| Welcome to Near Ft. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Technology Analysis Proposal; Read the post! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 12 2013, 07:52 AM (394 Views) | |
| Hobbeebia | Oct 12 2013, 07:52 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Ok, So we all have a forvite type of tech, and lets face it we are all paritial to its ability to kick the other guys ass fairly easily., but do we really give the other tech's due credit? In this thread we will be building, discussing, dismantling, reorganizing and then build once more a proper, if somewhat daunting, Comparison Chart which can be used to explore the strengths and weaknesses of technologies which can and probably will, be employed within the Universe of NEAR. First order of business... Establish a tech tree of various types of tech- i.e.- Forerunner, Precurser, Star trek, Star Wars, Mass Effect, Warhammer, Etc... Second order of Business... List pros and cons to common tech types- Ballistic VS Beam VS Hybrid VS Plasma- ETC... Third Order of business... Sit down and logically talk about each tech type and how it compars to others in a fair manner and in a way that shows they IMPLIED strengths and UNDERSTOOD weaknesses of those tech. i.e.- A star Wars blaster Rife has the same effect of killing a person as a Star Trek Phaser. Both can kill, both have a limited ammo supply, both are mass produced. Phaser is better against unarmored flesh while Blaster Rifle carries more punch per shot, while the Phaser has less stopping power, it is often times smaller and less cumbersome. |
![]() |
|
| Nungiir Ancestry | Oct 12 2013, 10:58 AM Post #2 |
|
This is a good idea - would give us an idea of the specifications that people use for their weaponry; their rate of fire, munition type, effect, range, etc. I'd like to see it expanded of course to starships, shields and armors, numerous other technology pieces but that would seem like a good place to start. |
![]() |
|
| The_River | Oct 12 2013, 04:33 PM Post #3 |
|
This might be very difgicult though. I can see each nation possibly fielding its own diverse arsenal of weapons, shields and small arms Not to say that I dislike it, but it is a daunting task... Of course, questionable weapons peoples apps should be discussed in detail, but we should makesure to not go too in depth, such as the difference between 40 k marines and Starcraft ones. Edited by The_River, Oct 12 2013, 04:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| The 44th Independent Legion | Oct 13 2013, 11:39 AM Post #4 |
|
I'll reserve a post here for now. I use a custom tech base, so It's only proper I put a post up here in a decent format. There's a lot to go through though, so it might take a little while. MATERIALS Hyperferrites As the name might suggest, hyperferrites are metal-like elements with a number of special properties. Canonically, their atomic numbers correspond to 208 (terrordite, which is known but not used. It's name has a good reason.), 227 (goromril) and 234 (obsinite). Hyperferrites have not occurred naterually since the electro-weak unification but can be produced with matter converters. As a general rule of thumb, they are very dense and difficult to work with. Under the correct circumstances they can form very strong bonds with iron atoms, these large ferrite-hyperferrite molecules can be used in alloy or act as seeds for nano-structures within a parent ferrous material. An alloy partially onsisting of hyperferrites is called Adamantium. A material with a hyperferrite-induced nano-structure is called Adamantite. Adamantium armour PRO: very dense and high structural tolerances (effective against kinetic impactors), high X-ray albedo (=degree of reflectiveness against X-rays. Partially reflects X-rays, making it effective against X-ray lasers) Highly conductive and high binding energies (thermal/plasma weaponry inflicts broader but significantly shallower damage) CON: Very dense (even small amounts of this armour is VERY heavy). Extremely expensive due to production limitation. Combined, these two factors mean adamantium armour composes <5% of total armour thickness on ANY ship. Too heavy to be used effectively on ground troops or aerocraft. Vulnerable to non-X-ray lasers. Multi-layered armour susceptible to multiple-reflection damage from X-ray lasers. Susceptible to exotic laser-like weapons and particle weapons. In terms of hyperferrite usage (which has a limited overall production), adamantium is not as efficient as adamantite. Adamantium structural elements: PRO: very strong, durable and resistant to damage CON: Excessively heavy. Very expensive. Not very versatile. Not as resource-efficient as adamantite. Adamantium conductors/magnets PRO: durable, high heat tolerances, low electrical resistance. CON: difficult to cool, very expensive, very heavy, susceptible to overheating over prolonged usage. Adamantite armour PRO: high strength-to-weight ratio. Some variants have a high x-ray albedo. Very resource and weight efficient protection against almost all damage types. Cheap and light enough to be effciently used as ablative and/or reactive armour. CON: inferior in almost every way to adamantium as a core armour. Susceptible to high-density kinetic penetrators, non-x-ray lasers, particle weapons and exotic beam-like weapons. Loses it's enhanced properties when heated beyond a critical temperature. Sustained exposure to thermal/plasma weapons can very strongly reduce the armour's effectiveness. Adamantite structural elements. PRO:strong, durable and resistant to damage, relatively cheap. CON: Loses it's enhanced properties when heated beyond a critical temperature; parts often can not be repaired but must be replaced instead. Generally not considered strong enough to act as the main structure on a spacecraft. Adamantite conductors PRO: durable, low electrical resistance, easy to sustain military performance. CON: not suited for large-scale infrastructure. Loses it's enhanced properties