Interstellar Tensions - Futuristic Nation RP

[blazerblock2]

yea see only thing is once you get in a war you'll use this and immediatley blow up the planet you're attacking
making war useless
and taking one planet of a civilization completely out of my RP in one hit

What is the point of war without gain?

[Ad Bot]

[SWAT One]

In 2000 years we went from siege weapons to nukes.  Apparently we can't go from nukes to planet busters in 1000 years.

I dunno.  Personally, I think it's easy science, and frankly, the science would allow for this maybe 100 years after the creation of warp drives.  And since we can cross star clusters in a few days or weeks, then we must be a about 600-700 years into warp technology.

Scaled up, it makes less sense that we wage wars with infantry and drop ships, methods that are now a millennium old.  By now, the technology should exist to collapse entire stars, to be realistic.

That's my two cents, but my opinion doesn't matter here.

[Swat 3]

Swat, Mlock just doesn't want weapons that blow up planets.

Simple as that, man. There is a reason why most nation RPs restricted the use of nukes.

[SWAT One]

Hey.  forget off.  I'm stating my opinion.  It may not count for anything, but anyone is allowed to say whatever, and mlockha determines if it stays or goes.

I acknowledge his authority, but question the reason behind it.  I know very well why super weapons are restricted— I've lived through Anagaea from near beginning to end.  I KNOW of superweapons.

[Swat 3]

He doesn't need to explain his reasoning??

[SWAT One]

The reasoning is rather the question of "What defines a superweapon in the third millennium AD?"

The reasoning to "Superweapons or not", what I presume is to what you are referring, is something that is practically never asked in nation rps.

[blazerblock2]

Swat 3 can u just not

[mlockha]

In 2000 years we went from siege weapons to nukes.  Apparently we can't go from nukes to planet busters in 1000 years.

I dunno.  Personally, I think it's easy science, and frankly, the science would allow for this maybe 100 years after the creation of warp drives.  And since we can cross star clusters in a few days or weeks, then we must be a about 600-700 years into warp technology.

Scaled up, it makes less sense that we wage wars with infantry and drop ships, methods that are now a millennium old.  By now, the technology should exist to collapse entire stars, to be realistic.

That's my two cents, but my opinion doesn't matter here.

See, the problem with that is that it makes war meaningless. You can just blow up an entire star system/planet from space? Well, then we don't need to have any wars on the ground or anything like that. Which is stupid. You should look to gain a planet by taking it over with troops, not by blowing it completely up. Yes, it would make sense that the technology would exist, but it would make the RP not as fun.

[SWAT One]

Well with blowing up a star system, this makes is so that no one claims it.  It's a major drawback, and by blowing up a civilization, you ultimately lose those assets, gain no power and lose an expensive warhead.

It would remove a threat, but that's really about it.

The question about warfare on the galactic scale is "What is the new ground warfare?"  As we've gone from the 20th the the 21st centuries, war has been about air superiority.  With space, the safety of civilizations is now dependant on spacial superiority.

This makes ground warfare questioned.  While those tactics would have to be employed, it is more important to do so quickly and efficiently.  This lends favor to the HK, which uses robotic forces with highly advanced AI.  Ultimately, AI drones would swoop in and complete an objective without compromise.  Biological soldiers, unless used as biological weapons themselves, would be obsolete.

So how is this level wafare defined, and what does it demand?

[mlockha]

Well with blowing up a star system, this makes is so that no one claims it.  It's a major drawback, and by blowing up a civilization, you ultimately lose those assets, gain no power and lose an expensive warhead.

It would remove a threat, but that's really about it.

The question about warfare on the galactic scale is "What is the new ground warfare?"  As we've gone from the 20th the the 21st centuries, war has been about air superiority.  With space, the safety of civilizations is now dependant on spacial superiority.

This makes ground warfare questioned.  While those tactics would have to be employed, it is more important to do so quickly and efficiently.  This lends favor to the HK, which uses robotic forces with highly advanced AI.  Ultimately, AI drones would swoop in and complete an objective without compromise.  Biological soldiers, unless used as biological weapons themselves, would be obsolete.

So how is this level wafare defined, and what does it demand?

Take a look at the Mass Effect games, which is what I widely wanted this game to be modeled after. Ground Warfare is still widely used against the Geth (Like HK, synthetic AI). How? They counteract the Geth. The ME games don't use starbusters or planetbusters, they use ground troops. New weapons can be created, and training can be used. Planetary defenses can be built to stop HK ships from coming near you. You can create systems that hack AI (Swat, you should be used to this. I.E Medusa). Many things you can create to stop the HK but still have ground warfare. As well, the goal should be to take over a planet, not destroy it. Yes, I know, yadda yadda last defense yadda yadda ultimate threat. I know, still, goal is to take it over. Air superiority is very important in todays modern world, but it will never be taken over by infantry. You must always have infantry to come in and wipe up or take out any threats left. Otherwise this turns into a Spaceship and Planetary Defense building contest.

[Swat 3]

FR computer geeks are creating a virus of some kind.

[SWAT One]

There's also another point being that ME is catered to an FPS market that has expectations based on modern warfare (common noun, not proper).  It is made in a way that a market can understand.

I can't say it's irrelevant, but power is used where it is needed.  Reconnaissance is not accomplished by a large force, but a team of a few.  The QC (Quantum Collapse) bomb would be a be-all, end-all weapon.  Ground forces (or compact drones) would be key, and needed to occupy and subdue a planet.  The case of a QC bomb would be like to swallow up a fleet.

[Swat 3]

I am having trouble understanding why you are continuing to go on about this.

[SWAT One]

The issue I see with a lot of futuristic RPs is that they are often thought in terms of warfare that would not make sense in that day and age.

My personal opinion, but civilizations always try to 1-up each other for superiority, and from a century we went from early trench warfare to drones and GPS-guided missiles.  A millennium would bring much more than that.

I hope that I am not coming off as disrespectful.  I mean this in a scholarly debate kind of way.

[mlockha]

I am having trouble understanding why you are continuing to go on about this.

Because I like to have intelligent discussions where both sides can present their arguements and I can change things about the thread according to the argument.

There's also another point being that ME is catered to an FPS market that has expectations based on modern warfare (common noun, not proper).  It is made in a way that a market can understand.

I can't say it's irrelevant, but power is used where it is needed.  Reconnaissance is not accomplished by a large force, but a team of a few.  The QC (Quantum Collapse) bomb would be a be-all, end-all weapon.  Ground forces (or compact drones) would be key, and needed to occupy and subdue a planet.  The case of a QC bomb would be like to swallow up a fleet.

See, thing is the QC might not be used that way by others. Yes, you may want it to be used that way, but who says they will use it when near their end and hurting? Someone might use it on the offensive, which would suck.