Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[Vocenae]

It is a modelling program from the 90s. The closest approximation is the starship builder from SPORE only less limited. The link to download is in the Resources section of the OP.

[Neornith]

This is more or less my tonnage classes as well, though I've got like four or five different classes of frigate. I don't have battleships though, my super capitals are just Cruisers/Heavy Cruisers. For a long time I just did things Homeworld style but after I really got into building my own starships with DOGA, I kept having to branch off into Light Frigate/Support frigate/Frigate/Heavy Frigate, etc.

Building ships with DOGA? Is that a ship making program?

Voc ninjas me but yeah it's a 3D rendering program with a link to download in the helpful resource section of the thread's original post

Pester Sunset and Voc for help both have made some really awesome ships in the program

[Sunset]

Building ships with DOGA? Is that a ship making program?

Voc ninjas me but yeah it's a 3D rendering program with a link to download in the helpful resource section of the thread's original post

Pester Sunset and Voc for help both have made some really awesome ships in the program

And if you're interested in the how...

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=389445

You might also check out My DevArt or Vocenae's for some good examples.

[Neornith]

So going on what we've discussed I've somewhat come up with some ship classes for my other FT nation Usidia which is a human nation and does still use the "classic" terminology for ships (IE battleship destroyer etc etc)
Now for the time being I've somewhat shied away from sizes and have focused on roles

Corvette- Smallest class of ship capable of independent operation, it's primary role is for patrolling a system as well as being capable of operating in groups in Usidian anti-piracy naval squadrons.

Frigate- Now this one was a little harder since frigates have had a wide and varied role throughout history, for Usidia they're slightly larger than Corvettes and primarily carry anti-capital ship missiles, their role would primarily be as skirmishers, mostly for harassing enemy fleets flanks with hit and run tactics

Destroyers- Multipurpose ships that have varied loadouts for a variety of missions, their primary purpose would be for flagships in anti-piracy naval squadrons as well as escorts against missile salvos and fighter attacks for capital ships

Cruisers- Smallest of the capital ships they would like be the flagship in Usidian Task Forces for quick response units as well capital ship engagements in a larger Usidian fleet

Battleship- Primary capital ship of Usidian Fleets involved in system assaults and attacks against larger enemy fleets

Carrier- Essentially a shell capable of FTL that transports a multitude of either planetary assault forces and missile attack craft incapable of FTL travel

And this is mostly just a rough draft for right now and I'll likely edit and add some more later

This is more or less my tonnage classes as well, though I've got like four or five different classes of frigate. I don't have battleships though, my super capitals are just Cruisers/Heavy Cruisers. For a long time I just did things Homeworld style but after I really got into building my own starships with DOGA, I kept having to branch off into Light Frigate/Support frigate/Frigate/Heavy Frigate, etc.

I'll probably make some more classes in the destroyer range and cruisers tonight

[Achesia]

Building ships with DOGA? Is that a ship making program?

Voc ninjas me but yeah it's a 3D rendering program with a link to download in the helpful resource section of the thread's original post

Pester Sunset and Voc for help both have made some really awesome ships in the program

Ah yes I do recall now. Looks insanely hard.

[Vocenae]

Easy to use, hard to master. Like everything it requires practice and patience.

[Achesia]

Easy to use, hard to master. Like everything it requires practice and patience.

Gotcha gotcha, I think for now until I get bored with it I'll do vector graphics.

Muh comfort zone.

[Stormwrath]

So going on what we've discussed I've somewhat come up with some ship classes for my other FT nation Usidia which is a human nation and does still use the "classic" terminology for ships (IE battleship destroyer etc etc)
Now for the time being I've somewhat shied away from sizes and have focused on roles

Well, size and role as far as human naval history in the last 200 years is concerned has been largely intertwined. Destroyers were meant to be small as to pick on torpedo boats and later larger ships and get away with it, battleships needed a lot of guns (and certainly big guns) so they were large, and cruisers were in-between destroyers and battleships due to their focus on independent action. Corvettes were meant to be budget-friendly and thus smaller than destroyers, and carriers required to be large as to accommodate a certain number of aircraft while also providing them with a runway to take off from.

But you know, whatever floats your boat. Which applies this time since we're talking about what are essentially space boats with guns on them.

[Kassaran]

For my navy, due to limited numbers most vessels actually operate on role-based naming doctrine.

Frigates and Corvettes are high-acceleration, lightly-armored vessels built for interception of pirates and other poorly-armed resistance groups if not for general scouting of systems and taking part in search and rescue operations. In short, they act like Naval frigates, corvettes, destroyers, and Coast Guard Cutters and Corvettes, all in space. Frigates are vessels with a higher weight-to-thrust ratio exceeding optimal 30:1 (24:1< and <30:1) due to armor, armament, or advanced computing systems. Corvettes often feature a shuttle-like capacity to make water-landings, but they cannot take off unassisted planetside save for incredibly low-gravity worlds/planetoids.

Cruisers often double as the carriers of fleet groups. A cruiser often acts as the flagship of Kassaran Star Defense Fleets and they can operate in an autonomous state (not without human control, but without government oversight or constant need for resupply). Cruisers have lower ranges of acceleration/maneuvering and are almost always capable of deorbiting from a planetoid/planet for landings, but will most always require assistance taking back off. Cruisers in the Kassaran Fleets are easily identifiable though by their ability to travel into The Void, the FTL zero-space realm the Kassaran use for FTL travel.

Dreadnoughts/Battleships/Battlecruisers are non-existent as these would represent an offensive capability that would otherwise misrepresent the Kassaran emphasis on self-defense.

Dedicated carriers and freights/tankers are common, but not in the aspect of being combat vessels. Most carriers operate in close proximity to shuttle clusters and are considered carrier-type cruisers for their ability to use FTL travel. Tankers and freight-haulers have a similar deal, except they are identified by their near complete lack of any life-support accommodations as they are completely automated.

The reason for the limited classifications however come from the problem that the Kassaran Star Defense Fleets are locally sourced combat-ready fleets and due to their intensively localized nature, often feature unique designs or chassis. Tankers, Freight-Haulers, and Cruisers all supersede these by simply being built by the PTO (Point of Terrestrial Origin - or the homeworld and it's local star colonies). The average sizes vary greatly based on the wealth and needs developed by the colony that fields the ship. Most colonies receive a naval stipend annually from the PTO for maintaining a defensive fleet that helps with at least maintaining a small professional fighting force.

Most colonies I think would use automated defenses though, I can see that leading to plenty of interesting stories about planetary coups and potential acts of interplanetary fiefdom in the outer reaches of Kassaran Space.

[Vernii]

My view is that it's probably useful to list out the roles that your navy needs to fulfill its mission, then bundle together these roles into complimentary packages and turn those into starship types.

The Imperial Navy for instance could be viewed as needing the following roles: anti-piracy, battlespace superiority, command and communications, commerce raiding, orbital superiority, patrols, planetary assault, point defense, and reconnaissance.

These get bundled together as follows:

Destroyers: patrols, reconnaissance, and point defense. Small, light warships that are mostly meant to be extra eyes and ears for the fleet as well as an extra layer of PD for heavier units.
Light & Armored Cruisers: anti-piracy, commerce raiding, patrols, and reconnaissance. Versatile and capable of operating individually or as part of a larger unit. Armored cruisers drop the "patrol" role and replace it with "point defense".
Battlecruisers & Fast Battleships: battlespace superiority, command and communications, commerce raiding. Capital units meant to engage in long-range operations either solo or in conjunction with lighter warships, ideally meant to raid enemy systems, chase down whatever they can kill, run from anything they can't.
Dreadnoughts & Super Dreadnoughts: battlespace superiority, command and communications, and point defense. Capital units meant to engage and destroy both enemy capital ships and lighter units, as well as provide the bulk of point defense for fleets.

Planetary Assault Ships: Orbital Superiority and Planetary Assault. While any warship is technically capable of orbital superiority, these are the only ships that are purpose-built for that. No other warships carry large numbers of troops or landing capacity either.

[Neornith]

My view is that it's probably useful to list out the roles that your navy needs to fulfill its mission, then bundle together these roles into complimentary packages and turn those into starship types.

I would agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly however for Usidia I've made it so the civilian government has control over which military designs are accepted and used. Now I've done this because corporations for the most part have politicians in their pockets and defense contractors for the most part have a lot of politicians in their pockets so a variety of what are likely unnecessary ship classes that are specialized instead of modular, which would be more cost effective, are used. I did it this way because it creates more internal strife in my nation (oh how I've come to hate monolithic nations for myself) as well as having an OOC excuse for making more designs as well. So instead of just Corvettes I would have Patrol Corvettes and Special Operations Corvettes I'm thinking. I'll try to get more posted later when I'm not at work

[Achesia]

Question for Kyrusia about the SoTG thread.

If I have a RP that I want to do based around NS FT and part of my FT state's canon on the P2TM section of the forum, would it still be eligible to make SoTG reports off of? I wasn't sure if it was strictly II based RPs only for SoTG. I want to have something be more charecter based and attract a few people who do stuff on the P2TM boards. Thanks!

[Kyrusia]

Question for Kyrusia about the SoTG thread.

If I have a RP that I want to do based around NS FT and part of my FT state's canon on the P2TM section of the forum, would it still be eligible to make SoTG reports off of? I wasn't sure if it was strictly II based RPs only for SoTG. I want to have something be more charecter based and attract a few people who do stuff on the P2TM boards. Thanks!

The appropriate place for this would be the actual SotG submissions thread or via TG.

Regardless, SotG involves the National & International Roleplaying Boards (II, NS, etc.), not P2TM, given P2TM is meant for all roleplays that do not directly relate to your NS-country in some way, and the SotG directly relates to players' NS-countries.

Speaking from a modly perspective now: if you're RPing stuff involving your NS-country (character-based roleplays included), that doesn't really belong in P2TM. The definition of P2TM is, after all, "For all of your non-Nationstates related roleplaying needs!"

[Achesia]

Question for Kyrusia about the SoTG thread.

If I have a RP that I want to do based around NS FT and part of my FT state's canon on the P2TM section of the forum, would it still be eligible to make SoTG reports off of? I wasn't sure if it was strictly II based RPs only for SoTG. I want to have something be more charecter based and attract a few people who do stuff on the P2TM boards. Thanks!

The appropriate place for this would be the actual SotG thread or via TG.

Regardless, SotG involves the National & International Roleplaying Boards (II, NS, etc.), not P2TM, given P2TM is meant for all roleplays that do not directly relate to your NS-country in some way, and the SotG directly relates to player's NS-countries.

Apologies, I didn't want to muddle up the applications going on in the thread. Thanks for the answer!

Unrelated (sort of) I feel like sometimes charecter RPs are not as popular on II or certain types of RPs have a better audiance on P2TM, which is why I would host a FT thread of a specific plot there rather than on II, to attract those players who would want to participate. Idk, maybe just my experience, this could not be ture. Just my observation.

[Kyrusia]

The appropriate place for this would be the actual SotG thread or via TG.

Regardless, SotG involves the National & International Roleplaying Boards (II, NS, etc.), not P2TM, given P2TM is meant for all roleplays that do not directly relate to your NS-country in some way, and the SotG directly relates to player's NS-countries.

Apologies, I didn't want to muddle up the applications going on in the thread. Thanks for the answer!

Unrelated (sort of) I feel like sometimes charecter RPs are not as popular on II or certain types of RPs have a better audiance on P2TM, which is why I would host a FT thread of a specific plot there rather than on II, to attract those players who would want to participate. Idk, maybe just my experience, this could not be ture. Just my observation.

I almost exclusively roleplay on the individual character level rather than the "polity" level. Most of my roleplay partners in N&I RP do the same. It's actually not wholly uncommon advice to create your star-state more akin to a "setting" for this reason - even for military science-fiction. Polity-level stuff (or strategic level actions, to put it another way, I suppose) aren't necessarily uncommon, of course. Largely depends on who you roleplay with regularly.

But yeah: N&I RP is where all roleplays - regardless of their level of perspective - relating to your NS-country (to the exclusion of stuff, like, PolandBall or Hetalia-esque things, really) belong. P2TM is for stuff that doesn't.

[Achesia]

Apologies, I didn't want to muddle up the applications going on in the thread. Thanks for the answer!

Unrelated (sort of) I feel like sometimes charecter RPs are not as popular on II or certain types of RPs have a better audiance on P2TM, which is why I would host a FT thread of a specific plot there rather than on II, to attract those players who would want to participate. Idk, maybe just my experience, this could not be ture. Just my observation.

I almost exclusively roleplay on the individual character level rather than the "polity" level. Most of my roleplay partners in N&I RP do the same. It's actually not wholly uncommon advice to create your star-state more akin to a "setting" for this reason - even for military science-fiction. Polity-level stuff (or strategic level actions, to put it another way, I suppose) aren't necessarily uncommon, of course. Largely depends on who you roleplay with regularly.

But yeah: N&I RP is where all roleplays - regardless of their level of perspective - relating to your NS-country (to the exclusion of stuff, like, PolandBall or Hetalia-esque things, really) belong. P2TM is for stuff that doesn't.

Ok! Well I am glad to hear that I may still have a crowd for some of my ideas. Is NationStates or International Incidents a better place for such things? Or I suppose it depends on the topic.

[Kyrusia]

I almost exclusively roleplay on the individual character level rather than the "polity" level. Most of my roleplay partners in N&I RP do the same. It's actually not wholly uncommon advice to create your star-state more akin to a "setting" for this reason - even for military science-fiction. Polity-level stuff (or strategic level actions, to put it another way, I suppose) aren't necessarily uncommon, of course. Largely depends on who you roleplay with regularly.

But yeah: N&I RP is where all roleplays - regardless of their level of perspective - relating to your NS-country (to the exclusion of stuff, like, PolandBall or Hetalia-esque things, really) belong. P2TM is for stuff that doesn't.

Ok! Well I am glad to hear that I may still have a crowd for some of my ideas. Is NationStates or International Incidents a better place for such things? Or I suppose it depends on the topic.

There is significant overlap in II and NS, but there are differences as well; many RPers participate in both, many don't. The actual, "What goes best, where," has... become a bit blurred over the years.

If you want a general litmus: if it's an open conflict (like a war), it belongs in II; if it's some thread idea where the main intent is to attract international attention (a disaster, some incident [hence "International Incidents"], weapons test, etc.), it is probably better placed in II. Beyond that, you get a wide array of diplomatic threads in both II and NS; you get a wide array of character-level threads in both II and NS. In a lot of ways, it's about personal preference; unless something is just woefully out of place ("war" threads historically go in II, song contests historically go in NS, to use a couple of examples), you're probably fine with whichever you prefer.

[Oswelia]

Heyo. The thread seems slow at the moment so it seems a good time to ask a question.

On a modern ship and even some ft ones, we classify guns by barrel diameter or size of payload. Is there a similar system to use with energy based weapons like lasers, particle disruptors, etc? It seems kind of weird, making these turrets for my ships (in sketchup), but I don't have anything to base them on other than barrel diameter. So I end up with a 600mm gun and that's when I realized it didn't really mean anything.

I know it's not necessary for writing the actual story, but having some basic understanding in my head makes me feel much more comfortable if it ever comes up.

Any suggestions or tips would help. Thanks.

[Stormwrath]

Heyo. The thread seems slow at the moment so it seems a good time to ask a question.

On a modern ship and even some ft ones, we classify guns by barrel diameter or size of payload. Is there a similar system to use with energy based weapons like lasers, particle disruptors, etc? It seems kind of weird, making these turrets for my ships (in sketchup), but I don't have anything to base them on other than barrel diameter. So I end up with a 600mm gun and that's when I realized it didn't really mean anything.

I know it's not necessary for writing the actual story, but having some basic understanding in my head makes me feel much more comfortable if it ever comes up.

Any suggestions or tips would help. Thanks.

Well, that may depend on you, but personally I think the classification of DEWs may depend on things like energy output, size of the beam/bolt shooting out of the gun, the kind of DEW (laser, plasma, EM, etc.), and the striking range that can be achieved. Simply put, barrel size isn't the only way you can classify guns. Of course for simplicity's sake one can always classify weapons by firepower and size the way we do with warships today, but if you're unsure about the numbers (which I'm sure many of us are since math and/or physics tends to elude us), you can use descriptors such as low-power and high-power to give the readers a sense of power that is emitted when your gun goes pew-pew.

And unless I am mistaken, Sketchup doesn't really have a to scale thing. You can just craft your gun however you want and bring your imagination to... three dimensions.

[Hydraic Empire]

Heyo. The thread seems slow at the moment so it seems a good time to ask a question.

On a modern ship and even some ft ones, we classify guns by barrel diameter or size of payload. Is there a similar system to use with energy based weapons like lasers, particle disruptors, etc? It seems kind of weird, making these turrets for my ships (in sketchup), but I don't have anything to base them on other than barrel diameter. So I end up with a 600mm gun and that's when I realized it didn't really mean anything.

I know it's not necessary for writing the actual story, but having some basic understanding in my head makes me feel much more comfortable if it ever comes up.

Any suggestions or tips would help. Thanks.

You could create your own grading system, based off of their destructive capacity, with lowest being Omega and highest being Alpha, for example, or you could classify them based off of how much energy they consume (something like Tier I-X). Personally, I would probably do both, and do something like a 600mm Gamma Class Teir V disrupter.

[Sunset]

I roughly agree with Hydraic here. Putting your own grading system in place keeps things nice and relative. When you start to measure in megatons, there can be an invitation to comparisons. Additionally, the size of a weapon's barrel in an FT DEW environment can really vary because of just how that weapon works. Unlike a cannon where the shell directly contacts the barrel, the barrel on a DEW could be anything from the apparatus of the aiming system to an armored shroud over that apparatus to a sensor ring to... Decoration even.

[Lubyak]

I roughly agree with Hydraic here. Putting your own grading system in place keeps things nice and relative. When you start to measure in megatons, there can be an invitation to comparisons. Additionally, the size of a weapon's barrel in an FT DEW environment can really vary because of just how that weapon works. Unlike a cannon where the shell directly contacts the barrel, the barrel on a DEW could be anything from the apparatus of the aiming system to an armored shroud over that apparatus to a sensor ring to... Decoration even.

This especially, or if you would prefer, give output in you own made up units. i.e. "A Mk XII particle lance has a peak output of 185 kiloriks, with beam collation remaining viable up to .95 megalans." I often find that giving things an output or range in SI units leads to problems, so a homebrew system of either classification or units works best IMO.

For my DEW, I only give them a production name, i.e Mark I, Mark II, etc. If I need to, I'd expand on that type name in the description of the weapon.

[SquareDisc City]

When I'm designing my stuff, I consider energy yield the dominant factor. Yes there are details, but for an order-of-magnitude Fermi estimation kind of thing that's what's gonna count. But as far as describing in my writing goes, I'm less sure. As I see it TNT equivalent has the advantage of reader familiarity, but that and any other real units are liable to cause consistency issues between different writers. Invented units avoid that but may leave the reader lacking a point of reference. Perhaps the best idea would be to describe weapons mainly by their normal usage along with their real or invented operating characteristics. That at the very least gives an easy way to establish something as a BadS or a Cool Ship, for example "Though she appeared like any other luxury liner, the RMS Plot Point had a trick up her gilded sleeves - a powerful cruiser-grade railgun concealed within her bulk, the muzzle covered by a false prow. Many a would-be pirate had mysteriously disappeared from the map in her vicinity. but so far her secret was safe."

[Oswelia]

Thanks, that helps a lot. I will probably go by destructive output, where Tier One's Are the equivalent to small point defense guns/anti-fighter guns up to Tier 9, The WMDs of my nation. The latter of which would fall into the "plot device" category most often. To keep things balanced and to give my tech a little complexity, The largest Tiers would probably take minutes to recharge some sort of capacitor bank before firing.

That brings me to my next question. Obviously, big guns like that would be better used, embedded into the structure of the ship instead of on a turret. But that makes me wonder if I could not embed all my weapons, and use Disruptor Arrays/Banks like star trek instead. Would that break some people's immersion? "Shoot their turret!"... "But I don't have turrets, HAHAHA! *Raspberry*." I mean, I wouldn't act like that but I don't want people getting the wrong Idea.

[Sunset]

Thanks, that helps a lot. I will probably go by destructive output, where Tier One's Are the equivalent to small point defense guns/anti-fighter guns up to Tier 9, The WMDs of my nation. The latter of which would fall into the "plot device" category most often. To keep things balanced and to give my tech a little complexity, The largest Tiers would probably take minutes to recharge some sort of capacitor bank before firing.

That brings me to my next question. Obviously, big guns like that would be better used, embedded into the structure of the ship instead of on a turret. But that makes me wonder if I could not embed all my weapons, and use Disruptor Arrays/Banks like star trek instead. Would that break some people's immersion? "Shoot their turret!"... "But I don't have turrets, HAHAHA! *Raspberry*." I mean, I wouldn't act like that but I don't want people getting the wrong Idea.

I suppose if one were to get that technical in their descriptions. If you, however, want to head that particular argument off at the pass you could simply include 'Mounts X weapons in Y recessed batteries rather than exposed turret mounts. While this lowers their fire coverage, the increase in system protection was deemed worthwhile in a high saturation environment...'

At that point, it then depends on whether you include highly detailed descriptions such as that in your factbook/wiki entry/whatever or illustrate to that effect in whatever pictures you choose to use/create. That is one of the reasons I make my own artwork; It is what it is.