Avatar of Willy Vereb

Status

Recent Statuses

10 yrs ago
I'll be away on a trip for a few days so my activity will be low
11 yrs ago
I'll be on vacation for a few days so my activity will be low

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>
I think one could do both- an escort-frigate would rely on its parent ship for, as an example, protection, with the parent ship's focus being on shields, so the escort-frigate would be hiding within the shields, using its own weapons to fire on enemies. Meanwhile, a warship-frigate would be, as you say, a ship that can operate independently, with substantial offensive and defensive capabilities. An escort may have a specialization in only one, while a warship uses both with a leaning towards one.

But using a common ship categories would be useful. That way a warship [which is actually a dreadnought] wouldn't be surprised and destroyed by another warship [which was actually a light or medium cruiser], which normally wouldn't happen, because a dreadnought has big thick armor and a light or medium cruiser has neither heavy guns, nor heavy armor.

Mind you, light or medium cruisers are just that- it's unlikely they'll have any particularly powerful weapons or shields in comparison to someone else, and would probably rely more on maneuverability or disruptive electronic warfare and drones. Take, for example, the Wyoming-class Battleship, which is a big-armor, big-guns, lotsa-guns, and slow. Then there is, say, the St. Louis-class cruiser, which is more of a heavy cruiser because it has like 14 guns (in comparison to other ships' 4-10), a buncha armor, and is quite slow. Then there's the Phoenix class cruiser, which has anywhere from 6-10 guns, isn't quite as armored as the St. Louis, but is just as fast as a Clemson-class destroyer, if slightly less manueverable. And, the Phoenix holds a couple turrets of the almighty torpedoes.
Well,to be fair just like how during modern times there's a confusion between ship classes it'd only get worse between two different interstellar empires.
For starters one race may consider their 1200 meters long warship a hulking Dreadnought and the heaviest vessel they have.
Another civilization may not even use any ships below 1km in length. They'd think the other nation sent a mere Destroyer against them.

Nations which may have experienced such confusion before would probably try to estimate ships by a more objective scale, as in how much power they generate. Techno jargon like "battleship-class power readings" would be uttered for certain.
And this brings up another issue, differences in technology.
While I suppose there would be some balance but regardless there'll be certain rifts in tech level between the various players.
On the extremes one race's Destroyers would be more powerful than any battleship the other owns. This may be because different standards in size or just because the other has plain better and more sophisticated tech.
Said differences in tech may be balanced with smaller fleets and other factors.
Either way it means the scenario you envisoned is not only plausible but even allowed by the game.

I think the easiest way to solve issues if the player explicitly notes how his/her ships compare to the opponent.
"I may have 200 ships but my vessels are less advanced and weaker so don't worry!"
or
"In Derplexia the smallest warship is 5km long, so the Destroyer your patrol spotted is almost as large as your Dreadnought. Be mindful of that!"

And so on. Same could be achieved if the player mentions this during the IC.

"Oh my God! The enemy has 30 Dreadnoughts! All hands, prepare for battle stations!"
Sir McDouche declared. In reality the enemy ships were only Narmasian Frigates but regardless the threat was real.


As you can see, this is going to be a complicated business as always.
Anyways, check out the OP of the Age of Rebirth 2 thread to see some of the tech you can use during this one.

In addendum to that I talk a bit about plausible space propulsions.

1.) Nuclear thrusters
The ship uses the heat of nuclear energy and some kind of ablative material to produce thurst.
There are two methods.
A.) Orion Drive and its derivatives
Using small nuclear bombs and detonate them in succession to gain thurst. The smaller the bomb, the more frequent you can use it and with better containment.
Primitive space warships may literally detonate nukes behind themselves and accelerate in erratic pulses. This method is anything but subtle and strains the ship considerably.
More sophisticated methods use tiny pellets of micro fusion explosives initiated by burning antimatter filled fulerenes. This method is likely the more widespread. It's pretty much like chemical rockets in terms of mechanism except much more effective.
More compact warships may use these.

Drawbacks are less efficiency compared to the other type (little to no "gears" to switch) and that your propellant is basically a huge stash of thermonuclear bombs. Battle damage could have catastrophic consequences.

