Jump to content
fracas

Firestorm fluff

Recommended Posts

There was a good idea with FTL travel in the old pc game - Star Control 2.

Essentially when traveling in hyperspace, if another gravitationally dense enough body (i.e. a ship or planet) existed in the same area in real space or hyperspace, it would interfere with the fields needed to maintain hyperspace travel and would kick both 'objects' back into real space.

Was an easy mechanic for getting attacked mid travel, and i think would function great in FSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of liked the way old Battletech did it.  IIRC, you could instantly jump about ~30 light years, but then have to spend a week (or two?) recharging the system.  Made certain star systems key points since they were essentially chokepoints.   Seems like you had to jump in-system at a La Grange point, or something defined, which is where you would place your defensive installations.

Or something like that.   It's been a long time since I've played any battletech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Toxic_Rat said:

I kind of liked the way old Battletech did it.  IIRC, you could instantly jump about ~30 light years, but then have to spend a week (or two?) recharging the system.  Made certain star systems key points since they were essentially chokepoints.   Seems like you had to jump in-system at a La Grange point, or something defined, which is where you would place your defensive installations.

Or something like that.   It's been a long time since I've played any battletech.

I've always been a big fan of Battletech. Will remind me to dig it all out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xystophoroi said:

Didn't the Sorylians use Wormholes? Even had some 'on world' if I am remembering correctly.

Yes they did in the previous fluff. Though they were tremendously big/expensive to build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Warcradle Richard said:

Instantaneous travel should only take place between secure and insanely expensive both in materials and time/energy wormholes. Those might only deep in the builders territory.  Starships should be capable of FTL travel. But there should be counters to them.

There is an abstraction required, as we can theorise how interstellar civilisations interact and wage war. But to create a game we have to bend some of those expectations else there would be no conflict.

 

Abstraction? Sure. However in this case I think there's good material we don't have instantaneous travel on a whole and where we do have wormholes, it's quite limited. I would point to what's in the Kurak Alliance Fleet Manual when it discusses the history of Terran colonisation. As well, we do have clear models for FSD beacons. That to me says, as someone said below about BattleTech, we have clear jump routes between systems. Not only do we have clear jump routes between systems, but it's also a factor that is something in the scope of navigation. What that is, well, Spartan never answered that question at all since it never really specified anything in the scope of its technology and its FTL technology. 

On a military side, I would also point out that fighting without any form of cover, stealth, is quite difficult as it would be in deep space. Fighting in system, with planets to hide behind, shifting objects like comets, asteroids, present additional opportunities to get that important one up on your opponent. Not that dissimilar to crossing the T in some old battleship parlance. Which I think both provides the justification you need and more importantly, can keep the battlefield interesting. 

10 hours ago, alextroy said:

Attacking convoys enroute is a question of technology. Feasibility is entirely depended upon how FTL Travel work in the FSA universe.


Abso-freaking-lutely. Until this gets answered, we can't make any more specific suggestions or even establish the basic of doctrine. 

I think we do have the information, in between the fluff and the models, Daedelus Station and the FSD beacons, the old v1 Refueling station, to make a mostly educated guess that we are looking at a system closer to your third option, more than the others. At least without obvious and specifically named FSD distrupting technology, we must assume once escape is made, it's made. No Star Wars styled Interdictors etc etc. 

 

11 hours ago, fracas said:

I think you are confounding what can be done with what is the most economical to do.

As well as what you are willing to do with what most people are willing to do.

Your expertise is clouding your analysis.

 

for instance, how are you going to attack a convoy enroute in jump space, in a worm hole, of when space is folded?

 

At the point at which I have encountered them and they are the most vulnerable. Yes, the answer really is that easy. If it's more like say, Babylon 5 hyperspace, then I'm going to be doing some different that what I would be if it was Star Wars hyperspace or Stargate hyperspace, than if it was Warp out of Star Trek and everything in between. 

Again, you seem to be either ignoring or misreading my post. I have been trying to stress that what happens out there is based on to the degree of comfort it can be done in and if that degree of comfort is easily achievable. Antarctic, Arctic research stations, exist. Remote weather stations, exist. Oil rigs and off shore work, exists. All of that is relatively speaking, in the area of comfortable. Some rigs have cinema screens in them, by reputation. If it's possible for us, it should be just as possible for them, assuming a few basic things. Admitably one of those it at least a simulacrum of gravity, but all you need is some real and the rest fake/not gravity and people should do fine. 

See the Antares from Defying Gravity as an example. At least for the engineering, the overarching plot, world, really has no bearing here. It's an amazing show though. 

I might be willing to do a stint in one of these places, but so are plenty of other people. Not only are people willing to do it, the economy of doing it can actually pay quite well for those who. Not only on land, but on sea and on ice too. We have truckers that drive over ice and drive deep country, and deep country, check a map of Australia and you're going to see deserts the size of some countries in Europe. If it's true of us, now, on a single planet, then surely it also has to be true of them. Not every system will be inhabited. The very FSA universe map shows us this. So if not every system is colonised, but some places are rich in resources, so rich it's worth developing, there must be people willing to work there. Again, not without cost, but willing to work there. 

As a side note, I would stress, this is perhaps the very ugly side of that kind of work, that it was established that suicide was a workplace hazard, for those who did work FIFO. Fly In, Fly Out, if you're thinking something else. 

This seems to be another area you don't really have the background in, if I'm being honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Warcradle Richard said:

Agree with this. Also different factions might approach FTL in different ways.

There I have to argue, the universe is built on the laws of physics. The question is how you understand and what you can do to work around them. Others might have different language, different concepts surrounding certain affects/effects of, but the underlying, core principle remains the side. At least to how I understand things now. That of course is very open to change. 

Still, different mixes of technology and a bit of luck about either lucky or unlucky when it comes to wormholes, does seem to be a way of making things more interesting. Perhaps some are better at finding them, others at developing them, perhaps one can get away with using short or more internally unstable paths, due to their ship design. All things to consider and all things which would, superficially at least, show a different technology, philosophy, doctrine, of movement. 

 

9 hours ago, steve_990 said:

There was a good idea with FTL travel in the old pc game - Star Control 2.

Essentially when traveling in hyperspace, if another gravitationally dense enough body (i.e. a ship or planet) existed in the same area in real space or hyperspace, it would interfere with the fields needed to maintain hyperspace travel and would kick both 'objects' back into real space.

Was an easy mechanic for getting attacked mid travel, and i think would function great in FSA.

Not so bad, but I would point out that if it's a game of fleet engagements, this does start to preclude fleet movement and take up back to single ships and jumping one at a time. Does it work? Sure, especially in the scope of Star Control 2. Does it work as well here? This I need to think on and my gut reaction is nope. Not so much. Again, if we want fleets moving, either the technology to make a single jump of multiple vessels must exist. An equivalent of the Hyperspace Wake Generator of Homeworld fame. The doctrine of single jumps of single ships, must be explained, so that when a jump is made, it is made a single unit, so it can't be destroyed piecemeal on the other side. As well as that, if it's so difficult to travel close to another mass, what does this mean for ships going to a RV with another ship? 

Would that ship cause problems? All I know is that it doesn't work so well here and that, for the moment is a problem. Not a major one, but one that does exist. 

 

2 hours ago, cas said:

Yes they did in the previous fluff. Though they were tremendously big/expensive to build.

I also seem to remember they were highly controlled as well for some reason. That it wasn't open for everyone to just take a day trip through. 

Been a while since I read any of that stuff, so I could be completely mistaken. 

 

8 hours ago, fracas said:

Choke points and limited jump range make campaign games more practical as well as why capital worlds have not been nuked day 1 after the war starts.

Why nuke when you can drop some dense objects from orbit? Pick up a few rocks on the way through the asteroid belt and just let them down in the gravity well? Why waste the uranium, plutonium? Add in the engineering to build said item and the other rarer materials you need to build said nuke in the first place. 

This just..... again, not having the background here. 

What was it that someone pointed out to me? How a kilogram in a particular orbit, pointed towards a planet as a weapon turned that one kilogram mass into a 500KT explosion, in effect. 

And people blame the Terrans for doing that to Dramos, the entire RSN and Dindrenzi fleet is set up to do it to every single planet in the universe and still have ammunition left over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you drop from orbit in an attack is irrelevant as long as the military and political goal is achieved. Nuking from orbit is figurative phrase with homage or reference to Aliens. The comment pertains to limitations of travel by advance starships is a real and in game consideration, thus will factor into supply of assembled and manufactured goods.

 Antarctica is an extreme habitat for humanity currently, no atmosphere will be an order more extreme. No gravity will be another order extreme as well. Living on a world with similar gravity and environment to temperate earth will remain preferable to that of a space station for most of humanity, not to say we won’t have people living and working in habitats in deep space, planetoids, vacuum worlds or acid atmosphere, etc. The degree of ease to achieve comfort must also consider not just technical ease but economic and emotional ease as well. And then what would enhance a wargaming immersion. A habitable world will remain more valuable than an inhospitable one unless availability of raw resources trumps habitability.

 

@ WCStuart/Richard

what is the status of artificial gravity technology, how readily available is it, and how does it work unidirectional ( gravity plate on the floor pulls downward but not upward on the floor/deck below?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that could also bear consideration - how strictly are we sticking to Newtonian physics for space battles? Battletech, the Expanse, and the Honorverse, for example, stick to a very strict interpretation, with vectors, acceleration/deceleration etc. being important considerations when engaging an enemy, and ranges being in the millions of kilometers. As a side of that, if Newtonian physics are used,  can the ships reach higher accelerations via the use of Inertial Compensators, are are the physical limitations of the crew a factor in combat?

Star Trek and Dropfleet Commander, on the other hand, have a much looser interpretation - Dropfleet through the use of Gravity Nullifiers that allow ships to make combat maneuvers without having to worry about proper orbital speeds, and Star Trek never really explains why their ships seem to be able to maneuver at will without gravity making much of an effect (except when required for dramatic purposes).

In game terms, I think we're pretty much given that we're either working with Newtonian physics, but doing so on a much much larger scale than first thought (the game board is a significant part of a star system, full acceleration/deceleration considerations are made as part of the movement phase, game turns are actually longer periods of time), or the the fleets have maneuvered already into a stationary aspect relative to each other before engaging (even though the velocity of the engagement relative to the star system could be a lot higher)

-------------------------------

In terms of FTL travel, I think there are, classically, four ways to approach it.

The first is that the speed of light is a definite barrier - even after another dozen centuries, we still haven't been able to prove Al Einstein wrong. In this scenario, interstellar travel either happens at relativistic speeds (eg. The Forever War), or travel between systems requires the use of Gates/Wormholes (eg. Freelancer, Gates of Antares, and also The Forever War). The latter does allow for some interesting things with regards to defensive actions. It also asks the question, if ships can only move at relativistic speeds between stars, do the crew stay awake during the transit, or do they use some form of Suspended Animation so that they don't die of old age whilst getting to the battlefield. It also asks the question, if ships require gates to move around, how are those gates built in the first place? Did colonisation happen in spurts as each wave of gates was built via long-term travelling probes before the colonists moved in, or was there a network of gates to begin with - and if the latter, who built them (see the Mass Relays from the Mass Effect series)?

The second is the use a different dimension - for example, the Warp in Warhammer 40k, Witchspace from the Elite series, and the respective versions of Hyperspace in the Honorverse, Babylon 5 and Star Wars (and in Azimov's The Robots universe as well, to some extent). In this version, a ship will transfer itself into a separate dimension where either distances are compressed, or the laws of Physics don't apply, allowing it to reach previously unavailable speeds. This is probably one of the more interesting ones, as it allows ships to make daring drops and jumps to hyperspace in dramatic fashion, as well as allowing for navigational errors.

The third option is the "Jump Drive", similar to that of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, the Shock Drive from Deadspace, the Kearny-Fuchida Drive from Battletech, and (as far as I can tell) the Fold Space Drive from Dropfleet Commander. With this drive, the ships utilise a large amount of energy to instantaneously y teleport itself from one point in the universe to another - the range of the drive is limited by the amount of energy it takes, and navigational aids at the other end. To some extent, I've always considered the Shunt Drive in the Firestorm Universe to be this version.

The final option for FTL travel is the "Warp Drive", where the ship generates a field of some kind which allows it to "bend" the laws of physics whilst still in normal space. Examples of this are the Warp Drive from Star Trek, Frame Shift Drive from the Elite Series, the Element Zero Mass Effect from the Mass Effect Series, and even the  most promising interstellar drive theory from the real world, the Alcubierre Drive. With this option, ships still take time to move from point to point, but they do so at high c values - one of the limits and potential for drama is how high those c values can go for an individual ship, and at what point in proximity to a gravity well that the drive can safely activate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current background definitely seems to be a Fold Space or Wormhole technology allowing individual ships to jump from one location to another, including the ability to arrive facing in any direction upon arrival. Most races seem able to use this capability on a limited basis, with the FSD being used in game for arriving and leaving the battlefield only. Only Relthoza are capable of quick and repeated use of FSD in select cases. It appears that only the Kedorians and Relthoza are able to utilize the capability over a short range, but that is probably  more a matter of practicality. There is no point in jumping from one spot in the battlefield to the next if you arrive without the capability to continue combat. One must surmise that most races are only capable of two jumps within a short time period before requiring either excessive amounts of time to cool the drive or replenish their power reserves.

The importance of navigational beacons in FSA is based around the lack of capability of most ships to independently calculate accurate and safe Fold Space jumps. Non-military ships avoid doing so whenever possible for fear of becoming lost or destroyed upon arrival by hazards. This would produce a web of shipping lanes based upon how far a specific ship is capable of jumping. I would expect it would be a matter of the mass of a ship along with the energy it can produce before executing jumps, not to mention the efficiency of the drive.

Other interesting things is that the navigation beacons seem to be placed significantly far from planets and that based on the Planetfall Scenarios, there is a no-shunt zone around planets. This seems to indicate either a inaccuracy in jumping that makes arrival near a planet too dangerous or an impact by large gravitational fields on the ability to execute a jump at all. It is a rather classic Sci-Fi trope that jumps cannot be executed near a large body due to gravity, ranging from not too close to a planet to all the way near the edge of a solar system.

Another interesting thing from the Kurak Fleet Manual is that both the Terrans and Sorylians (possibly the Rethoza also) are capable of constructing stable wormhole gates between specific points. The Terran technology (adapted from the Saurian Gates) are large and used for interstellar travel, while the Sorylian gates are small and used for intrastellar travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alextroy said:

Another interesting thing from the Kurak Fleet Manual is that both the Terrans and Sorylians (possibly the Rethoza also) are capable of constructing stable wormhole gates between specific points. The Terran technology (adapted from the Saurian Gates) are large and used for interstellar travel, while the Sorylian gates are small and used for intrastellar travel.

No chance I could trouble you for some page numbers? I was trying to find it earlier today and I couldn't seem to. 

I have to ask where you get the assumption of two jumps from, at least I would like to see what's your reasoning behind. I would also like to hear what's your thoughts, beliefs, assumptions on ships carrying more than one drive. It strikes me that if a drive is so limited, how is it that if you want high speed, mobility, you do not have one, you have two, more. One in use, one cooling and one warming up. At least on the military side. 

Now, to somewhat offer some reasoning for the positioning of the satellites themselves, it's pretty hard to get a signal through a planet. That's what closer in satellites would have to do, especially in the Goldilock's zone, where ever that may be based on the stellar configuration, singular, binary, trinary, etc etc. If you place it on the outside, it has clear and obvious paths out of the system without the need to get that signal through a dense object. Ships could make intrasystem jumps, which is what I would argue Shunt deployment is, the conditions to support it and the fact it does require such precise data, that's what makes it hard. Or it could be that the technology, accuracy required to do so is only in the hands of select, controlled parties, not on the general, civilian market. 

Is all of that supposition? Sure. Hopefully it has some grounding in being a complete and total assumption on the technology used and the nature of the system itself. 

 

draco84oz

I think you got the two universes confused, between DropZone and Firestorm. Firestorm has Fold Space Drives and DropZone something quite different. Not sure what they called it exactly, I have the books around here somewhere, just not so easy to get to. 

 

10 hours ago, fracas said:

The degree of ease to achieve comfort must also consider not just technical ease but economic and emotional ease as well. And then what would enhance a wargaming immersion. A habitable world will remain more valuable than an inhospitable one unless availability of raw resources trumps habitability.

Serious question here. Are you reading my posts? No, really, are you? Are you misreading them and only looking for the flaws? By these two sentences, you've basically told me you've not. 

I've already said, that raw materials are effectively infinite here. They are if you're looking for them hard enough. It's the processing, processes around and management of which is the issue, that's why you have the population centres. If these people can live anywhere, which as said is more than the case due to the models produced, specifically Daedelus Station, Valhalla Station, the planetary defence groups, but you said it doesn't matter what's written or done, you don't think any of it's valid anyway. 

I'm going to be blunt here, if my expertise is clouding my assessment, great. Awesome, woohoo, it means I have some grasp of what I am talking about. It's far better it's based on something I can call to, see, direct others to than just some feelings, desires for the game. You've still not answered the damned questions around what you're trying to do and what your objectives are. You've basically said that you're here to argue to make it your game. Not what Warcradle wants to do, not what the community wants. Yours and yours alone, that you know better than Warcrade. 

No more shifting the goal posts, no more dodgy half answers. What the hell do you want? Why do you want it? What does it achieve? In that order. What are your trade offs and project borders? Limitations? Assumptions? Where's your research? 

Want me to give you an example of what I did to work out what I needed to do for the RPG campaign I wrote? So you know exactly what the standard is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LionofPerth said:

Serious question here. Are you reading my posts? No, really, are you? Are you misreading them and only looking for the flaws? By these two sentences, you've basically told me you've not. 


I've already said, that raw materials are effectively infinite here. They are if you're looking for them hard enough. It's the processing, processes around and management of which is the issue, that's why you have the population centres. If these people can live anywhere, which as said is more than the case due to the models produced, specifically Daedelus Station, Valhalla Station, the planetary defence groups, but you said it doesn't matter what's written or done, you don't think any of it's valid anyway. 

I'm going to be blunt here, if my expertise is clouding my assessment, great. Awesome, woohoo, it means I have some grasp of what I am talking about. It's far better it's based on something I can call to, see, direct others to than just some feelings, desires for the game. You've still not answered the damned questions around what you're trying to do and what your objectives are. You've basically said that you're here to argue to make it your game. Not what Warcradle wants to do, not what the community wants. Yours and yours alone, that you know better than Warcrade. 

No more shifting the goal posts, no more dodgy half answers. What the hell do you want? Why do you want it? What does it achieve? In that order. What are your trade offs and project borders? Limitations? Assumptions? Where's your research? 

Want me to give you an example of what I did to work out what I needed to do for the RPG campaign I wrote? So you know exactly what the standard is? 

I am reading your post.

i made two assertions that you believe are wrong: wars will be fought over 1) control of resources and 2) habitable worlds. I sought to define why they are not.

1) you assert resources are infinite; they maybe but access to them still matters, their processing center matters, their manufacturing center matters, their distribution matters, and the time it takes to deliver essential resources to the front matters, any of these will be viable targets in wars. An analogy here: solar power or nuclear power currently are nearly infinite but they remain viable targets (nuclear power plants or solar farms) in wars, either to acquire or to deny.

2) you assert we can live anywhere; I responded yes we can but it doesn’t mean these artificial stations with artificial environments will Be preferable for most of humanity to a temperate biosphere 1G habitable world. And thus these habitable worlds will be worth fighting over.

I think the fundamental difference is that your assertions for what is possible (infinite resources and artificial environments), which I have never denied and have actually accepted as a reasonable premises, I do not believe will translate to practical or desirable for most.

i have never made assertions I know better than WC, or that they must do what I merely suggested regarding the fluff. Since they have bought the IP to the firestorm universe, One without historical basis, that they have the opportunity to change the fluff partially or fully. I suggested fully and some factors for consideration. 

I appreciate your input, though I disagree with your assertions that I am wrong, and have been civil about it. Why are you so rather riled up about it?  Was I to acknowledge and pay homage to your claims of expertise and defere to you analysis? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LionofPerth said:

No chance I could trouble you for some page numbers? I was trying to find it earlier today and I couldn't seem to. 

I have to ask where you get the assumption of two jumps from, at least I would like to see what's your reasoning behind. I would also like to hear what's your thoughts, beliefs, assumptions on ships carrying more than one drive. It strikes me that if a drive is so limited, how is it that if you want high speed, mobility, you do not have one, you have two, more. One in use, one cooling and one warming up. At least on the military side. 

I can't provide page numbers right now. My rulebooks are in a different state. They are in the Kurak Alliance Fleet Guide in the history/technology sections for the respective nations.

As for my two jump "assumption", as I stated, except for the Kedorian and Relthoza, nobody uses FSD to move ships across the battlefield. They arrive via FSD and they leave via FSD. The only reason for this to be the case is technical limitations. Otherwise, It would be a massive advantage to be able to jump across the field of battle into the perfect position rather than to need to move the distance in question under enemy fire. Based on the rules we know the following to be true:

  1. Ships that arrive from FSD are fully ready to engage in combat upon arrival.
  2. Ships preparing to leave the battlefield must divert significant amount of resources to preparing to Jump. Their movement is significantly proscribed and they are unable to fire weapons on the enemy.
  3. No ship that FSDs from the battlefield returns during the duration of the battle.

Items two and three do not apply to ships with Shunt Matrix, but are otherwise universally true for all ships. The conclusions I follow from there is that after executing a second shunt (Assumption is all ships arrive at the battlefield via a Shunt close enough for the shunt off the field to be a second shunt) the races must find the ships not battle-worthy and therefore never jump a ship from one part of the battlefield to another. Why is not defined, but the logical reason is the ship is either unable to engage in combat for an unacceptable period after the second shunt or the ship is unable to execute another jump for an unreasonable amount of time after the second shunt which would leave the ship in a no retreat situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LionofPerth said:

draco84oz

I think you got the two universes confused, between DropZone and Firestorm. Firestorm has Fold Space Drives and DropZone something quite different. Not sure what they called it exactly, I have the books around here somewhere, just not so easy to get to. 

Nope, it is the Fold Space Drive, and for two of the factions, Fold Space Nodes are vital to making the transit - without one, you can't make the jump, unless you do it blind. But in space, blind jumps are definitely not the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, alextroy said:

I can't provide page numbers right now. My rulebooks are in a different state. They are in the Kurak Alliance Fleet Guide in the history/technology sections for the respective nations.

In that case, don't worry about it. I've got a few more relaxed days, so I can try to find it myself. The curse of working medical supplies is that it's near a 360 days a year job. 

I can't argue with any of that. Really, I can't, all pretty sound and all pretty much in line what what I thought. The question from my end is more is this going to be defined, down the line, as military doctrine of movement or an inherent limitation of the technology. Both have pretty good reasons for being the case. In fact both kinda feed into the other, meaning they basically are the same reason, making a few more assumptions. 

 

11 minutes ago, Zephyr Station said:

@LionofPerth: Please remain civil in this discussion.   We're looking at speculation here, in what Warcradle may or may not do.  Until we have more information from them, there are no right or wrong answers here.

Maybe I have been, considering from this point of view, I have been willfully ignored in my main points. I have tried multiple ways of making said point. I have learned to recognise when I'm being ignored, when I am being pushed aside, out of ego, out of the usual neurotypical bollocks. That is exactly what I have in regards to a certain portion of this conversation. So unless you're on the Autism spectrum yourself, hell, even if you're not, don't tell me what I'm trying to say, why it's wrong. Don't tell me I've been rude because I'm trying to cut to the core of an argument. Trying to cut through so much of the superfluous waffling most people tend to do. 

To which even I am guilty of.  

The only line I crossed is taking this from a near academic argument, to a more heated debate. 

So either make this a formal warning, so I can challenge it, or back off. 

 

8 hours ago, fracas said:

2) you assert we can live anywhere; I responded yes we can but it doesn’t mean these artificial stations with artificial environments will Be preferable for most of humanity to a temperate biosphere 1G habitable world. And thus these habitable worlds will be worth fighting over.

So you're assuming they have a choice in the matter? You've clearly not been listening to my point made about current human expectation. We've already put people into places where the temperature ranges in the 50 to 60 degrees variance over a single day. We've put people in places where the nearest major medical is measured in hours, days worth of travel. Industry has demanded that distances not just cross ten of kilomeres, hundreds, but thousands. Where the journey itself, in other parts of the world would cross half a dozen countries. There's no difference doing it over kilometres or light years, on a philosophical level. 

At no point have I been interested in or was talking about planets. At no point have I been talking about where people would choose to live. I'm talking about industry and logistics. Again, something I have some foundation on, professionally and in my education. 

