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

[SquareDisc City]

Fuel is simple and obvious, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Another is transport. Carriers though often seen as combatants ARE in a sense logistics ships, supporting their complements. If you intend to pursue ground operations the need to get your stuff to the location is obvious.

[Imperial and Federal Union of States]

Hold on now. Using a carrier as a logistics ship could make sense if strike craft are not an integral part of his combat doctrine. For instance, while I do have gunship smallcraft, they're primarily for sublight patrol and escort operations (and occasionally a distributed point defense screen). My doctrine does not really make much room for them in a direct combat order of battle, because the prevailing theory is that such small and underpowered craft would be obliterated within the first few minutes and serve less purpose than their equivalent resource expenditure in missiles. Thus, I currently have the roles of carrier, planetary assault ship (a vessel carrying landing forces and providing orbital fire support), and logistics ship rolled into one hull type, able to fill whichever role it needs to at the time.

Now in fairness, I'm currently looking to split the assault ship/carrier and logistics ship into two separate dedicated hulls, but that's mostly because I've been using the old hull for so damn long it's time for a change.

Ah yes, I sort of got carried away and made the assumption that a 'carrier' was a combatant vessel, and its small craft complement was meant for full scale engagements rather than something else, and what I said was based on that. In the kind of situation you describe, yes combining the roles does make much more sense. My apologies all around.

[New Tauri Republic]

Would this be a more feasible design? I am now splitting up the roles, but each large vessel would still help in repairs in replenishment of other vessels.They will only be ably to dock upto four titans in retractable external berths, which could fit however many smaller vessels that have a a smaller combined length as long as they can safely fit. This would merely serve to allow more flexible logistical planning in the case of major losses.

Externally, some efforts would be made to make them look similar, and advanced ecm would be used to make them look nearly exactly alike to electronic scanners. Hospitalships are the exception, as they will be made to look the role, albiet with a lighter offensive weapons array, more powerful shields, and tripled point defenses added to to remove any temptation to one-shot said vessels. Said offensive weapons would be mostly disquised and covered over with blastcovers, preventing them from appearing threatening.

Combat Variant

Length: 42 kilometers
Height: 20 kilometers
Width: 26 kilometers

Weapons Configuration

Outer Gun Belts x2
120 superheavy anticapitalship cannons surrounded by 12 point defense blisters
500 triple anticapitalship cannons surrounded by 8 point defense blisters
25 missile tube batteries with ten missile tubes each, independant fire control sytems, and targeting sensors

Central Gun Belt
120 superheavy anticapitalship cannons surrounded by 6 point defense blisters of 4 double barreled poind defense cannons each
500 triple barrel heavy anticapitalship cannons surrounded by 4 point defense gun blisters
25 missile tube batteries with ten missile tubes each, independant fire control sytems, and targeting sensors

Forward Gun Cone
1x Longe Range Supralight Particle Beam Weapon
18x Planetary Devestator Cannons, spinal mounted
50 super heavy anticapitalship
500 triple barrel heavy anticapitalship cannons each surrounded by 8 point defense gun blisters
100 missile tube batteries with ten missile tubes each, independant fire control sytems, and targeting sensors
Rear Gun Cone
12x Planetary Devestator Cannons, spinal mount on main hull, connected directly to secocondary weapon powercore, meant to provide defense against planetod class warships.
500 triple barrel anticapitalship cannons each surrounded by 8 point defense gun blisters of 4 double point defense cannons each
50 missile tube batteries with ten missile tubes each, independant fire control sytems, and targeting sensors


Total Weapons Emplacements
1 planetary Bombardment cannon
30 planetary Decimation cannons
680 superheavy anticapitalship cannons in single barrel mounts
3000 heavy anticapitalship triple barrel cannons
18000 Point defense cannon blisters
missile tubes

Planetary Bombardment Cannon: After extreme modification of the original Planetary Anhilation cannon, modefications were made that refitted the weapon to more wide scale bombardment and antifleet weapon. Further modifications were made to allow a faster fire rate, and to incorperate seetngs to vaporize large relativistic asteroids. The components that enabled it to to destroy a planet were refitted entirely to twelve large vessels capable of docking with the ship, and re-enabling the ability to destroy planets, albiet with a much larger charge up period (now six hours at minimum), but reduced cooldown time due to dumping the heat in the externally docked weapon ships. These ships also increase the efficiency of the weapon by acting as an externally mounted focusing lense on not just the planetary decimation cannons, but the central weapon. Even though the increases in efficiency are vast, the very fact that they are externally mounted makes the ship extremely vulnerable prior to firing. The change in title of the weapon signifies its new role, that of a surface bombardment weapon that fires less focused bolts, causing less destruction due to less tectonic penetration. That and the weapon is a morenrefined version of the original, despite the seemingly less efficient design compared to the older Planetary Destroyer cannon.
Antifleet bolts now have a cyclic firerate of .2 shots per minute, with improved accuracy when firing against fleet formations. Newer settings now includ

