Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Capsule Corporation]

I am still really curious to find the principle of science upon which anti-gravity is based... That one doesn't make sense outside of graviton particle theories... Is there an anti-grav theory that doesn't involve gravitons?

Absolutely. Any Grand Unified Theory will necessarily imply that artificial gravity can be generated, simply because all forms of energy are really just different manifestations of the single cosmic force such theories postulate. Generating it would be like using magnetism to produce electricity, or electricity to produce magnetism.

(Well, actually, there really isn't any such thing as anti-gravity. There's artificial gravity; what you do is simply generate a field that attracts things in whatever direction you want, and then take care not to shred things with the tidal forces.)

Anti-gravity, in sci-fi, is some force or shield that allows an object to fly without generating lift or thrust such that it can be in gravity without being drawn towards the gravity.

and Grand Unified Theory, unfortunately, does not agree with einstein or newton on this point, as the amount of energy required would have to meet Newton's formulae on gravity.. you would need to create a short-range gravitational pull... but such a thing would only be enough to keep your feet on the ground... every part of your body would feel non-uniform gravity... your stomach would get upset quickly...

I've thought about it... not going to happen

[Capsule Corporation]

I am still really curious to find the principle of science upon which anti-gravity is based... That one doesn't make sense outside of graviton particle theories... Is there an anti-grav theory that doesn't involve gravitons?

Yes. It's a loose theory, but as far as RL physics goes it's just as potentially valid as 'Graviton' physics.
Essentially, what we perceive as gravitation fields are interactions from further 'mass shadows' projecting from N-Space (N-Space being a numerical sequence of spatial dimensions. Time is *not* the 4th dimension in this cosmology, and there are a total of nine dimensions). Only a very small portion of these N-space mass shadows actually project into 3-space, which is why gravity as we see it is so dammed weak compared to the other three fundamental forces.
According to this theory, if you can alter the local spatial topography in more than three dimensions, you could cause more or less of the mass shadow to project into 3-space. With sufficient refinement, you could potentially even project gravitic fields with no corresponding 3-space mass. True artificial gravity, not just simulated gravity.

This is the theory I use for TRIAD's grav tech. I do this because I personally don't subscribe to the particle interaction theory of gravity, but I prefer to believe that the field-interaction theory will win out. I might be wrong in time, but for now either theory is just as valid for elaboration in FT.

I said anti-gravity, as in... not artificial gravity..

Though it is always great to know I'm not the only one who doesn't believe in tractor beams

[The Kafers]

I usually lean towards using Heim Theory as an explanation, FWIW.

[Capsule Corporation]

Believe me, I subscribe to the Grand Unified Theory / Eternal Golden Brain / basic element of everything theory... to most extents at least. I kinda have my own that I've made up in my head, but it still works

[TRIAD Enterprises]

That's what I get for responding without clearly reading and making sure what I'm responding to.
Honestly, only way I can see Anti-Gravity working is some force/technology which serves to 'shield' a mass from the normal effects of gravity.
Last Exile has Claudia, but it wasn't explained.
A handful of Sci-Fi authors proposed something involving anti-matter, but not sure how well that'd hold to RL physics these days.

Looking at Wikipedia, we get 'Gravity Shields', interaction with 'Negative Mass', or of course Warp Fields (AKA Alcubierre Metric).

[Solar Communes]

If you ignore tractor beams but use gravitics, then see this in one of the few useful things that a SW site packs and understand why I'll ignore you if you do gravitic mega wankery and FAIL godmodding:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nBugs.html

Gravitics

Gravity is an extremely weak force, but you wouldn't know that if you read a lot of sci-fi, where "gravitic technology" typically rules the day. Electromagnetics are "primitive", or so the sci-fi writers would have us believe. If you want to show how powerful your sci-fi civilization really is, then make them use "gravitics" everywhere. Gravitic propulsion, gravitic weapons, gravitics defenses, etc. But does this make sense? Let us compare gravitics with electromagnetism:

-snip-

You need not crunch numbers like this in order to appreciate the power of electromagnetics. Simply look at the world around you; why do solid objects exist? Why do we have enormous rocky structures such as Mount Everest, that tower five miles above sea level despite the pull of gravity? Simply by existing, Mount Everest is defying gravity, to the tune of suspending billions of tons of rock miles above sea level. And what allows it to do this? Why, its solidity, of course. And what gives it solidity? Electromagnetics.

Think about it: the only reason your body holds together instead of dispersing into a cloud of gas is electromagnetism. Solid matter is characterized by particular kinds of chemical bonds (ionic, covalent, metallic), and these bonds are electromagnetic phenomena, based on the attraction of protons to electrons. In fact, the only reason solid objects can't pass through one another is the mutual electrostatic repulsion between their electrons at close range! As Feynman pointed out, when you throw yourself off a tall building, gravity accelerates you downwards at 1 G, but when you hit the ground, electromagnetism will abruptly decelerate you at many thousands of G (a rate which would be even higher if not for the flexibility of your body and the ground). As the old saying goes, the fall doesn't kill you, but the landing will.

So where does this brain bug come from? Paradoxically, the only reason people think gravity is stronger than electromagnetism is that gravity is so weak. It is so weak that a human being can easily overcome the gravitational attraction of an entire planet, eg- by throwing a ball up in the air and watching gravity pull it back down, so we intuitively perceive its action. We do not intuitively perceive the action of electromagnetism in the natural world because of its sheer pervasiveness and strength: its manifestations (eg- solidity, chemical reactions) seem immutable to us, so we assume that they are not the result of invisible forces.

In fact, much of the scientifically ignorant lay population is incapable of intellectually grasping the concept of constant applied force without work (they insist on anthropomorphisizing physics, by assuming that if it takes effort for a human to exert force, it must take effort for atoms to do it too). This throws up yet another burdle to public understanding of the power of electromagnetism. The average person is either unwilling or unable to recognize that he owes his solidity to invisible forces constantly pushing and pulling against all of the tiny particles in his body. But make no mistake: electromagnetism is what gives us substance. Every time we build a skyscraper, we are using electromagnetism to defeat gravity, even if we don't realize it.

So if electromagnetism is so great, why can't we electromagnetically generate artificial gravity? The answer is that electric charge can be either positive or negative, so the protons and electrons in a typical object cancel out at long distances. At microscopic ranges they are imbalanced because the electrons of adjacent atoms are closer together than the protons, hence solidity and all other chemical interactions. Gravity, on the other hand, acts on mass regardless of charge (and we have never observed negative mass), so if you have billions upon billions of tons of matter, you will exert significant force. But there's the rub: you need billions upon billions of tons of matter. The relationship between mass and gravitational attraction is fundamental; there is no evidence whatsoever that it can be arbitrarily altered, any more than we can arbitrarily change the strength of electromagnetic force to effortlessly convert solid objects into plasma.

In sci-fi, it is presumed that if you could focus and reshape gravitational fields, you would be nigh-omnipotent. One person wrote to me once to mention something called a "gravitic wedge" (I'm guessing it was portrayed as some kind of "ultimate weapon" in some cheesy techno-masturbatory sci-fi novel or fanfic). But even if you could arbitrarily focus and reshape gravitational fields, a starship simply doesn't have enough mass to generate gravitational fields of sufficient strength to be noticeable.

If we're going to grant ourselves the ability to focus and manipulate forcefields to such a fine degree, why not use electromagnetism instead? If you could generate a negatively charged plane wall, even with a tiny fraction of the total charge bound up in a typical starship's mass, it would cleanly slice any solid object in half. Similarly, gravitic "shields" are a silly idea; even the gravity field of an entire planet or star will only decelerate incoming objects at a few G, but if we could make a negatively charged "bubble" around a starship, incoming missiles would crash into it just as if it were a solid object. And even artificial gravity need not be based on actual gravity; the rotating-ship concept uses simple kinematics, and our imaginary sci-fi race with fine control over electromagnetism could slightly polarize objects in order to make them respond more strongly to magnetic fields (believe it or not, electrically neutral atoms or even neutrons have tiny magnetic moments which can be used in order to confine them electromagnetically; see Wolfgang Paul's Nobel Lecture of December 8, 1989).