If I was, I would be making very different points and I would be talking about quite different sciences, such as human tolerances towards other ratios of elements in our atmosphere. I would also be talking about how gravity can be in a larger range and still be quite comfortable. I would suggest, that range is quite large. I would wager, that in terms of comfort, a range of positive G can be in the area of 0.75, even a bit lower, through to 1.5 with no problem. At anything more than three, we're starting to get into uncomfortable and requiring assistance for basic biological functions. G-suits would be the norm. Anything up to about eight, could be possible. It's the negative G that are far more a problem, but we as a people don't really experience that, since we can't fly without mechanical assistance on a whole. I would also point out, again, that each and every day, you're able to beat the gravitational attraction of an entire planet. An entire planet, all roughly, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, worth of it. Every single day, the humming bird, bee does exactly that and some of them are truly tiny things. Gravity is not an issue. 

Mechanical assistance being something either engine powered or a way to expand surface area, wings, to catch thermals. 

Perhaps I would have also pointed out that it's preferable to live in a place where minimal work is required, it's by no means necessary. As a species, we can live in deserts, relatively few problems. We can live near oceans, seas and rivers no problem. Even travel them in rafts which are little more than trees tied together, skins tied to a frame of wood. We can live in forests, mountains, our bodies can adapt to reduce oxygen no problem. Pilots in the PNG don't wear oxygen masks and live above 2000m above sea level, from memory. Not only do they not need masks, they're breathing just fine. Just like the locals, who have been there a damned long time. Sherpas go even higher, into colder places. The Inuit live in places where daylight basically disappears over winter. We can and have changed the way we live to live in areas that present otherwise lethal challenges. The Australian Aboriginal population has over five hundred distinct nations, countless linguistic groups, a rich and complex oral tradition and they covered this country. Even the deserts. 

And yet, people can't survive on anything other than another Earth? That's on the side of indefensible and borders on foolish. People can make themselves comfortable, just about everywhere, given the right resources. Which they have an endless supply of, effectively. 

Now find me a post where I bring up anything close to that? No, really, do. 

Actually, when it comes to WC, you did. You really did. You said to them, throw it all out. You decided that it's worth was so minimal, so troublesome, so difficult to work with, they should just ignore it entirely. Do what they want, what ever they want because it obviously  has to be better than what's out there now. That's quite simply where near all of these claims come from, when you've tried to write out a full system specification sheet, setting bible, if you're honest about it, if you're working really, really hard at it, you put in so many things only to see them ripped out. You learn what the difference is between a core feature, a core want. You learn to see exactly where and why things go together and to do it without getting too emotionally involved with said idea. I've thrown out hundreds, if not thousands of hours worth of writing, concepts, sketches. I've been closer to the side of being the writer, designer than most have. 

After being there, so many of my complaints about other settings, other ideas, boiled down to how I just didn't like it.  wasn't getting what I wanted, what I expected. That it is more than a feeling I could do better, something I still work towards actually doing each and every day. Every time I start a new project, refine, edit, new round of research.  That's the simple and short truth of the matter. 

So again I will ask, why is it that Firestorm Armada should be made to be your game? Why should it be taken and made into something others will not enjoy? Why do you deserve more care and attention as a fan than others? Why cut the thing that brought people into the game, out of it? 

If you can't answer them without it being anything more than a feeling, preference, personal desire, simply said, you don't have an answer. You don't write a game where you're the only person who's going to be playing it, if you want it developed, sold. Even as a pen and paper RPG. You might enjoy playing it, down the line, but it's not for you, the individual, the creator. Sacrifices will be made so that others will enjoy, not might, will. Trade offs, will be made for some degree of accessibility, even if it's a hard genre piece, setting, game. Some foundations will built that you, the individual, will not like. That's the simple and honest truth of it. Foundations will be given according to the genre, the research, the reading you put into it. Foundations from which you will build an experience, a setting, a world. All the better that it's internally consistent and it is of such strong internal consistency that people can't find easy fault with it, for its genre. 

If you go into science fiction and see political science straight out of steampunk, you have every right to call it out. On the other hand, if you have science fiction that relies on a prediction based on current science and it's proven wrong, you have far less right, ability to complain. Wells and Verne, even Shelley are science fiction writers, the science of their time much different than our own. 

So there is no more confusion, I'm trying to get you to see that working on surface levels alone is no way to do something like this. It's more than an iceberg, so much of the work that does go in is effectively invisible to the vast, vast, vast majority of people. The many documents, guidelines, thoughts, reasons, choices, all of those on the way, even the ones thrown out, are important. Every single mistake, misstep and trip up, matters for the lessons and directions it gives for what comes after. The rounds of playtesting are the final stages, the rounds of back and forth between editors, working out the font, placement of text and image, the choice of art, the amount of and nature of the art. All of that comes at the end. So for you to go through and demand of them, to gut it all, to start again for you, is the height of ego, selfishness. 

Hobbies like this are shared, must work like a tripod, must support multiple reasons to play and to enjoy. Not just yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, draco84oz said:

Nope, it is the Fold Space Drive, and for two of the factions, Fold Space Nodes are vital to making the transit - without one, you can't make the jump, unless you do it blind. But in space, blind jumps are definitely not the way to go.

Seems I'm mistaken then, I would have sworn black and blue they used quite different language around their FTL technology. 

Might be time to read the DFC, Reconquest books again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LionofPerth said:

So you're assuming they have a choice in the matter? You've clearly not been listening to my point made about current human expectation. We've already put people into places where the temperature ranges in the 50 to 60 degrees variance over a single day. We've put people in places where the nearest major medical is measured in hours, days worth of travel. Industry has demanded that distances not just cross ten of kilomeres, hundreds, but thousands. Where the journey itself, in other parts of the world would cross half a dozen countries. There's no difference doing it over kilometres or light years, on a philosophical level. 

At no point have I been interested in or was talking about planets. At no point have I been talking about where people would choose to live. I'm talking about industry and logistics. Again, something I have some foundation on, professionally and in my education. 

If I was, I would be making very different points and I would be talking about quite different sciences, such as human tolerances towards other ratios of elements in our atmosphere. I would also be talking about how gravity can be in a larger range and still be quite comfortable. I would suggest, that range is quite large. I would wager, that in terms of comfort, a range of positive G can be in the area of 0.75, even a bit lower, through to 1.5 with no problem. At anything more than three, we're starting to get into uncomfortable and requiring assistance for basic biological functions. G-suits would be the norm. Anything up to about eight, could be possible. It's the negative G that are far more a problem, but we as a people don't really experience that, since we can't fly without mechanical assistance on a whole. I would also point out, again, that each and every day, you're able to beat the gravitational attraction of an entire planet. An entire planet, all roughly, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, worth of it. Every single day, the humming bird, bee does exactly that and some of them are truly tiny things. Gravity is not an issue. 

Mechanical assistance being something either engine powered or a way to expand surface area, wings, to catch thermals. 

Perhaps I would have also pointed out that it's preferable to live in a place where minimal work is required, it's by no means necessary. As a species, we can live in deserts, relatively few problems. We can live near oceans, seas and rivers no problem. Even travel them in rafts which are little more than trees tied together, skins tied to a frame of wood. We can live in forests, mountains, our bodies can adapt to reduce oxygen no problem. Pilots in the PNG don't wear oxygen masks and live above 2000m above sea level, from memory. Not only do they not need masks, they're breathing just fine. Just like the locals, who have been there a damned long time. Sherpas go even higher, into colder places. The Inuit live in places where daylight basically disappears over winter. We can and have changed the way we live to live in areas that present otherwise lethal challenges. The Australian Aboriginal population has over five hundred distinct nations, countless linguistic groups, a rich and complex oral tradition and they covered this country. Even the deserts. 

And yet, people can't survive on anything other than another Earth? That's on the side of indefensible and borders on foolish. People can make themselves comfortable, just about everywhere, given the right resources. Which they have an endless supply of, effectively. 

Now find me a post where I bring up anything close to that? No, really, do. 

Actually, when it comes to WC, you did. You really did. You said to them, throw it all out. You decided that it's worth was so minimal, so troublesome, so difficult to work with, they should just ignore it entirely. Do what they want, what ever they want because it obviously  has to be better than what's out there now. That's quite simply where near all of these claims come from, when you've tried to write out a full system specification sheet, setting bible, if you're honest about it, if you're working really, really hard at it, you put in so many things only to see them ripped out. You learn what the difference is between a core feature, a core want. You learn to see exactly where and why things go together and to do it without getting too emotionally involved with said idea. I've thrown out hundreds, if not thousands of hours worth of writing, concepts, sketches. I've been closer to the side of being the writer, designer than most have. 

After being there, so many of my complaints about other settings, other ideas, boiled down to how I just didn't like it.  wasn't getting what I wanted, what I expected. That it is more than a feeling I could do better, something I still work towards actually doing each and every day. Every time I start a new project, refine, edit, new round of research.  That's the simple and short truth of the matter. 

So again I will ask, why is it that Firestorm Armada should be made to be your game? Why should it be taken and made into something others will not enjoy? Why do you deserve more care and attention as a fan than others? Why cut the thing that brought people into the game, out of it? 

If you can't answer them without it being anything more than a feeling, preference, personal desire, simply said, you don't have an answer. You don't write a game where you're the only person who's going to be playing it, if you want it developed, sold. Even as a pen and paper RPG. You might enjoy playing it, down the line, but it's not for you, the individual, the creator. Sacrifices will be made so that others will enjoy, not might, will. Trade offs, will be made for some degree of accessibility, even if it's a hard genre piece, setting, game. Some foundations will built that you, the individual, will not like. That's the simple and honest truth of it. Foundations will be given according to the genre, the research, the reading you put into it. Foundations from which you will build an experience, a setting, a world. All the better that it's internally consistent and it is of such strong internal consistency that people can't find easy fault with it, for its genre. 

If you go into science fiction and see political science straight out of steampunk, you have every right to call it out. On the other hand, if you have science fiction that relies on a prediction based on current science and it's proven wrong, you have far less right, ability to complain. Wells and Verne, even Shelley are science fiction writers, the science of their time much different than our own. 

So there is no more confusion, I'm trying to get you to see that working on surface levels alone is no way to do something like this. It's more than an iceberg, so much of the work that does go in is effectively invisible to the vast, vast, vast majority of people. The many documents, guidelines, thoughts, reasons, choices, all of those on the way, even the ones thrown out, are important. Every single mistake, misstep and trip up, matters for the lessons and directions it gives for what comes after. The rounds of playtesting are the final stages, the rounds of back and forth between editors, working out the font, placement of text and image, the choice of art, the amount of and nature of the art. All of that comes at the end. So for you to go through and demand of them, to gut it all, to start again for you, is the height of ego, selfishness. 

Hobbies like this are shared, must work like a tripod, must support multiple reasons to play and to enjoy. Not just yours. 

Yes I assume people have a voice in political decisions: actively or passively ( in terms of productivity and morale). And decisions and conducts to wage war is a political decision. One of the essential means to win any war is to erode the opponent will to fight. i asserted habitable 1G planets are more desirable than 0G artificial environments to a human population while acknowledging some people may not share humanity preference. But a population preference is still determined by the majority, even when ruled my a minority.  Thus interstellar wars will still be fought over temperate 1G habitable planets. No, not all of the population will reside on these planets and for strategic reasons some artificial centers maybe populous, maybe even more so than some temperate 1G habitable planets, but exceptions do not invalidate the norm. I suspect these artificial centers will be targeted for destruction rather than acquisition by a hostile alien species. Their ability to generate hospitable environment for alien life is questionable , destruction will be easier than acquisition, and in the destruction deny a strategic center to the enemy.

i think you underestimate the significance of gravity. It maybe the weakest of the four forces but it’s effect is instantaneous over any distance: this differs from other three forces. While our ability to tolerate zero or elevated gravity conditions by trained fit adults in short duration ( over a year) is under study, the consequences to a population over a generation or more is currently unknown: how will it affect reproduction/implantation , embryogenesis, pediatric physical growth and neurological development. Again the fact that a few well trained physically fit adults can tolerate certain conditions does not means a population will prefer to live under those conditions.

 

regarding WC and firestorm fluff; I never said I knew better. WC have stated they will likely change the fluff but have not, afaik, declared what that change will be. Yes they can change nothing, a little, a lot, or all of it; completely their prerogative. I voiced a suggestion I believe will add depth and breadth to the human faction by merging all human factions into one major faction with 6-7 subfactions based on current earth geopolitical entities with established space programs (and one generic economic faction to represent any sufficiently capable company like space X, etc). Then do the same to the other three major factions of alien species. How is this saying I know better when WC has not declared what their fluff will be? Don’t you think “better” requires a reference point? The current fluff for the firestorm universe was by SG, not WC; ownership is not authorship. 

You have a different view on what WC should do, which is fine; but then told me my view was wrong and got upset I didn’t cede to you. Over an anonymous Internet forum you claim expertise over the science of a science fiction universe proposal and now claim I want to make the game mine? I don’t get that. If I want to make the game mine I would buy appealing models (x6 factions bought), buy a competent and balance set of rules (FsA 2.0 is much superior to 1.5 and 1.0; I have all three, and there is always full thrust), and play the game. I don’t need to post here to make it mine; it already is!  I am not sure how anything I have posted in this thread demonstrate a “height of ego” or “selfishness “ as you have charged. 

An appealing fluff, a competent and balanced rules set, attractive models, and availability of the game to potential buyers (physical and price availability) are essential components to the game success. To me the weakest leg was the fluff so I made suggestions for improvements, which is better than complaints without recommendation for improvements. You and others may disagree, but while others may not advocate a complete fluff overall as I do my impression through the years is that most would like some fluff updates.  There is no heightened ego or selfishness here. Are you threatened by the probable upcoming fluff changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fracas,

You know, you've just gone and proved my exact point. It ain't your game at all. It's everyone's who here, posting, game. It's the designers, writers, modelers and artists, mould makers, everyone at the studio. It's the guys who love the lore and hate the mechanics, it's the opposite, and between. It's the people who play it, paint it, collect it. It's the people who aren't here too. It's just as much their game, their models, their setting as it is in any part 'mine' or 'yours'. 

So how is it that you can speak for the greater community? Have you polled them? What are the numbers you got? Where's your survey form and questions? Where's your raw data?  What's the process you took to arrive at that point? How is that your suggestions so worthy of being spoken and mine get so misrepresented by you? Ignored, even. Eternally conflated with other things, eternally missed the very point I was making? 

Some days.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all can individually make it our own game. Never said I own it alone or speak for the community.

 

i believe our conversation has run its course and is no longer effective; you may have the last word.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, as much as the setting has to make sense, I'd rather gameplay come first and be justified by the setting, rather than the other way.  In the end, xenophobia and parranoia are realistic enough reason for space nations to fight, any other justification just seals the deal. 

 

Maybe I'm setting myself up to be called a rube or a simpleton for saying this, but I was rather hoping this thread would see some good discussion of factions and what motivates who and what might change, not about how realisic any of that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.