Planetary Decimation Cannons: A weapon powerful enough to outright melt the crust of a planet at depths of upto 40 kilomers. The highly focused boltsnare also adept at piericing even fleet level shields, and piercing deep into fleet formations at higher power levels. Improved accuracy, and streamlining of the design has decreased the size, and increased the efficiency of the weapon. As while before it merely had a firerate of 11 bolts per minute at the lowest settings, imoroved systems have increased this to 16 bolts per minute per weapon emplacement. Combined with new long range targeting systems, and long range remote bolt guidance systems now allow this weapon to have better chances at taking out enemy ships. The trade-off for this, including the decrease in size, is that the Planetary Decimation Setting is not as powerful as it was before, requiring upto five salvos, despite, yet maybe due to, its better penetration of planetary crust. The higher penetration allows striking even the deepest of hardened military bunkers covered in multiple layers of shielding and heavy armour, the only reason it was considered a fair trade off due to allowing a group of ships to take out such bases without being forced to completely destroy a planets biosphere.


Anticapitalship superheavy and heavy weapons batteries: Utilizes Grasers, Supralight particle beams, combined gravity lance /directed gravity wave cannons, qauntum disinitigration beams, combined fusion/fission initiator beams, qauntum disruptor beams to take advantage of any weaknesses apparent in any given target vessel design. Superheavy weapons batteries are forty times as powerful as the lighter weapons batteries, and excel at taking out even the largest of capitalships. The lighter emplacements still accel at taking out smaller capitalships, or in antiescort mode, the lighter more nimble escorts.
The heavier antiship emplacements are distributed into groups of 17, with seven Grasers, four supralight particle beams, and one of each of the remaining listed weapon types. All super heavy weapon emplacements have a standard fire rate of 16 bolts per minute.
The lighter weapon emplacements forgo much of the more exotic weapons, going in favor of a 5:3:2 mix of Grasers, Surpalight particle beams, and combined gravity lance/ directed gravity wave cannons evenly distributed amongst the above stated weapon systems. Standard firerate for all emplacements is 26 bolts per minute.

Point Defense Cannon Pods: Contains two 200cm Hellbores, and six 30cm infinite repeater hellbores, with inbuilt secondary lasers built into the barrels as an added attachment. With a firerate of five bolts per minute per 200 cm hellbore, and .2 per second per 30 cm infinite repeater hellbore. Max firerate for the lasers is 3.65 shots per second at full power, and and 365 shots per second at 1% power (shots are in place of the hellbores, with additional power, they can maintain full firerate for periods of upto 2.3 minutes with hellbores still firing).

Forward missile tubes can be used as adhoc coilgun launchers, launchinge heavy solid shells at lon ranges if needed. This is in addition to the standard missile tube settings.

[Feazanthia]

No.

[Nazis in Space]

<Numb3rssssssssss>

I took the liberty of looking at a few in-character posts of yours.

I notice that you're not exactly bothered about numb3rssssssssssssss in them.

So why are you here?

I just don't understand. Your IC posts are actually doing it right, and yet, here you are, trying to bludgeon everyone to death with numbers nobody cares about.

It just... It doesn't make sense. At all.

[New Tauri Republic]

I use the numbers as an approximation. Its something to use as a base, from which it can be vastly underpowered, or overpowered from the original design. Without a base to jump from and base things on, I find it difficult to maintain consistency.



Does anybody in ft use Bolo like tanks as ground vehicles?

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

... Yes.

[Thrashia]

No.

Seconded.

[The Torogian Collective]

I use the numbers as an approximation. Its something to use as a base, from which it can be vastly underpowered, or overpowered from the original design. Without a base to jump from and base things on, I find it difficult to maintain consistency.



Does anybody in ft use Bolo like tanks as ground vehicles?

Fun Fact: The guy who originally designed the Bolo/Ogre Tank also made the site Project Rho, Atomic Rockets. Both sides of the spectrum, eh?

[Abys]

IFUS, my people do not use carriers or fighters in their space battles. I was thinking that they would be used more like mobile orbital bases capable of launching dropships, atmo-fighters, and providing electronic support for a planetary invasion. All of this in coordination with the other invasion and logistic ships, of course.

The Capital ship I have imagined is partially based off the Rorqual in EVE which is a massive mining support ship. Some of the players in EVE have used the ship as a front line ship meant to buff their other support ships, I have imagined in my head something similar happening when a less organized rebellious force battles with my nation.

The Ship I have imagined in my head is meant to be equipped with powerful electronics and communication equipment so that it can assist in coordinating an entire systems Logistic forces. However the ship is also designed so that it can carry additional cargo, be fitted with modules that could support various thing the Log. fleet is lacking in, or act as a makeshift shipyard for some of the smaller vessels. The ship is meant to be a dedicated communication vessel that acts as a jack of all/none to balance out the dedicated but smaller transports. That is what I had in mind for it when I thought of it at least, what are some thoughts on it?