In short, if we had the power to arbitrarily manipulate gravitational or electromagnetic fields with the precision and flexibility typically described in sci-fi, I'd rather have the electromagnetic fields. As a weapon, it would be absolutely devastating, and it wouldn't require billions upon billions of tons of mass. Unfortunately, it's not exotic enough. Familiarity breeds contempt, and the existence of real electromagnetic technology seems to disqualify it for sci-fi. This was not always the case; in fact, the 1950s classic "War of the Worlds" portrayed Martians who made use of an "electromagnetic blister" shield system. But modern sci-fi chic has latched onto "gravitic" technology for precisely the same reasons that it shouldn't be taken seriously: it doesn't make sense. And since it doesn't make sense, sci-fi fans seem to believe that it must be better (think of it as Arthur C. Clarke's law in reverse).

[Telros]

So you'll ignore us if we don't follow hard scifi logic? Nice, good to know. Enjoy your sandbox then.

[Capsule Corporation]

That's what I get for responding without clearly reading and making sure what I'm responding to.
Honestly, only way I can see Anti-Gravity working is some force/technology which serves to 'shield' a mass from the normal effects of gravity.
Last Exile has Claudia, but it wasn't explained.
A handful of Sci-Fi authors proposed something involving anti-matter, but not sure how well that'd hold to RL physics these days.

Looking at Wikipedia, we get 'Gravity Shields', interaction with 'Negative Mass', or of course Warp Fields (AKA Alcubierre Metric).

Back when I thought gravity was a particle, I designed shields for my ship that would block gravitons, nullifying gravity. But now, I've given up and have decided to focus on fluid dynamics and aeronautical principles

[Capsule Corporation]

If you ignore tractor beams but use gravitics, then see this in one of the few useful things that a SW site packs and understand why I'll ignore you if you do gravitic mega wankery and FAIL godmodding:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nBugs.html

Uh... that's great, but the Chemistry class I paid money for in college told me that inter-molecular forces were a seperate force than magnetism... though they operated on a somewhat similar principle.

And as for ignoring... I don't do it. Just because I don't use the tech myself doesn't mean I can't RP against it. I'm not that much of a pompous --nevermind. Anyway, I just lump it under unexplainable phenomena, or I fight back with hard science... that's my favorite thing to do

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7733&start=100#p286225

Read that post by TFU and my reply below... Hard science will always own soft science

[The Kafers]

The discussion of anti-gravity (or artificial gravity) began with the observation that, without some sort of simulated gravity field, shipboard life gets cumbersome (urinating into tubes and the like). Since it's impractical to use electromagnetic forces to Make Things Fall Down™, artificial gravity is pretty much the only way to go.

That said, there actually are some cool things you can do if you can warp or bend space enough to simulate a gravity field (beyond traveling faster than the speed of light, of course (cf. Alcubierre). Beyond those (few) cool things, however, I'd generally agree that electromagnetic forces (and "force field" technology) probably "rule" gravity-based systems.

[Solar Communes]

So you'll ignore us if we don't follow hard scifi logic? Nice, good to know. Enjoy your sandbox then.

Nope. I'll ignore those who wank for every obscure fringe theory only for the purpose of ALWAYS WINNING and E-peen enlargement. You're not one of them.

[TRIAD Enterprises]

The discussion of anti-gravity (or artificial gravity) began with the observation that, without some sort of simulated gravity field, shipboard life gets cumbersome (urinating into tubes and the like). Since it's impractical to use electromagnetic forces to Make Things Fall Down™, artificial gravity is pretty much the only way to go.

That said, there actually are some cool things you can do if you can warp or bend space enough to simulate a gravity field (beyond traveling faster than the speed of light, of course (cf. Alcubierre). Beyond those (few) cool things, however, I'd generally agree that electromagnetic forces (and "force field" technology) probably "rule" gravity-based systems.

I happen to agree with the sentiments here. Due to the specifics of my own handwavium, which are more intended as a Plott-De-Vice in my nation's home universe (Which is the setting for an RPG I'm writing. [/shameless plug]). The ramifications of the exotic matter which allows TRIAD to distort spacetime means that not only can they generate temporary and arbitrary gravity fields, they can do it without needing lots of mass or the equivalent energy. The technology doesn't create or destroy gravity. It pushes or pulls gravity effects into/out of 3-space by interacting and altering N-space protrusions into 3-space. If you need to 'cancel' a mass' gravity, you re-shape local topography so that it's mass shadow projects into 4-space through 9-space instead of 3-space. Need more gravity? Cause the mass shadow of a 9-space mass to project into 3-space.

