NationStates

UniversalCommons wrote:Mag Lev Electric Cars
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/224 ... ev-spheres

I am looking at this and trying to figure out how you would make a Maglev Humvee, or even if it is possible to create a super maneuverable light artillery or troop transport.

To be honest as cool as a hover armored fighting vehicles will be in truth wheels and treads are better because not only are they much more simpler to make and as such are cheaper and easier to maintainer, but you will need a lot of power and resources to make a vehicle hover and most of those would be better used on a vehicle with wheels. One could say that a hover vehicle would do well with gun stabilization but even modern gun stabilizers are getting very good with targeting and accuracy and with PMT they would be better.

That is my piece of your going for Hard PMT, otherwise if it's soft than that is a different story.

If you still use wheels, would you use a non-pneumatic wheel system which is supposed to be more durable than regular wheels like a tweel tyre.

UniversalCommons wrote:If you still use wheels, would you use a non-pneumatic wheel system which is supposed to be more durable than regular wheels like a tweel tyre.

No idea.

How tall could a building be? Say with an unlimited budget and PMT technology. Would buildings such as the Tyrell or Wallace corporations be possible?

Ardoki wrote:How tall could a building be? Say with an unlimited budget and PMT technology. Would buildings such as the Tyrell or Wallace corporations be possible?

From a storyline point of view, together with how speculative we're getting as far as building materials, engineering, etc., I'd say yes.

Ardoki wrote:How tall could a building be? Say with an unlimited budget and PMT technology. Would buildings such as the Tyrell or Wallace corporations be possible?

You might want to look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Seed_4000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Tower

Thank you.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. (Imagine if the World Trade Centre had been 800 stories tall. The death toll would have been in the millions.) These tall buildings are not only vulnerable to terrorist attacks, at that height planes could hit them accidentally. On the other hand if your nation is very densely populated, you might have few options for housing them.

Kahanistan wrote:The bigger they are, the harder they fall. (Imagine if the World Trade Centre had been 800 stories tall. The death toll would have been in the millions.) These tall buildings are not only vulnerable to terrorist attacks, at that height planes could hit them accidentally. On the other hand if your nation is very densely populated, you might have few options for housing them.

If you have planes hitting your tallest buildings because your air traffic control is that shitty, I think you have bigger problems.

Kahanistan wrote:The bigger they are, the harder they fall. (Imagine if the World Trade Centre had been 800 stories tall. The death toll would have been in the millions.) These tall buildings are not only vulnerable to terrorist attacks, at that height planes could hit them accidentally. On the other hand if your nation is very densely populated, you might have few options for housing them.

I'm not sure what 'vulnerable' to terrorist attacks means here.

If we're defining it as 'lots of people would die if it were to somehow blow up', then literally every large structure, power plant, and every important facility in the world is 'vulnerable' to terrorist attacks.

There are very few things in the world that would survive being hit by a 747 going at them at full speed. (The common belief is that nuclear power plants can withstand being hit with a plane, which is true, but the 'planes' in question are not actually 747s, but rather smaller aircraft).

The amount of successful incidents where terrorists brought down skyscrapers, in the entire history of there being skyscrapers, is literally just the one. It's not clear to me that such an immensely fascinatingly rare event justifies not building something.

Now I am entirely unsure that buildings of this size are a good idea (there are obvious economic, engineering, social and even psychological problems with buildings of this size). But if it were justified on those grounds, terrorism is not a good enough reason not to build them.

New guide, "How to Go Nuclear in RolePlay:" viewtopic.php?f=5&t=458898

Shimizu Megapyramid is a good example of what might be built. https://trendsideas.com/stories/the-shi ... ty-pyramid

UniversalCommons wrote:Shimizu Megapyramid is a good example of what might be built. https://trendsideas.com/stories/the-shi ... ty-pyramid

Very futuristic.

Btw, any interest in picking the story back up in the expo thread? I know it's been about 6 months, no idea why I fell off the wagon there.

The Macabees wrote:

UniversalCommons wrote:Shimizu Megapyramid is a good example of what might be built. https://trendsideas.com/stories/the-shi ... ty-pyramid

Very futuristic.