I would like to RP my FTL Communication tech as being undeveloped and extremely difficult, so that they rely more on STL communication and snail mail in space. What would be some stuff they could do to aid the communication between forces within a solar system given the fact they mostly use STL communication?

[Avenio]

I would like to RP my FTL Communication tech as being undeveloped and extremely difficult, so that they rely more on STL communication and snail mail in space. What would be some stuff they could do to aid the communication between forces within a solar system given the fact they mostly use STL communication?

Well, you may want to figure out what the limitations of your FTL comms are before you design an STL system, since those parameters are likely what your civilization is going to be working around. A good thing to consider in the interim would be having your ships carry a payload of several deployable satellites equipped with communications lasers, a sufficiently large receiver dish and an independent power source. Not only does it provide you a means to create a communications infrastructure wherever your ship happens to end up, it also provides an easier way for ships to communicate with one another. If your ship is way out in the Oort Cloud, for instance, and it picks up an enemy fleet dropping out of FTL, its much easier for it to send a tightbeam transmission via laser to a satellite with known orbital mechanics (because you put it there) at non-relativistic distances than to try and do the math on the fly whilst dodging enemy fire to aim its communication laser at the spot your homeworld is going to occupy in five hours of the ship's subjective time. It also means that instead of aiming a brief SOS to sweep across a receiver 40 AU away, it means that your ship can send and receive a lot more information than would otherwise be possible, which could be crucial in a wartime situation.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Russia's FTL system consists of loading Nokia 3310's with recorded voice messages and launching them through the void.

That's also our primary weapon system.

[SquareDisc City]

Russia's FTL system consists of loading Nokia 3310's with recorded voice messages and launching them through the void.

That's also our primary weapon system.

Indestructible materials are GMs.

[Arcerion]

For myself, carriers are an awkward conglomeration of ship types. They serve as both fleet command (squadron command is simply taken over by whichever ship carries the squadron commander), also serving as fleet carriers (launching fighters, patrol craft, and support for other vessels), and as assault carriers/combat logistics ships (carrying my drones and warm bodied combat nits to planetside for engagements). As for the roles, it all boils down to FT ship engagement. Sub-light fighters get smashed, that is well established. As such, they are used for atmospheric strikes (providing CAS, medevac, resupply, etc.) when troops are deployed. However, tankers and smaller sub-light haulers are used and dock within the carriers to support inter-fleet operations, such as transferring personnel, goods, equipment, or fuel. As a command post, its relatively simple. it has the size and capacity to mount a lot of electronics, and the room to staff such needs, therefore, rather than creating a new class of vessel, I can just have my command on the carrier, the most protected ship in the fleet. As for logistics, the hangar bays and large cargo bays allow for aforementioned sub-light transports to move an invasion force from space to soil, allowing carriers to have a tertiary role that doesn't need to be filled by designated transports, but which can be. However transports have no means of defending themselves, because once you mount weapons its an assault carrier. As such, just having an assault carrier is more sensible.

[Feazanthia]

Russia's FTL system consists of loading Nokia 3310's with recorded voice messages and launching them through the void.

That's also our primary weapon system.

And I thought the golden vatican gun was terrifying.

[New Tauri Republic]

Would a civilization still in the interplanetary age (no ftl travel) be able to build and utilize plametary shields?

I was sort of hoping to have a one system nation with dyson nets ( above and below the planetary orbital plane), with a past of using orbital bombardment, with it countered with highly advanced teraforming technology and planetary scale "battle screens". And yes they are descendants of the post-final war concordeat, they still have SWIFT communication, and even Cloud chambers (albiet with more limited capabilities to limit godmodding potential), but they have lost the capability to use hyperspace due to lost tech. Where they have advanced is nanite type rapid terraforming, large scale battlescreens, a more traditional form of energy shielding (it allows lighter units and planets to avoid the plasma wash generated by the battlescreens use), qauntum teleportation, holographic displays, more efficient and powerdul hellbores amd hellrails, interplanetary wormholes, and infantry level antimatter weaponry.

[Thrashia]

Would a civilization still in the interplanetary age (no ftl travel) be able to build and utilize plametary shields?

I was sort of hoping to have a one system nation with dyson nets ( above and below the planetary orbital plane), with a past of using orbital bombardment, with it countered with highly advanced teraforming technology and planetary scale "battle screens". And yes they are descendants of the post-final war concordeat, they still have SWIFT communication, and even Cloud chambers (albiet with more limited capabilities to limit godmodding potential), but they have lost the capability to use hyperspace due to lost tech. Where they have advanced is nanite type rapid terraforming, large scale battlescreens, a more traditional form of energy shielding (it allows lighter units and planets to avoid the plasma wash generated by the battlescreens use), qauntum teleportation, holographic displays, more efficient and powerdul hellbores amd hellrails, interplanetary wormholes, and infantry level antimatter weaponry.

