Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Neo-Mekanta]

Oh, OK.

Wait, wut?!

Yes. Precisely. You have attained enlightenment.



Speaking of the IRON/HERMES war, I suddenly feel like applying to both alliances. Like I did waaay back during the ESUS/Shivan war when I applied to ESUS while allied with the Shivans.

Ah, good times. Good backstabbing too.

[Feazanthia]

My pants have just been shat.

Mekanta is considering entering the fray. We're all doomed.

[Neo-Mekanta]

I'd have entered much earlier, but nobody gave me a planet to shoot in the general direction of to send my response.

[Lariza]

Some questions I have:

I've noticed that some players view 1km ships as already being excessively big.

However, I use BSG tech mostly so that means on average my ships are going to be anywhere between 800m to 3km at the farthest extremes with crews in the thousands. How would this affect the ship quality?

Another question I have, on average how many ships do most vets field (the ones that have pops exceeding 5/6 bill)?

The second is important as it will help me determine the number of ships I'll have in my navy (at present I'm thinking of fielding a fleet of about 1000 ships).

[The Romulan Republic]

Some questions I have:

I've noticed that some players view 1km ships as already being excessively big.

A hard and fast "1 km is too big" rule would be pointless. It depends entirely on what type of tech your using, what role the ships are supposed to serve, and how many their are relative to the resources your faction has at its disposal.

For example, a kilometer long ship is a mere destroyer or cruiser by Star Wars standards, while in Star Trek it is an extremely large capital ship. I think the Klingons and maybe the Romulans have a class or two in that size range, but not the Feds. Could be wrong though.

Also, a multi-generational colony ship would have to be quite big, but perhaps rare and a major investment for a smaller power. Multi-kilometer, unless you're using Star Wars tech, is probably a bit much for a destroyer or light cruiser though. At least, I don't build them that big.

[Bryn Shander]

Some questions I have:

I've noticed that some players view 1km ships as already being excessively big.

However, I use BSG tech mostly so that means on average my ships are going to be anywhere between 800m to 3km at the farthest extremes with crews in the thousands. How would this affect the ship quality?

Another question I have, on average how many ships do most vets field (the ones that have pops exceeding 5/6 bill)?

The second is important as it will help me determine the number of ships I'll have in my navy (at present I'm thinking of fielding a fleet of about 1000 ships).

With the exception of the twelve dreadnoughts that I'll be starting construction on soon, all the ships that the current incarnation of my nation have ever fielded are less than 1000m. The largest ships I have now are 742m, and I'll be building a class of 960m battleships to replace them soon. Excluding my battleships, carriers, and next generation of cruisers, all of my ships are less than 500m. I really should get around to working on that new ship chart again.

As for fleet numbers, that really depends on the nation. At the moment, the Jannarii Empire's fleet is 540 ships. When I complete my third generation rearmament, I'll have 708. Auman has 1356. New Haven has about 650 or so. Raysia has about 100. Others, like Hyperspatial Travel have about 7500 ships.

[Feazanthia]

Some questions I have:

I've noticed that some players view 1km ships as already being excessively big.

However, I use BSG tech mostly so that means on average my ships are going to be anywhere between 800m to 3km at the farthest extremes with crews in the thousands. How would this affect the ship quality?

Another question I have, on average how many ships do most vets field (the ones that have pops exceeding 5/6 bill)?

The second is important as it will help me determine the number of ships I'll have in my navy (at present I'm thinking of fielding a fleet of about 1000 ships).

Battlestars are a combination of aircraft carrier and battleship, which means they will be the center of battle groups if the Colonial Fleet followed modern naval logic (which they seemed to do).

Remember that the "thousand ships" is relative. If you used only one class of ship, then it'd be a straight thousand. However, if you use multiple classes (say, various frigates/cruisers/battleships), you're going to have to approach mathematics a bit fuzzier.

If you're going to stick to one thousand ships, I would personally recommend (by no means take this as what you have to do, this is just what I would do) have between one and two hundred dedicated Battlestars (Mercury or Galactica class), supported by between 800 and 900 ships of varying smaller classes, with maybe a handful of "Warstars" thrown in if you're going with non-canon stuff. If you're going strict canon, then keep in mind your 1000 Battlestars are not going to give you a direct advantage in any way in combat - that will come from how you use them.

Ultimately ship size has little value besides fluff. Bigger does not equal better.

Personally, I field a fleet of roughly 3000 capital ships (cruisers/carriers/battleships).

[Hyperspatial Travel]

-snip-

About 5000, but that's more of a thematic choice for the Technocratic Union than it is a particularly strategical one. Generally speaking I prefer tiny navies (mainly because it's possible to give a sort of character to each ship and her crew, whereas gigantic ones are somewhat impersonal), but the throwaway culture of the Technocracy generated by quite a few years of war gives rise a cultural preferment for massive disposable navies.

[Capsule Corporation]

Oh, OK.

Wait, wut?!

Yes. Precisely. You have attained enlightenment.



Speaking of the IRON/HERMES war, I suddenly feel like applying to both alliances. Like I did waaay back during the ESUS/Shivan war when I applied to ESUS while allied with the Shivans.

Ah, good times. Good backstabbing too.

Why not, I did ^_^ Sorta

[Morningstar Coalition]

Alright. I've been up till almost three am while agonizing over the final details of my new nation's navy, specifically types of ship classes, crew compliments, total numbers available, and so on, so bear with me if this isn't totally coherent.

I was reading through Arizona Nova's excellent "Science of a Nation" thread and I came across some ideas. I want to try and refine and improve Arizona's work here, and I thought the argument thread might be a better place than cluttering the Science thread with debate which may or may not lead anywhere.
So here's my thoughts.