Btw, any interest in picking the story back up in the expo thread? I know it's been about 6 months, no idea why I fell off the wagon there.

Sure, I can do that.

UniversalCommons wrote:Shimizu Megapyramid is a good example of what might be built. https://trendsideas.com/stories/the-shi ... ty-pyramid

I remember hearing about these in this video some time ago. Pretty neat, and pretty fun to theorize about. I did think of the time whether to play around with these in Kylarnatia (since I'm an Egyptologist, and love to plug that when I can lel), so this has reminded me. :3

My nation makes heavy use of Ultra Heavy Battle Tanks, and I'm wondering how to make it plausible for them to move. My UHBTs, called Land Dreadnoughts, are roughly the size of a Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier, and I'm not sure how to make anything of that size move on land reliably. It doesn't need to be fast, but it needs to be able to move long distances, even if it takes a long time. They're mainly used for attacking important locations and essentially serve as a combined artillery platform and mobile base, so keep their battlefield role in mind.

(Thematically, I mainly want individual vehicles that are strong enough to make a major difference in large-scale land battles, similar to the role of battleships or aircraft carriers in naval battles.)

First American Empire wrote:My nation makes heavy use of Ultra Heavy Battle Tanks, and I'm wondering how to make it plausible for them to move. My UHBTs, called Land Dreadnoughts, are roughly the size of a Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier, and I'm not sure how to make anything of that size move on land reliably. It doesn't need to be fast, but it needs to be able to move long distances, even if it takes a long time. They're mainly used for attacking important locations and essentially serve as a combined artillery platform and mobile base, so keep their battlefield role in mind.

(Thematically, I mainly want individual vehicles that are strong enough to make a major difference in large-scale land battles, similar to the role of battleships or aircraft carriers in naval battles.)

Given the scale considerations you are taking into account, I suggest starting your research here. Before you get too deep into this matter, bear in mind that gigantic vehicles like what you are describing tend to lack mobility and cannot function well in wet, soft, or jagged terrain. They also make for big, easy-to-hit targets that cannot be camouflaged because of their scale.

Well, there is really a bigger problem which is rarely addressed:

What weapons systems do those UHBTs carry that justify them being this huge?

That's to say, in the real world, combat vehicles are obviously kept as small as possible for them to be and still fulfil their military role.

IRL, even enormous weapons (such as ICBMs) can be carried on vehicles. The Topol-M, which is a 47-ton, intercontinental missile, can be carried on what's effectively just a fairly large truck.

But there is, of course, a way out.

The world's largest terrestrial vehicles are the Bagger 293 and its sibling excavators. Those are 14,000 tons in weight [a Zumwalt destroyer is just under 16,000 tons].

Now, it's true that they're slow as molasses (under 1 kph!), but one can imagine an enormous engineering vehicle being deployed for some obscure use by an army. It might also house a headquarters, or for other reasons be very important.

Of course that's not exactly a tank per se, but I hope you appreciate the difficulties with a tank on that scale.

EDIT: I just realized I posted this post in the wrong thread but it does not appear to be hurting anything.

Folks, I know this thread has been a bit sleepy with the academic year coming to a head. After a brief telegram exchange with Ghant, I would like to get this conversation moving again by addressing a specific technical matter: integrating IC messages into an RP post in a manner that appears natural and unforced. We all probably know one or more people who RP by communiqué but choose not to include and narration or dialogue that provides context for the message or packages it in any particular way.

In trying to determine why some RPers have this habit, I settled upon a few different theories that might offer plausible explanations. One is that some RPers feel they can compress the “gist” of their side’s IC actions into a memo, E-mail, letter, etc. and that contextual material is more about presentation than substance. Another is that some RPers are simply pressed for time and feel that they can always write and post other information later. A third is that some RPers are just unaccustomed to integrating narration and communiqués into a single post because they often see the latter posted as standalone posts. I for one believe that my first and third theories are especially pertinent to diplomatic exchange threads and multilateral organization threads.

One question I have for this discussion group is: Do any of these scenarios apply to you? If so, what are some reasons why you RP the way you do? What theories do you have regarding this issue? If you are somebody who likes to integrate communiqués into your narratives and provide lots of IC context for them, what are some of the methods you employ to aid your writing process and make your storytelling technique effective? What advice would you give someone trying to learn how to integrate IC messages into an RP post?

In describing my own RPing experience, I often like to think of IC messages as the result (i.e. output) of a set of IC events that precede them. In other words, characters write messages in response to some thing or another and simply posting a communiqué without RPing the sequence of events that result in its creation is like delivering a punchline without a joke. For example, when a country called Allardt initiated a church-building program, I made a point of RPing the plot points that led up to one of my characters writing an E-mail to a journalist in Allardt. This is not to say that writing a letter or memo or E-mail as a standalone post is never appropriate. Here is one example and here is another. There are also times when communiqués are a popular way to respond to an event but various alternative responses (like a press conference) are equally valid.

Given the points I have raised thus far, what are some thoughts the rest of you have on this issue?

I'd say that the first and third scenarios do apply to me as well. I know I should probably rp how my leaders got to the point where they decide diplomatic communication is the way to go. It gives context. But, and this is going to sound bad, I get lazy sometimes. I'm so focused on getting to the endgoal of whatever the rp is that I sometimes ignore the details that go into those types of decisions.

Edit: If you have any advice on how to deal with this I am more than willing to listen!

Advice you shall receive.

Fleshing out your post gives more then just context it builds lore which will be useful for more lazy in the future. Lore is beyond useful in build how your characters and nation will act and react in a given situation. Its makes writing more in depth posts easier by building upon the past for a stronger future.

Antonia wrote:I'd say that the first and third scenarios do apply to me as well. I know I should probably rp how my leaders got to the point where they decide diplomatic communication is the way to go. It gives context. But, and this is going to sound bad, I get lazy sometimes. I'm so focused on getting to the endgoal of whatever the rp is that I sometimes ignore the details that go into those types of decisions.

Edit: If you have any advice on how to deal with this I am more than willing to listen!

I think Raven Corps just answered your request for advice pretty well, but I will add in my own thoughts as well. The narration (and to a somewhat lesser extent, dialogue) that goes into an IC post is often useful for introducing new characters and settings or developing existing ones, but it is also useful for explaining how the institutions making up the government of your NS nation interact with one another and make decisions. More broadly, it reveals things about the kind of society that exists in your part of the NS world.

Raven corps wrote:Advice you shall receive.

Fleshing out your post gives more then just context it builds lore which will be useful for more lazy in the future. Lore is beyond useful in build how your characters and nation will act and react in a given situation. Its makes writing more in depth posts easier by building upon the past for a stronger future.

In a long-term sense, lore production is definitely worthwhile as established lore is a gift that keeps on giving. Investing in lore is much like investing in a portfolio of securities; the bigger the amount of principal you have invested, the more dividends it pays down the road. In a short-term sense, you need characters and institutions to make IC decisions and advance the plot of your IC thread. Having the same handful of characters do everything can get stale after a while and it helps to invest some effort into introducing new people into the mix as time passes.

I do have a question for this thread, if I could receive some advice regarding it:

Outside of FTL technology, where would you say PMT ends and FT begins? What other technologies would you say are "hard FT", and would thus disqualify someone from being PMT, regardless of other technology in use?

Additionally, are there any existing technologies viewed as outdated enough that you would say their mere inclusion would automatically disqualify someone from being FT, and have them at PMT at the most? If so, what are those technologies?

And, if a nation has both a technology that you believe is "hard FT", but also a technology that you believe disqualifies them from being FT, what would you say their TL is?

I understand the line between these PMT and FT is quite naturally blurry at the best of times; the OP addresses this somewhat, and does directly point out that different people have different definitions. I'm not asking for hard definitions, but rather to have a better understanding of what some of the people who actively roleplay PMT nations think. This is about gathering opinions.

The Hell Legions wrote:I do have a question for this thread, if I could receive some advice regarding it:

Outside of FTL technology, where would you say PMT ends and FT begins? What other technologies would you say are "hard FT", and would thus disqualify someone from being PMT, regardless of other technology in use?

Additionally, are there any existing technologies viewed as outdated enough that you would say their mere inclusion would automatically disqualify someone from being FT, and have them at PMT at the most? If so, what are those technologies?