Yes, I *could* try to get away with a large deal of tech-wank... I avoid that because all TRIAD grav-tech requires a very specific exotic matter, which they can only get back home. The limited supply of the materials used for grav-devices means they're used sparingly. The main use is to provide a normal gravity environment aboard TRIAD ships.

[Telros]

My apologies for the harsh statement then. I thought you meant anyone who used it, rather than those who abuse it. Consider said statement retracted.

[Capsule Corporation]

Okay, well I'm going to throw out a number of random ideas for artificial gravity, off the top of my head:

Vicarious gravity: Establish a small space-fold window that permanently stays open, with one end maintained on a planetary base, and the other end permanently attached to the ship. It would operate on a small scale, but be dispersed through the ship to maintain artificial gravity, without effecting anything outside the ship. In short, gravity from the base planet effects the people inside the ship.

Gravity Image Field: The ship uses a special field of some sort to capture an image of a planet's gravity. The ship retains the gravity just like Iron retains magnetism after being effected by a magnet.

Heavy Energy Charges: The deck plates are charged with massive amounts of energy to draw crewmen towards the floor... of course, the before-mentioned problems still happen... namely non-uniform acceleration... your feet are heavy, your head is nearly weightless, your stomach is... churning horribly.

Just some ideas... the 2nd is probably what I'll use in my nation




----

Hashing out the gravity image idea a little bit: Loss of containment means loss of containment, you don't get gravity back on that part of the ship unless you return to a habitable world and recapture the gravity. This function also will not and can not act as any sort of inertial dampener... just the normal 9.8 of gravity.. or whatever your homeworld considers normal.

[The Cosmic Balance]

How does blanket (i.e., non-tech specific) FTLi work? How can it work? And what effects would if have on nearby celestial bodies, especially if used in deep gravity wells?

Discuss.

[Balrogga]

I have always been against the way FTLi is abused in NS. In the Star Wars setting, their FTLi is to create gravity wells that the enemy's ships detect and the safeties in the navigation computers shuts down the drives returning them to Real Space so they don't impact with said gravity well and the star/planet the computer thinks might be in the center. The idea had grown from there to be a field much like a shield to protect against someone strapping an FTL drive to a missile and bypassing the normal defenses thus preventing the ruin of the RP. Then they had to use it I imagine to protect planets and people kept making it bigger and bigger until whole star systems are being encompassed by these devices.

This is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the tactical version of protecting a ship with one. Once you expand it to encompass a light second (300,000 kilometers) it is getting absolutely ridicules (in my opinion). If someone tried to have a normal shield that large they would be laughed at. The power needed would be something beyond what a ship could sustain. Now try that with a field that is supposed to oppose the strength of a drive that can hurtle a massive vessel of war across the galaxy.

I believe someone always should have a chance to power through the field. Imagine it like trying to row upstream. If you push, you can row against the current but if the current is too strong you would need more power. The FTLi used by most on NS only has a single setting, on. Once on they yell if anyone tries to defeat it. It is impossible in their eyes to get through and in the old boards anything that was invulnerable was considered a Godmod. I do not know if they transferred the sticky over but I cannot see why the same rules should not apply here. Nothing is invulnerable or invincible. Period.

Some people have started developing FTLii, Counter-FTLi, Anti-FTLi, or whatever the terms being used might be. Perhaps I should open a storefront selling FTLii, after the current RPs I would make a fortune.

I have always figured FTLi cannot stop natural FTL objects or events. Quantum Foam is thought to be composed of wormholes and black holes that constantly are created and destroyed on such a small level that it does not affect us up here in giant land. Since Quantum Foam theoretically makes up everything FTLi stopping it would be a big fancy way to destroy yourself. There is also the theory of white holes. They get their matter from somewhere they are expelling so stopping one of those would cause cosmic constipation. I don’t want to be around when that pops its cork. How about Quantum Entanglement?

Then there are Tachyons.

How could FTLi stop the theoretical mass-less particle Einstein first discovered when working through his theories? They would be natural as hell since they exist mathematically but according to the blanket FTLi people, their toy stops everything that moves faster than light or that would allow you to move that way which sadly includes all the “natural” methods.