Given a strong enough imperative to create the technology behind dyson nets and planetary shields, then I see no reason that a civilization that has yet to develop FTL travel could not have said shields.

[New Tauri Republic]

Would the fear of an event such as the last war from the bolo series be enough? The orion arm not being habitable I will mostly put off to there being a spatial warp in their star system from various failed cloude chamber exeriments. The spatial warp forces the system to effectivily inhabit two universes simultaniously, with it inhabiting the bolo universe one hour out of every year, and whatever ft setting I am roleplaying the rest of the time.

[Otagia]

Would the fear of an event such as the last war from the bolo series be enough? The orion arm not being habitable I will mostly put off to there being a spatial warp in their star system from various failed cloude chamber exeriments. The spatial warp forces the system to effectivily inhabit two universes simultaniously, with it inhabiting the bolo universe one hour out of every year, and whatever ft setting I am roleplaying the rest of the time.

Que? Half the people posting in here have territories in the Orion arm.

[Steel Union]

Would the fear of an event such as the last war from the bolo series be enough? The orion arm not being habitable I will mostly put off to there being a spatial warp in their star system from various failed cloude chamber exeriments. The spatial warp forces the system to effectivily inhabit two universes simultaniously, with it inhabiting the bolo universe one hour out of every year, and whatever ft setting I am roleplaying the rest of the time.

Que? Half the people posting in here have territories in the Orion arm.

Or like, Earth.

[Kyrusia]

Would a civilization still in the interplanetary age (no ftl travel) be able to build and utilize plametary shields?

I was sort of hoping to have a one system nation with dyson nets ( above and below the planetary orbital plane), with a past of using orbital bombardment, with it countered with highly advanced teraforming technology and planetary scale "battle screens". And yes they are descendants of the post-final war concordeat, they still have SWIFT communication, and even Cloud chambers (albiet with more limited capabilities to limit godmodding potential), but they have lost the capability to use hyperspace due to lost tech. Where they have advanced is nanite type rapid terraforming, large scale battlescreens, a more traditional form of energy shielding (it allows lighter units and planets to avoid the plasma wash generated by the battlescreens use), qauntum teleportation, holographic displays, more efficient and powerdul hellbores amd hellrails, interplanetary wormholes, and infantry level antimatter weaponry.

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: Probably not, but... I'm going to answer this question in three distinct phases: resource accumulation, the impracticality of Dyson megastructures, and merit.

---

Long Answer Part I — Resource Accumulation:
Resource accumulation, for the sake of this response, will be defined as the ability of a star-state to accumulate enough mass/matter for the creation of a Dyson megastructure versus the possibility of generating superluminal (FTL) transport capabilities in a given period of time.

According to Wikipedia, there were approximately 6,600 artificial (read: man-made) satellites ever launched into orbit around the Earth; of those, approximately 3,600 remain in orbit, with a remaining 1,000 or so actually being operational. Of them, around 500 are in low Earth orbit (LEO), around 50 are in medium Earth orbit (MEO), and the rest are in some form of geostationary or semi-geostationary orbit at around 36,000 kilometers above sea level.

Increasingly in the past decade, largely due to the advent of the Global Positioning System and competing systems by other nations, increased necessity for satellite-based telecommunication services, and the increasing fear of the weaponization of space between such nations as the U.S.A and the People's Republic of China, people have become concerned over how much "junk" we actually have up there. To make no bones about it, certainly, there are a lot up there - there really is. Even so, we have a problem - due to both limitations of our technology and due to decreased funding or subsidization to increase surveillance measures - identifying things such as Near-Earth Asteroids that are farther-out than around two months time. From that, we can assume, just based on the handful of satellites we have in orbit which are focused toward space (in addition to ground-based telescopes), while one would think we have a rather good track record for locating NEA's, when one considers that all the ones we have located have trajectories which invariably will miss earth - even by as little as two million kilometers - things become a little cloudy, especially when one tries to consider using orbit-based defensive measures for FT.

Even so, let's assume the best-case scenario. Let's say that the whole of your theoretical planet is united as one single polity, and thus the issues of funding or subsidization for planetary defense is far more simple. (Of course, we're assuming this planet lacks FTL capability - at least at the moment.) So, the planetary government decides it wants to invest in a defense system based in an orbital sphere around their planet, nominally to defend against extraterrestrial sources of conflict. Let's, also, assume that this planet has a "modest", say, ten billion persons and much of the world lives in relative comfort - say a good 20% of the population would live in a level of comfort comparable-to the Western world of reality.

That means consumerism is rampant; digital technology - from cellphones to desktop computers - is everywhere, including in most machines such as cars, planes, ships, doorknobs, microwave ovens, etc. That, already, takes a considerably amount of resources - especially if we presume this planet is largely similar to Earth in composition. Items such as cellphones, computers, etc. require certain resources which are, relatively-speaking, rare for terrestrial worlds; sure, silicon and even gold and silver are relatively abundant. Even so, what about iridium: a very rare element, usually found most abundantly in certain types of meteorites and meteoritic rock. Even so, even in the modern age it is indispensable in the fields of particle physics, electronic engineering (due to its extreme resilience against corrosion), and even space travel. Assuming your theoretically planet has advanced much akin to our own likely will, even with the advent and mass-marketing of quantum computation technology, the range of uses for iridium (and certain heavy metals, rare earth magnets, etc.) is very likely to increase.