And, if a nation has both a technology that you believe is "hard FT", but also a technology that you believe disqualifies them from being FT, what would you say their TL is?

I understand the line between these PMT and FT is quite naturally blurry at the best of times; the OP addresses this somewhat, and does directly point out that different people have different definitions. I'm not asking for hard definitions, but rather to have a better understanding of what some of the people who actively roleplay PMT nations think. This is about gathering opinions.

While I am no technical expert on this subject, I can state with certainty that there are things that qualify strictly as FT (e.g. interstellar and FTL travel, wormhole technology, deep space colonization, transference of consciousness between bodies, time travel, seemingly indestructible materials, some varieties of man-portable directed-energy weaponry, etc.) Artificial general intelligence, wireless power transmission, weather control, certain categories of high-performance materials, vehicle levitation technology, widespread use of thorium power, orbital kinetic bombardment systems featuring large payloads, lunar colonization, widespread railgun use, and technologies of comparable advancement typically qualify as PMT. I realize this is a lackluster answer, but I hope it is sufficiently useful to serve as a starting point.

The State of Monavia wrote:

The Hell Legions wrote:I do have a question for this thread, if I could receive some advice regarding it:

Outside of FTL technology, where would you say PMT ends and FT begins? What other technologies would you say are "hard FT", and would thus disqualify someone from being PMT, regardless of other technology in use?

Additionally, are there any existing technologies viewed as outdated enough that you would say their mere inclusion would automatically disqualify someone from being FT, and have them at PMT at the most? If so, what are those technologies?

And, if a nation has both a technology that you believe is "hard FT", but also a technology that you believe disqualifies them from being FT, what would you say their TL is?

I understand the line between these PMT and FT is quite naturally blurry at the best of times; the OP addresses this somewhat, and does directly point out that different people have different definitions. I'm not asking for hard definitions, but rather to have a better understanding of what some of the people who actively roleplay PMT nations think. This is about gathering opinions.

While I am no technical expert on this subject, I can state with certainty that there are things that qualify strictly as FT (e.g. interstellar and FTL travel, wormhole technology, deep space colonization, transference of consciousness between bodies, time travel, seemingly indestructible materials, some varieties of man-portable directed-energy weaponry, etc.) Artificial general intelligence, wireless power transmission, weather control, certain categories of high-performance materials, vehicle levitation technology, widespread use of thorium power, orbital kinetic bombardment systems featuring large payloads, lunar colonization, widespread railgun use, and technologies of comparable advancement typically qualify as PMT. I realize this is a lackluster answer, but I hope it is sufficiently useful to serve as a starting point.

It was at least a decent starting point for additional questions. Thank you.

Part of this is me also trying to figure out where my weird-ass nation actually falls other than the obvious FanT elements; as I see it FanT doesn't so much describe the technology as it does a facet of the setting, there's still a separate technology level, regardless of if that technology is magitech or not. Having nations that are difficult to figure out the TL of are becoming something of a normal occurrence for me. (Another one is nigh impossible to figure out the TL of as they've scavenged from ancient civilizations of various different TLs, but can't make the stuff themselves, so depending on how someone viewed it, they could be anything from PT to potentially FFT.) That said, if anyone else wishes to discuss this beyond what I've presented, that's great. I hope my questions can help other people too.

If a nation did possess one or more the technologies you do describe as strictly FT, but possessed few to none of the other usual trappings of FT (e.g. any space program at all, let alone interstellar travel or space colonies) and only possessed those particular FT technologies with none of the other, and in fact still used many lower tech options that are comparatively MT (e.g. mass producing the FN FAL rifle for its allies, a real life weapon that was considered new back in '53, and this is not a case of a purposefully anachronistic nation like steampunk, dieselpunk, or atompunk nations), would this modify where you'd say their TL is by any chance, or does possessing any of the above listed "FT technologies" automatically disqualify the nation in question from being anything but FT no matter what other circumstances are?

Again, just trying to get a grasp of things here. I may have been here a while (this site, not this thread, though with various nations) but TLs are still kind of weird sometimes, even if the are very helpful.