when heated beyond a critical temperature; parts often cannot be repaired but must be replaced instead. WEAPONS ship & surface-to-orbit weaponry, in ascending order of potency. Flak cannons: 450mm chemical explosive/coilgun hybrid guns launch guided projectiles containing a mix of bomb-pumped lasers and forged projectiles. (both are types of shaped nuclear charges, X-ray lasers laser and high velocity plasma, respectively). Effective range is considered to be up to 0.25ls PRO: The cannons are cartridge-loaded and are designed to fire it's entirety in a massed salvo's. Slightly variable power to the coilguns can synchronise the arrival of the entire salvo. Guidance is (just) sophisticated enough to allow co-ordinated detonations and specific targeting. Effective at draining shields on larger targets. Co-ordinated volleys can cause heavy damage if deployed in sufficient numbers. Area saturation weapon. CON: Area saturation weapon. Guidance is lackluster and crude. The projectiles have a limited dV budget and aren't very high velocity. Each cartridge contains 13 of both warhead types and 1 master guidance projectile. If the master guidance projectile is destroyed the remaining warheads do not receive updates in targeting information. Reload between salvo's is quite long. Ammunition capacity is a concern. Apart from shield drain, damage is usually limited: only small or weakly-armoured ships will take serious damage to their internal systems from these weapons. Heavy Flak cannons: larger calibre (712mm) version of the flak cannon, working on the same principles. It's effective range is considered to be up to 0.5ls Pro's and cons are identical with the following exceptions. PRO: high velocity. 9-shot cartridge, each shell with independent targeting. CON: increased dV budget, but still quite limited. Very long reloads between salvo's. Ammunition capacity is a major concern. Detonations are usually not very well co-ordinated and salvo's aren't as well synchronised. Plasma Projection Cannons: (often denoted as heavy plasma projection cannons OOCly, to distinguish them from the smaller scale plasma cannons that replaced heavy flak cannons on more advanced saurai ships.) All projection weaponry (apart from those on a magma base, to which my nation has no access or production means to) operate in the same way. A pinpoint(-ish) hlaser (attepts) to burn/vapourise/clear a path towards a target location. A second hlaser, usually referred to as a carrier beam, projects payload matter at the target location. Hlaser-based weapons are FTL weapons. However, it is critical to note that are subject to causality and are most assuredly NOT instantaneous. It has an effective engagement range of 5 ls, beam integrity cannot extend beyond 7.5ls but ceaces to be effective long before that. PRO: other than staying out of range, manoeuvring has a dismissable impact on weapon performance. Very effective at piercing armour. Capable of dealing crippling damage against unshielded targets. Accuracy uneffected by range, excepting extreme situations. Specific targeting of internals can be used to great effect (if knowledge of the opposing ships is sufficient, obviously) CON: absolutely requires a sophisticated firing solution from FTL sensors. Not particularly accurate at any range (excepting extreme situations) due to sensor “ghosts”. Often struggles piercing enemy shields. Little shield drain associated with fully defending a hit with shields. Large power requirements. Usurper Class Microhlasers: a sustained-beam hlaser. The micro is only by comparison to capital weaponry. It's effective range is considered to be up to 25ls, though it is most effective when combined with projection weaponry. PRO: Powerful. Accurate. Effective against shields. FTL (but not instant!). Designed to be used against large targets. CON: the beams are not particularly well-focussed, which may cause it to struggle against well-armoured targets. Spinal mounting can severely impede firing opportunities. Obscene power consumption. Big bright yellow beam visible from all angles denoting “here I am, shoot me, I just drained a large portion of my capacitors!” (note that lasers do not behave in such a way). Requires a sophisticated firing solution from STL and/or FTL sensors. Not well-suited to orbital bombardment. Very large. Difficult to armour. Firing without effecting shields requires a long charge time. Electro-Path Enforcement Cannons. (EPEC) Powerful surface-to-orbit weaponry. It's closed analogue would be either a giant bolt of lightning or a particle cannon. My nation is unsure which, if either, is the appropriate designation. No two of these are exactly the same, but an engagement range of 25ls is a strong trend. PRO: disturbingly powerful. Can overwhelm shields or even destroy ships in a single hit. There's a whole lot of them. CON: Not very accurate. Very poorly understood technology. Friendly fire is a noted issue. The “lightning” tends to “crawl” slowly enough to allow for evasive action. Damage potential drops with significantly range. Doesn't work when mounted on spaceships for unknown reasons. (OOC: there is an authoritative firing sequence subroutine which doesn't allow the weapon to fire unless it is connected to the planetary defence network.) Though numerous, EPEC stations must be replaced when damaged, as there is insufficient understanding of the technology to repair them. Higher end weaponry is currently not available and/or deployed by my nation at this moment. This may change. SHIELDS my nation uses multi-layered shields to minimize piercing of said shields by high-powered weapons and maximise dispersion of incoming shots before the armour is reached in case of a shield breech. Avoiding detection is literally not even on the agenda. Internal shielding is also used, most notably is the integration of shields and armour. Various mechanisms are employed as countermeasures against different threats: Gravitational lensing is used to deflect or diffuse