B.) Torchships
You have a gigantic thermonuclear reactor which heats up your propellant and use that as your propulsion. Basically the space equivalent of nuclear subs.
Advantages for torchsips is that you can mix various propellants, adjust the output or perform other methods in order to alter the exhaust velocity of your propellant. Lower exhaust velocity means more thrust at the same energy expense. On the other hand exhaust velocities limit your maximum theoretical Delta-V in space.
So yeah, if done right a rector-powered thruster can be much more fuel efficient than the above. On the other hand the said reactor would occupy a considerably portion of the ship, reducing the useful mass. Long story short it generally only worths to do at large scales.
Another obvious advantages of Torchships is that you can use your crazy reactor output to power big weapons.
A theoretical 1000-ton torchship would require a reactor with roughly 45 GW output. Now imagine your space battleship pumping even fraction of this energy to a laser.
Yeah, a direct hit could bring nasty results.
On the other hand building these ships would be ridiculously expensive (basically combine a super-large aircraft carrier with all the space shuttle programs and add the building of a huge nuclear power plant to it). Even the most powerful nations shouldn't be able to possess more than a few 1000-ton range space battleships.
On the other hand since it requires less anti-matter and generally more efficient this ship could travel to places more economically than Type-A.
Potentially you can build mini-torchships too, but like I said with the limited usable mass their utility is rather dubious.

Alright, but while these things are impressive in general nuclear propulsion would be limited to military use.
That is because these ships would be so damn powerful that their misuse as weapons is inevitable.
Type 1A is basically carries nukes as propellant. It's a flying weapon of mass destruction.
Type 1B has enough reactor output to power all kinds of terrible weapons also with some tempering the reactor itself can be turned into a bomb of mass destruction.
You just don't want these to be anywhere around civilians.

So what for the rest?
Well, there's a nice method which circumwents the issue.

2.) Laser Propulsion
Laser propulsion basically means that you burn the propellant by external means. You raise the ship into orbit either by rockets, space elevators or even the laser apparatus itself.
After that a hi-power but somewhat low intensity array of lasers would burn your propellant.
This method would eliminate the need for expensive power generation systems and thanks to the comparatively cheap ground-based fusion powerplants the cost of operating the lasers should be fairly economical, too.

The laser arrays themselves would be gigantic (think of a city-sized plant and laser emitters reaching kilometers deep into the ground) and strictly owned by the government. Not all countries would be capable of building such gigantic laser arrays but for this reason they can be easily lent to other nations (thus generating pretty fat stacks of revenue for the owner).

The above reasons make each of these laser array systems the treasure of the respective nation. They are the most heavily guarded part of the entire country. In addition if necessary these laser arrays can be tuned and altered for defensive purposes. Their powerful lasers can be focused to destroy incoming ballistic missiles or even deter enemy spaceships. This is another big reason why these gigantic installations are so precious.

Smaller laser arrays are possible to build of course and these can be used to propel smaller lightcrafts (that's the typical name of these spaceships, remember it). And like the main array these can similarly offer some aid in defense.

After hearing the effectiveness of these lasers you may wonder, why not use these to propel warships?
Well, first off a ship restricted to follow a laser beam is hardly maneuverable. This is the biggest reason.
Second, the laser beam can be intercepted thus cutting off power from the warship.
Third, lightcrafts are designed different from warships and have some qualities which aren't desirable for them.
Fourth, it's unlikely that any nation has enough laser projectors to cover all parts of space and power their warships on patrol.
So while it's efficient there are several issues for it being used for war.
On the other hand this method may be viable for smaller vessels controlled by Torchships.
Think of a space battleship shooting compact torpedoes or drone fighters while both controlling and powering them via laser transmissions.
This is a potential and much cheaper alternative to using Type 1A methods (albeit this makes the smallcrafts more predictable).
So yeah, that could work.

Alright, this would be it for now.
Basically you have 3 distinct futuristic propulsion methods with their set of advantages and drawbacks.
I could get much deeper into the details but in general this sorts of knowledge would be enough.
I may make a similar post about the basics of hard sci-fi space warfare on a later date.

Excuse me for the slowness of me processing all the various factions and you still have to wait a bit before I properly evaluate them.
Until then I have an important announcement.
The profiles are overall good but you all miss an important part. That is the military section. Unless you are a natural born diplomatic prodigy this game would feature a lot of fighting. This and because the result of these battles will be decided by the GMs it means you need some effort on your military section.

First off, army size.
As I said in the OP this will be at first directly dependent on your population count. Unfortunately I have yet to rank most of your factions (Man, I'd really need a co-GM or two here) so instead do the following:
Assume everybody has 100,000 soldiers now. It won't be like this after my evaluation but with a bit of math you can scale down the numbers accordingly.

So you have 100,000 soldiers for now.
That's nice but I need more information. You basically need to break down how many units you have.
For example depending on how mechanized you are a modern army has 2-10% of their soldier count in military vehicles (2000-10,000 vehicles total)
10-20% of the vehicle count are tanks (so 1000-2000 tanks out of 10,000 military vehicles)
Air force varies from 0.1% to 1% of your soldier count (100-1000 aircraft for an army of 100,000)
10-20% of these are fighters, roughly half of them are transport planes and only a small fraction of the air force are usually heavy bombers (if any).
Naval force in warships is roughly 0.1% or less of one's soldier count.
You aren't obliged to explicitly use these but can help for certain players.
Aside from vehicles you can mention your special units (cavalry, elite soldiers, mages, war beasts, etc) a well a your heroes (special individuals with great powers compared to any other soldier)
Let's take the Soviets from RA2 as an example:


So yeah, give this a try. Even if you can't make a truly comprehensive army list I appreciate whatever effort you put into this.

