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

[Sunset]

Pronoun

ey ‎(third-person singular, epicene, nominative case, accusative em, possessive adjective eir, possessive noun eirs, reflexive emself)

(neologism) they (singular). Gender-neutral third-person singular subject pronoun, coordinate with gendered pronouns he and she.

Add Mx. for Mr./Mrs. Pronounced as written.

[Ularn]

So it's been a while and I wanna get back into NSFT. Are there any open RPs people would suggest I could take a minor role in to ease my way back?

[Neornith]

So it's been a while and I wanna get back into NSFT. Are there any open RPs people would suggest I could take a minor role in to ease my way back?

First off welcome back to NSFT, I don't really think the Advice Thread is a proper venue for trying to find others for RP, however if you stop by #NSLegion there's usually players up for RP, you just have to keep in mind that activity in the channel an intermittent thing so patience is appreciated

[The Fedral Union]

So it's been a while and I wanna get back into NSFT. Are there any open RPs people would suggest I could take a minor role in to ease my way back?

First off welcome back to NSFT, I don't really think the Advice Thread is a proper venue for trying to find others for RP, however if you stop by #NSLegion there's usually players up for RP, you just have to keep in mind that activity in the channel an intermittent thing so patience is appreciated

That and you can poke about the forum; plenty of threads between page 1 and 3. Also TLC would be a place to garner an rp or few.

[Ularn]

First off welcome back to NSFT, I don't really think the Advice Thread is a proper venue for trying to find others for RP, however if you stop by #NSLegion there's usually players up for RP, you just have to keep in mind that activity in the channel an intermittent thing so patience is appreciated

That and you can poke about the forum; plenty of threads between page 1 and 3. Also TLC would be a place to garner an rp or few.

Thanks guys. It's been a few years so I wasn't sure if the IRCs were running and didn't find many promising results from doing a search for 'FT' on the forum so I figured just asking was a safe bet. I'll go for another trawl.

[Kyrusia]

That and you can poke about the forum; plenty of threads between page 1 and 3. Also TLC would be a place to garner an rp or few.

Thanks guys. It's been a few years so I wasn't sure if the IRCs were running and didn't find many promising results from doing a search for 'FT' on the forum so I figured just asking was a safe bet. I'll go for another trawl.

Your best bet is probably either through one of the IRC channels listed in the original post, the RP Think Tank, and/or through utilization of The Local Cluster (and/or one of its affiliated outlets) which fairly regularly has roleplay discussions ongoing gameside.

Hope that helps, and welcome back, Ularn.

[The Crimisonian Union]

So I'm new to this FT stuff. I'm in a new region with region buddies of mine, and in creating a group of 3 planets. Two of them are desert like planets, and one is a small plains planet. My planets do a lot of shipping, a lot of shipping. I have no idea on how to even begin creating a space navy, make pictures, or create a army besides the fact that I'm going go design my military around open combat that's not hindered by forests, mountiains etc. so what should I do?

[Ularn]

So I'm new to this FT stuff. I'm in a new region with region buddies of mine, and in creating a group of 3 planets. Two of them are desert like planets, and one is a small plains planet. My planets do a lot of shipping, a lot of shipping. I have no idea on how to even begin creating a space navy, make pictures, or create a army besides the fact that I'm going go design my military around open combat that's not hindered by forests, mountiains etc. so what should I do?

I don't think that would work. The last time anyone really fought large scale battles on an open field was France during World War 1 and the modern weapons of the time turned it into a mutual slaughter and stalemate where neither side could move outside their trenches. The creation of the machine gun and accurate rifles made it impossible for infantry to fight without cover. Tanks ended that stalemate by essentially providing mobile cover but today the use of tanks in that role has effectively been negated by the rise of effective anti-tank weapons. This would be even more evident in the future where the possibility of orbital bombardment leaves forces on an open field even more exposed.

