[quote=Tired Mercenary] Edit: I believe your comments on Mechs are now for the Classifications, which would probably be a point for players. You can make an Armored Personnel Carrier as large as a Freighter if you wanted. Saying a Support Class Mech MUST be the size of a car sounds... eh, entirely too restrictive. If you wanted all your Mechs to be the size of a large tank, then you should be able to do that. [/quote] I just mentioned the mostly used types of classifications. Since you said logic and realism... A support class is called so because most mechs in that aspect where mostly just put as light fire support for infantry or tanks. in many sci fi stories. Also this size is often seen in industrial zones rather than on the field. It's not restrictive, merely a logical stand point on where they would see the most use depending on technology and combat abilities <.< The strength in having a mech. A humanoid robot is that it's adaptive. usually the best size would be around a fighter jet where you can get enough performance and protection at the same time in it. thus the second class description. [quote=Tired Mercenary] Not sure the point about talking about Mechs, but alright. Either way, no Gundams here, please.Being Fleetbound does not always mean you are best at space combat. Fleetbound could mean you lost your homeworld due to war, a cataclysmic event, or otherwise. Fleetbound could be a civilization ship to find a new home for reasons their population grew too large or similar issues to the first example. Fleetbound can mean many things, not only better space combat. Besides, you can easily make your Nations technology more efficient and excel better at things if you wanted a fleetbound Nation with expertise in space combat.Your comment on spaceships being automated is a good point to other players and something I should bring up. More automation could make your Nation seem like it loves power and control at an instant. I am not leading to a "If you have computers operate your ships, the Zill will target you." What I am saying is, you might be seen as a more power hungry Nation. true, if your species has problems or issues and almost needs computerized ships, no, you won't seem like that. But if the humans had computer controlled-everything, we'd see a lot more "deaths" than usual.Lastly, your point on planets is, well, I should have typed it, if I didn't, I'm sorry. Healthy planets are in a correct orbiting placement, but their placement puts them in the path of asteroids, which hit yearly. You could move underground if you wanted to, but then you'd have the same issues as the frozen planets did. With Frozen Planets, you have the technology to build space-faring dreadnoughts, you can construct heating systems, air ventilation, bunkers, etc. It isn't hard to underground, it's just a preference to be above ground, mostly. [/quote] When you said fleet bound i imagined nomadic types of nations XD Having a space fleet that moves around taking resources from asteroids moons and perhaps even planets. yes resources is not that big of an issue as you make it sound ^^ If as such that kind of species would have generations of people just living in space learning how to handle zero go. Technology would develop around vacuum, danger of debris and hull ruptures even space combat in majority. AKA they would have the edge in having the most experience in space travel and survival. in both technology and experienced crews but yes then it also depends on how long and what turn their nations development would take after space travel starts. Stagnation or flourish.... might make a nation today ....hm have some things to do first though.