@ActRaiserTheReturned@Nerevarine@Avalant@Inkdrop@6slyboy6@datadogie@rush99999
Um
Now, your nation may have intentionally done this, but traditional ship classes have destroyers as one of the smaller ships, battleships the largest, and cruisers acting as everything in between. The reason being that destroyers were made with torpedoes- powerful anti-ship weapons- that get in close using superior speed and mobility- something that a large ship struggles with. Cruisers, meanwhile, act as anything from larger, better armed and armored destroyers to smaller, slightly less powerful battleships. They're to take down enemy destroyers, cruisers, and aircraft with their moderate AA, guns, and armor.

and Duck, if you get angry at me for disagreeing again, then go ahead and kick me from the roleplay. This is science fiction, and is generally an advanced- type roleplay, based on previous iterations of the series. If you dislike me disagreeing and not accepting everything, and won't put up with it, do tell me now.

Based on factual, modern information of traditional ship roles, this is the sizes of ships from smallest to largest:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought (This was the battleship up until America became a world power, in which the 'superdreadnoughts' of the time were renamed to 'battleships')
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship
That sounds like old WW2 classification system. Granted, since then many of these classes kinda became obsolete.
Modern naval terminology also rather adapted a hull classification system with 1-3 letter anagrams showing the ship's role.
Also in modern naval terms Frigates are much smaller than Destroyers, the latter are sometimes even becoming pocket battleships in terms of role. Take the Zumwalt-class destroyers, for example.
But like I said there's so much confusion over the use of old school ship categories that they partially reforme this into a new system.

On the other hand sci-fi battle are often WW2 in space so in this sense your terminology is absolutely right. Well, save for the Dreadnought which is often use for superheavy battleships because their name just sound cooler and more threatening.

Anyways, settling down on an uniform ship classification system would be great. Otherwise it leads to confusion.
Alternatively just separate escorts from warships in your fleet. Escorts will imply they are weaker ships used for screening and as force multipliers while warships would imply independent vessels with competition grade protection and/or firepower. This simple distinction may be all we need and leave ship classes as flavor texts.

Would it be alright if I play as an interstellar megacorp?
Basically I'd less of a civilization and more like a corporation of great number of companies that are present in at least hundreds of different civilizations.
I may be the largest shareholder in these corporations but my holdings would be subject to the local laws in general.
I'd only own a single planet which would be also the megacorp's headquarters.
As for tech it'd be technically a mish-mash of anything which can be traded for in the galaxy along with the company's own researches and improvements.

So yeah, basically a galaxy-wide megacorp which would trade with nearly anyone else.
Capitalism at its purest.
Small question: On terms of brain-to-computer interfacing, how far are we? Are brain implants a possible thing?
We already have some of that. While Matrix or Ghost in the Shell kind of brain interfacing is better left out I can see simple brain controls or cybernetics as a method to compensate for disabilities should be relatively common, as per the GM's latest answer to my questions.

With that I'll be preparing to make work on the OOC, as well as gladly ask you, Willy, to be a co-GM. Any thoughts?
Yeah, sure. Also I'll try to limit my techspeak to avoid scaring players away.

On the other hand I wonder if I can get your help running this game:
http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/85373-braving-the-new-world-science-fantasy-crossover-nrp-co-gm-needed/ooc
It requires you to be knowlegable in a few popular fictions. Also it'd feature direct GM actions and updates so it'd be somewhat work intensive.
Equal to as if you'd be an active player in the game.
But this is exactly why I need co-GM assistance. There are about twice as many players than what I can manage.

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

Well dang if that isn't the most badass means of transportation.
So awesome there are several different variations to this method. They sacrifice efficient energy use with the simplicity of the bombs.

To be fair though our car engines work by well-cycled rapid series of gasoline explosion so this sorts of propulsion is more common than you'd think. There's also a law in sci-fi that the power of a ship engine is directly proportional the technology's potential use as a weapon. The back end of the torchship doubles as a deadly weapon for anyone unfortunate to be caught in the way of the jet. So these things would be unlikely to end in civilian hands unless there's a rigorous control at their use (special licenses, heavy standards and regulations, tight surveillance, etc).

@UnfortunatelyI just got a better idea:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php
Pick whichever engine designs you would like the most for this RP.
There's actually quite a difference between even two nuclear torch engine designs. Some may even feel insane yet strangely practical.
Orion drive which basically lets the ship ride on a series of nuclear explosions; for example.
Yeah, with these assumptions I think you are better looking for the early 22th century as a start.
21 hundred whatever for the date.

