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.

Proposed Setting Revisions for 2011

Personally, I think, if anything, we need a 'friendly play' clause that advises against pulling stupid hat tricks, and when I say 'hat trick', I mean deploying a tactic (like firing FTL weapons through your own Interdiction without effect) without or before discussing the implications with your opponent(s) and an optional impartial third party. The idea being, both players know generally what each force is capable of; firewalling info is bad OOC, but necessary for realism IC so let everyone self-enforce instead of pulling the sheet over their heads.

That's the real problem, I'd say, PVP requires more trust than a GM/PC relationship normally needs, and we're used to that imbalance of equality.
 
I've a bad feeling about that poll. It's too white/black with absolutely no shades of gray, promoting extremes on the issue only.
 
The last question, especially. I don't care about rules for PvP; I'd rather it not exist at all.

I already filled it out, but can more answers be provided, Wes?
 
Yeah, I do not believe that that Poll can accurately reflect what is wanted, More answer choices would be needed, giving us a few different halfway points to choose from as well as the yes and No.
 
Please just choose the best-fitting response for yourself. Any explanations can be posted here in the thread.
 
Reminder: Today is the last day to vote in the survey!
 
RESULTS

Code: 
Should we prohibit combat between ships moving at FTL speeds?
	
Yes		19	86%
No		3	14%

Should all SARP FTL systems be converted to point-to-point FTL systems?
	
Yes		7	32%
No		15	68%

Should all anti-FTL be removed?
	
Yes		12	55%
No		10	45%

Should FTL weapons be removed from the setting?
	
Yes		19	86%
No		3	14%

Should we implement a GUIDELINE stating the maximum range for normal starship weaponry is 3 light-seconds (900,000 kilometers)?
	
Yes		13	59%
No		9	41%

Do you consider SARP STL speeds to be too fast?
	
Yes		14	64%
No		8	36%

Do you think STL "doublers" and "triplers" should be removed from the setting?
	
Yes		17	77%
No		5	23%

Do you think SARP STL speeds should be replaced with acceleration (either in Gs or meters per second squared)?
	
Yes		9	41%
No		13	59%

Do you think the SARP needs PVP rules?
	
Yes		10	45%
No		12	55%
 
Code: 
Should all anti-FTL be removed?
	
Yes		12	55%
No	 	10	45%

I agree with removing it from actual ships, but I like the idea of keeping it an option at large installations (Star Fortresses) and static areas such as around the KMS for example. Perhaps have another vote on if it should be fully removed or made exclusive to less compact and less mobile installations? Maybe that poll wouldn't be so close...


Code: 
Should FTL weapons be removed from the setting?
	
Yes		19	86%
No	  	3	14%

In cases where the technology is plausible, I suppose this could be explained as being a waste of resources and throttled back accordingly. I can still see someone using their FTL in a Mindy to get close to an enemy and self destruct for a crowning moment of awesome/plot element though.


Code: 
Do you consider SARP STL speeds to be too fast?
	
Yes		14	64%
No	  	8	36%

We've already slashed these a few times, and I have to wonder where we'll stop. I guess the players have spoken nearly 2 to 1 though. >.>


Code: 
Do you think SARP STL speeds should be replaced with acceleration (either in Gs or meters per second squared)?
	
Yes		9	41%
No		13	59%

I'm relieved this lost. Using G-forces on a ship equipped with inertial dampeners (or with CFS that doesn't even have acceleration in the traditional sense) seems to be a bad idea, and meters per second squared is not a constant figure. It'll start off strong, but taper off and even decrease as the system reaches its highest speed. This is especially true at relativistic speeds (which can still be well below the speed of light). meters per second squared would be a huge number, and just wouldn't work as presented here to begin with -- it is not a static variable.
 
Based on the results, here's my plan:

- Combat during FTL movement will be impossible
- No conversion of FTL drives
- Anti FTL will be reformed somehow, but not removed
- All FTL weapons will be revised to sub-FTL speeds
- Range Guidelines will be established and ship stats will be reviewed to help make them fit.
- SARP STL speeds will get a nerf of some sort so they're less ridiculous
- All doublers and triplers will be removed from the setting.
- Speeds will not be converted to acceleration at this time
- PVP rules will not be worked on at this time. GMs and FMs should work out the intended results of a conflict beforehand and work together to tell a story instead of against each other.
 
I disagree with one aspect of that, Wes.

We voted on the light second thing specifically as a guideline, but reviewing/changing submissions to match it makes it an implicit rule.

If we wish to review weapon speeds and ranges in light of the STL changes or the removal of FTL in weapons, that's fine. We should not, however, require submissions to fit in with the guideline specificly.
 
0.3 to 0.375c is an acceptable cruising speed for an STL drive. However, once it comes to combat, it's a tad too quick. I repeat: STL speeds are not ridiculous in themselves just for travelling in the vicinity of planets inside a star system - just in relation of combat, with delay-to-impact, reaction times, scale (in 1 second, you could make the obstruction of a gas giant insignificant) and range considerations.

