Advertisement
by Hornopolis » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:21 pm
by Vocenae » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:22 pm
18:34 <Kyrusia> Voc: The one anchor of moral conscience in a sea of turbulent depravity.
by UNIverseVERSE » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:28 pm
Hornopolis wrote:*Universe, I wasn't targeting your post in general, I was targeting the whole thread*
by North Mack » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:40 pm
Hornopolis wrote:You guys don't get it, I'm wasting my time trying to explain to you people.
by Balrogga » Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:26 pm
by Hyperspatial Travel » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:22 pm
by Bryn Shander » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:28 pm
Hyperspatial Travel wrote:Just a note on science-fiction. Those of us who use science (however nominally) in our RPing don't object to cloaking fields, shields, FTL, and other physics rapists per se. Rather, we object to people pretending there's science behind their weaponry. I have no problem with turbolasers, cloakery, and a host of other wholly unrealistic technology, provided people acknowledge it's unrealistic.
It's not the dismissal of physics we object to, it's people dismissing physics and then falsely claiming their new drive/shield/cloak/faster-than-light coffee machine has some basis in physics. It's the intellectual dishonesty of that approach that is so grating. When people say 'I don't use physics, and I'm okay with that', there's at the very least a modicum of respect granted.
by Bears Armed » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:33 am
Othyl wrote:You know, I'm done arguing. Have fun with your 'win' Byrn. If the communication revolution can be reduced to moot with "They had radios in WWII" then there's no point. I will admit I didn't pull up sources for my arguments, but I was hoping some discourse decency could be applied. The communication revolution was more than radio. It was a revolution in the way commanders considered their fleets, by just that. It was a fleet now, not just a bunch of ships.
by Phenia » Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:58 am
Bryn Shander wrote:Hyperspatial Travel wrote:Just a note on science-fiction. Those of us who use science (however nominally) in our RPing don't object to cloaking fields, shields, FTL, and other physics rapists per se. Rather, we object to people pretending there's science behind their weaponry. I have no problem with turbolasers, cloakery, and a host of other wholly unrealistic technology, provided people acknowledge it's unrealistic.
It's not the dismissal of physics we object to, it's people dismissing physics and then falsely claiming their new drive/shield/cloak/faster-than-light coffee machine has some basis in physics. It's the intellectual dishonesty of that approach that is so grating. When people say 'I don't use physics, and I'm okay with that', there's at the very least a modicum of respect granted.
I have a problem with people using handwavium and then claiming superiority over those of us that use generous applications of lube when we rape physics despite the fact that they don't even know what the fancy sci-fi terminology they're invoking means.
by North Mack » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:39 am
Phenia wrote:Bryn Shander wrote:Hyperspatial Travel wrote:Just a note on science-fiction. Those of us who use science (however nominally) in our RPing don't object to cloaking fields, shields, FTL, and other physics rapists per se. Rather, we object to people pretending there's science behind their weaponry. I have no problem with turbolasers, cloakery, and a host of other wholly unrealistic technology, provided people acknowledge it's unrealistic.
It's not the dismissal of physics we object to, it's people dismissing physics and then falsely claiming their new drive/shield/cloak/faster-than-light coffee machine has some basis in physics. It's the intellectual dishonesty of that approach that is so grating. When people say 'I don't use physics, and I'm okay with that', there's at the very least a modicum of respect granted.
I have a problem with people using handwavium and then claiming superiority over those of us that use generous applications of lube when we rape physics despite the fact that they don't even know what the fancy sci-fi terminology they're invoking means.
Real men don't use lube when raping physics.
by The Kafers » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:09 am
Auman wrote:Once again, we have Kafers demonstrating how bad he is at understanding warfare. The reason naval battles took so long to organize and commit to was simple. Ships are expensive, they take a long time to build and about half as long to prepare for combat, I.E. Getting them supplied, their crews trained and in position to engage in battle. Now, if you take space ships, which are expensive and take as long or even longer to travel from point A to point B, and you got battles that will take months to finish... And I'll tell you why. Only an idiot will throw his entire fleet into a battle to the death. No one in their right mind would stay in a battle to the bitter end... So, comparing space war to the Pacific Campaign, in this writer's opinion, is very apt. In fact, space war is almost exactly the same, but in three dimensions. Using analogies to explain, taking a solar system is like conquering an island chain. The same principles will apply in every way. Failing to heed the warnings of history will get you curb stomped in any war.
Failing to acknowledge advances in technology or properly utilize it if you have will get you smashed as well. But what I'm trying to say here is that not drawing comparisons between World War 2, the last total war fought in living memory and space war is stupid. Those who don't learn from history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Pick up a book one of these days, Kafers.
by Feazanthia » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:30 am
by North Mack » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:38 am
by Kilrany » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:58 am
The Kafers wrote:Snip
by Othyl » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:03 pm
Phenia wrote:Real men don't use lube when raping physics.
by Telros » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:09 pm
The Kafers wrote:Snip
by Kilrany » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:16 pm
by The Kafers » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:19 pm
Kilrany wrote:The Kafers wrote:Snip
Yep, nothing here I can really argue with. It's why I don't have fighters, and instead use drones in much the same way others use armed missiles; I just like to be able to recover those of mine still active at the end of a battle wherever possible.
Also the same reason I don't use anything but capitol ships since a small ship has no advantage over a larger ship except possibly for acceleration and economy of force. I say possibly as MC was right to point out to me during several conversations on the subject that not all drive types work the same, thus there's always room for exceptions.
Telros wrote:Just saying, Kafers. You seem to come down a tad hard on those who don't account for science in everything in your rants. If this isn't your intention. If so, I point you to the freeform part of the site and my earlier point above.
by Kilrany » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:24 pm
The Kafers wrote: This was the reason I told UNIverseVERSE that air warfare may actually be a better model for space warfare than naval warfare. Of course, he set me straight on that, but still...
by Telros » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:41 pm
Kilrany wrote:I wouldn't exactly say he's alone in that regard, I'm pretty sure on several occasions I was the same, and we had far then enough evidence from those coming down hard on him for being of the harder FT mindset. Personally I'd say the above of his was rather free of most bias given it was simply pointing out comparisons that as far as I can tell, are pretty accurate.
by Kilrany » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:48 pm
by The Kafers » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:57 pm
by UNIverseVERSE » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:02 pm
Kilrany wrote:Can you elaborate on that discussion? Personally I can see comparisons between both, and depending on certain viewpoints subjective to technology used, I can see either being a possible model.
Telros wrote:I know he's had people come down on him for it. But I'm saying things like "how we treat fighters like atmosphere fighters is ridiculous" and all that. Is it true techwise? Yes. Is it okay if someone does it in their nation without some ole bullshit? Yes. It had a bias, not a too heavy one, but one where some hits at the more fiction focused is seen.
by The Kafers » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:52 pm
by Feazanthia » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:20 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement