Advice Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Arthropoda Ingens]

[*]When compared to drones, the main difference is that even with full AI, it is the human aspect of often-detrimental emotion that makes the real difference. Over-detachment from what one is doing can result in unnecessary bloodshed and destruction. Conscience is also necessary if one's society hopes to maintain any semblance of morality. And lastly, who but a human can predict irrational human responses so well?

A computer is going to beat a human (or any biological really) embarrassingly badly in where it counts: reaction time. It doesn't matter if a computer wouldn't be able to predict an 'irrational' response, if its able to put a laser through the cockpit before the human pilot is even done finishing his thought process. Sentimentality likewise has no place on the battlefield, if your nation is unable to handle the moral costs of war, it shouldn't engage in it.

I'd like to expand on this for a bit.

Computers are already - and successfully - used to predict 'Irrational' behaviour in humans, particularly in the form of swarms. We don't base our emergency response plans on a bunch of guys sitting in a room and making up shit, we base them on running simulations.

In the specific context of fighter pilots, irrational responses are rather, lets say... Discouraged, in favour of standardised responses which are drilled in training. Sauce. Seriously, read it (Addressing Escalon, obviously). If you want to scroll down to when the maneuvering and fighting deal starts.

The idea of Tom Cruise doing craaaaaaaaaaaazy things while thinking of his wingman as naked, winning the day via glorious individualism and improvisation is solely and exclusively one thing.

Bullshit. If you're relying on unpredictable and improvised action in the air, you're going to be kicked out of the air force in under two seconds.

Soldiers, whether on the ground, at sea, or in the air, function better the more they act like predictable machines. That's been the basis of military training for at least five thousand years, and it ain't gonna change.

[Thrashia]

Soldiers, whether on the ground, at sea, or in the air, function better the more they act like predictable machines. That's been the basis of military training for at least five thousand years, and it ain't gonna change.

As a former soldier, officer, and possessing degrees in military history I think I will put my two cents in on this part of the discussion. I'll lead with two of my all time favorite quotes regarding a soldier:

“Soldiers can sometimes make decisions that are smarter than the orders they've been given.” - Orson Scott Card

"If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks." - Frederick the Great

There is an aspect of being a soldier which anyone who has never been one cannot fully appreciate. Understand it? Maybe. But you will never appreciate what it means to be a soldier and function as one. While it has been quite exaggerated by Hollywood (insert quip about Platoon & Full Metal Jacket) that the military has to have you be broken down so they can build you up into a soldier, there is an element of truth. As a soldier you have to first and foremost surrender the idea of yourself. You are no longer you. You're part of a team, a group, and in order for each part of that group to survive then you have to think in terms of how best to operate within that team or group.

However if it were that simple, that we -- as Bug here says "act like predictable machines" -- then the training of US soldiers would take maybe a month at most and be over with. Cannon fodder and easy-to-read instructions in bold letters for buttons and joy sticks. That is not how a soldier should ever function. A soldier is meant to be pervasive and intuitive about his surroundings, the mission, the operational capacity of himself -- and an officer even more so. As an officer you are meant to expand yourself beyond the basic training, to use opportunity and meld together your individual experience with audaciousness. Naturally you should never be what could be termed "a Maverick" and think that being random in your actions and orders will always win the day or be the best course, but neither should a soldier or officer ever fully rely upon The Book. We're all endowed with critical thinking skills and a soldier has to have his honed, via training and personal exercise of that muscle.

Predictable machines? That is the same line of thinking that most of the general staff for both sides of the Great War thought when they ordered their soldiers to march into Hell over the fields of France in 1916-1918. See how well that worked out for the common soldier.

[Caecuser]

My God... what have I done?

[The 44th Indp Legion]

My God... what have I done?

that's basicly what happens when you bring up fighters/missiles...or mechs/tanks. This bout was actually quite well-structured, polite and informative. Consider yourself lucky.

[Galla-]

A computer is going to beat a human (or any biological really) embarrassingly badly in where it counts: reaction time. It doesn't matter if a computer wouldn't be able to predict an 'irrational' response, if its able to put a laser through the cockpit before the human pilot is even done finishing his thought process. Sentimentality likewise has no place on the battlefield, if your nation is unable to handle the moral costs of war, it shouldn't engage in it.

I'd like to expand on this for a bit.

Computers are already - and successfully - used to predict 'Irrational' behaviour in humans, particularly in the form of swarms. We don't base our emergency response plans on a bunch of guys sitting in a room and making up shit, we base them on running simulations.

In the specific context of fighter pilots, irrational responses are rather, lets say... Discouraged, in favour of standardised responses which are drilled in training. Sauce. Seriously, read it (Addressing Escalon, obviously). If you want to scroll down to when the maneuvering and fighting deal starts.

The idea of Tom Cruise doing craaaaaaaaaaaazy things while thinking of his wingman as naked, winning the day via glorious individualism and improvisation is solely and exclusively one thing.

Bullshit. If you're relying on unpredictable and improvised action in the air, you're going to be kicked out of the air force in under two seconds.

Soldiers, whether on the ground, at sea, or in the air, function better the more they act like predictable machines. That's been the basis of military training for at least five thousand years, and it ain't gonna change.

Humans are not bugs.

We do not operate as a single cog in the machine.

Working in a team does not mean that you surrender surprise or initiative, it simply means that everyone has to agree with you, and when you're the guy in charge they actually do they have to agree with you. The basis of military training is instilling the ability to be able to listen while under pressure, and to function together to complete goals. Nowhere does this imply that you must be predictable or repetitive in methodology or action.

[Anacasppia]

I'm going to regret this but can somebody tell me the problem of fighters in space combat? Apparently it is like a taboo here or something.

Read --V--

If point-defense can mow down far more aggressively-maneuvering missiles like cavalry before Gatlings, then there is nothing to save a more sluggish fighter from being ripped to shreds by the same DP. If there is no Stealth In Space, and if combat takes place over large distances, it could give the defenders plenty of time to detect incoming fighters and take them out from afar.

Missiles can do whatever a fighter can better. They're less expensive, they can pull maneuvers that would liquify a living pilot, they don't need to make return runs, they don't need pilots who will take up room in the barracks allowing the ship to mount more missiles, weapons, and generators (or more fuel), and they don't have to slow down as they approach their targets. By that same logic, you'd think that drones might be a happy medium, but we'll see why they're aren't so good in the next post.

Modern fighters and bombers are a threat to wet navy capital ships and land fortifications because they can carry weapons that effectively damage them. You might think that the same would hold true in space, but even without gravity to prevent from mounting massive weapons, there are still engineering limits to keep the fighter from mounting large enough weapons to damage a capital ship. The fighter’s power source can only power so potent a weapon, and as capital ships no longer have to worry about buoyancy, they can mount as much armor as they please. With a reactor several dozens of times larger than the fighter itself, it will still be able to maneuver while shrugging off hits from the fighter as through it was nothing. If the techbase includes shielding then this shielding's protective abilities will doubtless scale with the power output of the reactor it is tied to. This means that even the heaviest of the fighter's weapons barely be able to scratch the capital ship, much less disable it, making the fighter hopelessly outmoded in an offensive role.

While there are advantages as well as disadvantages to space fighters when directly compared to larger ships, a good look at the concept from the very base upwards is necessary. The first question shouldn't be "What advantage does a fighter have over a big ship?" but "What can a space fighter do?". Because we're talking about military ships here, the answer is generally to bring some sort of weapon payload (bullets, lasers, blaster bolts, missiles, bombs) in contact with a target. But the conditions of combat in space make fighters pointless for that. On planet, fighters are needed to extend the range of whatever deploys them (an airforce base or a carrier). If the base were to shoot the guns or the missiles that a fighter carries directly, it wouldn't have nearly the range that a fighter can achieve. The horizon on planet prevents direct targeting beyond a limited range. The friction of the air slows down bullets and missiles so they drop to the ground short of the target when they have been slowed down enough or their fuel has run out respectively. The engines and shape of an fighter allow far more efficient travel in atmosphere than those of a missile (or bomb or bullet).

Not so in space. There is no horizon, so everything can be targeted directly. There is no friction, so ranges are not limited. There is no aerodynamic design, so missiles are far more effective than fighters. For comparison: if one were to use a missile that is the same size as the fighter i.e. using the same engine and same amount of fuel, it would have four times the range of a fighter, because the fighters needs a lot of fuel to brake and return to base again. So, unlike in an atmosphere, where mounting missiles on a fighter extends the effective range of the warheads, in space it would seriously limit it.
As for guns, those are even less effective. Unless there is some sort of magical technology at play that makes 5 tons of gun components, propellant and bullets somehow capable of more destruction than just 5 tons of warhead (not the case with real physics) then carrying a small gun close to a target to shoot it is a colossal waste of time. With energy weapons, the smaller reactor (or power source) of a fighter makes them even more useless.
Targeting is another thing that potentially looks like a reason for fighters to exist. But it is again not the case. Getting closer to the target does exactly the same thing as using a bigger lens (because there is no horizon) so the bigger lens wins. (does not get closer to danger, doesn't need refueling, etc.)

Intercepting incoming missiles works pretty much the same as launching attacking missiles, attaching a space fighter makes it worse, not better. This for a point defense role, fighters also have a worse sensor suite than a capital ship, making the same anti-missile missile attached to a fighter worse than the ones attached to a capital ship.
In the end, while one can point out plenty of advantages that a space fighter has over a larger ship (in a universe with real physics), there just is no task that a space fighter is best suited to perform. Either a bigger ship will outperform several small fighters, or one or several missiles will outperform one fighter.
Cost is usually played up as to why fighters might be used, but in the end this is a pointless, misguided argument as well. This comes in two flavors. The first being the high-end SF post-scarcity society where resources are not an issue. Assuming some other kind of limiting factor that will be what determines ship sizes. For example if resources are infinite but the number of pilots is limited, ships will be designed in a way to capitalize on that i.e. the most powerful ships operated by the least crew.
The second flavor being the erroneous (but often told) assumption that space fighters being cheaper than bigger ships is an advantage. Yes, a space fighter is cheaper than a space battleship. No, that does not necessarily translate into an advantage for space fighters. A single space fighter may be cheaper, but would not stand a chance in a fight alone. For space fighters to be a viable alternative to big ships, one needs to have enough of them to win against the bigger ships, so the question becomes what that whole swarm of fighters costs compared to the single big ship. And there is no reason why a whole group of fighters would be inherently cheaper than a single bigger ship. Maybe economics of scale make fighters cheaper. Maybe the greater efficiency of larger systems make big ships cheaper. There's no hard answer which will be the case. What it comes down to is that you aren't likely to loose a lot of capital ships, but you'll probably loose half that swarm of fighters. The cost isn't so much a factor hear as the effectiveness of the ships.

An excellent analysis, I must say!

However, one wonders, how viable is it for an interface operations vessel (troop transport or equivalent) to also house a number of 'space fighters' to engage in interface attacks upon planetary targets? As you've mentioned, under such conditions the reach of a space vessel would be limited; if so, does that make operating 'space fighters' a sensible option?

[Ularn]

I swear I'm going to start murdering kittens every time this debate sparks, which is going to suck because I really like kittens but the extent to which I loathe this subject is not something which can be understated.

[SquareDisc City]

Firstly, the assumption is that all enemy capital ships have point defense. There are several flaws with this reasoning, namely that said point defense is expensive and that not all civilizations have progressed to the point where it is feasible. For example, if one's fleet has never encountered point defense ICly, why would they be thinking about it as a weakness of their fighters? Also, given the already astronomical (no pun intended) cost of capital ships, not many nations would really have the sort of money to build point defense on all of them in an EFT society.

An argument for fighters that relies on enemy error, which I contend that a total lack of point defense is, is a dubious argument indeed.

Secondly, depending on the shape of one's ships, point defense cannot safely fire on something near the hull. Therefore fighters with warp drives could at least theoretically slip past the point defense's effective interior range limit. In this case, the capital ship would be helpless without fighters of its own.

FTL interdiction and weapons that can hit an FTLing target say hello. Also tactics (as opposed to strategy) reliant on FTL are generally frowned upon.

Now, on to the fighters themselves. In terms of cost-effectiveness as compared to capital ships, if the fighters take their power from the parent vessel and store it in onboard batteries, the need for a power-plant is negated, thus cutting costs. Next, a fighter can enter the atmosphere of a planet and conduct low-level surveying and ground support operations, which a larger ship cannot. A fighter also is not typically going to have as much armor as it would be pointless.

No chemical battery is going to cut it. Metastable isotopes can be used but still have inferior specific energy to hydrogen fusion. The only type of "battery" that makes sense would be using a fusion reactor to make antimatter, but if you think antimatter is dangerous then why are you putting it on a manned fighter and if you think it's safe why aren't you using it to power all your ships?

In terms of armaments, it is most certainly true that a fighter cannot mount weapons as large as those of a capital ship. However, a fighter retains the invaluable capacity to rapidly change position and thus alter the trajectory of its weapons or its firing angle. Therefore a fighter can keep a ship occupied in self-defense from all directions, thereby providing a distraction to be exploited.

This may hold if you're thinking about attacking one capital ship. It doesn't hold if you're attacking a group of them, in which case firstly your fighters may struggle to surround any individual one and secondly you can use a group of larger ships of your own to create the same multi-directional threat.

Now, the weapons a fighter can mount are definitely capable of dealing crippling damage to or even destroying a larger ship. Large thermonuclear warheads can damage guns and most importantly propulsion systems, and the EMP they generate can damage electrical systems if the bomb hits an unshielded location. In a case specific to the Escalan, semi-singularity weapons known as "voidspace" armaments are capable of damaging hull structure and pulling armor plating apart due to their intense gravitational signature and aftereffects.

A one-shot weapon like an explosive warhead or the ever-popular bomb-pumped laser can certainly threaten a capital ship, but if you're only getting one shot why are you using a fighter not a missile? Meanwhile an argument for fighters that relies on having a magic weapon is dubious since if such things are allowed magic defenses are allowed also.

As for lasers, I for one have a problem with lasers realistically being able to do damage at any significant distance.

A little off-topic, but if it's due to divergence, well you can calculate this based on properties of the laser. From memory you get a tighter focus with a larger aperture, putting fighters at a disadvantage.

Small railguns mounted in fighters are also a potential threat, as high-explosive or shaped-charge shells could injure vulnerable areas such as gun ports.

Those are small spots to hit, so if you want to hit them reliably you have to get closer to the target, bringing your fighters into range of the enemy point defense. Otherwise you just have to use a spray-and-pray approach, which may work but is hardly efficient.

Every one of us, myself included, should remember that NS FT RPing is not "Deadliest Warrior" nor a competition to see who can wank the hardest- it is collaborative storytelling by nature.

This at least I will agree with, and add something that should definitely be borne in mind:

There is no requirement for IC competence.

As such the UPT Space Force uses fighters and bombers (and manned ones at that) despite their dubious merits and I've no immediate plans on changing that.

With that out of the way, we can continue the debate. If only because it annoys Ularn

[Spirit of Hope]

With that out of the way, we can continue the debate. If only because it annoys Ularn

You must hate puppies then...

On topic:
Fighters are only useful under two assumptions:
One they are faster/more maneuverable than their mother ship.
Two they carry weapons that can reliably threaten a capital ship.

Assumption one has the problem that this is space, a big ship could be just as fast if you stick a massive engine on it. Yes thats a stupid idea but you can do it.

Assumption two has the problem of what type of weapon? A railgun is going to have the problems of Newtons laws, missiles don't need to be fighter carried, and lasers won't necessarily fit well on a fighter sized craft.

[SquareDisc City]

The first assumption may be valid. One limitation on a spacecraft's acceleration is that the structure can only take so much before it crushes or buckles under the forces involved. For a given material, the longer the structure, the lower the tolerable acceleration. Of course, the fact that most sci-fi spaceships are long and slender, not wide and stubby, suggests material strength is not actually the limiting factor, or that the issue is circumvented.

[Thrashia]

Assumption one has the problem that this is space, a big ship could be just as fast if you stick a massive engine on it. Yes thats a stupid idea but you can do it.

Mass is something I don't think you are taking fully into account here. Just because a ship is larger does not mean it will be faster, but simply that it requires a larger engine to move its mass through space. Theoretically speaking its more likely that a small ship (a fighter) will be faster than a larger ship.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Assumption one has the problem that this is space, a big ship could be just as fast if you stick a massive engine on it. Yes thats a stupid idea but you can do it.

Mass is something I don't think you are taking fully into account here. Just because a ship is larger does not mean it will be faster, but simply that it requires a larger engine to move its mass through space. Theoretically speaking its more likely that a small ship (a fighter) will be faster than a larger ship.

Or, more to the point, a small ship will be more capable of directional acceleration. Momentum can be a bitch on cap ships, since your vessel traveling at 2% c with a mass of eight billion kilos will have a much harder time changing its speed vector even marginally from its current direction as compared to a vessel massing only eight thousand kilos. Additionally, due to inertia, accelerating an eight thousand kilo vessel from a standstill to 2% c will take far less time and distance as compared to our theoretical eight billion kilo cap ship.

[Spirit of Hope]

Mass is something I don't think you are taking fully into account here. Just because a ship is larger does not mean it will be faster, but simply that it requires a larger engine to move its mass through space. Theoretically speaking its more likely that a small ship (a fighter) will be faster than a larger ship.

Or, more to the point, a small ship will be more capable of directional acceleration. Momentum can be a bitch on cap ships, since your vessel traveling at 2% c with a mass of eight billion kilos will have a much harder time changing its speed vector even marginally from its current direction as compared to a vessel massing only eight thousand kilos. Additionally, due to inertia, accelerating an eight thousand kilo vessel from a standstill to 2% c will take far less time and distance as compared to our theoretical eight billion kilo cap ship.

Valid point, a smaller ship will likely be more maneuverable, and likely faster. However the problem still is how will a smaller ship hurt the larger ship? I wouldn't be surprised at smaller ships having a role in large battles, but I think it would be more akin to torpedo ships than fighters. Smaller ships with one specific dangerous weapon.

[Thrashia]

Valid point, a smaller ship will likely be more maneuverable, and likely faster. However the problem still is how will a smaller ship hurt the larger ship? I wouldn't be surprised at smaller ships having a role in large battles, but I think it would be more akin to torpedo ships than fighters. Smaller ships with one specific dangerous weapon.

That, in my opinion, then comes down to tactics. Ants can take down elephants in enough numbers.

[Rethan]

Valid point, a smaller ship will likely be more maneuverable, and likely faster. However the problem still is how will a smaller ship hurt the larger ship? I wouldn't be surprised at smaller ships having a role in large battles, but I think it would be more akin to torpedo ships than fighters. Smaller ships with one specific dangerous weapon.

That, in my opinion, then comes down to tactics. Ants can take down elephants in enough numbers.

Going to have to ask for a source on this. While I don't doubt it, I'd question whether you mean ants in general, or a very specific type of ant with an offensive heavy profile. And even then...elephant skin is thick as all hell. I'd doubt even a siafu solider could punch through it.

-Removing my own argument because people never ever end this damn argument because they make bad analogies and can't separate NS legitimacy from RL based legitimacy-

[Trailers]

Valid point, a smaller ship will likely be more maneuverable, and likely faster. However the problem still is how will a smaller ship hurt the larger ship? I wouldn't be surprised at smaller ships having a role in large battles, but I think it would be more akin to torpedo ships than fighters. Smaller ships with one specific dangerous weapon.

That, in my opinion, then comes down to tactics. Ants can take down elephants in enough numbers.

Personally none of my exhaust vents lead right to the main reactor. They are not two meters wide and usually are not located at the end of a canyon. It is not like shooting womp rats.

[G-Tech Corporation]

That, in my opinion, then comes down to tactics. Ants can take down elephants in enough numbers.

Going to have to ask for a source on this. While I don't doubt it, I'd question whether you mean ants in general, or a very specific type of ant with an offensive heavy profile. And even then...elephant skin is thick as all hell. I'd doubt even a siafu solider could punch through it.

-Removing my own argument because people never ever end this damn argument because they make bad analogies and can't separate NS legitimacy from RL based legitimacy-

Sauce: Elephants avoid ants.

Saucy Sauce: Ants effect elephant eating habits.

So, I doubt death is likely, but it would technically be possible.

[The Akasha Colony]

Mass is something I don't think you are taking fully into account here. Just because a ship is larger does not mean it will be faster, but simply that it requires a larger engine to move its mass through space. Theoretically speaking its more likely that a small ship (a fighter) will be faster than a larger ship.

Or, more to the point, a small ship will be more capable of directional acceleration. Momentum can be a bitch on cap ships, since your vessel traveling at 2% c with a mass of eight billion kilos will have a much harder time changing its speed vector even marginally from its current direction as compared to a vessel massing only eight thousand kilos. Additionally, due to inertia, accelerating an eight thousand kilo vessel from a standstill to 2% c will take far less time and distance as compared to our theoretical eight billion kilo cap ship.

A larger ship will have more proportionate volume to dedicate to what will likely be a more efficient reactor than a smaller ship. Hence, so long as the engines themselves can usefully harness that power, and the capital ship itself can withstand the acceleration, there is no inherent reason why it should be slower or less maneuverable than a fighter.

From a pure speed and engine standpoint, the most efficient size would be the largest ship that can be built before exceeding engine tolerances and maximum efficiency. This is akin to mating a propeller of the proper size and shape to the right engine in an existing warship or airplane: too much power and you start losing massive amounts of energy to inefficient cavitation (for ships) and rolling sonic waves (for planes). But too little and you're wasting the potential of your propellers, carrying extra-large shafts and propellers that aren't working to their full potential, adding weight for no gain.

The square-cube law implies that at some point, available reactor space internally will outpace the available external surface area for thrusters, and at that point, additional size increases will reduce maneuverability by adding additional mass that the engines can no longer increase output to support. This does not mean that ships above this point should not be built, as the additional reactor output may be redirected toward more powerful weapons or defenses instead. But below this point, it should be possible to make a large ship and a small ship of roughly equal performance, if so desired.

This point is also extremely dependent on technology. Some nations may reach their maximum efficiency with small fighter-grade reactors, although this is unlikely and implies that capital ships would be rather ponderous at best, but this is the situation that favors fighters. Others may find that dreadnoughts are their 'sweet spot,' and make smaller ships (but not necessarily fighters) solely as less resource-intensive, screening platforms rather than because of actual maneuverability improvements. Nations that use thrusters not dependent on actual reactor output (such as chemical rockets) or non-external engines (such as some exotic inertialess drives, or Honorverse-style gravitational drives) will have entirely different concerns.

[Yes Im Biop]

Just use smaller ship's. Probably 3/4 to 1/2 half the size of Frigates and you have the near right mix of firepower, speed, maneuverability, and survivability

[Kreanoltha]

My God... what have I done?

This is nowhere near as bad as last month's (or was it two or three months ago?) Tank vs Mecha "debate." Quotations used since it was a massive clusterfuck that ended with both sides severely pissed off.

[Spirit of Hope]

Valid point, a smaller ship will likely be more maneuverable, and likely faster. However the problem still is how will a smaller ship hurt the larger ship? I wouldn't be surprised at smaller ships having a role in large battles, but I think it would be more akin to torpedo ships than fighters. Smaller ships with one specific dangerous weapon.

That, in my opinion, then comes down to tactics. Ants can take down elephants in enough numbers.

But how many ants would die in the attempt? And how long would it take the ants to do the killing?

In space I think the big ships will dominate, battleships, dreadnoughts, battlestars, what have you. This does not mean small ships will be out, smaller ships will be more maneuverable, and likely faster, so they act as screening elements, carry out reconnaissance missions, etc. In my opinion something akin to a torpedo boat will likely exist to, but something as small as a fighter probably won't be effective.

That being said I'm happy to RP with somebody using fighters, after all I use 10-15 km battle-spheres as my ship of the line.

[Fata (Ancient)]

Why when you guys argue about fighters, do you always say stuff like, "if it can damage a capital ship..." or "What if there are multiple capital ships?" I was in the assumption that you would have one or two capital ships and then the rest of your navy, because if every one of you ships is a "Capital ship" then it is just the norm and can then be considered your frigate or another general ship class. It kinda doesn't make any sense now that I think about it cause my capital ship could be smaller than you frigate and... but... *mental breakdown.*

I have no idea where I am going with this. But I always hear most of you talking about tech wanking, but most of you do it, whether it is on purpose or just an automatic reaction cause by the human condition that makes us all want a bigger stick then thine neighbor but I don't know. It just makes be angry how the norm of ships sizes in FT has gotten to the point where it is pretty much a moving battle station and it could destroy a planet with a press of a button and where pretty much people who like to have smaller conceivable ships are forced to spend countless hours in the early morning contemplating how in the world they are to combat such ships, but eventually coming to the conclusion that the only way to do so is by story handwavium by which any ship can destroy another purely just for the sake of the story. And they will probably come to the even more depressing conclusion that they will keep adding stuff onto their ship and in the end they will have to add countless weapons and technologies that these hypothetical "big boy space races" have already developed completely draining creativity from the experience of nations states, and cause it to no longer be any fun.

Or maybe its just me.

[SquareDisc City]

I for one have simply been using the term "capital ship" over-liberally, meaning just about anything bigger than a fighter or bomber, which a quick Wikipedia reveals to be wrong, it ought as you mentioned to only refer to the few most important ships. So oops.

[Kreanoltha]

I for one have simply been using the term "capital ship" over-liberally, meaning just about anything bigger than a fighter or bomber, which a quick Wikipedia reveals to be wrong, it ought as you mentioned to only refer to the few most important ships. So oops.

It's a sci-fi thing. Most writers call full-fledged warships capital ships. Some people call frigates, destroyers, and cruiser light capital ships and battlecruisers and battleships true capital ships. I don't bother to make the distinction.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Why when you guys argue about fighters, do you always say stuff like, "if it can damage a capital ship..." or "What if there are multiple capital ships?" I was in the assumption that you would have one or two capital ships and then the rest of your navy, because if every one of you ships is a "Capital ship" then it is just the norm and can then be considered your frigate or another general ship class. It kinda doesn't make any sense now that I think about it cause my capital ship could be smaller than you frigate and... but... *mental breakdown.*

I have no idea where I am going with this. But I always hear most of you talking about tech wanking, but most of you do it, whether it is on purpose or just an automatic reaction cause by the human condition that makes us all want a bigger stick then thine neighbor but I don't know. It just makes be angry how the norm of ships sizes in FT has gotten to the point where it is pretty much a moving battle station and it could destroy a planet with a press of a button and where pretty much people who like to have smaller conceivable ships are forced to spend countless hours in the early morning contemplating how in the world they are to combat such ships, but eventually coming to the conclusion that the only way to do so is by story handwavium by which any ship can destroy another purely just for the sake of the story. And they will probably come to the even more depressing conclusion that they will keep adding stuff onto their ship and in the end they will have to add countless weapons and technologies that these hypothetical "big boy space races" have already developed completely draining creativity from the experience of nations states, and cause it to no longer be any fun.

Or maybe its just me.

Your entire post is why my ships of the line are precisely a hundred and eight meters in length from stem to stern.

Because it makes me chuckle.