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

[Arthurista]

One thing I always found rather curious in fictional FT universes like ME, Halo and Battlestar is the lack of long range precision guided weapons, compared to even MT militaries. Does this apply in NS? Would an Honorverse-style missile spam be considered overpowered, for instance?

[Rethan]

One thing I always found rather curious in fictional FT universes like ME, Halo and Battlestar is the lack of long range precision guided weapons, compared to even MT militaries. Does this apply in NS? Would an Honorverse-style missile spam be considered overpowered, for instance?

Actually, more than a few nations use such things. The states of the Raumreich (Valinon, Vernii) and Feazanthia are pretty heavy on the idea of missile spam from extreme ranges. Feazanthia also extends this concept to the ground - I'm pretty sure the whole purpose of his drone 'infantry' is to get accurate targeting information for a missile bombardment. Not all nations use such tactics, but it is a pretty common one. A lot of the inherent flaws in strategy and technology seen in sci-fi tend to get ironed out by roleplayers who think such flaws are ridiculous and break immersion (least, that's why I tend to get rid of them. I find it hard to believably roleplay a state that would overlook such egregious errors).

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Halo, tbf, is only atrociously poor in space. I haven't seen too massive a tech gap between Halo and the average FT state on the ground - assuming we use Spartans as "Halo ground forces", since powered armour seems to be almost mandatory in FT. Unless you're the russians, then it's a matter of hats. In space, however....yeah. Halo is nothing to write home about.

Oh, we have powered armor. We also have hats for it.

[Feazanthia]

One thing I always found rather curious in fictional FT universes like ME, Halo and Battlestar is the lack of long range precision guided weapons, compared to even MT militaries. Does this apply in NS? Would an Honorverse-style missile spam be considered overpowered, for instance?

Actually, more than a few nations use such things. The states of the Raumreich (Valinon, Vernii) and Feazanthia are pretty heavy on the idea of missile spam from extreme ranges. Feazanthia also extends this concept to the ground - I'm pretty sure the whole purpose of his drone 'infantry' is to get accurate targeting information for a missile bombardment.

>_>

<_<

I admit nothing.

*hides his immense cruise missile launch platforms behind a bush*

[Huerdae]

>_>

<_<

I admit nothing.

*hides his immense cruise missile launch platforms behind a bush*

*sends in the Kaskans to destroy your cruise missile launchers with bows*

WHAT NOW, Mistah Feez?


Edit: This is purposefully not off-topic. If you look in my factbook, you'll see that I really do have lizardmen with bows (kaskans) that I use in war. It pretty well illustrates the point that we're trying to show here.

[The Akasha Colony]

One thing I always found rather curious in fictional FT universes like ME, Halo and Battlestar is the lack of long range precision guided weapons, compared to even MT militaries. Does this apply in NS? Would an Honorverse-style missile spam be considered overpowered, for instance?

Halo uses quite a number of missiles; for every MAC round fired, there are usually dozens if not hundreds of Archer missiles.

If Halo is really poor tech-wise, then what would be a good place to start for rifles and tanks in the 22nd century? What point in technology would anti-matter and warp-gates exist? What weapons would be used at that point then?

The problem with Halo is that when the UNSC as a whole is compared to even a conventional MT ground military (not even an *NS* MT military), it comes up rather short. Part of it is simply a matter of gameplay, as putting in the full range of weapons used by modern armies would be impractical and overwhelming for the player, as well as detract from the quality of play and storytelling. But the Warthog and Scorpion are both rather inferior to their MT counterparts, not just in how they are depicted, but in actual supporting materials outlining their capabilities. The UNSC also seems to be lacking some rather fundamental capabilities, although to at least some extent Halo Wars rectifies this.

Ultimately, the truth ends up often being stranger than fiction. While we have yet to reach the 23rd century, we already have handheld devices that do far more than Star Trek's communicators do. We don't have the flying cars and self-tying shoes Back to the Future envisioned as being common by 2015, but we do have the massive flatscreen televisions and are in many ways even more dependent on our electronics than people even 30 years ago imagined. It's incredibly difficult to tell which technologies will pan out and which will fall by the wayside over time, especially since this is further impacted by the ability of companies to make these technologies useful, which is a hit or miss process.