lasers, beam-type weapons and, in extreme cases, particularly high-energy kinetic impactors. PRO: very effective and reliable CON: requires an often disproportionate amount of power; that is, it drains shield capacitors rather quickly. Repulsors (also used on infantry) deflect kinetic projectiles or missiles that stray too close. PRO: very effective against metalloid projectiles/missiles, low power usage, cheap. CON: not very effective against non-metalloid projectiles/missiles, very limited working range. Magnetic shields are used to protect against charged particles. PRO: extremely effective against naked plasma and effective against particle weapons. Very low power usage. CON: not very effective against particularly well-developed and/or advanced plasma weapons. On it own it's not powerful enough to defend against high-energy particle cannons and the likes. (Force-)conversion shielding can be used to defend against practically anything. PRO: jack of all trades. Can dissipate weapon energy into capacitor charge. CON: master of none. Far less power-efficient than the other forms of shielding. The field, once partially or wholly pierced, requires time to re-establish itself, leaving precarious holes in the defence. Can overload with catastrophic consequences if the conversion feedback isn't properly throttled. Laser Diffusion Field (requires an atmosphere) A clever use of forcefields creates super thin lenses to diffuse incoming lasers. PRO: Very effective against lasers. Field size is variable. CON: can't be used against lasers operating in the X-ray spectrum. Power-intensive. Only works against lasers of pre-calibrated bandwidths. Can't be recalibrated quickly. Easy to detect if active. Requires an atmosphere to function. Edited by The 44th Independent Legion, Oct 14 2013, 04:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Canuckland | Oct 14 2013, 05:15 AM Post #5 |
|
To be completely honest, I hate Warhammer Tech when everyone else is different. Because they think they're all mighty and powerful and everyone is under their boot until someone starts to convert to Warhammer Esq. tech and it's just a mess of faux boltguns and faux space marines. |
![]() |
|
| Terraburg | Oct 14 2013, 05:47 AM Post #6 |
|
Exactly why does Warhammer Tech do that? It doesn't seem to be THAT powerful.... |
| "We move yet are still, deaf yet listen, dead yet alive." - C | |
![]() |
|
| Hobbeebia | Oct 14 2013, 08:26 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I dont particularly see the interest in Warhammer stuff for the exception of the Fire Warrior Game set which involved the Tau, aside from that I honestly dont think to highly of it. The way it is protrayed is that all factions are essentially either to big the fail or in the end can never really be destroyed. Example being the Imperium of Man just has to big a population to ever really lose, and the Necron has metal that seems to just materialize out of thin air, which no explanation I.E. Necrodermis. I understand the concept of Flow metal or the "Living metal" as its called. Hell I even utilize something sorta like it , but I can atleast give a reason as to how and why it functions... Warhammer just kinda makes accept it without questioning it.... Kinda like the joke of just nod your head and agree. AS for the Orks... I dont care how your Psi power works... if you have a box full of junk metal with a tube for a barrel... thats all it is... your imagination doesn't make it function as a bolt rifle. A yellow rocket with the exact same payload as a red one has the same explosive power... just because your collective heads think the yellow has a bigger boom doesn't make it so... LOL |
![]() |
|
| The 44th Independent Legion | Oct 14 2013, 01:50 PM Post #8 |
|
<aside>A red ork rocket would fly faster, not make a bigger boom in the wh40k canon.</aside> That being said, 40k techbase is laden with people who don't know how to handle it, sadly. Objectively speaking, wh40k tech isn't actually all that powerful: crappy shields no defences against lasers and vulnerability to unguided projectiles (lol) and their weapons can only operate effectively at abysmally short ranges. Additionally the whole IM AM THE ENTIRE IMERIUM OF MAN-thing is a definite faux pas as everyone starts with a single system. I like 40k, but the techbase is like a distilled rule-of-cool philosophy which requires some serious writing skill, dedication and planning to not suck terribly, something most people using the 40k techbase unfortunately lack. |
![]() |
|
| Nungiir Ancestry | Oct 14 2013, 03:18 PM Post #9 |
|
Everyone starts NEAR with one system? Trust me, that's not a good idea. |
![]() |
|
| Hobbeebia | Oct 14 2013, 03:31 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Well, You need to understand the context of the original rule under which NEAR operated. In the Original NEAR Nations where bound by the N.S. Page stated Populations at start. Lore wise it was because of a Galactic War of a multitude of powerful nations which saw a majority of those nations either completely destroyed or hammered back drasticly. Nations with low populations where generally considered emerging civilizations while those with higher where considered Old Civilizations from before he war that survival utter devestation. Since NEAR is now operating almost entirely free of N.S. We no longer have a means operationally to justify forcing everyone to a single system this time around since we done have a hard coded Nation pages with self-perpetuating population growth. I have been looking into ways of making a somewhat permanent page for each nation to manage with guidelines on how populations should be managed. Of course that why in this version of NEAR, I have taken to possing these questions to the community in order to build a more inclusive group
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Rules and Administration Development · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:13 PM Jul 11
|







2:13 PM Jul 11