- Faction: N/A
- FM Approved Yet: No, @Wes
- Faction requires art? Nope.
- Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? Nope.
- Contains Links to Unapproved Articles? Nope.
- Contains New Art? Nope.
- Previously Submitted? Nope.
- Changelog: Linky
-
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
Approved Submission Starship Combat Guide Update
12-day bump.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
Currently, the system was only written with directed energy weapons in mind, so you'll need to explicitly state that, and remove the range limitation you've placed on torpedoes and missiles, since that directly contradicts canon. In the end of the day, it's the quality of their propulsion systems which determines their range, but in exchange, they can be shot down fairly easily if fired from particularly far away.
Where is this stated in the current version of the Starship Combat Guide?
How does the range limitation on torpedoes and missiles "directly contradict canon[?]" @Wes himself stated the following in chat on June 20th:
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
I've talked to Wes about this earlier to confirm it, but your own logs also do the same.
Check the third chat log. The starship combat guide, in its current form, was meant to only address directed energy weapons and such that travel at light speed. Wes said it himself, and as for what he said about missiles, I believe it's what he would like to see, but hasn't implemented for very good reasons. First, our torpedoes already have a range of one light-year, give or take some depending on make and model. Second, making a self-propelled device that travels for that distance or even longer, tracks a target, and then blows it up, is technologically trivial in the setting given the same tech is already in fighters. You could even take a fighter, drone the thing, and load it with explosives to turn it into a torpedo if you wanted. Third, nobody likes retcons, and I am currently under the impression that Wes dislikes them with a passion.
Since this is supposed to be an update and not an overhaul, focus on its intended scope. It's about light speed weapons and energy weapons. As I mentioned earlier, you'll need to have the article's focus be clearly stated, and remove the missile range restriction. Once that's done, the article should be good to go.
Check the third chat log. The starship combat guide, in its current form, was meant to only address directed energy weapons and such that travel at light speed. Wes said it himself, and as for what he said about missiles, I believe it's what he would like to see, but hasn't implemented for very good reasons. First, our torpedoes already have a range of one light-year, give or take some depending on make and model. Second, making a self-propelled device that travels for that distance or even longer, tracks a target, and then blows it up, is technologically trivial in the setting given the same tech is already in fighters. You could even take a fighter, drone the thing, and load it with explosives to turn it into a torpedo if you wanted. Third, nobody likes retcons, and I am currently under the impression that Wes dislikes them with a passion.
Since this is supposed to be an update and not an overhaul, focus on its intended scope. It's about light speed weapons and energy weapons. As I mentioned earlier, you'll need to have the article's focus be clearly stated, and remove the missile range restriction. Once that's done, the article should be good to go.
Fair enough, but that's why I submitted an update for this article - so that it may fulfill its stated purpose of "...provid[ing] a complete reference manual for the depiction of combat between starships in the setting[.]"
False, as @Wes said here and here that torpedoes/missiles/etc. are also subject to the 900,000-kilometer engagement range limitation.
That's why there's a difference between "kamikaze drones" and torpedoes/missiles/etc., @CadetNewb. The former is large and slow but has better range, durability, and destructive potential; the latter, in contrast, is short-ranged, fragile, and packs less of a punch - but is smaller and faster than its larger cousin.
Agreed - but if @Wes disliked retconning weapon ranges so much, why did he create the Starship Combat Guide in the first place? Why did he say what he said in my previous post's chat logs?
As the creator of this update, I can assure you @CadetNewb that missiles/torpedoes/etc. are well within its intended scope.
That, unfortunately, is incorrect, as this submission is about "...provid[ing] a complete reference manual for the depiction of combat between starships in the setting[.]"
In my humble opinion, the article's focus is already stated quite clearly.
I'm afraid I cannot do that, as by removing them I would be going against what @Wes "...would like to see[.]"
Last edited:
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
Wes himself said there were exceptions to the system Frost, and according to the current canon, torpedoes and missiles would certainly fall into that category. What you're asking for though, is a retcon of the canon, which though you may try to initiate, only Wes has the final stamp of approval on. Since this is an update though, that falls outside of this review; you need to make a submission specifically about the retcon. Not try to slip it in under the guise of an update.
I've given you your to-do list Frost. Once you've done those, I can approve the article.
I've given you your to-do list Frost. Once you've done those, I can approve the article.
The entirety of the "torpedoes and missiles" within the setting is not what I'd call "a few exceptions," @CadetNewb. Besides...
...as the creator, owner, and administrator of Star Army, if @Wes says something is canon, it's canon. @Wes clearly stated here (then confirmed here) that missiles/torpedoes/etc. fell under the definition of "space weapons," thus limiting their maximum range to 900,000 kilometers regardless of what is stated elsewhere...
...and invalidating the second part of your post's first sentence.
What I'm asking for is nothing of the sort, given that @Wes had already made it canon by stating it in chat.
I'm not trying to initiate anything, @CadetNewb - @Wes already "initiated" and "completed" things on June 20th. I'm merely trying to bring the wiki up to speed with what has already been said.
Agreed - would you mind taking a look at this, @Wes?
Like I said in my previous post, as the creator of this update I can assure you that nothing within it falls outside the scope of this submission.
What retcon are you referring to, @CadetNewb? As I've explained above, nothing about this submission is a retcon since @Wes already made it canon on June 20th.
Why are you making an unwarranted accusation, @CadetNewb?
As I stated in my previous post, I cannot comply with the "to-do list" mentioned here for the following reasons:
- I cannot "...explicitly state that..." "...the system was only written with directed energy weapons in mind..." because of the fact that @Wes stated here (then confirmed here) that missiles/rockets/torpedoes/etc. were and are included in the Starship Combat Guide's Engagement Range Guidelines. Furthermore, "...explicitly stat[ing] that..." "...the system was only written with directed energy weapons in mind..." would invalidate the stated purpose of the article, which is to (emphasis mine) "...provide a complete reference manual for the depiction of combat between starships..."
- I cannot "...remove the missile range restriction..." because the removing the restriction would invalidate the stated purpose of the article and render it non-canon by conflicting with what @Wes said here, here, and here.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
The submitted article is/has…
[X] A very high level of overall quality
[X] A general topic sentence under the title header
[N/A] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[X] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[X] In the proper format/template
[X] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[X] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[X] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[X] No red and/or broken links
[ - ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[X] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[ ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[ ] Obtusely redundant
[ ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[ ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[ ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[ ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[ ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[ ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[ ] Lacking Detail
[ ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[N/A] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[N/A] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[N/A] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[N/A] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
[X] A very high level of overall quality
[X] A general topic sentence under the title header
[N/A] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[X] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[X] In the proper format/template
[X] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[X] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[X] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[X] No red and/or broken links
[ - ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[X] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[ ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[ ] Obtusely redundant
[ ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[ ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[ ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[ ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[ ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[ ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[ ] Lacking Detail
[ ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[N/A] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[N/A] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[N/A] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[N/A] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
First, this is a non-standard submission, so the standard framework will not be the best fit. Second, it's not scientifically plausible for missiles or torpedoes to be limited to such short ranges - that entirely depends on their propulsion system. If Wes says they're somehow no-good in this setting though, then we're good to go, but that brings me to my third point.
If you want me to approve the article in its current form, I simply can't; you're asking for a retcon and major change to the setting, which only Wes has final authority on. The only way I can approve the article, is to simply have the article be an update and not this retcon you're looking for. You are correct that Wes has stated his desires in chat, but again, unless it's formalized through the NTSE with proper articles and so forth, it won't happen. Again, my authority does not allow for such a large change.
If you insist on trying to retcon though, you'll have to wait for Wes.
According to this article on the wiki, Star Army is an (emphasis mine) "original science fiction setting" - thereby rendering your argument of "scientific plausib[ility]" invalid.
@Wes already said they were "no-good in this setting[,]" @CadetNewb, based upon what was said in the chat logs I included in an earlier post. All that remains, in my humble opinion, is for @Wes to post his approval here in this thread.
As I stated in my previous post, I'm not asking for a retcon - as @Wes has already made this canon by stating it in chat.
I am attempting to formalize it, @CadetNewb. This, as far as I know, is the "proper article" you are referring to.
I'm fully aware of that - which is why (to the best of my knowledge) approval from @Wes is required before you can approve it, @CadetNewb.
As I've said earlier, @CadetNewb, this (as far as I'm aware) is not a retcon due to @Wes having already made this canon by stating it in chat.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
Frost, don't complain when your work doesn't meet the checklist. You did ask for it after all. More importantly, you don't seem to understand what canon is. The canon of the setting is either in the RP itself, or in the site's wiki, which we work on here in the NTSE. What Wes said in the chat is his desire or will, but unless he acts on it to make it canon, it remains just his desire or will. It's for that reason that I can't approve this article - in its current form, only Wes can approve it.
If you want me to approve it however, you'll have to roll it back to a state where I can do something about it, which I've already laid out.
If you want me to approve it however, you'll have to roll it back to a state where I can do something about it, which I've already laid out.
Soban
Convention Veteran
I think there might be something to be said about "Effective range" vs physical range. If I have enough delta v, then I can pretty much hit any point in the universe you are to name. It might take a long time, but I can do it. That said, I need my weapons to hit now, not in fifteen years and not getting shot down on the way. That is where effective range comes into the equation. To me, it seems entirely plausible that the physics range of missiles is unlimited, while the effective range is limited to a distance. Therefore, having a max range on missiles seems to be quite scientific to me.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
Well, that's the thing, really. Effective range isn't universal across all weapons. Torpedoes and missiles for an example, can be used as a standoff weapon from one side of a system to the other or even across an entire lightyear as is canon, or used more conventionally when fired at shorter distances. In the case of directed energy weapons however, bloom and time to impact relegate them to shorter distances.
Which part of my previous post was interpreted as a "complaint" - and if none of it was, then why are you putting words in my mouth, @CadetNewb?
I, in my humble opinion, am well aware of what canon is and isn't, @CadetNewb - but (and I'm not trying to be rude here) have you ever heard of a concept called the word of God?
I know, @CadetNewb, which is why I said earlier that to the best of my knowledge "...approval from @Wes is required before you can approve it[.]"
I don't want you to approve it, @CadetNewb - I want you to approve it after @Wes approves it if you, in your unbiased opinion as a NTSE moderator, feel that it is something worthy of being approved.
With all due respect, I do - because would you mind quoting the section(s) of my post(s) you found to be passive-aggressive?
Seriously - quote them, and if I have indeed been passive-aggressive towards you, I will apologize and/or clarify what I meant.
- Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? Nope.
- Contains Links to Unapproved Articles? Nope.
- Contains New Art? Nope.
- Previously Submitted? Yes; see below.
- Changelog: Linky
I'm re-posting this here because of the fact that @CadetNewb violated the Review Policy by locking the original thread without rejecting it or providing any explanation in the thread itself as to why it was locked.