The concept of rating specialties and fields of technology is a wonderful one, and I think goes a long way towards allowing us each to really look at our nations and our tech-bases, not to mention allowing us to get a better understanding of the same things in other nations. However, when I first read Arizona's categories/specialties, I was somewhat confused. I admit that a good deal of my preconceptions come from years of sci-fi stories, and especially computer and console games involving technology research (Master of Orion, Civilization, Space Empires, Etc). In most of these sources, there were a handful of easily understandable categories or trees. Arizona has hit on several, but others seem to be absent.

Arizona has the following Specialties:
Materials Engineering: this governs all the secrets regarding the recombination of phyical substance for directed use; whether simply distilling water to drink to crafting in neutronium, the densest material known to exist.
Directed Energy: this is the power to bend and manipulate energy to a purpose, ranging from the utilization of electricity to accomplish motor movement, to the workings of a superlaser array designed to destroy a planet.
Self-Guided Systems: This refers to any system created with the intent to act upon its own initiative, whether a simple guided missile or an immense and complex arch-AI-lect.
Gravitonics: Gravity is, as a force, one which walks the line between energy and matter, affecting both in various, sometimes unpredictable ways. Gravitonics touches everything from artificial gravity systems to black hole bombs.
Alteration: The most esoteric specialization, alteration encompasses any technology which directly alters the fabric of reality itself, whether it be dimensionally, temporally, or through quantum mechanics.

Now, I mean no disrespect at all, but I wonder if these categories could be refined or improved in any way. By looking at these in detail, maybe we can combine some of them, while adding new categories.

Materials Engineering. In Master of Orion, this would fall smack in the field of "Construction", and I think is quite apt in it's current use. This field or specialty can help give an indication of how advanced the materials in a nation are. Whether they use high-carbon steel, to compressed-matter diamond-like materials. I have no proposal for this field.

Directed Energy: I believe I understand where Arizona was going with this, however I believe both the name and the description could be misleading. I don't think this field is, or should be, specifically about weapons. I think we should broaden this to include all the various forms of power and energy technologies. Development of fusion reactors, antimatter manufacture, superconductors. The generation and harnessing of energy. I propose the name "Energy Physics".

Self-Guided Systems: As with energy technology, this category has many more applications than weapons technology. AIs can be interfaced into starships, factories, even communications networks. This field can even include the basic technologies upon which the advanced computers (sentient or not) are built. Electronics, optical, quantum, or spacetime. I propose the name "Information Science".

Gravitonics: This field seems to me unnecessarily limited and focused. While I admit that being able to manipulate gravity is a potent and important tool in FT, I'm not sure it needs a separate category, especially in light of the field of Alteration. I propose this field be removed or merged with Alteration.

Alteration: To me it seems this category serves two purposes. One is specifically to hold those technologies which deal with the direct manipulation of space, time, or the universe at large. Time travel, phasing shields/cloak, dimensional effects, and perhaps even the direct manipulation of gravity and/or inertia. The second purpose this category seems to serve is a sort of "catch-all" field for any technology or science which doesn't fit the other four fields. I see no problem with this, but a "Misc" field need not be merged with one which seems to have clear applications. I propose the name "Reality Alteration".

New Field: One thing which I noticed as a seeming hole in the fields of science is that pertaining to biotechnology. Everything from antibiotics, auto-docs, hyposprays, genetic engineering, cybernetics, to biological starships. I propose the new field of "Biotechnology".

New Field: As mentioned before, we may in fact need a catch-all "Misc" field where players can lump technologies which do not fit the other fields. When someone places this "Misc" in a high priority, they can include comments or explanations of exactly what technologies they wish it to represent. I propose the new field of "Exotic Sciences".



Now we get to what Arizona calls the "Major and Minor Triangles". These seem to embody military doctrines, and seem to serve the purpose to classify our FT starships. The major triangle is divided between Mobility, Offense, and Defense. This falls right in line with real-world, wet-navy doctrines of Speed, Armor, and Firepower. I really see no problems with this "Doctrinal Triad". It is quite logical and sound in it's own right.

The Minor Triangle is divided between:
Tactics: The ability to effectively command and control, to make and relay decisions as quickly as possible, and employ countermeasures to hamper the enemy's abilities; i.e., your ability to react and outmaneuver your enemy's technology, though not necessarily stop it.
Clandestinity: The ability to hide from the enemy, whether literally in battle or figuratively through espionage; any technology which aims to fortify this quality.
Suprabiology: The resources spent on developing attributes outside of natural evolution, whether it is simply increased longevity or psionic/Force powers.

Aside for the good-humor ribbing I've already given Arizona about the questionable word "Clandestinity", I think there is still room for improvement for the minor triangle.

Tactics: As Arizona describes, this field focuses on what amounts to Command & Control ability and Leadership qualities. Advanced communications, tactical awareness, and speed of orders are all driven towards perfection in this field. I propose the name "Command".

Clandestinity: Stealth, evasion, spying, deception, ambushes, feints. Dirty, underhanded tricks to win an engagement. These are qualities you see in the Romulans of Star Trek, Gathering intelligence on your enemy, without giving anything of yourself away. I propose the name "Espionage".

Suprabiology: I personally believe that again we've come across another "Misc" category. A place to put anything that doesn't fit elsewhere. I don't think we need or want this in what is supposed to be a "Doctrinal Triad", because each point in the triangle is supposed to be an equally valid doctrine of war, the importance of each which must be chosen by the nation. Psionics, magic, and the Force are all things which can easily be covered by either Reality Alteration, or Exotic Sciences. I propose the removal of this field.

