The Future's Future's Future's Future's Future's..

[Simon_Jester]

Hey, Catman, how about you directly address a few questions, instead of just staring at the wall and rambling about nothing in particular?

1) Why do your ships look the way they do, in general?
Seriously, it can't be because you think they'll win any beauty contests. You made a conscious choice to advocate such designs. Why?

2) Why do your ships look the way they do, in particular?
Can you provide actual explanations for specific choices you made, in terms of in-story logic? Can you explain why the Federation would go "huge bulky bulbous" for its ship designs following the Sovereign-class? None of this rambling about super-materials or [insert vague word here], but an actual design justification for a specific choice? Something like "they needed the ships to have more internal volume for the same basic hull size because XYZ."

Similarly, why do you have the 'advanced' ships be flat like big frying pans? Is this somehow an advantage?

(1) and (2) have a lot to do with making all those pictures you gave us seem excuseable.

3) Can you actually single out a particular period of your hypothetical future Federation, and talk about it?
Can you identify exactly what interesting things are going on? Who are the enemies, who are the new allies? what stories could be told? What exciting new technologies have just been invented? What technologies are old but still effective? What are the social pressures in force?

4) Can you single out a general trend in your hypothetical future Federation, and talk about it?
Can you present your ideas about how, say, propulsion evolves in a coherent form? Can you talk about what it actually makes possible? Saying "slipdrive" or whatever is simply pointless and annoying; talk about what it means. Without using rubbish such as "34 times more advanced?"

(3) and (4) have a lot to do with whether anyone is going to give a damn about all your 'future-history' stuff.

[PREDATOR490]

The way this is going is insane and the more I read the responses the more fascinated by how someone can write something this incoherent.

At first the OP posts pictures saying he wants others to make up stories to justify his ships... ???

What do you guys think of all this? Feel free to slug around things you do or don't like about this, really bring up some possible stories and new races, and a few other things, and Pack on the Meat.

However, he is posting random walls of shit about events and facts that indicate he has already made up random events to justify his designs... so what the fuck ?

Seriously Catman, instead of walls of text try explaining ONE of the designs and why it exists. I would suggest doing in a linear fashion.

[Darth Tanner]

Your timeline makes little sense, it seems to take random statements without any reasoning or linkage. I don't know if this is just your writing style though...

Your Hologram nation is a bit of a Matrix rip off, I don't understand how 3 frigates is meant to corrupt the very nature of the Federation and bring it to its knees even after the Klingons and Romulans have magically joined despite having opposing ideals. Why does the Federation become more militaristic when its primary enemies have actually joined it as full members?

[bilateralrope]

and Snarks in their boojum mode totally eradicate things from the continuum.

Am I the only one who thinks that a weapon that eradicates its target from the continuum is a terrible idea ?

Every time you fire it, you reshape the universe in ways you can not predict. Plus you won't be aware that the changes even happened afterwards, unless you're shielded and just leave everyone else confused about who you are and how you got that ship you're in.

How do you even show off the test results of this weapon to convince people that it's worth taking this over weapons which are known to work ?
As far as everyone else is concerned, the thing you're claiming you fired it at never existed in the first place. So they would be justified in calling you a scammer.

[Formless]

Am I the only one who thinks that a weapon that eradicates its target from the continuum is a terrible idea ?

It IS a bad idea. It was the focal point of an entire (good!) two part episode of Voyager, "Year of Hell". Since Catman referenced Chroniton Torpedoes and their shield penetrating ability, I suspect he either watched that episode and completely missed the point of it, or we have a case of someone who read the blurb on Memory Alpha and stopped thinking once the word "awesome!!!!!" went through his mind.

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way.

It might be sensible to devise such a weapon for use in a desperate emergency, a situation where you could retroactively save billions or trillions of lives by applying "make it not have happened."

But it would be literally the weapon of last resort. As in, even time travel, which is at least in principle a viable mechanism for fighting overwhelming threats in Star Trek, isn't cutting it. Because normal time travel is probably less destructive to the overall natural order of things and causality than just... arbitrarily blowing holes in things.

I also think it's kind of weird and sad that he names weapons after things in Lewis Carroll. Really, the only reason why anyone would use "snark" or "boojum" is as a codename which would go out of style... unless of course the author is actually using those as fill-in-the-blanks that he later intends to fill with more randomly generated technobabble.

[sighs]

[Zixinus]

If you need to randomly generate a lot of technobabble, a reconsideration on how you tell the story should be considered.

I mean even space operas don't dwell on it and avoid it if they can. Even trashy stuff, stuff where braking physics is the norm. Throwing a bunch of nonsensical words at your audience is confusing. Space operas don't dwell on this beyond giving just enough of an idea of what it does so you know why its part of the story.

The "power core" supplies power ("Oh no, the power core can't give you more power!"). "Shields" protect you ("The shields are almost down!"). "Guns" destroy things ("Laser-batteries online!").

Telling that your shield it is a thin smoke of anti-neutrons held together rigidly by modulated gravity waves just confuses people, especially people who know what those words mean. It's OK when your aim is to confuse people. But if its not, why are you wasting your reader's patience with stuff you are pretending makes sense but you don't know whether it actually does?