So you have cloning blues (albeit since the setting is realistic it isn't super fast or even really economical for most things), cybernetics, tiny bit of post scracity thing with new energy sources and casual space travel.
Yes, weeks of time to reach Mars is like a pleasure ride compare to nowadays. I uppose this is plausible all thanks to fusion torch engines or perhaps the plasma impulse engines using fusion power. Either of these could be theoretically made orders of magnitudes more fuel efficient than pure chemical rockets and generally reusable which makes them all the greater for space travel.
I'll cook up what kind of techs you implied with these 5 answers in a few hours or so.
<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>
Looks like you're underestimating nukes a bit.
Yes, many would still survive, yes the Earth won't remain uninhabitable forever, but no, environmental effects would still have a major impact on humanity and no, people will still have a hard time after such a war.

Considering the setting where, global conventional warfare is adversely killing much of the population, the arms race has revived consequently, nuclear stockpiles are on the rise again (and I'm aware reaching Chicxulub-levels is still near-impossible), and much of the climate and environment is heavily wrecked by human exploitation, a nuclear war would be like both pouring lemon juice and rubbing salt on a wound at the same time. The conditions after, resulting from population and economic loss as well as hostilities between sociopolitical groups and environmental effects, would be a big struggle to recover from. Also, indeed there would be countermeasures, but then again there'll also be counter-countermeasures.

tl;dr It is true that it doesn't end the world as we know it, but it can still fragment human civilization to a big extent and reduce it down if it occurs at the current setting.
Excuse me as well for the rant.
No problem albeit I disagree in some points. Sure, a nuclear war would easily lead to the collapse of even the largest nations, destroy the industrial, research or economic centers and overall it'd be a tragedy. But the civilization itself would remain still. Most people would be alive and well while living in smaller cities posessing nearly all the infrastructure of what large cities have so things won't change into Mad Max like techno barbarism or Fallout-like bleak wastelands.
The biggest issue would be the lack of leadership, be it in terms of politics, economy or anything. Countries would be spread to smaller nations and anarchic decades will be ahead.

As for radiation, yes, it's a problem. After settling their immediate concerns humanity would need to deal with the hidden threat of radiation poisoning. I can imagine weather reports telling people about "radioactive winds" and to stay indoors while using their air filters during these times. Although it's also quite likely I'd be exaggerating here. Fact is we already detonated thousands of nukes in the name of testing. Former residents of Hiroshima also returned to their city and while it isn't completely without dangers they didn't just die in doves. Unless you live close to a nuked city chances are high you may never need to worry about radiation in general. scientific studies following this WW3 scenario may show that radioactivity caused some animals to die out or at least become endangered but it'd be far less serious than bulldozing the rain forests, for example.
So yeah, life after a nuclear war would suck. It kills untold amount of people, cuts off the head of nations and adds radioactive winds as a potential new environmental hazard.
But so would suck a conventional WW3 without the nukes, provided nations go as far as they did during WW2.
Oh well, hopefully this discussion wouldn't have anything to do with the game. So again i was just ranting about this topic.

Alright.

Oil would be nearly obsolete by the current setting, however, so people would likely fight for both supremacy and resources. But hey, if that's what people want, we'll set back the time to where fusion reactors aren't the norm yet.

And we're garnering more interest, so maybe it's time I've started writing an OOC.
I am a little confused.
I suggested the above because your OP said nations fight for the black gold.
But if oil is increasingly less relevant in the setting then you can just ignore what I said.
If you adopt the "alternate universe" idea of mine then you can set any date you want for the game.
The only thing it would determine is perhaps the technology we get.
So because I am confused I ask a few questions:
1.) What are the state of the natural resources (fossil fuels, raw materials, etc)? Nearing depletion or still exploitable as nowadays?
2.) Was there an large scale war within the century or all fights were regional conflicts? (thinking of WW3 or anything close)
3.) Eugenics, human cloning and transhumanism. Did any of these became plausible and if yes what is the public opinion on them?
4.) Does this world have something like the UN, NATO and other large international groups? What are these?
5.) How much space travel developed in this game? Are people capable of "casual" interplanetary travel? Colonies on other planets? Exploitation of resources in space?

Depending on what are your thoughts on these it can determine the game's style.
For some reason my first impression was a future scenario with space extensive space travel and exploration. Dunno why I thought this, maybe the implication that we may develop FTL if the game advances that far.
My second impression was that a more contemporary setting where resources are depleting but the world has yet to adopt alternate methods.
But you seem to had a bit different thing in mind.
By answering my 5 questions it'd help me to gasp what's your game will be really about.
Thank you in advance!

© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet