What's new
Star Army

Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.

Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.

  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 January 2025 is YE 47.1 in the RP.

[Discussion] Year 2016 Revision on FTL thematics

Not interested in phasing out CDD. I don't like the idea of a single form of FTL in SARP.

Hyperspace is fast, and safe if you know where you are going. But folding into an unknown system is foolish. In fact when I first joined SARP and was preparing to write articles for the Aeon's exploration of systems to be added. I discussed the FTL at length with Wes. Fold is Point to Point, which means you are committed. Too bad if your jump into a star system happens to be into an asteroid field, or a hostile attack group.

To me this is straying from the original topic. As such, I do not support it.
 
Like Nash, Honestly, I'm fond of having a little variety in the FTL tech available; and to my knowledge, the CDD and wormhole drive techs actually have a little more basis in real science than the magical inter-dimensional stardrive that is hyperspace fold :P

Though I'd probably still keep the limit that we have no more than the three current FTL methods available; Fold, CDD, and Wormholes, so we don't have umpteen-million tech submissions for new FTL technology each month.
 
I'm not the one whom originally brought these points up, @Nashoba , Wes did. It was going to be discussed here. My list in the opening post was not an exclusive list of topics.

Wes said:
Well, my point of view is I kind of like the way things are right now, and I would rather avoid retcons and the work that they'd take to implement (wiki edits, etc). Unless we're talking power armor. I'm all for making power armor less starfighter like and more actual armor-like. That said, I would much rather reduce speed than increase distances between systems. I'm just not sure I'd like something so drastic. Also, I would back having a single FTL system in SARP (preferably hyperspace folds).
Click to expand...

Though I appreciate your position.

Based on the above two posts... perhaps we could explore actually putting CDD on par with Hyperspace Fold? And are we really going to refer to it as CDD forever? I know it's an homegrown acronym, but it's both a mouthful that encourage the use of the acronym, and neither is very evocative.
 
We could all it "Distortion Drive" perhaps.
 
Warp and Distort are pretty much synonyms. >_>

Ironically, "Distorsion" is actually the french word used in french-translated versions of Star Trek movies.
 
I'd probably prefer to refer to the CDD as a fold drive (as in folding space, Dune-style), except for some reason the hyperspace drive typically has the term 'fold' already attached to it in this setting.

...why, I don't know ^_^;

You could also call it an alcubierre drive, warp drive, singularity drive, distortion drive as Wes suggests, or simply call CDD's 'stardrives' while hyperspace drives are 'fold drives'.
 
Right now there really isn't any difficult terrain for FTL engines besides the FTL exclusion zone around stars, anywhere a CDD can go a Hyperspace jump can take you.

Ontop of that there really is no time to turn with the speeds involved. You're arriving so fast that you're basically going point to point anyways.

CDD also shouldn't be any stealthier than Hyperspace, you're ship is still putting out enough energy to burn a planet so you're going to stick out like a sore thumb.

And for small craft you can always just start putting on a small Hyperpsace drive instead of CDD.

-

The setting is much cleaner with just one form of FTL drive, then we only have to work on making one good set of FTL rules. We should focus on fixing up hyperspace drive rules for the setting, and just let CDD be phased out as it doesn't really have a use. Just stop approving ships with CDD drives and we're done, the rest happens naturally over time.
 
Traditionally, Nebulae are. Ship had to emerge from fold outside them, and then forge forward with CDD - and going to fast even then placed a hazard that required shielding; Wes made that a thing at least since the Sakura plot. The Miharu's shields were designed to knife through that obstruction more easily to manage going to higher CDD speeds.

Also, the roleplaying behind the Nepleslian hyperpulse drive pretty much frames it as a very powerful version of the CDD drive (a sympton that likely stems from the NDI tech handouts in the first place - and that seemed a lot like Starwars lightspeed travel). Given Nashoba's objection, maybe we ought to consider making most FTL propulsion methods equivalents and then let people pick the sauce they prefer.
 
Zack said:
Right now there really isn't any difficult terrain for FTL engines besides the FTL exclusion zone around stars, anywhere a CDD can go a Hyperspace jump can take you.

Ontop of that there really is no time to turn with the speeds involved. You're arriving so fast that you're basically going point to point anyways.

CDD also shouldn't be any stealthier than Hyperspace, you're ship is still putting out enough energy to burn a planet so you're going to stick out like a sore thumb.

And for small craft you can always just start putting on a small Hyperpsace drive instead of CDD.

-

The setting is much cleaner with just one form of FTL drive, then we only have to work on making one good set of FTL rules. We should focus on fixing up hyperspace drive rules for the setting, and just let CDD be phased out as it doesn't really have a use. Just stop approving ships with CDD drives and we're done, the rest happens naturally over time.
Click to expand...

Or we could, you know, maintain the separate FTL systems (CDD, CFS, Centrifuge, etc.) and simply achieve a unified consensus on how fast/far/etc. each can actually go - which, in my opinion, is drastically preferable to any sort of retcon or ridiculously-implausible IC explanation.

Edit:

Here's another question: Without the CDD, what would the Nepleslians utilize for FTL?

(Please, please don't even try to mention the hilariously OP/broken/meta Vogel, Uso.)
 
Keeping all the various systems and then making them equal is a huge step backwards for the setting. Thematically, it splits everyone up and will give the setting a more 'comic book' feel as everyone will have ships that act very differently in FTL.

Mechanically, SARP already doesn't have great FTL rules. The complaints (even the unjustified ones) are numerous. We should be aiming to create one good set of FTL rules from this discussion and that is already hard enough when we have to argue over the specifics of one type of FTL system. If you want to include CDD and Wormholes then we'll need to iron out 2 more systems... then another for Spacer's lay-gates, and another for Hyperpulse, and another for the next system that comes around.

Nebulae were originally an FTL blocade, but that was from before we knew what Nebulae are. Once we found out that Nebulae are just as empty as regular space that got changed. There is really nothing to 'knife through' because they are so super undense.
 
I get the impression that unified FTL propulsion is more something that needs to be squared off between @Wes and @Nashoba , them both being setting admins. To my perception, if Nashoba openly disapproves of something this major, it doesn't fly, which means we need to keep coping with different FTL methods.

I'm willing to use a single one, but it really bothers me that hyperspace fold is pictured as wink-out/wink-in teleportation. I will never stoop to contenting myself with something that's narratively lame to me. But I could live with something like the blast-off/is-in-a-energy-tunnel/something-that-actually-feels-is-speeding-to-a-location (which will make cruising/maximum speed relevant as figures, something Nashoba also wanted) (my preferences aren't up for debate).

Given that, I do see advantage to validating multiple FTL methods, since it'd enable my descriptions just as much as another's.
 
Is the problem with Hyperspace really with just how it looks? I think there are a few options there.

Hyperspace involves space folding, so your ship is going to be on the inside of a bubble one way or another. There is still a question of what it would look like inside of that bubble but in my opinion it'll probably look like a kaleidoscope with how light is bent all over the place. Its probably just as likely to be jet black as it is to have a bunch of trippy lights from breaking radiation.
 
Regarding nebula as FTL blockages. It probably doesn't make much sense for them to negate hyperspace travel, but it would probably be dangerous for CDD in normal space.

Hitting the miniscule amounts of gas of a nebula at a significant fraction of light speed -- or worse yet FTL speeds -- would still blast that matter apart and turn it into energy in the form of hard radiation; basically the same result as a matter/anti-matter reaction where the matter and anti-matter are turned into gamma rays. You'd get the equivalent of a multi-kiloton nuclear bomb of energy being released against your hull just by colliding with a grams worth of nebula dust.

Given how tough ships are in this setting, that wouldn't necessarily destroy one or even severely damage it with only short exposure, but you would still need to have your shields up and the larger the nebula is, the longer you'd have to fly through what is essentially a continuous explosion weakening your shields, washing out your sensors, with a massive amount of radiation threatening to fry your ships computers and crew. The faster you fly the worse it would be, as you would collide with a larger amount of matter-per-second. Even if nebula realistically only have a few kilograms of matter filling a volume the size of the earth, when your ship is travelling over 300,000km per second you'd be hitting enough dust each second for the nebula to still be a hazard.
 
A nebula is far less dense than you might think. It only has a few more particles in it than normal 'entirely empty' space. You're not going to hit a gram worth of Nebula dust because Nebula's aren't dense enough to have grams worth of material clump together (unless its a star forming, don't run into that.)

It is implied ships have enough protection to survive using their FTL drives in deep space, so using it in a Nebula should be fine as well.
 