There's no hard date we can assign to any of these technologies. Even the introduction of railguns is a muddled thing. It could be a decade, it could be closer to the end of this century (more likely the latter). But some general trends can be identified that would probably still apply even in the future. For one, smart everything. With the reduced cost of electronics, everything from artillery and tank shells to mortars to rifles are getting their own onboard computers and sensors, on top of significant improvements in the fire control systems of larger platforms (tanks, aircraft, warships). A likely reduction in the proportionate number of combat personnel in favor of an increase in support personnel to maintain all of this equipment, as well as reduce the risk to human soldiers in the field.

Yes, HALO is generally considered to be overpowered - doable with good writing, but very easy to become invincible

Halo? As in the console shooter with the somewhat decent book series?

Unless something has drastically changed in the Halo universe since I stopped paying attention (circa. Halo 3), it'd actually be considered fairly low-tech. One of the Super-MAC guns, for instance, would be easily out-ranged by many NSFT warships.

The UNSC finally got shields for a single ship as of Halo 4, but otherwise, no, nothing's really changed. The books have been fleshing out that ancient stuff between the Precursors, Humans, and Forerunners that took place at a much higher "tech level," which might be what Oppressorion is referring to, but it isn't anything particularly special. In fact, I have to question the authors' sense of scale in relation to how these events are depicted; it is at once attempting to be very grand in some aspects, but not necessarily following through in the right way for others.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Yes, HALO is generally considered to be overpowered - doable with good writing, but very easy to become invincible

Halo? As in the console shooter with the somewhat decent book series?

Unless something has drastically changed in the Halo universe since I stopped paying attention (circa. Halo 3), it'd actually be considered fairly low-tech. One of the Super-MAC guns, for instance, would be easily out-ranged by many NSFT warships.

Somewhat decent book series shows your lack of understanding young one, for the Forerunner novels are good

Anyways Halo is a mixed bag really, we see they do have similar concepts as we have today, even improved stuff but they don't get a lot of lime light, and there is no consistency between any of their stuff, there isn't even a feat for the proper damage of a Scorpions main gun (We can try if we look at several factors such as a Phantoms durability, but that asks another can of questions)

If you want consistent, backed up showings for ground forces, then mass Effect has you covered, its Infantry side has better showings and is more consistent.

Space wise Halo is a bit of a mixed bag, it focuses a lot on the plot and excitement.

I'd rate Halo fairly powerful in space mostly because you don't need infantry when you can't win the space war (In the UNSC's case, survive)

On ground they are much more poor, but a lot of the material outside the main games shows they are not naked as a military.

Spartans are definitely a saving grace, they are like Scout Marines, and thats only because of the armor and weapons really, I'd give a Spartan good odds at a tie with a Space Marine (And thats if we don't wank the Space marine, because 40K loves to never be consistent at all) if they are given better weapons and armor.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

One thing I always found rather curious in fictional FT universes like ME, Halo and Battlestar is the lack of long range precision guided weapons, compared to even MT militaries. Does this apply in NS? Would an Honorverse-style missile spam be considered overpowered, for instance?

Halo uses quite a number of missiles; for every MAC round fired, there are usually dozens if not hundreds of Archer missiles.

If Halo is really poor tech-wise, then what would be a good place to start for rifles and tanks in the 22nd century? What point in technology would anti-matter and warp-gates exist? What weapons would be used at that point then?

The problem with Halo is that when the UNSC as a whole is compared to even a conventional MT ground military (not even an *NS* MT military), it comes up rather short. Part of it is simply a matter of gameplay, as putting in the full range of weapons used by modern armies would be impractical and overwhelming for the player, as well as detract from the quality of play and storytelling. But the Warthog and Scorpion are both rather inferior to their MT counterparts, not just in how they are depicted, but in actual supporting materials outlining their capabilities. The UNSC also seems to be lacking some rather fundamental capabilities, although to at least some extent Halo Wars rectifies this.

Ultimately, the truth ends up often being stranger than fiction. While we have yet to reach the 23rd century, we already have handheld devices that do far more than Star Trek's communicators do. We don't have the flying cars and self-tying shoes Back to the Future envisioned as being common by 2015, but we do have the massive flatscreen televisions and are in many ways even more dependent on our electronics than people even 30 years ago imagined. It's incredibly difficult to tell which technologies will pan out and which will fall by the wayside over time, especially since this is further impacted by the ability of companies to make these technologies useful, which is a hit or miss process.

There's no hard date we can assign to any of these technologies. Even the introduction of railguns is a muddled thing. It could be a decade, it could be closer to the end of this century (more likely the latter). But some general trends can be identified that would probably still apply even in the future. For one, smart everything. With the reduced cost of electronics, everything from artillery and tank shells to mortars to rifles are getting their own onboard computers and sensors, on top of significant improvements in the fire control systems of larger platforms (tanks, aircraft, warships). A likely reduction in the proportionate number of combat personnel in favor of an increase in support personnel to maintain all of this equipment, as well as reduce the risk to human soldiers in the field.

Yes, HALO is generally considered to be overpowered - doable with good writing, but very easy to become invincible

Halo? As in the console shooter with the somewhat decent book series?

Unless something has drastically changed in the Halo universe since I stopped paying attention (circa. Halo 3), it'd actually be considered fairly low-tech. One of the Super-MAC guns, for instance, would be easily out-ranged by many NSFT warships.

The UNSC finally got shields for a single ship as of Halo 4, but otherwise, no, nothing's really changed. The books have been fleshing out that ancient stuff between the Precursors, Humans, and Forerunners that took place at a much higher "tech level," which might be what Oppressorion is referring to, but it isn't anything particularly special. In fact, I have to question the authors' sense of scale in relation to how these events are depicted; it is at once attempting to be very grand in some aspects, but not necessarily following through in the right way for others.

Nah, the Warthog is fairly good, its extremely durable and reliable, but it can be better. The Scorpion...all we know is that it has a 90mm cannon and I think starship grade armor, but of less thickness (Obviously)

The UNSC used a fuck ton of Archers and all that because they were basically useless against the Covenant alone, the UNSC had to fire everything they had to make a dent in Covenant numbers, it wasn't until mid war that the UNSC started getting better results in combat, but at that rate they were not going to win conventionality, especially if the Covenant decided to pull out everything in one swoop.

And no, the Infinity has shields but so do Strident Frigates, at least the ones with Infinity, and I like the new Autumn class Cruisers have shields too.

I'll have to check again, but the Infinity and her Frigates at least have Shields.

[Arthurista]

How do people usually explain the tech behind shields? Also, what's the logic behind ground combat? If you control the orbit (and thus in a position to KE anything on the surface), isn't the other side rather screwed either way?

[Feazanthia]

Nah, the Warthog is fairly good, its extremely durable and reliable, but it can be better. The Scorpion...all we know is that it has a 90mm cannon and I think starship grade armor, but of less thickness (Obviously)

The UNSC used a fuck ton of Archers and all that because they were basically useless against the Covenant alone, the UNSC had to fire everything they had to make a dent in Covenant numbers, it wasn't until mid war that the UNSC started getting better results in combat, but at that rate they were not going to win conventionality, especially if the Covenant decided to pull out everything in one swoop.

And no, the Infinity has shields but so do Strident Frigates, at least the ones with Infinity, and I like the new Autumn class Cruisers have shields too.

I'll have to check again, but the Infinity and her Frigates at least have Shields.

I know you did not just argue that

A) A military transport vehicle that exposed its occupants to small arms fire and is something that should have earned its designer a pink slip for even suggesting it

and

B) A futuristic main battle tank with a smaller caliber and lower muzzle velocity than a modern M1 Abrams

are not shit with a straight face.

[Arthurista]

Nah, the Warthog is fairly good, its extremely durable and reliable, but it can be better. The Scorpion...all we know is that it has a 90mm cannon and I think starship grade armor, but of less thickness (Obviously)

The UNSC used a fuck ton of Archers and all that because they were basically useless against the Covenant alone, the UNSC had to fire everything they had to make a dent in Covenant numbers, it wasn't until mid war that the UNSC started getting better results in combat, but at that rate they were not going to win conventionality, especially if the Covenant decided to pull out everything in one swoop.

And no, the Infinity has shields but so do Strident Frigates, at least the ones with Infinity, and I like the new Autumn class Cruisers have shields too.

I'll have to check again, but the Infinity and her Frigates at least have Shields.

I know you did not just argue that

A) A military transport vehicle that exposed its occupants to small arms fire is not something that should have earned its designer a pink slip for even suggesting it

and

B) A futuristic main battle tank with a smaller caliber and lower muzzle velocity than a modern M1 Abrams

are not shit with a straight face.

On the Warthog, see this: http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23243.aspx

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Nah, the Warthog is fairly good, its extremely durable and reliable, but it can be better. The Scorpion...all we know is that it has a 90mm cannon and I think starship grade armor, but of less thickness (Obviously)

The UNSC used a fuck ton of Archers and all that because they were basically useless against the Covenant alone, the UNSC had to fire everything they had to make a dent in Covenant numbers, it wasn't until mid war that the UNSC started getting better results in combat, but at that rate they were not going to win conventionality, especially if the Covenant decided to pull out everything in one swoop.

And no, the Infinity has shields but so do Strident Frigates, at least the ones with Infinity, and I like the new Autumn class Cruisers have shields too.

I'll have to check again, but the Infinity and her Frigates at least have Shields.

I know you did not just argue that

A) A military transport vehicle that exposed its occupants to small arms fire and is something that should have earned its designer a pink slip for even suggesting it

and

B) A futuristic main battle tank with a smaller caliber and lower muzzle velocity than a modern M1 Abrams

are not shit with a straight face.

>:|

Smaller muzzle velocity?

Are you using gameplay boy!

O)_(O

[Huerdae]

How do people usually explain the tech behind shields? Also, what's the logic behind ground combat? If you control the orbit (and thus in a position to KE anything on the surface), isn't the other side rather screwed either way?

I'll answer this my way before the guys who have real answers do so. Partly because I want people to know it's an option.

I don't explain shields. At all, really. They're listed in the factbook, but it doesn't say how they protect. It's just a matter of treating them consistently in how they function. Anything after that is fancy colors and flowers. I like neither of these things, so they don't exist in the HSE.

The logic behind ground combat is the same it always has been. You can destroy from pretty much anywhere, now, but you can't always control. Thus, ground combat generally surrounds that. Or, alternatively, you can create circumstances in which ground combat is required to exert that ability to destroy. In my case, I have a Xuan-Wu Theater Shield I can deploy if I want to engage in ground combat operations.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

As a note...

You never...ever...should never ever even try...to sue Game mechanics or game play to specify and prove a point about any game....

Be it Halo, Mass Effect, Battlefront, Skyrim, Dark Souls, even Call of Duty....

Simple fact is there is no consistent showing of a Scorpions main guns power, and its smallest is 90mm.

Why does it have a 90mm? Does the UNSC have superior propellents, etc....

These questions have been brought up off site many times, and they still have no answer.

Is the Scorpion stupid? It looks cool and it looks stupid at the same time.

But I have not seen any hard evidence to show it to be useless or anything beyond its stupid size (For a light tank, that thing fits better in Warhammer design wise...its big, as in bigger than an Abrams big.

So yeah, the Scorpion isn't the best thing ever, I'm rebooting that sucker down the road.

But please, nobody touch....game play, and don't even try to touch Game Mechanics.

lets change the debate anyways, because really, what does this discussion go about, if Halo and all was initially brought up as some sort of nation related thing (Like should I have Titanium-A armor like the UNSC) then it shouldn't have even become a separate debate, I feel bad for partaking in it.)

[The Akasha Colony]

Nah, the Warthog is fairly good, its extremely durable and reliable, but it can be better.

The Warthog is a deathtrap that has about the same protection for its passengers as a WWII Jeep. This may be forgiveable for a vehicle not intended for the front lines, but this is clearly not the case given its constant use as a front line troop carrier and light attack vehicle. Even the fully-enclosed modern Humvee was proven to be far too thinly-armored against insurgent weapons, leading to a whole new generation of up-armored vehicles. The Warthog has zero protection for any of its passengers, and no functional way for the gunner to stay in place while performing maneuvers. A handful of insurgents in Afghanistan could kill the entire crew with a few bursts of AK fire or a proximate mortar burst, and no modern military would ever accept such a vehicle for such service.