[Hyperspatial Travel]

Your targets aren't sitting still - and anything material based is going to take a goodly bit of time to cross space combat distances. As will any light speed weapon - they'll just be lots faster, but fast enough to hit ? Sure some of the multi mile/ kilometer long ships aren't agile enough to move that quickly, but the smaller warships - to say nothing of space fighters?

It's really simple maths, the range you can engage at. Assuming that FTL is a no-no in combat (or at least so much as to make you unhittable), to have a one-hundred percent chance of hitting the enemy ship, you simply have to hit every single space that ship could be by the time your weapons reach them. So if my ships are only capable of accelerating at a single G, then that sphere of movement is only going to be..

Take the basic formula for distance travelled, d = vt + (1/2)at^2.

So t is five (five seconds away), take v to be zero for the purposes of this exercise (simply because it doesn't matter if the spacecraft is at rest or travelling at .9c as long as it's not accelerating - you can still calculate the vector quite easily and hit it), so we get 1/2(1)(25), which is only twelve-point five times the value of a single g, which is 9.8. So that ship can only really travel 122.5 metres in those five seconds.

Now, the sphere of movement that the ship can move is simply the volume of a sphere: 4/3 pi(r)^3. We know r is 122.5, and let's take pi to be 3 because right now we're only interested in the smallest possible amount of rigour (and I have no calculator) - so about 7,350,000 metres in total. Now the math is going to get a bit shaky here, because I'm tired and I'm postulating.

But if we take the volume of the ship (say a cubic ship fifty metres on all sides), we get about 125,000. Divide the sphere's volume by the ship's, and we get the total number of places the ship could possibly 'be'. So really only about sixty places. Round that to sixty, because pi was a bit low. So realistically, I only have to fire sixty times to be absolutely certain of hitting your ship.

Obviously in a rule-by-plot universe where shields are capable of taking on weapons quite easily, five lightseconds is in fact possibly a negligible distance. But assuming that weapons are disproportionally powerful compared to weapons (especially considering that a shield has to generate a force sufficient to deflect a weapon consistently and at every point around the ship, whereas a weapon has none of these limitations), this is quite a dangerous range to engage at.

By-and-large, mechs and spacefighters exist solely because of the Rule of Cool, which isn't reason enough to condemn them in a space opera, but they're obviously right out in any setting even pretending to the title of hard sci-fi.

On a maneuverability note, though, you might want to look at an RP Kafers (TCB) and I had awhile back. There was a minor space battle - where my forces, from Earth, were more powerful than their Kafer counterparts exponentially. The firepower scale was probably somewhere in the range of the hundreds of thousands to one. Of course, in order to counteract a firepower advantage of this magnitude you only need a maneuverability advantage of about 47-48 times (the cubed root of 100,000 being somewhere between 47-48, and of course assuming defensive capabilities to be equal), because the amount of space you can maneuver to is r^3. Though the Kafers didn't necessarily have this much of an advantage (though inertialless drives allowed them to switch directions rapidly and throw off Earth gunnery computations horrifically), it was enough to allow a fleet of what my government at the time considered fighters to cripple a major contingent of Earth ships.

So even though my ships were probably more technically 'advanced', and my industry consumed incredible amounts of raw materials and He-3 a day, this single maneuverability advantage turned an otherwise overwhelming position into an almost inferior one, which would've set my ships at an incredible advantage in a long-term war.

And insofar as FTLi stands, I like to think I have a decent record on compromise. Heck, what could accurately be described as the entire Realm was completely obliterated by Kara during the Fleetmind War, in fact a rather unfortunate consequence of my own FTLi.

As a sidenote, TCB, I really don't know all that much about the physics regarding stars (being an aspiring mathematician I'm fairly sure I'm simply allowed to claim that all other disciplines are beneath me), and how a field inhibiting faster-than-light effects would have such a devastating effect. Would you mind elaborating on that?

EDIT: It's been quite awhile since I've used the distance formula, and I can't quite remember whether it's d = vt + (1/2)a(t)^2, or d = vt + (1/2)(at)^2. If someone could tell me if I got that wrong, that'd be neat.