Essentially, the best advice I think I can give about designing an army for open combat is don't.. If you must do it though, you'll need long range weapons; every infantryman' gonna pretty much have to be the equivalent of a modern designated marksman. You'll need a lot of artillery to shell the crap out of the exposed enemy, and some means of concealing your own forces despite the lack of cover. By now what you've essentially created is a WWI scenario again but with longer ranged weapons, and I still don't see a way to deter an enemy from just dropping straight into your cities and seizinf them while your troops are set up in the middle of a field or desert or whatever,

[Tierra Prime]

So I'm new to this FT stuff. I'm in a new region with region buddies of mine, and in creating a group of 3 planets. Two of them are desert like planets, and one is a small plains planet. My planets do a lot of shipping, a lot of shipping. I have no idea on how to even begin creating a space navy, make pictures, or create a army besides the fact that I'm going go design my military around open combat that's not hindered by forests, mountiains etc. so what should I do?

I don't think that would work. The last time anyone really fought large scale battles on an open field was France during World War 1 and the modern weapons of the time turned it into a mutual slaughter and stalemate where neither side could move outside their trenches. The creation of the machine gun and accurate rifles made it impossible for infantry to fight without cover. Tanks ended that stalemate by essentially providing mobile cover but today the use of tanks in that role has effectively been negated by the rise of effective anti-tank weapons. This would be even more evident in the future where the possibility of orbital bombardment leaves forces on an open field even more exposed.

Essentially, the best advice I think I can give about designing an army for open combat is don't.. If you must do it though, you'll need long range weapons; every infantryman' gonna pretty much have to be the equivalent of a modern designated marksman. You'll need a lot of artillery to shell the crap out of the exposed enemy, and some means of concealing your own forces despite the lack of cover. By now what you've essentially created is a WWI scenario again but with longer ranged weapons, and I still don't see a way to deter an enemy from just dropping straight into your cities and seizinf them while your troops are set up in the middle of a field or desert or whatever,

Power armoured soldiers in titanium-reinforced bunkers and trenches getting sniped by troops five kilometres away?

[Ularn]

I don't think that would work. The last time anyone really fought large scale battles on an open field was France during World War 1 and the modern weapons of the time turned it into a mutual slaughter and stalemate where neither side could move outside their trenches. The creation of the machine gun and accurate rifles made it impossible for infantry to fight without cover. Tanks ended that stalemate by essentially providing mobile cover but today the use of tanks in that role has effectively been negated by the rise of effective anti-tank weapons. This would be even more evident in the future where the possibility of orbital bombardment leaves forces on an open field even more exposed.

Essentially, the best advice I think I can give about designing an army for open combat is don't.. If you must do it though, you'll need long range weapons; every infantryman' gonna pretty much have to be the equivalent of a modern designated marksman. You'll need a lot of artillery to shell the crap out of the exposed enemy, and some means of concealing your own forces despite the lack of cover. By now what you've essentially created is a WWI scenario again but with longer ranged weapons, and I still don't see a way to deter an enemy from just dropping straight into your cities and seizinf them while your troops are set up in the middle of a field or desert or whatever,

Power armoured soldiers in titanium-reinforced bunkers and trenches getting sniped by troops five kilometres away?

If they're going to achieve anything, those soldiers are going to have to leave the bunker eventually at which point yes, it just becomes an edge of horizon snipefest

[Lubyak]

So I'm new to this FT stuff. I'm in a new region with region buddies of mine, and in creating a group of 3 planets. Two of them are desert like planets, and one is a small plains planet. My planets do a lot of shipping, a lot of shipping. I have no idea on how to even begin creating a space navy, make pictures, or create a army besides the fact that I'm going go design my military around open combat that's not hindered by forests, mountiains etc. so what should I do?

The key question when making a military is always the following: What is the military's job? Escorting convoys? Projecting power? Protecting the homeland? Once you've determined that, you can start looking into your geopolitical situation, aka 'Who and where you will fight.' Will you be fighting your neighbours across a mountain range? Or perhaps on an open plain far far away? Be sure to factor in things like culture as well. A culture where military service is lauded and seen as a fruitful career will have a much different military compared to one that views warfare with great distaste. SImilarly, a culture steeped in individualism will craft a different military from a more collectivised society. The amount the people are willing to sacrifice in the name of 'security' will also have a deep effect on the kind of military you have.

Once you've decided what job your military has, who and where its meant to be fighting, and the kind of society backing it up, try and see if there are any historical countries similar to you that might have some kind of clue. The technology of war changes, but Caesar, Napoleon, and Guderian all needed to consider the same mountains and rivers, so they might have some lessons for you.

You mentioned that you have to escort a lot of merchant shipping, so already I'm imagining a fleet more focused on lighter escort vessels, combined with a smaller number of quick 'rapid response' ships to provide 'distant cover' to their convoys. The Royal Navy in the 20th century seems like a good thing to examine for this. A large battle fleet that can force enemy raiders to concentrate rather than sortie individually might also be interesting. An army that tends to operate in large scale open terrain will likely be very heavily mechanised, and rely very heavily on manuver. There won't be 'lines' of defence, but rather individual strongpoints. Whether those strongpoints are so strong that they can only be reduced by long siege, or are weak enough to be overrun by mobile firepower is up to you.

As for pictures, I draw my ships in MS Paint. I sketch them on paper first, then draw them up in paint once I've decided on the general look and layout. Takes some practice, but you can get there eventually.

In the end, everything is up to you. FT is speculative, so you can make anything you want. I have space line infantry launching bayonet charges, while space fighters and bomber zoom around capital ships firing flak bursts to ward them off, while engaging their opponents in big gun duels. FT is all about co-operation, so whatever you come up with is fine, so long as you co-operate with your fellow players to tell a good story.

[Lubyak]

So I'm new to this FT stuff. I'm in a new region with region buddies of mine, and in creating a group of 3 planets. Two of them are desert like planets, and one is a small plains planet. My planets do a lot of shipping, a lot of shipping. I have no idea on how to even begin creating a space navy, make pictures, or create a army besides the fact that I'm going go design my military around open combat that's not hindered by forests, mountiains etc. so what should I do?

I don't think that would work. The last time anyone really fought large scale battles on an open field was France during World War 1 and the modern weapons of the time turned it into a mutual slaughter and stalemate where neither side could move outside their trenches. The creation of the machine gun and accurate rifles made it impossible for infantry to fight without cover. Tanks ended that stalemate by essentially providing mobile cover but today the use of tanks in that role has effectively been negated by the rise of effective anti-tank weapons. This would be even more evident in the future where the possibility of orbital bombardment leaves forces on an open field even more exposed.

Essentially, the best advice I think I can give about designing an army for open combat is don't.. If you must do it though, you'll need long range weapons; every infantryman' gonna pretty much have to be the equivalent of a modern designated marksman. You'll need a lot of artillery to shell the crap out of the exposed enemy, and some means of concealing your own forces despite the lack of cover. By now what you've essentially created is a WWI scenario again but with longer ranged weapons, and I still don't see a way to deter an enemy from just dropping straight into your cities and seizinf them while your troops are set up in the middle of a field or desert or whatever,

I would think World War II and the massive armoured operations of the Eastern Front qualify as open field warfare. Both the Soviets and NATO planned open warfare for the Cold War, and open field warfare was waged in the Gulf. It all depends on what his tech is like: does defense or offensive overpower? Are his shields/armour/weapons powerful enough to resist long range attacks, are long ranged weapons so powerful anything that shows itself is obliterated, does some tech or another somehow limit the capability of ranged weapons (e.g. Dune, early modern warfare)? All these questions depend on his own canon of tech. The same situation described can generate massive supertanks shrugging off shells until they're close enough to be effective, a resurgence of ranged combat, or things scuttling about beneath cloaks/cover to avoid being obliterated. Similarly, his cities could be so heavily fortified they['d require a long siege to capture, or they could be stormed with ease.

What you describes presumed a continuation of the current MT superiority of mobile firepower over fortifications into FT, but technology can be whatever the player wants it to be in FT. It's not like MT where one has a fixed set of rules about what's possible and what's not, nor what technology is feasible. We can do anything in FT, so when you're making a military, I would say: be less concerned with 'realism', be more concerned with consistency, and making it fun to write about.

[Tierra Prime]

Just as an example of a FT siege, I remember a Star Wars EU novel that I've long since forgotten the name of mentioning that a well-shielded city could easily withstand sustained bombardment for eight months.

My attitude towards combat tends to be fluid. I've portrayed trench battles, planetary sieges, and blitzkriegs all in the same thread. For me, it largely depends on the terrain and what kind of history I'm reading at the time.

[Ularn]

Just as an example of a FT siege, I remember a Star Wars EU novel that I've long since forgotten the name of mentioning that a well-shielded city could easily withstand sustained bombardment for eight months.