The Scorpion...all we know is that it has a 90mm cannon and I think starship grade armor, but of less thickness (Obviously)

It has a 90 mm cannon firing tungsten APBC ammunition. Not only is this a smaller caliber than modern vehicles (it was retied in the 1960s in favor of 105 mm guns in the West, which in turn were replaced by 120 mm guns in the 1980s), it uses an obsolete type of ammunition that has been out of service for decades, replaced by the far more effective APFSDS. Tungsten is also an inferior penetrator material relative to depleted uranium, which the UNSC clearly has in large quantities given its arsenal of nuclear warheads. It also has a hilariously tall profile, which also serves no real purpose. One of the major benefits of using an unmanned turret like that of the Scorpion is to be able to reduce vehicle profile, and thus reduce the likelihood of being spotted and the volume that must be protected by armor. But the Scorpion conveniently ignores both of these.

Later models get even worse in the name of game balance, now having a completely exposed secondary machine gunner, and completely removing the coaxial machine gun.

Information on its armor also give it inferior performance to modern tanks. It uses a titanium-ceramic matrix, notably omitting any spacing, heavy metal modules, or reactive armor. And despite this and the fact it only has space for two crew, it's just as heavy as an Abrams. It just continues Halo's strange obsession with titanium as some kind of wonder-material, but the Scorpion can be fairly easily taken out by non-top attack MANPATS even from the front, which most modern tanks are practically immune to.

The UNSC used a fuck ton of Archers and all that because they were basically useless against the Covenant alone, the UNSC had to fire everything they had to make a dent in Covenant numbers, it wasn't until mid war that the UNSC started getting better results in combat, but at that rate they were not going to win conventionality, especially if the Covenant decided to pull out everything in one swoop.

The UNSC had always intended to use that number of Archers even in combat against other human ships. That's why their ships were carrying so many in the first place. The UNSC's warships were never designed to fight the Covenant, they were designed to fight other human factions, and yet they still felt the need to ship so many missiles. This isn't surprising though since the MAC itself was a relatively new weapon. Twenty years before Harvest, it was only just being introduced in destroyer classes, which previously relied entirely on missiles before that for ship to ship combat. Given the relatively low rate of fire, the potential to be engaging lots of smaller Insurrectionist warships and converted merchantmen, as well as the proliferation of CIWS, it is unsurprising they were shipped in such numbers, as they would be the ship's most flexible weapons.

[Huerdae]

You know what, I'll throw this out here.

This discussion is exactly why FT is the way it is right now. Because people disagree, and quite frankly, some people want to play what someone else would think is 'inferior' technology. So what it really comes down to is, to get the RPs we want, to get the games we want to play, we have to have some manner of understanding. That understanding comes in the form of RoC and CoB. Both in the first post. What you use, how you use it...it's not really that important. It's a matter of cosmetics for a game that we're all trying to play. Nobody wants to lose terribly. Nobody wants to spend all day arguing about the exact muzzle velocity of a gun that doesn't exist on a tank that also doesn't exist. This is exactly why my factbook contains only enough numbers so you get an idea how big it is when you're holding it in your hands, or standing next to it.

Does that help explain why things are the way they are? Whatever your tech - we can make it work.

[The Akasha Colony]

You know what, I'll throw this out here.

This discussion is exactly why FT is the way it is right now. Because people disagree, and quite frankly, some people want to play what someone else would think is 'inferior' technology. So what it really comes down to is, to get the RPs we want, to get the games we want to play, we have to have some manner of understanding. That understanding comes in the form of RoC and CoB. Both in the first post. What you use, how you use it...it's not really that important. It's a matter of cosmetics for a game that we're all trying to play. Nobody wants to lose terribly. Nobody wants to spend all day arguing about the exact muzzle velocity of a gun that doesn't exist on a tank that also doesn't exist. This is exactly why my factbook contains only enough numbers so you get an idea how big it is when you're holding it in your hands, or standing next to it.

Does that help explain why things are the way they are? Whatever your tech - we can make it work.

I think that misses the point of what was discussed: it was not to disparage anyone who uses the technology, since indeed as Rethan points out, many have taken to correcting such flaws in their interpretations of their favored sci-fi franchise (and on top of that, the UNSC is but one of the many factions in that universe, although by far the best-known). It was to demonstrate that Halo as a franchise is not by any means a good basis to use on its own for "realistically" envisioning such technology, as difficult as it may be. As with all advice offered, people are free to ignore it, but specific questions and comments were brought up regarding Halo, its relative "power," and its depiction of future combat.

[Great Houses of Xie]

You know what, I'll throw this out here.

This discussion is exactly why FT is the way it is right now. Because people disagree, and quite frankly, some people want to play what someone else would think is 'inferior' technology. So what it really comes down to is, to get the RPs we want, to get the games we want to play, we have to have some manner of understanding. That understanding comes in the form of RoC and CoB. Both in the first post. What you use, how you use it...it's not really that important. It's a matter of cosmetics for a game that we're all trying to play. Nobody wants to lose terribly. Nobody wants to spend all day arguing about the exact muzzle velocity of a gun that doesn't exist on a tank that also doesn't exist. This is exactly why my factbook contains only enough numbers so you get an idea how big it is when you're holding it in your hands, or standing next to it.

Does that help explain why things are the way they are? Whatever your tech - we can make it work.

It's fine to play with inferior-to-modern technology, so long as the inferiority is RPed out. Stating that proven (judging from the fluff and backstory behind, for example, Halo) inferior tech is superior and then probably RPing as such is a wholly different matter.

[Yngen]

it's still happening
it's still happening

You know what, I'll throw this out here.

...What you use, how you use it...it's not really that important. It's a matter of cosmetics for a game that we're all trying to play. Nobody wants to lose terribly. Nobody wants to spend all day arguing about the exact muzzle velocity of a gun that doesn't exist on a tank that also doesn't exist...

Whatever your tech - we can make it work.

By the gods sir, it is rare to see such good sense on a forum like this

[Rethan]

it's still happening
it's still happening

You know what, I'll throw this out here.

...What you use, how you use it...it's not really that important. It's a matter of cosmetics for a game that we're all trying to play. Nobody wants to lose terribly. Nobody wants to spend all day arguing about the exact muzzle velocity of a gun that doesn't exist on a tank that also doesn't exist...

Whatever your tech - we can make it work.

By the gods sir, it is rare to see such good sense on a forum like this
*snip Jack Black*

ಠ_ಠ

I'm obliged to come eat your planets now for bringing him before me.

[The Legion of War]

Yes, HALO is generally considered to be overpowered - doable with good writing, but very easy to become invincible

Halo? As in the console shooter with the somewhat decent book series?

Unless something has drastically changed in the Halo universe since I stopped paying attention (circa. Halo 3), it'd actually be considered fairly low-tech. One of the Super-MAC guns, for instance, would be easily out-ranged by many NSFT warships.

Halo 4, in terms of military tech, seems to have gone DOWN. At least with Marine Body armor.

[The Akasha Colony]

Halo? As in the console shooter with the somewhat decent book series?

Unless something has drastically changed in the Halo universe since I stopped paying attention (circa. Halo 3), it'd actually be considered fairly low-tech. One of the Super-MAC guns, for instance, would be easily out-ranged by many NSFT warships.

Halo 4, in terms of military tech, seems to have gone DOWN. At least with Marine Body armor.

TBF, by game chronology the UNSC seems to have lost half of its ground arsenal between Halo Wars, where it fields a much more complete and competent military force in terms of equipment, and later installments. The Scorpion takes a further step backwards in Halo 3 by getting rid of the coax machine gun and moving it to an exposed ring mount, and all of its artillery and supporting arms seem to have disappeared.

[Yngen]

*snip Jack Black*
ಠ_ಠ

I'm obliged to come eat your planets now for bringing him before me.

I don't even mind, that single sentence is still better RP than plenty of FT I've seen (at least it had character, which is always better than a needlessly complex hypothetical calculation of the muzzle velocity of a SPAECLAZOR MARK XVI®) but here's a picture of Gwyneth Paltrow by way of apology for Jack Black

I LIED

[Huerdae]

I think that misses the point of what was discussed: it was not to disparage anyone who uses the technology, since indeed as Rethan points out, many have taken to correcting such flaws in their interpretations of their favored sci-fi franchise (and on top of that, the UNSC is but one of the many factions in that universe, although by far the best-known). It was to demonstrate that Halo as a franchise is not by any means a good basis to use on its own for "realistically" envisioning such technology, as difficult as it may be. As with all advice offered, people are free to ignore it, but specific questions and comments were brought up regarding Halo, its relative "power," and its depiction of future combat.

Quite the contrary, actually. I'm saying that if you like it, use it. So arguing over the viability of a Scorpion tank isn't actually that important. If I were to come across one with my Goliath Medium Tank, which is far more traditional model, making use of some innovations that would give it an advantage over said Scorpion, I would assume that it has a 50/50 chance of winning because both tanks are playing the same role. Unless stated by the player that they're acknowledging those vulnerabilities, and accounting for them in some way, or simply re-writing canon and accommodating, I can only assume that a battle tank is a battle tank is a battle tank. This is my point. There is brings me to point two.

It's fine to play with inferior-to-modern technology, so long as the inferiority is RPed out. Stating that proven (judging from the fluff and backstory behind, for example, Halo) inferior tech is superior and then probably RPing as such is a wholly different matter.

I am firmly of the opinion that there is no 'inferior' tech when you're RPing. Now, my mindset isn't what I'd expect everyone to say, but it works well for me. I see this as a gamer geek sees things. You want an advantage, you have to take a disadvantage. This applies heavily in any game you play that's well balanced. What you see is Inferior, I could argue may not be. The raised profile of the Scorpion, for instance, isn't actually a disadvantage in the correct fighting conditions. In many of the urban maps, it lifts that gun up over smaller buildings, allowing the majority of that same high-profile tank to be concealed. This then means that you have a very small profile target, with very little in terms of critical components. It also means that this exposed area is a significant distance from the ammo magazine, which would mean you suffer a greater chance of being able to repair what I would consider critical damage, without having the entire tank gutted by the magazine cooking off.

Regardless of whatever reasons, my stance is this: Whatever weapon you use as your basic infantry weapon, I will treat it as just that. It probably won't stop my tanks unless you get past the armor with another weapon, or cut open the hatches. But it has a pretty good chances of killing my infantry on one or a few hits. Same thing goes straight up the line. If you have a rare, RP'd as powerful AT weapon and you point it at one of my tanks, chances are that thing is dead. But if everyone and their brother has one, it's probably going to pop off the tracks or immobilize it or do superficial damage, or just stun the crew. This is how I RP. I would like to say that since I view myself as a reasonable member of the FT community, this method is accepted.

So why are we arguing about this, when we can be spending more time worrying instead about how can we make this game enjoyable for everyone? How do we get everyone to a point where they are looking forward to posting? To exploring their nations?

And thank you, Yngen, for your support. I, unlike Reth, have no problem accepting a salute from a crazy man.

[Yngen]

And thank you, Yngen, for your support. I, unlike Reth, have no problem accepting a salute from a crazy man.

You are most welcome - I will admit, I have a prior bias in this case, but I'll throw in my two cents.
From what I read, it seems that your focus whilst RP'ing, like mine, is storybuilding and fun - creating a fair, enjoyable world in which people's imaginations can run wild, etc.
Some players, however, prefer numbers and statistics. It is far more fun for them to outline the precise mechanical workings of a tungsten-lined supercannon or a phased-matter propulsion array than it is to flesh out a crusty old general or an eager young journalist on her first case, or to describe the beauty of their parliament building or the squalor of their market quarter.
There are also the two theories of RP - opposing and co-operative. Some people much prefer co-operative RP, where you are working together to tell a story with the same general endpoint in mind. If that's the case, your 'stats' or 'tech' don't really matter except as plot devices.
Some still believe that competitive RP is possible, and thus try to impose strict rules about what is 'inferior' tech and what isn't. I won't say which is definitively wrong but my experiences have taught me that people will always argue and competitive RP does not really work.