[The Cosmic Balance]

As a sidenote, TCB, I really don't know all that much about the physics regarding stars (being an aspiring mathematician I'm fairly sure I'm simply allowed to claim that all other disciplines are beneath me), and how a field inhibiting faster-than-light effects would have such a devastating effect. Would you mind elaborating on that?

Most FTL drives rely on the ability to change the geometry of space-time itself: Warping, folding, punching holes between two points, and all the rest. It stands to reason that any practical FTLi system must prevent or impede that. Let's assume that it utterly prevents any curvature of space at all, rendering it all smooth and flat as a pool table, because that's the "OMG-you-can't-use-your-FTL-drives-at-all" kind that people like to bandy about so much.

Quick relativity question, kids: What happens to gravity - all gravity - within the FTLi generator's field of influence when the dadblanged thing gets switched on?

Answer: It goes away. In fact, it probably goes away completely.

Now, for today's little Mr. Science demonstration, we're going to use a small M5-class sun without planets (WARNING, KIDS! DON'T DO THIS IN YOUR HOME SYSTEM). We're going to place an FTLi generator with a 10 LS radius of effect close to said sun, and then step waaaaaay back. Ready? Here goes!!!!



<FTLi generator starts up>



<Small sun goes supernova>



Whoaaa! Did you expect that, kids? You should have! Here's why:

Nuclear fusion requires tremendous gravitational pressures in the presence of extremely high temperatures to occur, especially as we move away from the early light-element fusion seen near the top of the stellar spectrum and approach the heavy-metal fusion that occurs in so-called "late sequence" stars (which, BTW, make up 80-90% of the stellar population in all but the youngest galaxies - and that includes the Milky Way). When a star is burning, those forces - inward gravitational pressure and outward gas pressure - are in near-perfect balance, with gravitational pressure having a very slight edge, such as to cause all stars to shrink slowly over time (and we're talking billions of years here, kids!). Take away the gravitational pressure and what happens? Well, all of that superheated plasma - at temperatures in the range of hundreds of millions of degrees - goes merry expanding off into space at something very closely approaching the speed of light.

That means that anyone stupid enough to be in the vicinity of such a star when it goes off - and that would be within anywhere from 0.5 to 2.5 AU, depending on the star's size - is going to get hit by the equivalent of a million charged particle beams all at once!

Can you say, "Game over!?!?"

So, today's FT safety tip? Never use FTLi close to a star!

HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: If we could generate microscopic black holes - small enough that they could pass through most solid objects without producing any nasty tidal effects, but large enough that the Hawking radiation produced by them was similar to, say, the energy output of the Tunguska event, and we seeded them all across a prospective space battlefield, what would happen in an enemy fleet that wandered into such a field turned its FTLi on?

[Feazanthia]

@ TCB

Heh.

Heh heh.

Hehehe.

Ha ha.


Hahaha

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Capsule Corporation]

FYI, I created my FTL to operate in realspace, in 3-space... or whatever you want to call it. So it was designed to be naturally immune to most FTLi.... this is imporant because without FTL my ships are basically grounded. (weak engines, close-range weapons)

I've followed every rule of NS to make my tech base, and I think I deserve to have it... especially since I'm not new to this...


As for blanket FTLi... the 'principle' of it, as I've heard it explained, is that it "locks space" into "3 dimensions." That's the way Bryn Shander wrote it at least.

The problem with this idea is that a lot of space happens outside of 3-space! Gravity for one! Such a huge field would screw up a planet's gravity if it strictly met that definition. (wow, I just noticed that TCB noticed the same thing)

Also, as previously pointed out, some of these FTLi extend 1-10 light seconds! Insane!

So i figure, if someone were to attack my planet with FTLi, I can either ignore it, or I can react with the fullest extent possible! "OMG THERE'S NO GRAVITY!"

Everyone on the planet drifts away, the atmosphere immediately get sucked away into outer space... all that good stuff....

[Feazanthia]

On the matter of numbers, is the rule of thumb 5mil per every average capital ship? I've seen everything from 100,000 to 50,000,000 pop per capital ship.

I figured I should probably get around to organizing my navy.

[Capsule Corporation]

On the matter of numbers, is the rule of thumb 5mil per every average capital ship? I've seen everything from 100,000 to 50,000,000 pop per capital ship.