In fact, it may (and likely will) increase to such a degree, that even with the recycling of older and obsolete technology, the amount easily accessible on your theoretical planet is likely to be very small and, as such, very expensive. The same goes for many other elements common in electronics (such as gold and silver). Fortunately, most solar systems (especially ones likely to carry intelligent life) are abundant in such elemental resources just ripe for the taking; so ripe, in fact, that one can literally go up into the blackness, grab an asteroid, and pull it out - and likely, due to the increasing miniaturization of electronics and digital technology, this may not only be practical, but a likely (and more cost-effective, given the amounts one will likely find) solution to the increasingly diminishing availability of many usable resources.

So, the government of this planet start using space craft and machines capable of capturing and harvesting elemental resources from nearby asteroids (or perhaps a natural satellite, such as a moon). Even so, eventually, much of the same problems will be faced: they will deplete the resources in their immediate planetary neighborhood which are easily accessible, and be increasingly forced to travel farther and farther out to find the resources necessary to go into the construction of their planetary defense grid.

This is where the problem starts.

If we assume that like in most forms of FT superluminal travel, that the issues of retrocausality and time dilation are magically neutralized (read: handwaved), then the solution to the need for travel farther and farther away from the planet in the search of resources is solved: use FTL to go farther out faster. Without FTL, you're stuck slow-boating it; meaning that, by the time the miners reach their homeworld again, it may be destroyed due to the incompleteness of its planetary defense grid.

So, in short: is it possible? Probably not, short of it being a single, solitary effort by the whole planet to the detriment of virtually every creature comfort your people likely have, which may simply result in the devolution of the planetary government anyway. Of course, if you want to handwave these issues for the sake of Rule of Cool, fine, but...


Long Answer Part II — The Impracticality of Dyson Megastructures:
In addition to the issues of resource accumulation faced above (since Dyson megastructures likely take absurd amounts of resources, even in their "constellation", "net", or "Niven ring" varieties), you come face-first against major issues involving shell theorem: the effective death sentence to any and all Dyson megastructures.

In short, the shell theorem states that, "[the] shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. [...] Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem saying that: 1) A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. 2) If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell. A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass."

In short, if we assume a Dyson shell, then the shell itself will have zero (0) net gravitational force exerted on any object inside of it. So, if a planet, star, moon, etc. is inside of that shell, over time, the shell itself will drift-out of orbit of the object, eventually impacting it as the object floats through space along its orbital elliptic. This is, of course, ignoring the very real issue of instability given that a shell such as this, due to gravitational forces emitted by the planet and surrounding objects, will likely shake itself apart (or simply fall apart).

If we take, however, something like a Dyson constellation (or "bubble"), then things become far more feasible. In effect, small Dyson constellations exist in reality as artificial satellite networks, such as the Global Positioning System. This works because it is not a solid or hollow sphere, and thus each distinct component is influenced by gravity individually and influences other bodies individually. However, if we take a Dyson net - as you proposed - then you see the issue with this: at what point does a Dyson net diverge from a the positives of a Dyson constellation to the negatives of a Dyson shell.

As one increases the cable size, density, and strength in a Dyson net, it increasingly approaches a Dyson shell (and thus fails due to shell theorem), but without enough strength within the cables to maintain the Dyson net, each individual component acts upon other individual components, pulling the cables apart and failing.

In short, if you want to base a planetary defense structure on any Dyson megastructure, your best bet is as a Dyson constellation or bubble. Of course, if you want to handwave the issues with Dyson megastructures...


Long Answer Party III — Merit:
A hard lesson for individuals to learn in FT is the one concerning the merit of players.

As mentioned throughout this thread, there is no "hard-and-fast" set of rules which govern FT and FT players; instead, there is a (general) consensus regarding what is and what is not acceptable. A key point in the community's determination of acceptability lies in the merit accrued by the player in question.

Do not confuse this with popularity; yes, a meritable player is likely to become popular, but this is purely an axiom added to the general rule: merit, not popularity, determines the acceptability of a player's creations.

How is merit accrued? By cooperating, collaborating, being original in ones creations, being consistent, and understanding scale (in addition to other factors). Many extremely new players attempt to, early-on, become (or even start-out) as major players in the IC galaxy. In response, many such players are shunned since they have not worked within and with the community enough to be viewed as adequate-enough to exercise such things in a manner which is fair and enjoyable to as people members of the community as possible. This is often why this thread is filled with advice in regards to "starting small" - such as with a hand-full of planets - and to try and focus on detailing and "fleshing-out" concepts, rather than immediately trying to become a "badass" with the "coolest laz0rz".

Things such as Dyson megastructures, exceptionally potent capital ships, huge empires, etc. are all things which are decided based upon the merit of the player. If a player is new to the community or demonstrates an inability to cooperate, compromise, be creative, and be consistent, all the while taking into account the actual scale of the world they intend to operate within, it is likely such concepts as those mentioned above are likely to be considered unfeasible or generally be advised against. Why? Because the player has not demonstrated to the community they can execute such concepts without them becoming an "I Win Button" or devolving into absurdity.

It doesn't matter if a player says, "I won't use this to god-mod," or, "I know how not to power-game". What matters is the demonstration and the execution. If one demonstrates they are completely capable of responsibly, effectively, and - most importantly - enjoyably executing "large" or "potent" concepts, they're more or less going to be accepted, but there's a road one must walk before one is likely to even be able to respectably demonstrate such things.

One must first learn to crawl before one can walk, and one must learn to walk before one can run. This, again, is why it is advised to start small and "not try and make excessive waves". If a player can flesh-out a system or two and make it enjoyable for others to roleplay with them, they gain merit in the eyes of the community. If they write a very good story and roleplay involving a weapon that could destroy the surface of the planet without god-modding or power-gaming, they gain merit in the eyes of the community. One does not just throw a planet-destroyer into existence without showing one can conceivably execute it without hitting "I Win" and expect for it to be accepted.

Start small, work your way-up. Virtually every FT'er has gone through this process. It's how veteran players such as Rethan and Huerdae can accomplish what they have accomplished. Rethan demonstrated he can handle the responsibility of playing an entity which, in the course of a few threads, devoured eight star systems; equally, Huerdae demonstrated he can handle the responsibility of playing what is, in all likelihood, the largest interstellar empire held by a single player in the whole of the Galaxy. They didn't start out that way; just like everyone else, they were once new and had to build-up their merit and be accepted by the community. Over many real-life years, they eventually got to where they are today.

In short, one needs to start small. One needs to get a few roleplays under their belt before they are given more "wiggle room". Don't start out trying to be the big dog, because no one is a big dog in the nigh-infinite vastness of a world crafted by over a decade of real-time efforts by a community just as old.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

A new NSball about the folly of massive excess:

[Themiclesia]

Would a civilization still in the interplanetary age (no ftl travel) be able to build and utilize plametary shields?

I was sort of hoping to have a one system nation with dyson nets ( above and below the planetary orbital plane), with a past of using orbital bombardment, with it countered with highly advanced teraforming technology and planetary scale "battle screens". And yes they are descendants of the post-final war concordeat, they still have SWIFT communication, and even Cloud chambers (albiet with more limited capabilities to limit godmodding potential), but they have lost the capability to use hyperspace due to lost tech. Where they have advanced is nanite type rapid terraforming, large scale battlescreens, a more traditional form of energy shielding (it allows lighter units and planets to avoid the plasma wash generated by the battlescreens use), qauntum teleportation, holographic displays, more efficient and powerdul hellbores amd hellrails, interplanetary wormholes, and infantry level antimatter weaponry.

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: Probably not, but... I'm going to answer this question in three distinct phases: resource accumulation, the impracticality of Dyson megastructures, and merit.

---

Long Answer Part I — Resource Accumulation:
Resource accumulation, for the sake of this response, will be defined as the ability of a star-state to accumulate enough mass/matter for the creation of a Dyson megastructure versus the possibility of generating superluminal (FTL) transport capabilities in a given period of time.

According to Wikipedia, there were approximately 6,600 artificial (read: man-made) satellites ever launched into orbit around the Earth; of those, approximately 3,600 remain in orbit, with a remaining 1,000 or so actually being operational. Of them, around 500 are in low Earth orbit (LEO), around 50 are in medium Earth orbit (MEO), and the rest are in some form of geostationary or semi-geostationary orbit at around 36,000 kilometers above sea level.

Increasingly in the past decade, largely due to the advent of the Global Positioning System and competing systems by other nations, increased necessity for satellite-based telecommunication services, and the increasing fear of the weaponization of space between such nations as the U.S.A and the People's Republic of China, people have become concerned over how much "junk" we actually have up there. To make no bones about it, certainly, there are a lot up there - there really is. Even so, we have a problem - due to both limitations of our technology and due to decreased funding or subsidization to increase surveillance measures - identifying things such as Near-Earth Asteroids that are farther-out than around two months time. From that, we can assume, just based on the handful of satellites we have in orbit which are focused toward space (in addition to ground-based telescopes), while one would think we have a rather good track record for locating NEA's, when one considers that all the ones we have located have trajectories which invariably will miss earth - even by as little as two million kilometers - things become a little cloudy, especially when one tries to consider using orbit-based defensive measures for FT.

Even so, let's assume the best-case scenario. Let's say that the whole of your theoretical planet is united as one single polity, and thus the issues of funding or subsidization for planetary defense is far more simple. (Of course, we're assuming this planet lacks FTL capability - at least at the moment.) So, the planetary government decides it wants to invest in a defense system based in an orbital sphere around their planet, nominally to defend against extraterrestrial sources of conflict. Let's, also, assume that this planet has a "modest", say, ten billion persons and much of the world lives in relative comfort - say a good 20% of the population would live in a level of comfort comparable-to the Western world of reality.

That means consumerism is rampant; digital technology - from cellphones to desktop computers - is everywhere, including in most machines such as cars, planes, ships, doorknobs, microwave ovens, etc. That, already, takes a considerably amount of resources - especially if we presume this planet is largely similar to Earth in composition. Items such as cellphones, computers, etc. require certain resources which are, relatively-speaking, rare for terrestrial worlds; sure, silicon and even gold and silver are relatively abundant. Even so, what about iridium: a very rare element, usually found most abundantly in certain types of meteorites and meteoritic rock. Even so, even in the modern age it is indispensable in the fields of particle physics, electronic engineering (due to its extreme resilience against corrosion), and even space travel. Assuming your theoretically planet has advanced much akin to our own likely will, even with the advent and mass-marketing of quantum computation technology, the range of uses for iridium (and certain heavy metals, rare earth magnets, etc.) is very likely to increase.

In fact, it may (and likely will) increase to such a degree, that even with the recycling of older and obsolete technology, the amount easily accessible on your theoretical planet is likely to be very small and, as such, very expensive. The same goes for many other elements common in electronics (such as gold and silver). Fortunately, most solar systems (especially ones likely to carry intelligent life) are abundant in such elemental resources just ripe for the taking; so ripe, in fact, that one can literally go up into the blackness, grab an asteroid, and pull it out - and likely, due to the increasing miniaturization of electronics and digital technology, this may not only be practical, but a likely (and more cost-effective, given the amounts one will likely find) solution to the increasingly diminishing availability of many usable resources.

So, the government of this planet start using space craft and machines capable of capturing and harvesting elemental resources from nearby asteroids (or perhaps a natural satellite, such as a moon). Even so, eventually, much of the same problems will be faced: they will deplete the resources in their immediate planetary neighborhood which are easily accessible, and be increasingly forced to travel farther and farther out to find the resources necessary to go into the construction of their planetary defense grid.

This is where the problem starts.

If we assume that like in most forms of FT superluminal travel, that the issues of retrocausality and time dilation are magically neutralized (read: handwaved), then the solution to the need for travel farther and farther away from the planet in the search of resources is solved: use FTL to go farther out faster. Without FTL, you're stuck slow-boating it; meaning that, by the time the miners reach their homeworld again, it may be destroyed due to the incompleteness of its planetary defense grid.

So, in short: is it possible? Probably not, short of it being a single, solitary effort by the whole planet to the detriment of virtually every creature comfort your people likely have, which may simply result in the devolution of the planetary government anyway. Of course, if you want to handwave these issues for the sake of Rule of Cool, fine, but...


Long Answer Part II — The Impracticality of Dyson Megastructures:
In addition to the issues of resource accumulation faced above (since Dyson megastructures likely take absurd amounts of resources, even in their "constellation", "net", or "Niven ring" varieties), you come face-first against major issues involving shell theorem: the effective death sentence to any and all Dyson megastructures.

In short, the shell theorem states that, "[the] shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. [...] Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem saying that: 1) A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. 2) If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell. A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass."

In short, if we assume a Dyson shell, then the shell itself will have zero (0) net gravitational force exerted on any object inside of it. So, if a planet, star, moon, etc. is inside of that shell, over time, the shell itself will drift-out of orbit of the object, eventually impacting it as the object floats through space along its orbital elliptic. This is, of course, ignoring the very real issue of instability given that a shell such as this, due to gravitational forces emitted by the planet and surrounding objects, will likely shake itself apart (or simply fall apart).

If we take, however, something like a Dyson constellation (or "bubble"), then things become far more feasible. In effect, small Dyson constellations exist in reality as artificial satellite networks, such as the Global Positioning System. This works because it is not a solid or hollow sphere, and thus each distinct component is influenced by gravity individually and influences other bodies individually. However, if we take a Dyson net - as you proposed - then you see the issue with this: at what point does a Dyson net diverge from a the positives of a Dyson constellation to the negatives of a Dyson shell.

As one increases the cable size, density, and strength in a Dyson net, it increasingly approaches a Dyson shell (and thus fails due to shell theorem), but without enough strength within the cables to maintain the Dyson net, each individual component acts upon other individual components, pulling the cables apart and failing.

In short, if you want to base a planetary defense structure on any Dyson megastructure, your best bet is as a Dyson constellation or bubble. Of course, if you want to handwave the issues with Dyson megastructures...


Long Answer Party III — Merit:
A hard lesson for individuals to learn in FT is the one concerning the merit of players.

As mentioned throughout this thread, there is no "hard-and-fast" set of rules which govern FT and FT players; instead, there is a (general) consensus regarding what is and what is not acceptable. A key point in the community's determination of acceptability lies in the merit accrued by the player in question.

Do not confuse this with popularity; yes, a meritable player is likely to become popular, but this is purely an axiom added to the general rule: merit, not popularity, determines the acceptability of a player's creations.

How is merit accrued? By cooperating, collaborating, being original in ones creations, being consistent, and understanding scale (in addition to other factors). Many extremely new players attempt to, early-on, become (or even start-out) as major players in the IC galaxy. In response, many such players are shunned since they have not worked within and with the community enough to be viewed as adequate-enough to exercise such things in a manner which is fair and enjoyable to as people members of the community as possible. This is often why this thread is filled with advice in regards to "starting small" - such as with a hand-full of planets - and to try and focus on detailing and "fleshing-out" concepts, rather than immediately trying to become a "badass" with the "coolest laz0rz".

Things such as Dyson megastructures, exceptionally potent capital ships, huge empires, etc. are all things which are decided based upon the merit of the player. If a player is new to the community or demonstrates an inability to cooperate, compromise, be creative, and be consistent, all the while taking into account the actual scale of the world they intend to operate within, it is likely such concepts as those mentioned above are likely to be considered unfeasible or generally be advised against. Why? Because the player has not demonstrated to the community they can execute such concepts without them becoming an "I Win Button" or devolving into absurdity.

It doesn't matter if a player says, "I won't use this to god-mod," or, "I know how not to power-game". What matters is the demonstration and the execution. If one demonstrates they are completely capable of responsibly, effectively, and - most importantly - enjoyably executing "large" or "potent" concepts, they're more or less going to be accepted, but there's a road one must walk before one is likely to even be able to respectable demonstrate such things.

One must first learn to crawl before one can walk, and one must learn to walk before one can run. This, again, is why it is advised to start small and "not try and make excessive waves". If a player can flesh-out a system or two and make it enjoyable for others to roleplay with them, they gain merit in the eyes of the community. If they write a very good story and roleplay involving a weapon that could destroy the surface of the planet without god-modding or power-gaming, they gain merit in the eyes of the community. One does not just throw a planet-destroyer into existence without showing one can conceivably execute it without hitting "I Win" and expect for it to be accepted.

Start small, work your way-up. Virtually every FT'er has gone through this process. It's how veteran players such as Rethan and Huerdae can accomplish what they have accomplished. Rethan demonstrated he can handle the responsibility of playing an entity which, in the course of a few threads, devoured eight star systems; equally, Huerdae demonstrated he can handle the responsibility of playing what is, in all likelihood, the largest interstellar empire held by a single player in the whole of the Galaxy. They didn't start out that way; just like everyone else, they were once new and had to build-up their merit and be accepted by the community. Over many real-life years, they eventually got to where they are today.

In short, one needs to start small. One needs to get a few roleplays under their belt before they are given more "wiggle room". Don't start out trying to be the big dog, because no one is a big dog in the nigh-infinite vastness of a world crafted by over a decade of real-time efforts by a community just as old.

Larger does not always equal more resources or more power -- few will say that Canada is more powerful or resourceful than the USA, though I do not intend to pursue that path myself.

Every RP needs some pushovers, i.e. me

One does not just throw a planet-destroyer into existence without showing one can conceivably execute it without hitting "I Win" and expect for it to be accepted.

Or, indeed, one might simply not have such a weapon.

[Kyrusia]

Larger does not always equal more resources or more power -- few will say that Canada is more powerful or resourceful than the USA, though I do not intend to pursue that path myself.

Every RP needs some pushovers, i.e. me

Question: Where, exactly, did I say "larger equals more resources"?

I said that it is most feasible for a planet in requirement of further resource accumulation is likely to increasingly develop more advanced means to accumulate them - most notably through the creation of a means to reach said resources, harvest them, and return with them in a time which is not appreciably bound by relativistic physics.

I did not say that "larger" equals "more resources" or "more power". I made no statement as to an objective scale of "power" for star-state or comparable In-Character entities based upon size or resource accumulation.

[Themiclesia]

Question: Where, exactly, did I say "larger equals more resources"?

I said that it is most feasibly for a planet in requirement of further resource accumulation is likely to increasingly develop more advance means to accumulate them - most notably through the creation of a means to reach said resources, harvest them, and return with them in a time which is not appreciably bound by relativistic physics.

I did not say that "larger" equals "more resources" or "more power".

Answer: nowhere, and likewise nowhere in my reply have I attributed it to you, which is why your eminently informative post was put into a spoiler.

Deployment of a planet-destroying weapon, if any such can exist, will probably be beneath the moral lower bound for most civilizations that can be called thus; hence, I think it unrealistic anyway that such a weapons should be used.

Last edited by Kyrusia on Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:50 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Where was it?