesome anti horde tanks, masers are good, very very good for that. I used to use the hell out of Maser weapons. We still do to kill sensors actually. I personally prefer either a massive gatling gun firing micro nuclear shells. [every explosive we use is nuclear] or a big mean UV Laser, pumped through plasma. That will cook just about anything, and transform carnifex/ultralisks/ork warbosses/dragons to roiling fireballs. Orrrr you could use a plasma flamethrower tank.....

[The Fedral Union]

Also how many hive based nations do we have running around now, and if there are many why no large alliance of sort between them ?

[Risen Britannia]

this is here as there isnt anywhere i could think to post this.

my first ship weapon design for FT:
ORSADARM (Orbital Release Sense and Destroy ARMor)

Dimensions: Length-1100mm, diameter 255mm (fins folded in)
Wing span: 300mm
Warhead: 4x 120mm shaped charge sub-munitions
Launch platform: Booster assisted, ship based VLS pod
Guidance system: millimeter wave radar seeker
Propellent: gravity assisted with directional boosters

Stage by stage
1. a small charge in the ships VLS launches the ORSADARM(s) clear of the ship and towards the target area
2. the ORSADARM falls towards the target area, once the projectile reaches a set altitude the fins, boosters and wave radar activate, guiding the projectile with a high degree of accuracy
3. Once over the target area the drag chute and then parachute deploy slowing the projectile, when it has slowed enough a secondary booster fires causing the ORSADARM to spin. It then releases the sub-munitions, scattering them above the area.
4. Each sub-munition then seeks out its own target and then fires its own sub-munition in the form of a shaped charge which penetrates the top of the hostile vehicle

Hmm thats a big debate, ships in orbit. Well there are many reasons you would take your ships out of orbit and still be fighting a ground war. One the enemy also has a fleet in system, and staying over the planet leaves you near motionless and "back lit". Two, their ground defenses and orbitals are too much to risk staying close, thus leaving orbital support sketchy at best.

Three..they use something like a bolo and can shoot back very effectively.
Also, remember modern tanks dont die from the shockwave of a nuke, only the flash can really kill them. The same will be in the future, though you may fire a nuke, its really the epicenter that does the damage, kinetic weapons relying on pure kinetics would have to be so large as to cause permanent geological damage to succeed at wiping out whole formations, crowbar wouldnt do it, a 60 meter 4000 ton rocket would though. Big space lasers are better, but will have much less lethality in blast. Remember most FT vehicles have at least EM screens, which would really help out in these situations.

The poor bastards hit, or near the shockwave [if on the ground] would probably die, but the rest would just keep going. So it wouldn't really effect the outcome of a battle as much, as you would have to literally kill your own fighting troops to stop them. So though you can definetly win a land battle from space, you cant always win a land war that way. Not without destroying your prize.

i think you underestimate the power of KE. if you can kill a man by dropping a brick on him from a second story window, im pretty sure you could make a sizeable dent in a tank if dropping a few Kg lump of metal from space. Also these KE weapons can be very diverse as you could drop anything from a 20mm ball of metal to thing the size of tanks or even aircraft carriers.

With the surface vs orbit thing, a while back someone argued here that units on the surface would have a hard time as A: you have to find the ship which may be jamming you. B: you also have to fight gravity and the atmosphere. C: i cant remember the rest but he made good points.

However saying that i am working on a ground to space stealthed anti-ship missile

[The Fedral Union]

What happens when you get to the point that you can project shielding magnetic or otherwise over your companies?

That pretty much messes up most orbital bombardment plans unless you plan on carving up a planet like a turkey.



also I had an idea for a defensive platform on planets at least ones with water. Automated floating or undersea missile bases/ submarines/ fortresses. Any good?

[Risen Britannia]

What happens when you get to the point that you can project shielding magnetic or otherwise over your companies?

That pretty much messes up most orbital bombardment plans unless you plan on carving up a planet like a turkey.



also I had an idea for a defensive platform on planets at least ones with water. Automated floating or undersea missile bases/ submarines/ fortresses. Any good?

well if we were going down that road why not say "i have a shield on my units, ha ha nothing you can hit then" having a shield over you company only to not have it defend against ground units would be kind of " 0_o WTF "


underwater fortresses may not be a good idea as if the enemy finds it, they would only have to do a small amount of damage and then let the water do the rest.

subs on the other hand would work well as they can fire and then move. (its what im planning on using for my aforementioned "ground to space stealthed anti-ship missile")

[Risen Britannia]

I was thinking about the origins of my FT nation and the tech i have.
A quick history of my FT nation up "today"
Race Name: pellogens. which come from pello-gens, meaning "banished-people" (the translation is unknown to my people)

My (FT) nation started a few thousand years ago, on the planet "Domus" (home) when a unknown ship crashed landed onto it. Over the years the people who survived made the planet home, cut off from the outside world and the race they came from. Over the generations people forgot about the crash and their old world, leaving most of the advance technology to decay. However over the years the desire for knowledge grew, and people started to examine the old tech once more. This lead to some of the major technological changes of my race as the knowledge was rediscovered. With an existing model (the crashed ship) to go on, space travel develops rapidly. Within 50 years of the first space expedition the planets moon is colonised permanently, and within 100 years the nearest planet is too. Now a thousand years later my people now control a small empire of 36 planets and many more moons. They are lead by the 6 mega-corporations that control everything.

What i plan to do with this
My people find the original race they come from. However the original race is a genetically engineered race, and they regard themselves as "perfect beings". and the ship my people crashed in was orignally trying to escape from them, as my people were considered "non perfect" due to their competitive/aggressive nature (which was seen as a danger) and would have been killed for it.

> my people crashed on a planet and then over time forgot their past
> due to having all the tech from the crashed ship they advance quickly
> they find they were running from their own people when they crashed as they were "non perfect"

[G-Tech Corporation]

Ooohhhhh someone mentioned Gatling guns!

I really like these. I'm on par with the Imperium of Man with their use... (with slightly less tech-wank)

Consider the Assault Cannon, a gatling gun which can cut through light vehicles. Next, consider the Punisher Gatling Cannon, a gatling gun the size of a main tank cannon that can slaughter entire squads of light infantry at a time. Then the Vulcan Mega-Bolter, a gatling gun the size of a whole tank that can mow down armies. Now look at the Hellstorm cannon, a gatling gun the size of a skyscraper. And that's just in the Imperium. Yep, 40k likes this one.

[Thrashia]

APCs and IFVs are what should be equipped with autocannon and such. A tank should never have them except as an extra sponson weapon.

[Bajireyn]

Would it be a good idea too put a mortar (that can fire nukes) on my main battle tank?

[Avenio]

Would it be a good idea too put a mortar (that can fire nukes) on my main battle tank?

I don't think you could get enough distance from a mortar in order to be able to safely fire nukes.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Would it be a good idea too put a mortar (that can fire nukes) on my main battle tank?

The USA had an idea to make a 105mm nuclear shell for the M60 Patton.

It was expensive, so they dropped it, but there's no reason you couldn't do such a thing.

Using a nuclear gun mortar is just nuts though.

[Strykla]

Hmm thats a big debate, ships in orbit. Well there are many reasons you would take your ships out of orbit and still be fighting a ground war. One the enemy also has a fleet in system, and staying over the planet leaves you near motionless and "back lit". Two, their ground defenses and orbitals are too much to risk staying close, thus leaving orbital support sketchy at best.

Three..they use something like a bolo and can shoot back very effectively.
Also, remember modern tanks dont die from the shockwave of a nuke, only the flash can really kill them. The same will be in the future, though you may fire a nuke, its really the epicenter that does the damage, kinetic weapons relying on pure kinetics would have to be so large as to cause permanent geological damage to succeed at wiping out whole formations, crowbar wouldnt do it, a 60 meter 4000 ton rocket would though. Big space lasers are better, but will have much less lethality in blast. Remember most FT vehicles have at least EM screens, which would really help out in these situations.

The poor bastards hit, or near the shockwave [if on the ground] would probably die, but the rest would just keep going. So it wouldn't really effect the outcome of a battle as much, as you would have to literally kill your own fighting troops to stop them. So though you can definetly win a land battle from space, you cant always win a land war that way. Not without destroying your prize.

As for awesome anti horde tanks, masers are good, very very good for that. I used to use the hell out of Maser weapons. We still do to kill sensors actually. I personally prefer either a massive gatling gun firing micro nuclear shells. [every explosive we use is nuclear] or a big mean UV Laser, pumped through plasma. That will cook just about anything, and transform carnifex/ultralisks/ork warbosses/dragons to roiling fireballs. Orrrr you could use a plasma flamethrower tank.....

I'd imagine a bolo as a giant effing target on the future battlefield.
Also, with the nukes thing, think about it for a little: Roughly thirty percent of a nuke's energy is expended as thermal radiation. Fifty percent is the shock wave, and twenty is that nasty gamma rays and ionizing radiation and stuff. The shockwave actually does much of the damage, and the blast from your average nuke might not destroy a tank but it would sure as hell buffet it. The flash wouldn't necessarily kill it either, because remember much of the thermal radiation is expended in the first few seconds. Remember, things like the Abrams were designed in the Cold War, and designed to operate effectively in a nuclear environment. As for Rods from God, you wouldn't need a '60 meter 4000 ton rocket'. Actually, Project Thor described a telephone pole-sized tungsten rod, and, if moving fast enough, it would do nicely.

[Tannelorn]

Yes but the tungsten rod in FT firing at a bolo like target, a real FT bolo would shoot down any incoming projectile from a ship, directed energy would be the only real thing that works. In the bolo series, when the concordat was in its biggest wars, its bolo's were capable of shooting down ships that were silly enough to enter orbit to try to fire on them. Using directed energy would be the only way to prevent that thing from simply using its AI brain to calculate intercepts and swat the kinetics from the sky. ZMI could probably attest to this. Ground defenses could do this job for those that don't use bolo's.

Also, note that a planet is going to have WAY more available sensor power then your ship, and will easily cut through your jammers, this has been argued but its false data. I can have a power plant attached to my sensor system bigger then your superdreadnought, thus good luck jamming a planet. No, FT definetly provides solutions to this ships vs planets. Its an even match. As for shielding, consider the space fighter and its survival hitting chunks of rock..or space ship at 100's [or thousands] of KPS. Not saying they don't work, but god help you trying to accurately hit a wildly maneuvering unit, from hundreds of thousand of kilometers away..possibly under an ECM screen so intense that your ships couldn't communicate with each other, let alone accurately target the ground.

Gravity doesn't effect the directed energy weapons that fire back. My ships in FT use very few kinetic weapons. Those they do use tend to have directed energy weapon payloads in the form of one shot grasers.

As for those kinetic killers..hmmmm the killer asteroid that wiped out the dino's was so big its top was outside of the atmosphere when it struck, and it was going around 8 kps.

Air volume causes problems, big problems as does air pressure. Your speeds would have to be curtailed in atmosphere to reasonable levels, at mach 2000 or so, this projectile explodes in atmosphere [like many meteors do]. This would cause a massive shockwave of course and fireball [one such event annhillated most of south east asia 4 million years ago.] God rods are highly overrated in FT, well heat, not so big a deal considering many of these units are transat, kinetics..well just to operate in space your likely to hit things just flying around, at speeds so fast that it would make the most powerful coil gun main tank cannon look like a joke.

Problem is with these smaller kinetics is this, in FT we are zipping around in space outside of atmosphere at 100's of kps at least. So almost everything has at least powerful magnetic shielding and thermal shielding.

So consider ground vehicles in FT would have the same criteria of protection, and you would start to see a pattern of..direct hit or nothing. Something like a massive strategic graser would level whole formations, and carve out trenches in the substrata so they would fall under those geological damage criteria, and thus "useless" in a take and hold campaign. Even if you used an FT god rod as a light AOE kill weapon, to do the kill on a massive formation you would need to be going so fast it might simply turn in to a fireball.

God help unarmoured infantry under it, but anything capable of withstanding the heat [which most units would] would simply have to wait out the firestorm and keep fighting. This would in turn cause massive environmental damage and hurt your prize.

This leaves directed energy weapons. Sure you could pick off tanks with engagement cannons like P beams and lasers, but this would leave you vulnerable to ground attacks, as you would have to be within 1ls to easily hit them. That means ground defenses can fire back. Ground defenses that contain directed energy weapons big enough to wipe out dreadnoughts in a few shots, that and bolo's. [or in my case landed cruisers].

See in PMT, MT big kinetic kill vehicles crashing in to formations would definetly work. Problem is FT is full of mcguffins, everything is invented or made up to do these jobs. Theater shields, massive energy weapons built in to mountains, AI capable of quadrilions of calcs a second, FTL sensors and targetting systems mean that Kinetic bombardment is the last thing your able to do, not something your able to do whenever you choose. To be able to get these weapons to bear, you have to kill the ground defenses. You may be able to hurl kinetics till the end of time, but ground based strategic grasers and other weapons can shoot them down forever too.

This is when the big epic land battles take place, and why. Its not so much that these things don't work, its that the defender is likely to be able to defend. Remember its always harder to attack then defend, especially in FT. For all the nifty assault toys you have, an FT opponent has just as many defenses. Its because its FT and there are FT solutions to those problems. Thats why just bombing a planet in to dust only works if your opponent thinks it does in FT. If they don't and they have stuff to stop it, Well better dust those MBT's, mecha's, grav tanks and bolo's off. Cause if you want that fortress world, you have to fight for it. .

Please note not trying to be nasty or anything, just saying physics is great, wonderful, but FT ignores physics hard. Anti gravity, faster then light travel. Not dying maneuvering wildly at 50% c, massive planetary shields and nigh magical abilities all pretty much mean that its totally up to the players involved. Also...a bolo would totally stop a massive kinetic bombardment aimed at it. Thats part of its canon.

Everything you said is true in MT and PMT, but FT sort of kills the argument, and lets it be free form. For instance, one of my large worlds is able to defend against a fleet. You have to invade it to take it. You can siege it forever, but its self sufficient so it wont matter in the end. If you want the prize, you must claim it! I like the cut of your jib, Risen Britannia, and in fact your kinetic kill argument is one of the reasons I said FT tanks would need maximum top armour, [as it looks like modern tanks will need soon thanks to SADAR's, lebanon war.] because if your kill vehicle did make it through, it would smash right through a modern designed tank with ease.

So yeah, in FT physics hold no sway, so mathing the death doesnt really work. Besides its fun to invade planets. In fact it makes me sad there is no PMT world, that is between 20-80 years in the future tech wise. Its a shame its grouped in to MT. [STL space empires FTW!!.]

[Cybus1]

Is a machine gun that shoots a constant (until trigger is let go of or battery runs out) stream of lightning/tesla bolts possible? Or shall I go with bullets that electrocute or shut down targets?

[Kashyr]

Is a machine gun that shoots a constant (until trigger is let go of or battery runs out) stream of lightning/tesla bolts possible? Or shall I go with bullets that electrocute or shut down targets?

Look up electrolasers. Basically they use lasers to create a plasma channel and send a current of electricity down that channel. They're the closest thing in my mind to what you're looking for.

[West andor]

I am in a RP right now. The person who I am at war with states that everyone in the military between 6-50 are in the military. (His RP population is 16 billion) He says his economy is perfect because prisoners work 16 hours a day . I said his economy would suck and his equipment would be old and crappy. Am I right?

Also is plasama weapons and anti matter weapons... unfair for lack of a better word.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I am in a RP right now. The person who I am at war with states that everyone in the military between 6-50 are in the military. (His RP population is 16 billion) He says his economy is perfect because prisoners work 16 hours a day . I said his economy would suck and his equipment would be old and crappy. Am I right?

If everybody between 6 and 50 is in the military, wouldn't that include prisoners?

Yes, his economy would suck.

Also is plasama weapons and anti matter weapons... unfair for lack of a better word.

Why would they be unfair, exactly?

[West andor]

I am in a RP right now. The person who I am at war with states that everyone in the military between 6-50 are in the military. (His RP population is 16 billion) He says his economy is perfect because prisoners work 16 hours a day . I said his economy would suck and his equipment would be old and crappy. Am I right?

If everybody between 6 and 50 is in the military, wouldn't that include prisoners?

Yes, his economy would suck.

Also is plasama weapons and anti matter weapons... unfair for lack of a better word.

Why would they be unfair, exactly?

I just remember an discussion here about those weapons

[Thrashia]

I am in a RP right now. The person who I am at war with states that everyone in the military between 6-50 are in the military. (His RP population is 16 billion) He says his economy is perfect because prisoners work 16 hours a day . I said his economy would suck and his equipment would be old and crappy. Am I right?

Also is plasama weapons and anti matter weapons... unfair for lack of a better word.

His army would be made up of conscripts. Maybe 1 in 50,000 being worthy of the title of "soldier." His economy might be industrious, but the quality is going to suck and there will probably be a lot of sabotage and faulty equipment. Especially if his prison work crews are handling things like air craft and armored vehicle construction. I wouldn't trust them to even touch a wrench.