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

[Bentus]

Hey guys, just a question that I've been grappling with for a while here.

For those that don't know my nation, Bentus is borderline PMT/FT and interacts with star-faring empires all the time. The problem is, they never developed proper interstellar (or even interplanetary) space craft as they just spread via Gates they could construct on the ground. They're desperately trying to fix the vulnerability now, but I'm trying to come up with some way to 'force' invaders to at least in part have to put boots on the ground.

My reasoning for this, is that it would just be boring if someone could just pop into orbit and decimate the vulnerable worlds below - there'd be no real fleet to put up a defence or a deterrent. So far I've been depending on OOC understanding to get it done, but I'd really like an IC reason as to why a ground invasion would have to be performed.

So far, I'm thinking shield domes around cities. This would mean orbital bombardment is still a thing, just not in the dense population centers which would have to be struck by atmospheric craft. What do you guys think? Would you hypothetically be willing to RP with something like that?

[Thrashia]

In tank design, their employment in combat doctrines matter a great deal. If a tank is designed to be on the frontlines, acting in the roll of punching a hole in enemy lines, then it's likely to be well armored and armed with a decent engine. If a tank is designed with the intention of infantry support, it will have ridiculous amounts of armor, a field artillery equivalent gun, and a crap engine (but likely a better suspension system than other, dedicated assault tanks). How a military deploys and uses a vehicle or weapon determines its attributes and therefore its effectiveness in comparison to its opponents.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

'Modern' tank classification tends to be a bit boring. Everybody uses main battle tanks in almost every role, with a few people tossing around light tanks as recon vehicles and IFVs. Previously, things were a lot more diverse. Cruiser tanks, infantry tanks, heavy tanks, flame tanks, breakthrough tanks, fast tanks.

Rather amusingly, the light tank is mostly being replaced these days with the supposedly outdated armored car concept.

Your usage of tank designations really depends on how specialized you want your military to be. If you want a basic 'all rounder' that can do a bit of everything, you probably want something similar to a modern MBT in terms of function. Heavy armor, big gun, decent speed, etc.

I, personally, think that tanks are a bit boring. Powered armor is where its at. You can't put hats on tanks. That would just be silly, after all.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

'Modern' tank classification tends to be a bit boring. Everybody uses main battle tanks in almost every role, with a few people tossing around light tanks as recon vehicles and IFVs. Previously, things were a lot more diverse. Cruiser tanks, infantry tanks, heavy tanks, flame tanks, breakthrough tanks, fast tanks.

Rather amusingly, the light tank is mostly being replaced these days with the supposedly outdated armored car concept.

Your usage of tank designations really depends on how specialized you want your military to be. If you want a basic 'all rounder' that can do a bit of everything, you probably want something similar to a modern MBT in terms of function. Heavy armor, big gun, decent speed, etc.

I, personally, think that tanks are a bit boring. Powered armor is where its at. You can't put hats on tanks. That would just be silly, after all.

We have both, also we'll put a hat on a tank for you.

[Imperial Nalydya]

'Modern' tank classification tends to be a bit boring. Everybody uses main battle tanks in almost every role, with a few people tossing around light tanks as recon vehicles and IFVs. Previously, things were a lot more diverse. Cruiser tanks, infantry tanks, heavy tanks, flame tanks, breakthrough tanks, fast tanks.

Rather amusingly, the light tank is mostly being replaced these days with the supposedly outdated armored car concept.

Your usage of tank designations really depends on how specialized you want your military to be. If you want a basic 'all rounder' that can do a bit of everything, you probably want something similar to a modern MBT in terms of function. Heavy armor, big gun, decent speed, etc.

I, personally, think that tanks are a bit boring. Powered armor is where its at. You can't put hats on tanks. That would just be silly, after all.

That's what giant mecha are for, and everybody loves giant robots.

[SquareDisc City]

Hey guys, just a question that I've been grappling with for a while here.

For those that don't know my nation, Bentus is borderline PMT/FT and interacts with star-faring empires all the time. The problem is, they never developed proper interstellar (or even interplanetary) space craft as they just spread via Gates they could construct on the ground. They're desperately trying to fix the vulnerability now, but I'm trying to come up with some way to 'force' invaders to at least in part have to put boots on the ground.

My reasoning for this, is that it would just be boring if someone could just pop into orbit and decimate the vulnerable worlds below - there'd be no real fleet to put up a defence or a deterrent. So far I've been depending on OOC understanding to get it done, but I'd really like an IC reason as to why a ground invasion would have to be performed.

So far, I'm thinking shield domes around cities. This would mean orbital bombardment is still a thing, just not in the dense population centers which would have to be struck by atmospheric craft. What do you guys think? Would you hypothetically be willing to RP with something like that?

Considering the tactics and strategy, it's a difficult problem. After all, if the enemy can put boots on the ground they can put bombs on the ground. It would probably feel contrived to have a shield capable of withstanding heavy bombardment from space yet NOT capable of stopping aeroplanes or tanks going through it.

A planet can be credibly defended by ground-side weaponry such as missiles and lasers, along with shields. However, there's not much the defender can do to force ground combat. As discussed a few pages ago, that's more a decision taken by the attacker depending on what they want to do - basically it's orbital bombardment to destroy, boots on the ground to control.

[Oppressorion]

I'll add that if you only shield your cities, all you have is a siege scenario in which the other guy just bombs everything around the city to isolate it. Alternately, if the shield stops at the ground then 'bunker buster' tactics can be used to destroy the city's foundations by attacking diagonally , impacting just outside the shield to cause a shockwave that penetrates under the city.

[Vocenae]

Also take into consideration that many players really enjoy planetside combat and will go out of their way to find reasons to put boots on the ground. It's also much easier to rebuild and begin occupying a conquered planet when the infrastructure is largely intact so again, you don't see the widespread use of Ortillery against targets like cities.

And given how cooperative the FT community is it wouldn't be hard to say 'hey let's have a ground fight' and most players would simply go 'okay that sounds cool'.

[Nyte]

Fleet arrives.
...
Fleet bombs civilization back to the stone age.
...
Fleet leaves.
...

How boring.


In all seriousness though, you're probably better off just working it out with whoever you RP with in an OOC or via TG instead of contriving some IC method designed to prevent it as there really is no defense (that I'm aware of at least) that's 100% effective.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Fleet arrives.
...
Fleet bombs civilization back to the stone age.
...
Fleet leaves.
...

How boring.


In all seriousness though, you're probably better off just working it out with whoever you RP with in an OOC or via TG instead of contriving some IC method designed to prevent it as there really is no defense (that I'm aware of at least) that's 100% effective.

Eh, that wouldn't work until you remove every last inch of the.

[Nyte]

Fleet arrives.
...
Fleet bombs civilization back to the stone age.
...
Fleet leaves.
...

How boring.


In all seriousness though, you're probably better off just working it out with whoever you RP with in an OOC or via TG instead of contriving some IC method designed to prevent it as there really is no defense (that I'm aware of at least) that's 100% effective.

Eh, that wouldn't work until you remove every last inch of the.

every last inch of the ???.

besides, I wasn't being serious with that top bit.

[Avenio]

If you really want an IC reason to work out with others, though, there may be a way to spin it such that it explains both you civ's lack of development of 'normal' interplanetary travel and keep fleets out of orbit; Kessler syndrome on steroids. As an example, you could have some alien fleets duke it out in orbit over your homeworld a suitably recently, with the destruction such that your homeworld's orbital sphere is filled with large, fast-moving debris and free-drifting wrecks. Any rocket or attempt to get into orbit 'normally' would end up with the satellite or orbiter being blown to smithereens by shrapnel, adding yet more debris into the orbit. In the face of that kind of difficulty your scientists could have focused elsewhere and developed the gate technology, and neglected any sort of space ethnology entirely. Plus, any enemy fleet that moves into orbit around your homeworld would be sufficiently inconvenienced by the wall of debris that they may not be able to stay in orbit very long, forcing them to try and land ground troops instead of sitting in the high ground and turning your cities to slag from space.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Eh, that wouldn't work until you remove every last inch of the.

every last inch of the ???.

besides, I wasn't being serious with that top bit.

I hate being a jackass sometimes but really people...

What word would fit there?

I know it could be expanded upon but lets try and cover every possible conclusion.

Its a typo, I don't know personally what could have been added after that.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

If you really want an IC reason to work out with others, though, there may be a way to spin it such that it explains both you civ's lack of development of 'normal' interplanetary travel and keep fleets out of orbit; Kessler syndrome on steroids. As an example, you could have some alien fleets duke it out in orbit over your homeworld a suitably recently, with the destruction such that your homeworld's orbital sphere is filled with large, fast-moving debris and free-drifting wrecks. Any rocket or attempt to get into orbit 'normally' would end up with the satellite or orbiter being blown to smithereens by shrapnel, adding yet more debris into the orbit. In the face of that kind of difficulty your scientists could have focused elsewhere and developed the gate technology, and neglected any sort of space ethnology entirely. Plus, any enemy fleet that moves into orbit around your homeworld would be sufficiently inconvenienced by the wall of debris that they may not be able to stay in orbit very long, forcing them to try and land ground troops instead of sitting in the high ground and turning your cities to slag from space.

:\

Not sure how if it show you worded it or how I envision it, but that makes no sense.

[SquareDisc City]

Plus, any enemy fleet that moves into orbit around your homeworld would be sufficiently inconvenienced by the wall of debris that they may not be able to stay in orbit very long, forcing them to try and land ground troops instead of sitting in the high ground and turning your cities to slag from space.

This falls foul of the issue I previously mentioned: if the attacker can get a troop carrier on the ground, whether it's by flying through the mess or by using teleportation or similar, why can't they get bombs and missiles on the ground the same way?

A planet with its surrounding space nigh-unusuable due to debris is a nice idea in general, but it doesn't plug the potential plot hole Bentus has.

[Avenio]

Plus, any enemy fleet that moves into orbit around your homeworld would be sufficiently inconvenienced by the wall of debris that they may not be able to stay in orbit very long, forcing them to try and land ground troops instead of sitting in the high ground and turning your cities to slag from space.

This falls foul of the issue I previously mentioned: if the attacker can get a troop carrier on the ground, whether it's by flying through the mess or by using teleportation or similar, why can't they get bombs and missiles on the ground the same way?

A planet with its surrounding space nigh-unusuable due to debris is a nice idea in general, but it doesn't plug the potential plot hole Bentus has.

Well, people are a lot less likely to devote the mass and energy necessary to shield munitions like they do troop transports or cargo ships, putting munitions released from orbit at risk of being intercepted by debris and destroyed. Not to mention that if Bentus' cities are already hardened against bombardment, an enemy fleet has to sit in the middle of the debris-riddled orbital sphere of the planet and bombard the targets for long enough to 'crack' them - which may be costly enough that the enemy commanders deem it better to extend force to the planet's surface and bypass the planetary defenses and debris field via a ground assault.

It's not the perfect solution, but it'll work well enough that suspension of disbelief and cooperation should more than cover it.

[Bentus]

Cheers all for the feedback.

I like the super-Kessler idea, hits two birds with one stone. Only problem is I've already done launches from the homeworld, but nothing I can't subtly edit to be from a colony. Although, I'd imagine living on a world with something like that would have all kinds of other side effects.

Considering the tactics and strategy, it's a difficult problem. After all, if the enemy can put boots on the ground they can put bombs on the ground. It would probably feel contrived to have a shield capable of withstanding heavy bombardment from space yet NOT capable of stopping aeroplanes or tanks going through it.

Yeah, that was my number 1 problem hit right on the head. I'm sure a suitable amount of handwavium leviosa could make a shielding idea work out - used often enough in SF. But I just can't come up with a reason why it wouldn't stop men/troops/planes as well, and that irks me .

I'll add that if you only shield your cities, all you have is a siege scenario in which the other guy just bombs everything around the city to isolate it. Alternately, if the shield stops at the ground then 'bunker buster' tactics can be used to destroy the city's foundations by attacking diagonally , impacting just outside the shield to cause a shockwave that penetrates under the city.

I have to admit, never considered that. Heck, I suppose even if you drop a large enough bomb outside the shield the resulting earthquake could cause damage to the unprepared...O.o

In all seriousness though, you're probably better off just working it out with whoever you RP with in an OOC or via TG instead of contriving some IC method designed to prevent it as there really is no defense (that I'm aware of at least) that's 100% effective.

Well put So far that's largely what I've had to do. It's just that such glaring plot holes drive me bonkers - especially when they're my fault. Best solution at my end would be something that's not a perfect defence, but rather something which makes it difficult enough IC that some OOC agreement just seals the deal.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

If anyone be looking for a good place to create short stories or other non-roleplay type content for your nations or Future Tech ideas, there's a new repository in International Incidents called The Compendium to meet your needs. Here's a Link...

I am thinking of making this a place for starting my nation related story, maybe to start it off here in a easy way that I can easily change at time before I submitt a chapter or such at fanfiction.net, is that alright to do?

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

So, how does everyone design their ships?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

So, how does everyone design their ships?

1. Find stats for pre-dreadnought battleships.

2. Double dimensions and number of guns.

3. ???

4. Profit!

[Imperial Nalydya]

So, how does everyone design their ships?

I look at the last generation I had and ask "how would the Pords (IC, of course) improve upon this?"

[The Fedral Union]

So, how does everyone design their ships?

Do you mean visually or do you mean statistically ? You've seen my general stats on that ship thread.. I don't have any set stats its mostly in my head.. Visually I use DOGA.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

So, how does everyone design their ships?

Do you mean visually or do you mean statistically ? You've seen my general stats on that ship thread.. I don't have any set stats its mostly in my head.. Visually I use DOGA.

I mean who do you build them?

[Vocenae]

For the sake of upholding the quality of this thread, I'm going to politely ask that all posters please try to include more than just one sentence of content to your posts. Otherwise, it's largely just chatting which could be done via telegram. Thank you.

As for the question (as I understand it): DOGA is a modelling program. It uses pre-built parts which you then stick together to create a overall larger structure. The link to this program can be found in the Resources section in the OP of this thread. Other people use programs like SketchUp to build 3D models from the ground up. Other people use MSPaint or Paint-like programs to create Lineart of their ships. The link to SketchUp can also be found in the Resources section of this thread. MSPaint should be installed on most peoples computers by default.

After for those who don't try to build their own ships, most people try to find ship styles that match the personality of their nation.

Now, if your question was concerning ship design as a whole, however, it largely comes down to everyone's personal preference and tech. Some people build their ships to be as realistic as possible. Some are basica oblong shapes with most of the surface area being covered by laser blisters. Some, like myself, prefer the more sci-fi approach of ships that may not actually work without significant handwaving, but look damn cool. And so long as no one is abusing it with an RP you'll find that most people simply don't care what your ship looks like.

I, myself, tend to design my ships in DOGA around the philosophy of 'fewer guns that hit twice as hard' and big, slow ships that have lots of armor because I dislike the concept of energy shields. That means my ships are on the larger side and very slow in comparison to other fleets, but what I lack in manuverability and speed I make up for with endurance and stopping power. The vast majority of my ships are also not designed to operate alone, with the heavier tonnage ships such as destroyers and cruisers needing the much faster frigates (compared to destroyers and cruisers) to screen and 'herd' enemy ships into firing range of the big guns. It also means that I typically have to deploy in force because back up will most likely not be coming.

Now, if you meant 'how do you build your ships ICly', well, most people use shipyards. Some people have these shipyards be completely automated, some like to do it all manually, some like to build them planetside, others in space. Like starship design, it all comes down to a personal preference and the tech level that you have chosen to use. Fairly uncomplicated stuff here.

[Dreadful Sagittarius]

As with Voc, I'll try and answer in a wide context as well. OOC'ly, I prefer my ships to be clean-lined, and relatively simple. I'm not very good with 3-d modelling programmes, so instead I make lineart using MSPaint. However, you're not limited to making lineart with that; Paint.net, GIMP and similar can all be used to create similar images or edit ones created in other programmes.

I tend to adopt the view of 'what makes sense for them to build IC'ly, and why?'. Because of that, I've always adopted the view that the older ships from the Trade War era were designed to be specialised, since in a full-scale war there's no point making a jack of all trades; the Sagittarians had a lot of expertise in using caseless kinetic cannons and bad experiences using thin-skinned converted freighters, so they designed the Titan-class with lots of armour and a heavy armament of those same guns. The Xhanese on the other hand had a lot of experience with missiles due to their possession of huge quantities of fissionables, which they used to create fast (and unstable) ships touting heavy missile armament.

To an extent, I've carried on this trend of specialisation for the larger ships, while newer, smaller designs tend to be more 'jack of all trades', since the Nautikon is small enough it can't afford to build an entire fleet dedicated to certain areas. In terms of IC construction methods, manual labour in orbital yards since none of the Nautikon's ships are intended to enter atmosphere directly with the exception of an assault ship.