My attitude towards combat tends to be fluid. I've portrayed trench battles, planetary sieges, and blitzkriegs all in the same thread. For me, it largely depends on the terrain and what kind of history I'm reading at the time.

I'd originally been writing my forces using more or less conventional modern-day infantry tactics with more powerful weapons. This time around I'm thinking about doing a sort of reboot with them developing Starship Troopers-esque power armour (from the book, not the films heresy) and individual soldiers each controlling a fireteam's worth of drones (kind of like what the Warhammer 40,000 Tau have; infantry weapons wielded by flying saucers) with their brains. Essentially, a single fireteam of troops could bring an old platoon's worth of firepower to bear and project it over an area they'd previously need a company to hold.

For combat doctrine I'm picturing fire-and manoeuvre on a much larger scale. When you can scale a mountain in seconds with a jump pack, that mountain becomes effective cover; marines would use entire ranges like a modern soldier would use a wall, sniping over the top with homing missiles while sending her drones to flank and surround an enemy location maybe two kilometres away.

[The United Remnants of America]

I've returned with wisdom.

Now that I've seen it first-hand, I see why we shun newbies who attempt to RP the super-hivemind-bug-omggonnakillyouwithnumbers FT nation.

I understand. They need cleansed.

[The Crimisonian Union]

I don't think that would work. The last time anyone really fought large scale battles on an open field was France during World War 1 and the modern weapons of the time turned it into a mutual slaughter and stalemate where neither side could move outside their trenches. The creation of the machine gun and accurate rifles made it impossible for infantry to fight without cover. Tanks ended that stalemate by essentially providing mobile cover but today the use of tanks in that role has effectively been negated by the rise of effective anti-tank weapons. This would be even more evident in the future where the possibility of orbital bombardment leaves forces on an open field even more exposed.

Essentially, the best advice I think I can give about designing an army for open combat is don't.. If you must do it though, you'll need long range weapons; every infantryman' gonna pretty much have to be the equivalent of a modern designated marksman. You'll need a lot of artillery to shell the crap out of the exposed enemy, and some means of concealing your own forces despite the lack of cover. By now what you've essentially created is a WWI scenario again but with longer ranged weapons, and I still don't see a way to deter an enemy from just dropping straight into your cities and seizinf them while your troops are set up in the middle of a field or desert or whatever,

I would think World War II and the massive armoured operations of the Eastern Front qualify as open field warfare. Both the Soviets and NATO planned open warfare for the Cold War, and open field warfare was waged in the Gulf. It all depends on what his tech is like: does defense or offensive overpower? Are his shields/armour/weapons powerful enough to resist long range attacks, are long ranged weapons so powerful anything that shows itself is obliterated, does some tech or another somehow limit the capability of ranged weapons (e.g. Dune, early modern warfare)? All these questions depend on his own canon of tech. The same situation described can generate massive supertanks shrugging off shells until they're close enough to be effective, a resurgence of ranged combat, or things scuttling about beneath cloaks/cover to avoid being obliterated. Similarly, his cities could be so heavily fortified they['d require a long siege to capture, or they could be stormed with ease.

What you describes presumed a continuation of the current MT superiority of mobile firepower over fortifications into FT, but technology can be whatever the player wants it to be in FT. It's not like MT where one has a fixed set of rules about what's possible and what's not, nor what technology is feasible. We can do anything in FT, so when you're making a military, I would say: be less concerned with 'realism', be more concerned with consistency, and making it fun to write about.

Ok. I have yet to discover the other players in the galaxy, but they will be discovering a abandoned rebel outpost. Basically what happened is a corporation from the Union attempted to buy a rental property in Xe, the smallest planet in our Union, and Xe revolted, killing the rep's and destroying the building, then going on a rampage killing any Union citizen in their planet. The Union thus declared war, and invaded Xe. After a very long hard fight we won the war. Now my military is preoccupied with 3 things: 1. Quelling rebellions in Xe, 2. Protecting my shipping routes, 3. Protecting our dwarf planets. In this region we came up with a idea for FTL travel, where these streams of Tachyon exist in space, which help propel ships. Some use tubes go harvest the energy, others use sails, I was thinking of charges rods collecting the energy into our engines.