This leaves us with a problem. The Major Triad is logical and it's easy to see how Mobility, Defense, and Offense balance and weight against each other. I believe that Command and Espionage form two points of a similar triad, however for the life of me I cannot come up with a suitable third point for this second triangle. At this point it may just be the sleep deprivation, but I am going to wrap this up and open things for debate. Debate both on my proposed changes, but also on what might be put into the place of the third point of the minor triangle.

Thanks for your time!

[Auman]

The size of a ship, at least in my mind, isn't so much of a problem. Ship size isn't so much of an indicator of military strength as it is of industrial prowess. You could have a 13km long battleship if you wanted and if it was used within reason, I.E. The size and diameter are more of a character building attribute as opposed to a "lol it r big i win" characteristic, without wanking, it should be fine.

I operate eleven Aumanii Battlespace Dominators. They are 2.095km long, bristling with angry guns and are generally fast and totally awesome. I chose the size because of the role of the warship... It's a long range command vessel that is intended to work for long periods of time without resupply. It is large because it needs space to store ammunition and other supplies. It is also loaded to the gills with totally rad, top of the line, combat systems because they need to win fights quickly and without much expenditure of precious ordnance. Being as the AuBSD is a top of the line piece of military hardware, designed during a global war and produced shortly after the conclusion of the conflict, it is the pinnacle of Aumanii engineering prowess. This cannot be said for the rest of the fleet, which is still pretty good, but is outdated in comparison to the shiny new sploogenaught.

In closing, everyone can have a couple of totally awesome ships... They're best used as hero ships and held for special events. During a prolonged period of warfare, however, the risk of losing these vessels would mean they'd be put to the side for a mission that keeps the risk to an absolute minimum. What I mean by that is, in roleplay terms, if you're going to have a rad uberdong, save it for an event that requires its presence, like an influential battle or daring raid. The Bismarck didn't protect German shipping lanes, it was built to epically attack them in a glorious, awe inspiring manner.

The Krauts only had two ships in that class and a bajillion U-Boats. The Aumanii military has 11 uberdongs and 1,345 dongs.

[Sskiss]

Morningstar Coalition, I like your proposels and give my support. Consider this post a "seconded".

[Huerdae]

I fully agree with Morningstar, and would like to throw my support behind the post of impressive quality which can be seen here.

I would, however, like to propose a third piece of the triad to the minor triangle! What you have in the major triangle are three obvious, easily-recognizable aspects of every warship, and in the minor triangle, you have two aspects that apply not to the warship, but to the crew and preparation which go into that warship's effect on the battlefield. So what I propose as the final part of the minor triangle would be as follows:

Logistics: No matter how well-trained your crew, no matter how powerful your warship, or how mighty your weapons, in the end, the battle can sometimes be brought down to the terrible reality of proper supply and preparation. This applies to the ability of an empire to properly assess the needs of an engagement, from required reinforcements, resupply, ammunition, and repair needs. Better logistics permit faster assaults, more efficient supply lines, and proper handling of a prolonged conflict.

Just my opinion, but something which I felt was integral in war, and needed a place.

[-Bretonia-]

I've noticed that some players view 1km ships as already being excessively big.

I think you're right that most people are OK with ships greater in size than that; years ago we had to deal with an epidemic of people using Star Wars technology (which has abated a little of late), so we had to be OK with it. Whether or not people think such a ship is for them, of course, is another matter entirely. The Bretonian Royal Navy utilises two different classes of battleship which exceed two kilometres in length, however this is because of their military doctrine - build 'em big, build 'em tough, don't matter how agile they aren't. They use their battleships as virtual mobile fortresses, with them often needing to take command of entire sectors, and they need to be capable of extreme levels of independence. Three Bretonian star systems have a battleship permanently stationed there, and they are almost thought of as floating cities by civilians in the area - they often dock with them to trade, and HMS Hood even offers bed and board to passing civilians due to the remoteness of the system it guards.

Even their cruisers and frigates are quite large by most standards.

Other nations have different uses for their battleships. Some of them treat them like Mongol horse archers, sending them in for fast attacks and getting them out quickly. Bretonians use their gunboats for that sort of work though; small ships with some of the abilities of capital ships. You have to think about the culture of your nation and how their government would likely use their armed forces, based on past experience or preference, and create a navy around that.

Size only really becomes an issue when you're approaching sizes that break suspension of disbelief for the majority of people. I remember a few years back, a player called Hataria had been effectively driven out of MT by that playerbase for his antics, and he ended up creating an alt and joining FT. Pretty much the first thing he did was have a ship the size of a red giant star come along. The laughter was loud.

There are a few sticklers, but mostly you're alright.

However, I use BSG tech mostly so that means on average my ships are going to be anywhere between 800m to 3km at the farthest extremes with crews in the thousands. How would this affect the ship quality?

Big ships are generally hard to manoeuvre quickly, but otherwise the quality is down to the people who built them and how many of them you have. Do your people have a reputation for good-quality ships or are they a bunch of dossers? Are they painstaking built with a good eye for detail, using good quality materials and processes, or were they slapped together in a hurry with any old scrap? Can your nation afford to invest in good quality ships of that size?

If they can only afford to build one really great ship, for example, if they build three or four they aren't going to be well funded.

BSG technology also tends to carry a stigma in the space opera crowd as being less advanced than some other universes, not using energy shields, directed energy weapons and the like. You may counter that perception however you wish - armour so thick and advanced that energy shields aren't necessary, for example, and kinetic weaponry can be amongst the most destructive around. Just ask the dinosaurs.

Another question I have, on average how many ships do most vets field (the ones that have pops exceeding 5/6 bill)?

As many as they need for their purposes, really. Some people have tens of thousands of warships for flexibility, but in order to win any battles they have to be numerically superior. Most tend to stick to a few thousand; aside from anything else, numbers make for logistical nightmares. Bretonia fields about a hundred battleships, about one and a half thousand cruisers and frigates, and they plug the gaps with a couple of thousand of their subluminal gunboats - mostly for domestic operations against the numerous pirate and terrorist organisations they have to contend with. Their need for flexibility is normally low, for the thirteen star systems Bretonia has under its control are in close proximity to each other, and their gunboats can usually free up the need for heavy capital ship deployment at home with the exception of strategic areas. They instead prefer to focus on larger ships, produced to high standards, which can take numerous years to build.

As with the size issue, it depends entirely on how your nation's government prefers to operate its armed forces, and if you have a democratic government, military doctrine can and sometimes does change overnight. The general guideline people have been talking about earlier, one thousand ships per one billion people, can be used as a rough indicator of the quality of your ships depending on how many you build, but you also need to consider the economical and political issues to make things really believable. Not all nations can afford to, or want to, build even one thousand ships per billion people, and fewer doesn't always have to mean better if you don't want it to.

I think the Klingons and maybe the Romulans have a class or two in that size range, but not the Feds. Could be wrong though.

The Romulans were the only major power with a ship a kilometre long, the D'deridex. The Klingons had the Negh'var, which was only eight hundred-odd metres, and the Federation had the Sovereign, which was a tad under 700 metres. Star Trek being as it is, though, scaling issues made them look different sizes at different times. That's a good example of why size isn't always the be-all and end-all of things, though; the D'deridex was thought to be roughly equal in combat capabilities to the Galaxy-class, a ship half its size, while the Sovereign could pretty much pound all of them without too much difficulty. The Romulans ended up going with a smaller ship again after the Dominion War saw most of their Warbirds trashed pretty easily by the Jem'Hadar.

Also, a multi-generational colony ship would have to be quite big, but perhaps rare and a major investment for a smaller power. Multi-kilometer, unless you're using Star Wars tech, is probably a bit much for a destroyer or light cruiser though. At least, I don't build them that big.

A generational ship's size would depend a lot on the technology of the power building it really. Without Star Trek's matter replication technology, for example, they'd need to devote huge spaces to growing food, or at least storing food, water and supplies, and the power source of the vessel might or might not require vast quantities of fuel to be stored aboard, depending on what type it was. These would be even more true depending on where it was going too; if it was crossing the vast distances between galaxies, it might not be able to re-stock anything for a long time, though if it was just going on an interstellar jaunt it could rely on harvesting the things they need from the star systems they passed.

[The Cosmic Balance]

This leaves us with a problem. The Major Triad is logical and it's easy to see how Mobility, Defense, and Offense balance and weight against each other. I believe that Command and Espionage form two points of a similar triad, however for the life of me I cannot come up with a suitable third point for this second triangle. At this point it may just be the sleep deprivation, but I am going to wrap this up and open things for debate. Debate both on my proposed changes, but also on what might be put into the place of the third point of the minor triangle.

Control, Confusion, and Infiltration.

What you term Command I would term Control; either word works, but I find the latter term better. The natural opposite to this is Confusion. This is where disinformation, electronic jamming, and other activities intended to actively blind the enemy and leave him unable to respond live in the triad.

I would use the term Infiltration (or, alternately, Evasion) instead of your term (Espionage), because it has a broader meaning. "Espionage" is too limited a term, whereas "Infiltration" covers both the introduction and extraction of spies as well as military forces.

EDIT: I'll assume that the reason for the Triad is the old "Three items, choose two" logic. This is why Logistics would be a poor choice to be added to the Minor Triad - there's no trade-off. With Control, Confusion, and Infiltration, once can argue - perhaps not well - that each of the three makes the others harder to achieve: Infiltration requires silence, which makes both jamming and sending control messages harder; the same communications assets can't be used to control one's own forces while degrading enemy communications at the same time. In essence, the Minor Triad becomes the place where InfoWar is waged.

If you want to confront people with a dilemma vis-a-vis Logistics, I'd propose a third Triad: Numbers, Quality, and Logistics. You can have a huge fleet, or your can have powerful ships, or you can supply your ships - choose two. This is a natural check on the player who wants 1,000 battlestars: You can tell that player that they have a huge fleet of battlestars, but now they can't move it, support it, repair it, or do much of anything else with it.

The only thing here is that the power formula for this last Triad is multiplicative: Numbers x Quality x Logistics. If any of the three become zero, you have no power.

[Huerdae]

That's a good point, and one that I'm in favor of, except that I don't buy the difference between Confusion and Infiltration. Infiltration, espionage, and evasion are all part of confusion. It'd be willing to buy the Quality/Numbers/Logistics and even demand it, but I'm not sure how to handle what we should perhaps call the 'Crew' Triad?

We can no longer go with Major/Minor, but it seems to be shaping into three new categories. You have the 'Ship' Triad, previously the 'Major' Triad. Then the old 'Minor' Triad should possibly become the 'Crew' Triad, dealing with what the men aboard the ship are capable of managing. The last we would be forced to introduce as the 'Imperial' or 'National' Triad, in which it is based entirely on what your nation can do, but which truly acts as the lifeline of your vessels.

However, the Crew Triad Left with Control, Infiltration, and Confusion, and I've already stated I'm not a particular fan of that setup.

So, being the friendly and helpful Imperial Dictator that I am, I propose a solution.

Drag the man out and shoot him. Otherwise, we could discuss:

Control: Includes battlefield communication, AI capability aboard the ships, Fleet command and control, as well as the efficiency of the crew at operating their vessel.