I'd propose the middle ground and say to just toss out the doubler-tripler concept for the time being and use the .3c STL speeds as the tactical jumps we've been doing (basically Wes, you could consider those being used for Full Impulse/Evasive Maneuver STO equivalents in SARP) with lesser speeds strongly encouraged for combat (i.e.: 5000kps).

I think this'll probably work out well and be a feasible first step in that direction without making changes that would be glaring from the IC perspective (for example, Yukari will still be able to maneuver as she has with Miharu, except she won't be doing it at lightspeed - even then, odds are the desired results will still be available).

I also think that people can feel free to add acceleration consideration if they value the added details in the submission - it's kind of like measurements for neko characters - give them if you can, but it's no biggie if you can't. A GM whom wants to use them for added detail can then go and use that to flesh things out as he'd like.
 
About tactical maneuvers: Aren't most of those carried out by thrusters? If anyone's watched even the first part of the first season of the Battlestar Galactica reboot, you'll know what I'm getting at. In space, thrusters can provide more than enough move-out-of-the-way motion. Swooping banks and turns are essential for aircraft and look good on TV but not at all required for space combat. Using impulse engines or main STL engines to turn a ship bodily out of the way of a shot is actually kind of idiotic when you can boost the ship directly to the side (especially if you have inertial damping to ignore the g-forces incurred in a sudden jump ninety degrees to the left). It may just be because I recently re-read it, but the space combat described in the "Halo: The Fall of Reach" novel sounds pretty accurate.

If we're going for show and not accuracy (or a balance of the two), though, then ignore my post : )
 
Well, it starts counting for more when you consider warhead blast radius and the big destructive cones aether shock cannons do.

Tactical jumps the way I've seen them used seem to be for tactical positioning as much as for getting the hell out of dodge. Feel free to ask Doshii for specifics in how Yukari uses CFS to accomplish that - however, I think just making those same maneuvers at 0.3c instead of 5000c would still work as intended without feeling as overblown or cheap.

A complete elimination? No. But a gradual tone down which may even be taken out in a revision in the coming years? Perhaps.
 
How does Yukari carry out tactical jumps in combat, does the enemy never use their interdiction fields?

Or

In Fred's case I don't think ship speeds, or equipment is really factored in. People write things but the emphasis is on making it sound good rather than what is possible in the setting. The Miharu will still be pulling loop de loops in space regardless of setting changes.

---

If we're talking about a big change to the setting we really should be talking about what we want the setting to look like first then figuring out which rules promote that rather than just making slight tweaks and hoping for the best. With extreme speed and infinite acceleration the only way to hit a ship is with the massive area of effect weapons or with an FTL strike.

FTL:

In SARP, ships can outrun FTL torpedoes and virtually all FTL weapons making them effectively invulnerable. This is why interdiction is so important and why I shake my head anytime the badguys are so dumb they can't figure out how to turn on their interdiction systems.

This means that combat in SARP is based entirely around placement and usage of interdiction systems. The person who has more ships is going to be at an advantage, the person with twice as many ships automatically wins any fight regardless of what the opponent does because they will be able to completely interdict their opponent and generate an anti-interdiction field large enough for their ships to move at FTL, fire, then move before they can be retaliated against.

In one ship vs two+ ships fight, the enemy would have to be retarded not to use their interdiction systems for effect.

STL:

Not consider FTL ships can still move absurdly fast compared to weapons, after all imagine if guns fired bullets that moved only about 3 times faster than you could run and your enemy is on the other side of a football field. No one would ever get shot. STL speeds are high for travel through interdiction fields (they aren't needed to move between systems or planets, that is what FTL is for) and get to combat in a reasonable amount of time.

Limitless acceleration and high thrust make maneuvering super-easy. Going in any direction moves the ship out of the line of fire by such a large margin in such a small amount of time that ships would reasonably have to be firing lasers at fractions of a light second to make a hit assuming the enemy ship is only changing direction once a second which is well within their abilities.

Maneuvers like loop de loops (or realistic space ones like the good ol turn and burn) don't even matter because there is limitless ability to turn and accelerate.

If STL and Interdiction are going to be changed then standardized size for interdiction needs to compare to STL speeds such that ships can enter an interdiction field and get to a fight in a reasonable amount of time. Acceleration could instantly solve both problems allowing for high speed ships (realistic) but little ability to change course meaning plotting a path is important and dodging shots becomes much, much, harder, giving a realistic engagement range for unguided weapons at a few light seconds (though I wouldn't mind seeing slower firing railguns too)


---

If you want the honor harrington style 'naval ships in space' type fight FTL, STL, and weapons need a huge nerf to force ships into closer ranges and to prevent them from just insta-gibing planets with their Aether Shock Cannons.
 