Well, that really depends on certain other standards. @Wes questions for you:
  • Is ship shielding good enough to dunk a ship in a sun?
  • How resistant to atmospheric entry are your starships? If unshielded, can entering an atmosphere 'the wrong way' (not belly/thermal coating first) pose a serious hazard?
  • Can starships plow into a solid object like an asteroid and come out not that much the worse for the wear.
Because these things were once a thing in SARP. If that applies, then yeah, a gram of nebula matter pretty much doesn't matter. Though, technically, a fleck of paint going at high enough speed would be sufficient to ruin a spaceship - so I don't think Khasidel's consideration is irrelevant. It just depends on our standards for what actually poses a danger for a starship in this setting.
 
Maybe you need numbers to understand what I am saying?

Normal space has maybe 1 particle per cubic centimeter.

A nebula has 100-1000 particles per cubic centimeter.

A gram of water has 3.35*10^22 (33,500,000,000,000,000,000,000) particles in it.

A nebula is so not-dense, that you might not even see it if you were inside of it.
 
Zack said:
CDD also shouldn't be any stealthier than Hyperspace
Click to expand...

Sorry for jumping in here on such a small, possibly tangental point, but why not? Other than "heh heh power signature."

Why don't we make CDD into a FTL method that allows for the introduction of H-Boats (FTL submarines, mentioned in passing here years ago)?

It'd be the "safer" method of FTL, but inherently less detectable because of it. Ships could maintain sensors on realspace targets while staying in the Continuum (? lol), giving them general invulnerability, like a submarine conceptually is, except to other H-Boats also there. These ships would still use hyperspace to get somewhere but switch on the CDD to zoom around and collect intel/drop mines/whatever.

Admittedly, I know little about CDD's properties because I don't think I've seen it used in RP, but it's an idea that both "gets rid" of CDD and keeps it around as something actually interesting to use.
 
Zack said:
Keeping all the various systems and then making them equal is a huge step backwards for the setting. Thematically, it splits everyone up and will give the setting a more 'comic book' feel as everyone will have ships that act very differently in FTL.

Mechanically, SARP already doesn't have great FTL rules. The complaints (even the unjustified ones) are numerous. We should be aiming to create one good set of FTL rules from this discussion and that is already hard enough when we have to argue over the specifics of one type of FTL system. If you want to include CDD and Wormholes then we'll need to iron out 2 more systems... then another for Spacer's lay-gates, and another for Hyperpulse, and another for the next system that comes around.
Click to expand...

Oh, for the love of.........

Is there anything wrong with having multiple solutions?

Isn't it kind of, you know, a given that different factions (each with their own histories/cultures/etc.) would have differing methods for FTL travel?

......Anyways, moving on:

Let's break this down, shall we?


Continuum Distortion Drives

Wormholes
  • Wormholes (Yamatai/Nepleslia) {Variable; see link for formulas}
  • Rift Generators (Freespacers) {Instantaneous}

Hyperspace


.........Mechanically, it looks pretty damn solid to me, bro. The speeds themselves are, of course, obscenely fast, but that's a pretty easy fix, no?

EDIT: Also, @Zack, you still haven't answered my question from earlier:

FrostJaeger said:
Here's another question: Without the CDD, what would the Nepleslians utilize for FTL?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
with CDD you're still in regular 'I can see you' space, where as with Hyperspace you're not actually traveling the space in between two points.

Now consider that you're bending gravity far harder than a black hole would, and moving so fast that you're red and blue shifting light all over the place. You're going to look like the brightest thing in the universe to whoever casually glances your way.

In terms of defense, CDD distortion is already use as part of regular shielding systems (though that same distortion ability can be used for Hyperspace travel, that stuff is all pretty interchangeable.)

And if you want a Hyperspace Submarine, just use a slow hyperspace jump. That capability has always been there, just no one has bothered to use it. Thematically though, I'd rather keep SARP about space rather than make it about sci-fi-boats in a space ocean.
 
With CDD or any warp-style travel -- because you're travelling faster-than-light and the rate at which gravity waves travel across normal space (which is lightspeed as well) -- you'd only detect a ship using CDD with conventional sensors if they travel at FTL past you or away from you, not as they are travelling toward you... unless you're using some exotic FTL sensor that breaks the laws of physics so you can detect their mass or gravity or emissions at a distance before those things can physically reach your own vessel.

If the ship travels past you at a distance of say -- three light-minutes -- then about three minutes later the emissions of the ship should reach you and you should notice that they've flown by you... but not before that.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top