Confusion: Infiltration tactics, disruption of enemy communication, stealth practices, and ECM capability. This includes knowing how to act when an enemy is alerted to your presence but can not locate you directly, and the overall effectiveness in your ship in the 'shadow' wars.

Morale: Something which we keep forgetting. The men inside. No matter how quickly or effectively the orders are given, some men are going to just shit themselves and hide. This generally occurs when you know you're dead. A high rank in Morale would make crews fearless, utterly determined to claw victory out of their opponent's eyes with their bare hands, powered-armor helmet or no. Low morale would imply being forced to field a larger fleet, or suffer from hesitation to follow risky orders that could sometimes change the force of battle. One battleship risking itself by giving a broadside to two enemy vessels by flying between them may not happen as the captain considers his own life over that of the battle.

Finally, this comes to a strange realization. You now have three triads, and I was considering my own empire as I wrote this (as we all do, I'm sure) and I came across something of a surprise. I focus heavily on two of these triads, but not on the third. Interesting. That leaves me with the following build for my empire.

Specializations:

• MOST IMPORTANT: Reality Alteration
• Information Science
• Biotechnology
• Materials Engineering
• LEAST IMPORTANT: Energy Physics

Major Triad:

• MOST IMPORTANT: Crew Triad
• National Triad
• LEAST IMPORTANT: Ship Triad

Crew Triad:

• MOST IMPORTANT: Confusion
• Morale
• LEAST IMPORTANT: Control

National Triad:

• MOST IMPORTANT: Logistics
• Size
• LEAST IMPORTANT: Numbers

Ship Triad:

• MOST IMPORTANT: Offense
• Mobility
• LEAST IMPORTANT: Defense

Thus, the return of the Major Triad where it shows basically the overall ideology of your Nation when going to war. In the Huerdaen Star Empire, you can see that they view crew training as highest priority. Ships and guns are powerful weapons, but in incapable hands, they are nothing. But secondary is the support. Those men can't fight WITHOUT weapons (though they'll damn well try) so they need to be properly supplied. And last in line are the ships, which fall behind simply by being a vessel through which your efforts are realized. Anyone can build a ship. Only the best nations can make it a God Of War.

--

In doing this, I found another point. Having a 'Quality' item for the National Triad presents a redundancy. Instead, I suggest a 'Size' category, where it determines the overall size of your ships. It also fits well with the logistical issues associated, and balances nicely against the numbers you're capable of fielding.

I'm going to stop typing now and let this roll around a little bit, and I'd like some first impressions when you guys get them.

[The Cosmic Balance]

I choose "Quality" over "Size" because I wanted to get away from the "Bigger Ships Are Better Ships" thinking. TCB vessels are much smaller than the uberships some people have, but extraordinarily powerful. Hence "Quality".

Here's the thing about a Triad: The theory is that, as the old saying goes, "Three goals, choose two"; this is why I chose "Control", "Confusion", and "Infiltration". It's the information equivalent of Offense-Defense-Mobility: I can emphasize two of the three, but not all three.

In this analogy, "Control" parallels "Defense"; it is a measure of how effective my forces are. "Confusion" parallels "Offense"; it is a measure of my ability to make your forces less effective. "Infiltration" parallels "Mobility"; it is a measure of my ability to move about on the information landscape without interference.

The idea that "Infiltration" is antithetical to both "Control" and "Confusion" is, to some extent, based on modern submarine warfare: I must "go quiet" to disappear from the battlefield, which eliminates both my ability to send information to my own people (to increase "Control") and to send disinformation to my enemy (to increase "Confusion"). Yes, I understand that some people think of "cloaking" technology as being identical to "jamming" technology - but it doesn't have to be.

Suppose, for example, that you have the ability to move matter in and out of phase with the rest of the universe. When you go out of phase, you can't jam and you can't talk; you have to return to phase to do either (actually, TCB does this with warp technology; it reduces the exterior surface of the warp interface to subatomic dimensions, making it impossible for the warp bubble to be detected or impacted by most electromagnetic radiation, but also changing the wavelength of any electromagnetic transmissions from within the warp bubble to dramatically alter their characteristics. Such technologies don't rely on the "cloaking is jamming" assumption, presenting instead a genuine Triad.

My greater point, though, is this: However the Minor Triad is constructed, it must be a true Triad. By this I mean that it must confront players with a choice between three things that are all to a certain extent antithetical to one another.

EDIT: Even without cloaking, my concept of an InfoWar Triad works because of the whole idea that assets expose themselves to detection through the mere use of communications. Thus you have three choices: Offensive use, defensive use, and silence. On the strategic level, if we have listening posts scattered across the galaxy, we will get a sense of enemy fleet movements. If the enemy wants to disappear from our maps, he needs to go quiet, thus forfeiting both command/control and active deception/disinformation.

The same principle applies in cyberwar or spycraft: The sleeper subroutine (or agent) that (or who) sits silent and inactive, awaiting its chance to strike, must give up a certain degree of control and eschew active countermeasures to remain unseen. That is the idea that I am trying to capture - a triangle of choice, just like the Power Triad (which is really where the Major Triad came from: The idea that your energy budget can only be used three ways - to attack, to defend, or to move).

SECOND EDIT: That means that I am suggesting three Triads:

Power/Energy Triad: Offense, Defense, Mobility
Information Triad: Control, Confusion, Concealment (changed from Infiltration)
Resource Triad: Mass, Quality, Support/Endurance (changed from Logistics)

In all cases, each Triad presents us with a choice: "Three things, choose two"

Maybe I should add the (in)famous Triad we always cite in IT:

Production Triad: Fast, Good, Cheap

This would matter when you're trying to build new assets or expand your existing ones.