[The Crimisonian Union]

So I'm new to this FT stuff. I'm in a new region with region buddies of mine, and in creating a group of 3 planets. Two of them are desert like planets, and one is a small plains planet. My planets do a lot of shipping, a lot of shipping. I have no idea on how to even begin creating a space navy, make pictures, or create a army besides the fact that I'm going go design my military around open combat that's not hindered by forests, mountiains etc. so what should I do?

The key question when making a military is always the following: What is the military's job? Escorting convoys? Projecting power? Protecting the homeland? Once you've determined that, you can start looking into your geopolitical situation, aka 'Who and where you will fight.' Will you be fighting your neighbours across a mountain range? Or perhaps on an open plain far far away? Be sure to factor in things like culture as well. A culture where military service is lauded and seen as a fruitful career will have a much different military compared to one that views warfare with great distaste. SImilarly, a culture steeped in individualism will craft a different military from a more collectivised society. The amount the people are willing to sacrifice in the name of 'security' will also have a deep effect on the kind of military you have.

Once you've decided what job your military has, who and where its meant to be fighting, and the kind of society backing it up, try and see if there are any historical countries similar to you that might have some kind of clue. The technology of war changes, but Caesar, Napoleon, and Guderian all needed to consider the same mountains and rivers, so they might have some lessons for you.

You mentioned that you have to escort a lot of merchant shipping, so already I'm imagining a fleet more focused on lighter escort vessels, combined with a smaller number of quick 'rapid response' ships to provide 'distant cover' to their convoys. The Royal Navy in the 20th century seems like a good thing to examine for this. A large battle fleet that can force enemy raiders to concentrate rather than sortie individually might also be interesting. An army that tends to operate in large scale open terrain will likely be very heavily mechanised, and rely very heavily on manuver. There won't be 'lines' of defence, but rather individual strongpoints. Whether those strongpoints are so strong that they can only be reduced by long siege, or are weak enough to be overrun by mobile firepower is up to you.

As for pictures, I draw my ships in MS Paint. I sketch them on paper first, then draw them up in paint once I've decided on the general look and layout. Takes some practice, but you can get there eventually.

In the end, everything is up to you. FT is speculative, so you can make anything you want. I have space line infantry launching bayonet charges, while space fighters and bomber zoom around capital ships firing flak bursts to ward them off, while engaging their opponents in big gun duels. FT is all about co-operation, so whatever you come up with is fine, so long as you co-operate with your fellow players to tell a good story.

I do most everything on mobile, so I'm assuming I can use art studio. My country is run by mega corporations, put into power by having stock value. 10 corporations and 2 people's unions run the country. The people's unions are in place to balance the power. Strange, I know. So they are very individualistic. Most of my peoples ancestors were nomads, and a large portion of the population live that way. The city dwellers still retain many traditions. So I will most likely have a smaller more quality force of soldiers.

[The Free Worlds League]

So it's been a while and I wanna get back into NSFT. Are there any open RPs people would suggest I could take a minor role in to ease my way back?

I'm interested to see you back at the same time I pop in here to make a similar inquiry. It was your Plague Ship rp that initially got me into FT years ago, but I transitioned into MT and had been there since with my other nation.

[Genomita]

I'm currently in a bit of a dilemma and I was hoping you might help me with the decision. You see, up until now my nation's technology has established as completely organic, including the ships, weapons and even the clothing. However, I've always tried to keep my organic technology plausible, there are just some things you can't really do with biotech without going far to the soft side of the sci fi hardness scale, so I was thinking about wether or not the Genomitans should integrate some variety of what we might consider "conventional tech" into their own. It would still be largely organic and they wouldn't replace anything vital (no artificial organs or limbs, for example), but they might look for ways to harmonically integrate sensors, additional armor or nanotechnology into their biotech, blending the two in such a that it might be difficult to tell one from the other. This would present a number of interesting roleplaying advantages and disadvantages:

+Adding some amout of conventional tech, even in small amounts might add some plausibility to their brand of biotech,
+Since purely organic technology is often associated with things like hordes of alien locusts or malevolent hive minds, some amount of CT might take away from the "alien-ness" at first encounter. Since my nation is rather diplomatic, getting a chance to explain yourself before the natives open fire at you because they mistook you for the zerg would certainly be preferable.
+Adding to the point above, making their tech less alien to members of other groups would both allow for easier integration of immigrants (the 'noms are always happy to accept the willing) AND help my people find their way around on habitats created by other species without looking like idiots(What do you mean "what's a button?").
+As somebody pointed out to me, purely organic ships are highly unlikely to survive in combat against CT ships, no matter how well adapted they may be. Some added CT technology (additional armor plating that, while it cannot be regrown can be repaired later, perhaps even with materials salvaged from enemy ships, sensors, ship shields of some kind, things like that). They won't suddenly have onboard FTL, but they might learn a few new tricks to even the odds.

-Adding CT would increase the reliance on conventional materials as well, most of which are usually gained by mining or other environmentally harmful means. Since my people are really big on protecting the environment and living in symbiosis with their surroundings that would mean a greater reliance on trade with other nations (though that might also add some plausibility and provide roleplaying opportunities).

I'm sure there are others, but I'd love to hear your input as well. The main point is that my tech will still be largely organic, but with some CT integrated in harmonic ways. I think both the harmony affinity from Civ: beyond earth and the Tohaa from the Infinity tabletop game might be good sources of inspiration here, though I think both sides came from the other side of things (that is, starting with CT and adapting organic technology over time). I'd also appreciate other sources of inspiration to look into ^^

[Source Swarm]

Does a von Nuemann machine that doesn't self-replicate if doing so is unnecessary or if insufficient resources are available make sense as a thing?

I'm picturing a sort of pop-capped VNM that only makes more copies of itself if the current population is under-cap or it suddenly gains access to new resources.

[The United Dominion]

Does a von Nuemann machine that doesn't self-replicate if doing so is unnecessary or if insufficient resources are available make sense as a thing?

I'm picturing a sort of pop-capped VNM that only makes more copies of itself if the current population is under-cap or it suddenly gains access to new resources.

Yes; really, it makes more sense as a thing than the more often portrayed alternative (which is, I guess, more dramatic). The main question, though, is how are you going to RP this? What stories can you write with this? What are your characters going to be and how are you going to portray them?

[Vocenae]

Here is a question.

In the video game Call of Duty: Ghosts (hold the jokes and derision, please), the last level of the game takes place on board a suspended mag-lev (I think) train, where the cars hang down and swing freely back and forth on hydraulics and what not. It looked pretty cool, and in the end that, along with consistency of your setting (as I prefer clunk and things that feel real over inundating my nation with hovertrains, flying cars, transporters, etc), cool is really all that matters, but what would the benefits of this type of train be as opposed to having a normal, on the ground maglev trains or trains on an elevated platform?

[Nyte]

Here is a question.

In the video game Call of Duty: Ghosts (hold the jokes and derision, please), the last level of the game takes place on board a suspended mag-lev (I think) train, where the cars hang down and swing freely back and forth on hydraulics and what not. It looked pretty cool, and in the end that, along with consistency of your setting (as I prefer clunk and things that feel real over inundating my nation with hovertrains, flying cars, transporters, etc), cool is really all that matters, but what would the benefits of this type of train be as opposed to having a normal, on the ground maglev trains or trains on an elevated platform?

Off the top of my head, I can see a few benefits to safety. If the train is suspended from above, and swings freely, a fallen pedestrian is less likely to get stuck on a track and run over if they fall or are pushed, or between a platform wall and the train (like in this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hplpVs-b6A) because the freedom of movement could allow for not only more room under and around the train, but could also allow for the train to slide over to where your waiting pedestrians are and not leave a gap big enough for someone to have an accident. If said train is capable of rising up and down, it could also cut down on train assisted suicides by running up above the platform where its path is inaccessible to pedestrians, and it can simply be lowered after coming to a stop to let passengers on and off.

[Vocenae]

Well, I'm not overly concerned with people safety. After all, people are a renewable resource.

My question is more for heavy freight, commercial/industrial hauling than just simple transportation.

[The V O I D]

This is probably a stupid question, but what is the most 'powerful' an Artificial Superintelligence / A.S.I. / A.I. / Strong A.I. / Full A.I.?
And where is the limit before using A.I. becomes overpowered? Just wondering.