I think there was a misunderstanding about what I meant by "tactical jump". I mean a sudden movement at STL speeds to one side, not an FTL maneuver.
[i:1t23321e]The Fall of Reach[/i] said:
"I never joke when it comes to navigation," Captain Keyes said. "You will monitor the energy state of that ship. The instant you detect a buildup in their reactors, a spike of particle emissions -- anything -- you fire our emergency thrusters to throw off their aim."

Cortana nodded. "I'll do my best," she said. "Their weapon does travel at light speed. There won't be much time to--"

A bang resonated through their port side hull. Captain Keyes flew sideways. Blue-white light flashed on their port view screen.

"One shot missed," Cortana replied.
Click to expand...
 
Here's my suggested changes to anti-FTL:

- Only planets can project AoE Anti-FTL fields (we need to figure out a good max range).
- Ships can still project Anti-FTL fields, but they are single target only.
- A ship can only use one Anti-FTL field at a time. Because of SCIENCE.
- Anti-FTL fields can only be used successfully on ships of the same or smaller size class.
- Anti-FTL fields don't stack
- These is no counter to an Anti-FTL field*

*Side effect: Because CFS/CDD will no longer be more effective against Anti-FTL, we will only need one FTL system on future ships. This means we can remove CDD from the CFS as has been suggested in this thread.
 
Uso said:
How does Yukari carry out tactical jumps in combat, does the enemy never use their interdiction fields?

Or

In Fred's case I don't think ship speeds, or equipment is really factored in. People write things but the emphasis is on making it sound good rather than what is possible in the setting. The Miharu will still be pulling loop de loops in space regardless of setting changes.
Click to expand...
If Fred lets me? Yup!

I don't have any source I can point to that would illuminate how Yukari does her FTL jumping (which can be STL, too; it's all the same to me). I will say, however, that speeds are factored in.

Anti-FTL technology, as I always have experienced it, does not completely remove FTL travel or weapons. It does, however, considerably reduce speeds. Those speeds are still faster-than-light, just not nearly as much and not enough to get away from the source of the anti-FTL field.

Basically, what I do with CFS tech is use it to its full potential (or abuse it, depending on how you see it). Ships are able to instantly teleport from one point to another, especially inside short ranges, because the ship just goes that fast. Miharu is in front of the — WTF, now it's in back! That's all it really is.

So no, there's nothing high-minded about it. It's darting from one place to another because it reads good and the tech allows for it. It also is a handy maneuver because Fred plays for keeps and it's the only way I can think of that dodges FTL (or even STL) weapons that have pinpoint accuracy.

I don't want to leave a cheek unslapped, so I'll repeat what I've said before about "loop da loops" — Flight in space is boring and the tech allows for Yukari to make it feel like it is atmospheric. I grew up on the X-Wing series, I like how that felt and how it reads, so that's how I play.
 
Wait, FTL weapons? how is that possible? unless you're putting a hyperdrive or a warp engine on a huge missile? (because that I can totally see and would be awesome)

And I'm going to go ahead and repeat that I think the whole Idea of anti-FTL is bad to begin with.
Oh sure, there is things like Tractor Beams and electromagnetic field generators, but those are used in normal space and have limited range (like, a planet and its moon) and similar tech like that. But to actually interfere with subspace to make FTL impossible? Areas where FTL doesn't work generally tend to be natural phenomena and are HUGE interstellar forces. It requires an entire ship just to enter/use FTL, so imagine how big and powerful an anti-FTL machine would have to be, not to mention the other tech required to Project the interference. That would make Anti-Anti-FTL measures impossible to have, because the power and resource requirements would be even greater.

My thoughts

-Frost
 
Frost said:
Wait, FTL weapons? how is that possible? unless you're putting a hyperdrive or a warp engine on a huge missile? (because that I can totally see and would be awesome)

And I'm going to go ahead and repeat that I think the whole Idea of anti-FTL is bad to begin with.
Oh sure, there is things like Tractor Beams and electromagnetic field generators, but those are used in normal space and have limited range (like, a planet and its moon) and similar tech like that. But to actually interfere with subspace to make FTL impossible? Areas where FTL doesn't work generally tend to be natural phenomena and are HUGE interstellar forces. It requires an entire ship just to enter/use FTL, so imagine how big and powerful an anti-FTL machine would have to be, not to mention the other tech required to Project the interference. That would make Anti-Anti-FTL measures impossible to have, because the power and resource requirements would be even greater.

My thoughts

-Frost
Click to expand...
FTL Weapons: Exactly what has been used so far. And this one worked in anti-FTL fields. However, this has become the problem (it was neat to begin with, but has become overpowered) which is being fixed. Or is trying to be fixed. This, and ships engaging in combat at faster-than-light speeds, which also happens.

Anti-FTL: Developed because of the above note. And power armors have FTL in this setting (though that possibly could be removed), so it isn't beyond the scope of possibility that ships have anti-FTL.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top