[Bears Armed]

Size of ships?
One factor to consider is the average size of your people. If they're significantly larger or maller than Humans then maybe your ships might tend to be a bit larger or smaller [respectively] than humans' ones too...
After all, you couldn't fit Chthulhu into an X-wing...

[Huerdae]

I can see your point, but I don't believe that it applies to all empires equally. For my empire, specifically, 'confusion' and 'Infiltration' are managed by the same systems, in the same way. I'm curious, though:

Control parallels defense, to make your forces MORE effective? Defense is the preservation of your forces, but their effectiveness is determined by their ability to control the conflict in question. It was an odd description, and one that I would flip if I had said it. Offensive capability is the ability to make your forces MORE effective, while defensive is the ability to make enemy forces LESS effective.

Ramblings aside, I still don't buy the argument that Infiltration and Confusion are far enough apart to create a true triad, as you say. Partly because the Huerdaen Empire does not move matter out of phase with the rest of the universe. Instead, they mask their readings by limiting what emissions they put off, as well as providing the proper responses to more active search techniques. In this way, they're still entirely in phase with the galaxy around them, and can even be seen by the naked eye. Despite this, they're extremely difficult to view using more complex equipment.

As such, the comparison would be:

Offense: Control
Defense: Morale
Mobility: Misinformation

And I don't think that cloaking is jamming. I'm simply saying that making a distinction between cloaking and jamming is perhaps too narrow-minded when considering how to build the triad. A ship's effectiveness, in how you have built the triad, then depends on action, misinformation, and concealment. I argue that the ship's effectiveness takes into account instead action, misinformation, and the competence of the crew. My argument stems from the history-proven point that elite units are far more capable than their regular or conscripted counterparts. This is something I'd like to incorporate, allowing the scale of war to be increased beyond simply the size of the ship, as you say.

And yeah, I understand your concerns about calling it 'size' in the final Triad, but I believe that 'Quality' is covered in the Ship triad itself, hence my hesitation. It seems a redundant category, or perhaps a way of making up for shortcomings. I have yet to decide if that's right or not. Perhaps, instead, something more along the lines of Salvage or Repair would be reasonable for both of us to consider? Something which is aimed more toward the ability of a nation to return damaged vessels to active service and how quickly such an act is done?

[Huerdae]

EDIT: Even without cloaking, my concept of an InfoWar Triad works because of the whole idea that assets expose themselves to detection through the mere use of communications. Thus you have three choices: Offensive use, defensive use, and silence. On the strategic level, if we have listening posts scattered across the galaxy, we will get a sense of enemy fleet movements. If the enemy wants to disappear from our maps, he needs to go quiet, thus forfeiting both command/control and active deception/disinformation.

The same principle applies in cyberwar or spycraft: The sleeper subroutine (or agent) that (or who) sits silent and inactive, awaiting its chance to strike, must give up a certain degree of control and eschew active countermeasures to remain unseen. That is the idea that I am trying to capture - a triangle of choice, just like the Power Triad (which is really where the Major Triad came from: The idea that your energy budget can only be used three ways - to attack, to defend, or to move).

SECOND EDIT: That means that I am suggesting three Triads:

Power/Energy Triad: Offense, Defense, Mobility
Information Triad: Control, Confusion, Concealment (changed from Infiltration)
Resource Triad: Mass, Quality, Support/Endurance (changed from Logistics)

In all cases, each Triad presents us with a choice: "Three things, choose two"

Maybe I should add the (in)famous Triad we always cite in IT:

Production Triad: Fast, Good, Cheap

This would matter when you're trying to build new assets or expand your existing ones.

It seems, then, that the real disagreement we have comes not from how to build the triad, but what the triads contain. I don't see the triads as you do, focusing on three aspects of a ship in combat, but instead, on three aspects of a nation at war. From campaign, to engagement, to skirmish level. I don't think that between us we'll be able to decide which is better, because I can see the validity of your point in this, but I still prefer the version that I have put forth. My apologies, but I must agree to disagree on this, and we'll have to wait for further input from others.

[Auman]

Size of ships?
One factor to consider is the average size of your people. If they're significantly larger or maller than Humans then maybe your ships might tend to be a bit larger or smaller [respectively] than humans' ones too...
After all, you couldn't fit Chthulhu into an X-wing...

You're right... If I were to design, oh, a picnic basket for a race that was roughly the size of, say, a bear, it would be considerably larger than one meant for a human.

[The Kafers]

<Posting as my other FT puppet>

Yes, we do see the Triads as serving different functions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to see them as groups of three important factors that determine the effectiveness of the nation at war; I see them as trade-offs whose purpose is to force players to make hard decisions about how they will play their ships, their nations, everything.

And that's why I don't like the way you're sandwiching Morale into the Minor Triad, and why I'm trying to say that Quality needs to be present explicitly. Because there are choices here, and the choices carry a cost.

Let's take your proposed Minor Triad as an example.

You suggest this should be Control, Morale, and Misinformation (in this context, I'd suggest the word "Deception"). The question that immediately springs to mind is: "Why can't I have all three?"

Specifically, what is there about Control that reduces my ability to enjoy high Morale and generate a greater degree of Misinformation/Deception? Why... nothing. I can argue that having a higher amount of Control is good for Morale and allows me to coordinate my dissemination of Misinformation/Deception. See the issue?

