StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Siege wrote:

fgalkin wrote:Holy crap, the kitties have invented the perfect anti-Solarian weapon. Imagine, dozens of Bragulan SPUDs with these warheads, crashing into Solarian hyperfields, overloading them, followed by a launches of other missiles with bragnukes tearing their into their defenseless hulls. It's a beautiful sight indeed

Solarian hyperfields also have a trap door function (briefly referred to, for example, here).

'Course even if they hadn't you'd still have to hit the Solarian ship first, and a giant cumbersome missile may not be the best way to do it. Although they're certainly welcome to try -- we never got around to beating up on each other the last time around .

It'll be a year before the Tap missile project is finished so you'll have to be patient but I have an idea of how they'll work already. A Tap missile is basically a hyperspace tap used as a warhead, hyperspace taps being the rifts between realspace and hyperspace that Chamarrans use to get combat power without having to lug around all that nastily volatile antimatter. A Tap missile detonation would basically leave this rift wandering close to the target for a few seconds till it closed, delivering far more ouch in the form of emitted radiation during that period than the regular thermonuclear warheads the chamarrans use now are capable of. Admittedly they trade for this by being rather more expensive to produce.

The semi plausible reason they might work better against the Lost is that from the Chamarran's limited understanding of this field trying to take an interdimensional rift and make it travel to a different dimension(ie using a trapdoor function) is not a good thing to be doing.

As for dimensions. Shiran believes that the Lost's defence system sends the targeted missile to Null space or somewhere similar, a dimension the Chamarrans are only capable of venting waste heat into using devices called Null sinks.

edit addendum: I also went with hyperspace being a place full of energy partly cause the Altacarans have hyperspace taps as well.

I don't really get why hyperspace being volatile means you can't dump energy in it. There's no particular reason a trap door system has to be a two-way street.

After reading this discussion I truly cannot believe you guys actually shit on me for wanting what amounts to magazines of holding.

Magazines of holding? As in your ammunition is pulled from an alternate dimension? I fail to see how that's at all like having warheads that are essentially hyperspace engines and shields that open hyperspace doors for enemy fire to fly through.

Kartr_Kana wrote:Magazines of holding? As in your ammunition is pulled from an alternate dimension? I fail to see how that's at all like having warheads that are essentially hyperspace engines and shields that open hyperspace doors for enemy fire to fly through.

It's not an infinite magazine, just a means to have bigger ones than the unit's apparent size would suggest. And it doesn't hand wave mass, either.

In my case I'm magicking in attacks to prolong combat effectiveness. They're magicking in attacks to hit harder or magicking them away to not hit at all.

Okay. Now that I've thought things through a fair bit more I realize we so need to reconsider this stuff a fair bit based on the facts about hyperspace established by hyperdrives.

On the one hand, openings to hyperspace can either be controlled as to what goes through in either direction or hyperspace is not that energetic for the simple reason that ships go in and out of hyperspace all the time through comparatively huge openings and the energy from these events isn't sterilizing nearby worlds.

On the other hand, any physical matter inside hyperspace requires constant effort to be kept there as evidenced by the way losing your hyperdrive field leads to an abrupt painful return to reality so a trapdoor into hyperspace wouldn't be useful against missiles.

Simplest way i suppose would be to retcon which dimensions the various extradimensional tehnologies work with.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Kartr_Kana wrote:Magazines of holding? As in your ammunition is pulled from an alternate dimension? I fail to see how that's at all like having warheads that are essentially hyperspace engines and shields that open hyperspace doors for enemy fire to fly through.

It's not an infinite magazine, just a means to have bigger ones than the unit's apparent size would suggest. And it doesn't hand wave mass, either.

In my case I'm magicking in attacks to prolong combat effectiveness. They're magicking in attacks to hit harder or magicking them away to not hit at all.

My problem with it Ryan is you're opening a freaking door to another dimension something that in game takes lots of energy or results in such an energetic release that it's used for power, Hyperdrives and these Tap reactors/missiles. If you have that kind of power available for an infantry weapon magazine why not just use that power source to power the weapon? Either way IMO it's going to require to much energy for small arms use.

I don't know what this trap door nonsense is all about, but Void shields work on the principle of warping space-time, creating a huge wall of distortion forces that cause just about anything to dissipate and warp and get crushed. It however takes a lot of energy to power Void shields, and thus one overloads them the old fashioned way of simply pounding it until the vessel cannot output the energy required to maintain the shield.

Ryan Thunder wrote:After reading this discussion I truly cannot believe you guys actually shit on me for wanting what amounts to magazines of holding.

For the record, I was for having a consistent approach with having wonky interdimensional tech, and wanted to follow the precedent set with the ruling of your magazines.

Kartr_Kana wrote:My problem with it Ryan is you're opening a freaking door to another dimension something that in game takes lots of energy or results in such an energetic release that it's used for power, Hyperdrives and these Tap reactors/missiles. If you have that kind of power available for an infantry weapon magazine why not just use that power source to power the weapon? Either way IMO it's going to require to much energy for small arms use.

Holy shit, what kind of munchkin do you take me for? That would be ridiculous. Hypercapacity magazines are not infantry systems. They were developed specifically for a set of 1-point and 5-point vehicles, mostly because I couldn't think of another plausible means for those units to actually be capable of killing as many troops as advertised.

Am I the only one whose shields simply emulate a tangible wall rather than a dimensional warp?

Darkevilme wrote:Okay. Now that I've thought things through a fair bit more I realize we so need to reconsider this stuff a fair bit based on the facts about hyperspace established by hyperdrives... Simplest way i suppose would be to retcon which dimensions the various extradimensional tehnologies work with...

Nah, there's a much easier solution.

fgalkin wrote:Ah, so it's your tech that is inconsistent with the kitties

We should really all standardize how this stuff works, so we don't get things like the Chamarran hyperspace being incredibly energetic and possible to tap as a source of power, while Solarian hyperspace being the opposite.

Obvious explanation, much better than forcing standardization:

"Hyperspace" is not a single 'parallel universe' that we get to by traveling a specified distance at right angles to reality. It is a large (infinite?) number of such spaces, layered 'above' and 'below' the reality we know. Most of them are utterly unsuitable for travel, but they have interestingly different properties (like bands of the EM spectrum). Therefore, saying a system uses "hyperspace" simply means that:

1) It has some common theoretical basis from a scientific standpoint with other 'hyper' systems, in the same sense that radio and gamma waves share the property of being electromagnetic even though they behave totally differently.
2) It involves a many-dimensional milieu/multiverse/whatever, of which our own universe is a restricted portion (or a four-dimensional cross section).

Neither of those requires us to make all 'hypermanipulation' technologies identical. Everyone's drives are basically identical, but that doesn't mean power generation and defensive technologies has to be.

Or, as Ryan put it, hyperspace is full, subspace is empty.

Ryan Thunder wrote:After reading this discussion I truly cannot believe you guys actually shit on me for wanting what amounts to magazines of holding.

I never did.

Kartr_Kana wrote:Magazines of holding? As in your ammunition is pulled from an alternate dimension? I fail to see how that's at all like having warheads that are essentially hyperspace engines and shields that open hyperspace doors for enemy fire to fly through.

It's a way of fitting a lot of bullets into a skinny robot so he can have skinny robots that are nonetheless effective in combat. No more, no less. As far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to do it. Excuse me.

[modhat]

He's welcome to do it, as long as it isn't used to wank his military equipment as being superior to others' equipment of equal point cost.

[/modhat]

Ryan Thunder wrote:Holy shit, what kind of munchkin do you take me for? That would be ridiculous. Hypercapacity magazines are not infantry systems. They were developed specifically for a set of 1-point and 5-point vehicles, mostly because I couldn't think of another plausible means for those units to actually be capable of killing as many troops as advertised.

I don't mind it, for that context. I see no problem with it, in point of fact.

Of course, I'm the one whose Chrome Age ray guns are inspired by the Golden Age of SF, when energy weapons had magazine capacity rivaled only by the six-shooters in Western movies of the same period.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Kartr_Kana wrote:My problem with it Ryan is you're opening a freaking door to another dimension something that in game takes lots of energy or results in such an energetic release that it's used for power, Hyperdrives and these Tap reactors/missiles. If you have that kind of power available for an infantry weapon magazine why not just use that power source to power the weapon? Either way IMO it's going to require to much energy for small arms use.

Holy shit, what kind of munchkin do you take me for? That would be ridiculous. Hypercapacity magazines are not infantry systems. They were developed specifically for a set of 1-point and 5-point vehicles, mostly because I couldn't think of another plausible means for those units to actually be capable of killing as many troops as advertised.

Ah well in that case I have no problem with it. I read "magazine" and I thought "M-16" which was why I had a problem with it. On $1-5 war machines I don't mind, be advised though I won't be calling for artillery support when/if engaging those kinds of units. I will be calling for orbital Ion cannon strikes

Kartr_Kana wrote:Ah well in that case I have no problem with it. I read "magazine" and I thought "M-16" which was why I had a problem with it.

No worries.

On $1-5 war machines I don't mind, be advised though I won't be calling for artillery support when/if engaging those kinds of units. I will be calling for orbital Ion cannon strikes

Oh, yes, because the only possible multi-point ground unit is a hulking monstrosity with the maneuverability of a beached whale. What kind of crazed lunatic would ever put an emphasis on mobility for defense at that scale?

Oh, right...

That's what saturation orbital strikes are for. Let them try dodge a nuclear barrage that covers half a continent

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:That's what saturation orbital strikes are for. Let them try dodge a nuclear barrage that covers half a continent

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I know you're just kidding around, but really, I'd love to know what kind of strategic vacuum you'd have to be operating in where killing an ADAU is worth the side-effects of something like that.

I'd love to know what kind of strategic vacuum you'd have to be operating in where killing an ADAU is worth the side-effects of something like that.

One is tempted to snark that a "situation" where the Shepistanis, at least, do not resort to nuclear bombardment isn't a "situation" in any sense of the word.

Shroom Man 777 wrote: One minor note though, when suffering bad burns, you're not supposed to dress it or cover it with ointments or anything. All you do is run water on it. Dressing it just gets the dressing stuck on the burns, and when you reach the hostipal you'll have to remove those stuck dressings anyway. The dressings can later lead to infections also.

This is useful nuersing advice in case if you DO get burned in real life!

I am mistakens! It is okay to dress wounds. But first run water over them!

But don't put ointments if burn is more than first degree!

I have forgotten my nuersings!

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Kartr_Kana wrote:On $1-5 war machines I don't mind, be advised though I won't be calling for artillery support when/if engaging those kinds of units. I will be calling for orbital Ion cannon strikes

Oh, yes, because the only possible multi-point ground unit is a hulking monstrosity with the maneuverability of a beached whale. What kind of crazed lunatic would ever put an emphasis on mobility for defense at that scale?

Oh, right...

Speed is Armor! Speed is Armor!

Simon_Jester wrote:Am I the only one whose shields simply emulate a tangible wall rather than a dimensional warp?

Nope. I have what would be utterly conventional tech (well, conventional inasmuch as a soft sci-fi setting would be): pew pew lasers, projectile weapons, missiles that go boom, 'shields-as-walls' etc.

Essentially, pretty stock sci-fi stuff. Whether you consider this is because of my last, fleeting cries at maintaining something resembling realism in the game or because I'm too unimaginative/lazy to deal with all this transdimensional stuff is up to you.

Yup... My shields generically resist incoming weapons fire.

Hell, if I'm feeling ambitious, I'll shoot your missiles down on their way in...

Beowulf wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Kartr_Kana wrote:On $1-5 war machines I don't mind, be advised though I won't be calling for artillery support when/if engaging those kinds of units. I will be calling for orbital Ion cannon strikes

Oh, yes, because the only possible multi-point ground unit is a hulking monstrosity with the maneuverability of a beached whale. What kind of crazed lunatic would ever put an emphasis on mobility for defense at that scale?

Oh, right...

Speed is Armor! Speed is Armor!

No, it's not armour, but we aren't talking about battleships either.

0-3000km/h in under a second sideways seems pretty adequate to me.

Only if there's no wall in the way

And mang, Collectors seem downright boring compared to wild Lost stuff. Of course...heh.

*plots*

Uh oh.

Hrm...you know, Orichalcum is liable to be a game-changer. It's a passive, unpowered, undetectable anti-psyker device. It can be worn under clothes, mounted on vehicles, emplaced on buildings, even in rooms...

The applications are ridiculously numerous and it stands a chance of neutering any and all ESP activity.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Beowulf wrote:Speed is Armor! Speed is Armor!

No, it's not armour, but we aren't talking about battleships either.

0-3000km/h in under a second sideways seems pretty adequate to me.

Such acceleration is less the province of ground vehicles, and more along the lines of a space craft. That's standing still to escape velocity in < 15 seconds, or well within what you'd expect from Star Wars. As an aside, such acceleration would liquefy the ground you're standing on, requiring a space drive to achieve.

Now for the sad part: assuming you're facing a spaceship in LEO (~100km), that uses light speed weapons, such acceleration will still only manage to get you ~50 micrometers between when it fires, and when it hits. If you really want to have those, I move that they be considered small spaceships, not ground vehicles.