I figured I should probably get around to organizing my navy.

I don't see why everyone needs these gigantic empires and navies... but that's beside the point.

What exactly IS an average capital ship anyway?

[Sertian]

I had a problem with blanket FTLi for two reasons really, A) People claimed it can stop all FTL, all the time, so long as it's up. B) The physical possibility of such a wide sweeping device being created and yet not having any unnatural implications.

For the first part, this was because my nation originated from outside of the Milky Way Galaxy and had no previous contact with the civilizations of NS. Combined with this, I'm doing my very best to design the technology myself, so it's not using the same principles of other nations. Put these together, and my people have an FTL device (The Drift Drive) which was totally unique to itself, operating on the principle of a Phase Universe Drive (not phase as in passing through like we all think of it, but phasing as in a state of change). Of course I've refined the principle behind it (it's potentially much more powerful, but the Sertian's don't know that yet. ), but it's still pretty unique from what I know of.

But anyway, because of those two reasons (unknown force, unique technology) I claimed my vessels to be immune to most, if not all FTLi, until someone had the chance to capture a ship or a few, reverse engineer it's Drives, and spend some IC effort in designing a potential way to apply some Philobotium and prevent it from working. Combine this with the fact that the Drive lacked a lot of the potential 'wankness' of an unchecked drive (Tactical jumps can only be made so often/so far apart, the drive can't manifest in any space occupied with over .5atmu of substance, and the smallest thing it's been equipped on is a Heavy Fighter/Bomber). I've never had this become a problem in an RP, because I don't think the Sertians have ever gotten into a major combat with another race. The only time my Drift Drives had been used is for a Submarine-isque style of play with one of my ships lurking in the Drift and spying on a potential confrontation. :3

As for Mechs, I do believe they have some advantage over tanks, but not that they're absolutely better than them. I don't mean the Gundum sort of mechs, but stuff like Titans (at least the Mk.II versions) and Juggaurnuts from Command and Conquer 3 and other such designed walker vehicles. I have one species, the Enkers, that evolved on a very mountainous world with very few plains or flat territory. Tanks are at a serious disadvantage here, the usually thin roads preventing them from turning around, leaving them very vulnerable to infantry with anti-tank rockets.

The advantage of walkers, when they had the technology to develop them was this:
Being legged, they can turn around on the roads that didn't have enough space to easily allow a tank to turn. In addition, legs had an easier time climbing the sometimes steep terrain of a mountains than a tread or wheeled system would have.
The higher profile of the walker allowed it to fire over mountains and other obstacles that a lower profile tank couldn't shoot over, it also gave the walker slightly better range.
Third, the legs, while vulnerable to explosives strong enough to cripple the vehicle, were weapons in themselves since they could place the entire weight of the walker onto an x-square meter space. Squish.

Edit: @TBC, wouldn't the very same hawking radiation from the black hole mine field cause them to exponentially release raiation until all of it's energy evaporates? After all, the more radiation a black hole releases, the smaller it is, and the more radiation it releases, the smaller it gets.

[Feazanthia]

Sertian, that last point you made is exactly why legged vehicles are inferior in anything resembling reality.

Unless they're walking across hard, dense concrete, they're going to sink into the ground, because all their weight is supported on 2-4 tiny spots. That is, of course, assuming you have the materials to even build leg supports that could maintain that weight. Add that to the notoriously unstable and unpredictable nature of mountainous terrain (ask any mountain climber), and then tell me how legged vehicles do at climbing over obstacles.

Also...advantage in turning around? The advantage of tank treads is that they can do shit like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMymz6aC5ZA

Any tank that needs a wide road to turn around is terribly, terribly designed.


Also, Capsule, I just want a general guideline to make it easier on myself.

[Sertian]

Also...advantage in turning around? The advantage of tank treads is that they can do shit like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMymz6aC5ZA

Hahaaa, I didn't think of a tank using it's treads to go in two different directions to turn on the spot until after I post. Anyway, I still stick to for them, walkers being a better system in their environment. Then again, if they're walker vehicles were caught out on a flat terrain against tanks... I'd hope they had a tactical advantage or else their legs are going to get shot out right under them. Quite literally.