But I won't stop there: My Resource Triad - Mass, Quality, Support (simplest form) is an attempt to make people understand that they can have uberships, lots of ships, or a good logistical base to sustain their military forces, but they can't have all three. The n00b who says: "I have 1,000 battlestars the size of planets!!!! I pwn j00!!!!" gets put in his place when we point to the Resource Triad and say: "Sorry, but if you've spent all your money on building 1,000 battlestars the size of planets, you will not have the fuel to fly them anywhere, or the resources to maintain them - in fact, they probably can't fly at all, and we're going to treat them exactly as though that's the case."

Not only that, but it forces people to do something they never do, whether in MT, PMT, or FT: Devote resources to providing support for their front-line forces. How many times do people show up with huge invasion forces, leading you to wonder: "How did you get the resources to supply a force that size? And where are their supplies coming from? And can I attack your lines of communication as a way of applying the indirect approach as a means of defeating your forces?"

As for Quality vs. Size, I'll still insist that the real question isn't: "How big is that ship?" The real question is: "How tough is that ship?" And, to be honest, if we look at it that way, wouldn't Morale be a factor in Quality? IOW, if I decide that I have "tough" ships, couldn't they be tough because they're big, or tough because they're powerful, or tough because they've got insanely good tech, or tough because they've got elite crew members - or maybe all of the above? Indeed, does it matter why they are tough, or that they are tough? I say the latter, and that this properly stands as a Triad "leg", in competition with the first "leg" (Mass or Number) and the third "leg" (Support/Endurance or Logistics).

Now, this is not to say that a simple list of "Important Factors in Determining National Power" wouldn't be useful. But if that's the case, why mess with "Triads"? Just make lists of important characteristics, and leave it at that; don't argue over which three matter when - if it's a list - the number of important factors could be three, seven, or twenty-two. Just list 'em.

But if you want to force people to make choices, well, that's when you have to have Triads (or something similar) to make them sacrifice something to get something else. Then strengths are balanced by weaknesses, and I can look at my enemy and say: "O.K., he's great here and here, but this is his weakness, and so let's see how I can exploit that."

EDIT: I related "Control" to "Defense" because - in RP - both relate to the power of my forces. "Confusion" and "Offense" relate to your forces, and - in RP - can only be effective to whatever degree you permit them to be. By myself, I can decide how effective my people are - whether they are disciplined and organized, competent under fire, and how well the withstand attack; I just RP them that way. I need for you to tell me if my attacks on you hit home and if my attempts to deceive you succeed in confusing your people; I have to convince you to let my abilities in these areas work the way I'd like them too. See how that works? And, following that analogy, "Mobility" and "Concealment" are related because they both involve positioning and maneuver within the battlefield environment, whether physical (in the case of Power/Energy) or logical (in the case of Information).

[Bears Armed]

Size of ships?
One factor to consider is the average size of your people. If they're significantly larger or maller than Humans then maybe your ships might tend to be a bit larger or smaller [respectively] than humans' ones too...
After all, you couldn't fit Chthulhu into an X-wing...

You're right... If I were to design, oh, a picnic basket for a race that was roughly the size of, say, a bear, it would be considerably larger than one meant for a human.

"Ooooh..."

[Huerdae]

Of course the choices carry a cost. And having them listed doesn't mean they're not there. It means they're generally substandard, somewhat subpar when compared to the rest of the universe. Going on the original TRIAD of mobility, offense, and defense, does having defense listed last mean that your ships fall apart if they turn on their engines? No.

Why can't you have all three, of offense, defense, and mobility?

Because a ship simply isn't capable of it. It will be forced to give up mobility to endure more armor, or suffer in firepower to carry less ammo and be able to maneuver more capably. The same applies.

In terms of Control, Morale, and Deception, it is not so much of which do you have, which do you NOT have, it's a matter of which are you best at, where is your weakness? As you can see, my empire isn't the best organized in combat. Communication is lax, soldiers are used to working alone. Thus, in larger fleet engagements, my forces are going to suffer from lack of an ability to properly respond AS A WHOLE to an enemy maneuver.

On the other hand, an individual warship is going to be rather competent on it's own, able to be run by the crew against an opponent without unreasonable concern for doing something stupid. And you can expect to count on my abilities at Deception to make it significantly harder to mount a unified attack against one of my fleets.

I think that the logistics/quality/numbers discussion is more about semantics than anything, man. We both agree that logistics is the knife's edge of many conflicts over history, and we're both arguing the same side in this.

I'm not looking for just a list of traits, I thought I made that clear. I'm looking for a balance that can accurately and quickly determine the capabilities of each nation.

I suppose I should clarify, and I'll use real-world examples to explain what I mean.

Control: Characterized by the German Wehrmacht, WW2: The german army was efficient, it was effective, and it was fast. It had capable communications, and it was led by experienced soldiers who were both aware and calm in a crisis situation.

Why this can't be combined with Deception: As you stated yourself, deception depends on breaking down or destroying communication. This is almost certainly to affect your own. Thus, to be able to specialize in Control, your ability to deceive your enemy is going to be limited to what can be done without affecting your own coordination.

Why can't this be combined with Morale: The german army was built on its officer core. Opponents of the Wehrmacht quickly learned to eliminate german officers because they symbolized the coherence and organization of the german army. Without them, the men were fairly capable, but were hard-pressed to work together in a coherent manner. The sort of control necessary to build that sort of coherence mandates a lack of individual initiative by the standard soldier, making morale suffer at the cost of Control to at least a small degree.

Morale: Characterized by the Japanese Imperial Army, WW2 (Additionally, modern day American infantry): The japanese were terrifying in that they were fearless. They charged into the teeth of automatic weapons while bearing only bolt-action rifles and bayonets, and sometimes less. A single man would hold with everything he had against a platoon of fully armed and capable foes without thought of surrender. When defeated, they would kill themselves on their own grenades rather than allow themselves to be captured. They were a force of nature, inhuman.

Why this can't be combined with Control: This sort of belief requires a certain amount of gung-ho and audacity to maintain. This makes individual soldiers harder to control, harder to order around, and harder to keep in line. A charge may be made because those soldiers absolutely BELIEVE that they can defeat their foe in a moment of weakness, even if it will be easier at a later time, and disrupts the overall plan for the battle. It makes properly controlling a conflict much more difficult.

Why this can't be combined with Deception: The goal of deception is to make your enemies weaker, vulnerable, and otherwise at a disadvantage. Troops with unfailingly high morale are often dangerously careless in this regard. They either don't take the time to properly prepare for the coming conflict or they simply leave such equipment behind to carry more ammo or whatever amazing thing makes them superior to their foes. They simply don't need the help.

I believe that Deception is now fairly well defined, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of it, so I won't waste our collective time.

I don't think I'd have a problem turning 'Logistics' into 'Support' and leaving 'Quality' in as it is. This would permit the Triad to be Support/Quality/Quantity. Is that reasonable?

Edit: When I go on picnics, I get a bear-sized picnic basket.

[-Raysia-]

bwahaha... I don't know why I took the time to do this, but it was fun.


In response to a n00b trying to enter space:

---

A videotape is sent to the Naretionian space administration, labeled:
John Snood, The Science Dude: Spaceflight

[PLAY]

A man stumbles his way in front of the camera, standing in front of a background of random sciencey-looking gadgets all around. "Hey guys, John Snood the Science Dude here, and we've got a great show today, because our guest here is Sarah AdamWorks, lead production manager of the AdamWorks R/A-X18 Kumen project! Sarah, what have you come to teach the audience today?"

The camera pans over to an attractive woman wearing an AdamWorks shirt under a Raysian Militia Force jacket. "Well, John, AdamWorks is the nation's top developer of Aerospace technologies, we considers ourselves masters of the physics of air and space. Today we're going to be talking all about Space Flight!

"Now, when you're on the ground, you have all sorts of forces to work through, the biggest being Air and Gravity... but when you're in space, all you have to worry about is gravity! To get from the ground TO space, you need a motor. Jet airplanes have motors, right? Well why can't they go into space? The answer is very simple, jets engines pull a plane through the air, and require air in order to make fire. You can't have fire without oxygen. And even if you could carry a supply of oxygen, the engines would be too small to carry that huge plane to a high enough speed to break away from the atmosphere. So we have to have a BIG engine, like a rocket. A rocket takes fuel and oxygen from a massive storage tank and propels a relatively small vehicle into space. Now, you can't just go straight up, or you'll fall right back down. You have to angle yourself so that you can fall around the planet. If you're falling around a planet, then you're in Orbit! Once you're in orbit, you're going to just fall helplessly around the planet, weightless and useless. Primitive spaceflight of the Earth 20th century would have to involve massive amounts of math and calculations to make sure that their space ships could catch up to something on the same orbit. Space fighting would be IMPOSSIBLE with one of those old-school space shuttles. Fighting between orbiters would be like two trains trying to race down parallel tracks... not much action there, and awfully hard to intercept your target.

"So, in order to fight in space, you're going to need to launch a smaller ship from orbit, or even easier, build it in orbit. And this ship is going to need a lot of power in order to maneuver around. You're going to need a motor that's a lot more efficient than a rocket. A rocket can only burn fuel like fire... and everyone knows that when you light a fire, there's always something left behind... burnt wood, water vapor, smoke, it's a chemical reaction. But what we need for spaceflight will have to be a nuclear reaction. There are many kinds of nuclear reactions... Fission, fusion, Anti-matter/matter reactions, Zero-point elimination, all stuff you'll learn about waaay later in high school. These reactions form the ship's Powerplant. The powerplant supplies energy to the thruster to get your ship moving.

"In space, the rule for thrust is that Force equals mass times acceleration. In order to move your big heavy ship in a particular direction, you're going to need to accelerate some mass in the opposite direction. The most popular space-drive technologies in the galaxy are, namely, Ion Engines, Torches, Nuke-detonation Engines. Nuke-detonation Engines, sometimes called Orion drives, work by detonating a nuclear explosion in back of your ship to launch you forward. This requires a lot of shielding, a good solid structure, and most certainly makes for a crude and bumpy ride. Torches work in the same way, but instead of detonating a bomb simply create a long burn of fusion energy, like the sun! An alternative torch is made by mixing anti-matter and matter, which annihilation each other into nothing but energy... this one is a lot more dangerous because you're dealing with anti-matter, and also requires a lot of shielding and ducting. Ion Drives are the most popular in Raysian technology, because all they require is electricity and gas. A gas is ionized into plasma, which most often has a positive charge. That positively-charged gas is then placed in an accelerator, and then a powerful negative charge is applied to a grid at the opposite end of the chamber. The positive plasma attracts to the negative field, only to find out the negative field was only a 'bait,' dissappearing as soon as the plasma approaches... the plasma runs right by at several million miles per hour, and you have yourself a thrust... because a mass, accelerated away, equals force!

"That's the basics of sublight spaceflight. Most of these thrust technologies have been available since the mid-20th century, but unfortunately the powerplant tech was unavailable. Now you know what took thousands of years to discover, in only 5 minutes! K, bye!"

The girl then runs off out of frame. The host raises an eyebrow, then looks back at the camera, "Jinkies... Anyway, we'll be back after these commercials!"

-----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```````


ooc: okay, i couldn't resist ^_^ I was too bored this morning