Well of Souls Forums

Best utility human ships would have is:
1) Point defence, owing to their large number of laser weapon mounts. You can use a heavy laser to shoot down a missile just as easily as a light laser. Must make sure you can keep up, however, with whatever it is you be defending. So, restricted to battlestations, which have lower innate acceleration, and can kill offending ships proper.
2) Clean up: letting their more advanced allies move onwards, while not wasting time bombarding planets and taking out space-borne structures. The size and lower acceleration of battlestations means that they would be vulnerable to mass driver fire from much further away than ships. And since slugs are unaffected by shields, they can do their full damage. Same for the Mjolnir.

The Terrans should have the advantage of mapping the region and knowing the jump routes. It will take time for others to learn all that. Knowing all the jump routes around various systems can at least be useful knowledge for ambushes and flanking maneuvers.

Ithekro wrote:The Terrans should have the advantage of mapping the region and knowing the jump routes. It will take time for others to learn all that. Knowing all the jump routes around various systems can at least be useful knowledge for ambushes and flanking maneuvers.

If there is an unknown fourth loroi world in Hiarchy space then the Hiarchy forces may have access to their own careers. If that is true humans, in slightly obsolete Union vessels doing mapping missions could really be useful.

Question: it is my understanding that the TCA in 2160 is roughly on technological parity with the Loroi as they were during the Delrias (or maybe Mannadi?) wars. However, the Loroi are notable for having used space fighters in most instances before the Umiak War made them mostly obsolete.
So... does humanity use fighters? If not, why not?

Humans use defense drones with point defense lasers, from what I recall.

Ithekro wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:35 am

Humans use defense drones with point defense lasers, from what I recall.

And did the Loroi and Delrias/Mannadi... not?

Humans have the technology to build fighters, but they don't have any carriers. Humanity hasn't fought a real "hot war" in space, and so the Colonial Fleet is mainly a police force. Even the heavy cruisers are overkill for patrol duties; they haven't had any need for carriers.

The Loroi used manned fighters that can pull 40G accelerations. The Human built drones can do 4G acceleration. But you they are tiny, so you could fit more in a hanger, and mass a hundred times less than a Loroi heavy fighter. (Terran drones are only 4 tons). Earth has the smallest combat craft.

Earth only had First Contact with an alien race around 21 months ago, as Alex is stuck in a drifting Loroi pinnace. They are currently trying to upgrade with what they could get out of the Orgus and any experimental weaponry that was in development. Refitting their heavy cruisers with spinal particle cannons and building a new class of destroyer armed with the same spinal particle cannons is their first step to attempting to field a force that can at least threaten an invading fleet. However Earth's weapon only become effective around 20 Megameters, while typical Umiak weapons are becoming as effective at 90 Megameters. And Earth's ace in the hole (the mass drivers), have even shorter effective ranges against fast moving warships, in the 2 to 4 Megameter range. Assuming that the Umiak don't just melt the projectiles with their plasma weapons.

I understand lack of carriers but aren't station based fighters patrols will be much cheaper that corvette patrols?

Chekist_Felix wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:10 pm

I understand lack of carriers but aren't station based fighters patrols will be much cheaper that corvette patrols?

I doubt a fighter has the endurance to patrol at days' end.

Earth drones have the shortest range. They have the least amount of fuel and low acceleration. They are for point defense against missiles, I think. Loroi fighters might be able to operate across system for a time, but Earth does not have that luxury. Earth just doesn't have the acceleration possible for a manned fighter to do interplanetary patrols.

Chekist_Felix wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:10 pm

I understand lack of carriers but aren't station based fighters patrols will be much cheaper that corvette patrols?

I guess that depends on what your patrol needs are. Stations have pretty good visibility of most of the star system, so I think the patrol needs are: a) check the outskirts of the system for suspect activity near outer planets that might be hidden from station view; b) "show the flag" by having armed vessels cruising out in the flow of civilian traffic as a deterrent to misbehavior and to be ready to respond to distress calls; c) check what's in the neighboring systems. Small craft, especially very small ones, have limited endurance and no jump drives, so they're not really well suited to any of these tasks.

I suppose the notion then is that space is sparsely populated to the point that fighter patrol range is largely inadequate so therefore larger ships are needed.

I don't remember this question being asked (it may have been), but why would someone in the mid-22nd century know the ending theme of the Mickey Mouse Club? I barely know it because they showed reruns of the original Mickey Mouse Club on the Disney Channel when they started up decades ago (around 1990). I would question how someone born in this century would even know that song, much less someone born over a hundred years from now.

(I find the song appropriate for the mood, just I don't know why Alex would even know that song).

Ithekro wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:49 am

I don't remember this question being asked (it may have been), but why would someone in the mid-22nd century know the ending theme of the Mickey Mouse Club? I barely know it because they showed reruns of the original Mickey Mouse Club on the Disney Channel when they started up decades ago (around 1990). I would question how someone born in this century would even know that song, much less someone born over a hundred years from now.

(I find the song appropriate for the mood, just I don't know why Alex would even know that song).

Well, as a practical matter of storytelling, the references wouldn't be meaningful if the contemporary audience didn't recognize them. But I don't think it's implausible that someone would know music from earlier eras. The Mickey Mouse Club song is from 1955, before I or most likely anyone here was born, but we all know it. In addition to reruns of the actual show, it's referenced in other more modern media; music becomes part of the culture. I routinely hum tunes from Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Bach that are 141, 217, and 298 years old, respectively... and I doubt that's unusual, even though those are from eras even before recorded music.

Arioch wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:36 am

Ithekro wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:49 am

I don't remember this question being asked (it may have been), but why would someone in the mid-22nd century know the ending theme of the Mickey Mouse Club? I barely know it because they showed reruns of the original Mickey Mouse Club on the Disney Channel when they started up decades ago (around 1990). I would question how someone born in this century would even know that song, much less someone born over a hundred years from now.

(I find the song appropriate for the mood, just I don't know why Alex would even know that song).

Well, as a practical matter of storytelling, the references wouldn't be meaningful if the contemporary audience didn't recognize them. But I don't think it's implausible that someone would know music from earlier eras. The Mickey Mouse Club song is from 1955, before I or most likely anyone here was born, but we all know it. In addition to reruns of the actual show, it's referenced in other more modern media; music becomes part of the culture. I routinely hum tunes from Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Bach that are 141, 217, and 298 years old, respectively... and I doubt that's unusual, even though those are from eras even before recorded music.

And by that time the damn copyright for Mickey would finally be public domain. There is only so much Disney can pull off.

Drones dont have the problem of life support.
It takes the same amount of fuel to send a drone 1000km at 20km/s stop and return as it does to send it 1000000km at 20km/s stop and return.

GeoModder wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm

Chekist_Felix wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:10 pm

I understand lack of carriers but aren't station based fighters patrols will be much cheaper that corvette patrols?

I doubt a fighter has the endurance to patrol at days' end.

MBehave wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:22 pm

Drones dont have the problem of life support.
It takes the same amount of fuel to send a drone 1000km at 20km/s stop and return as it does to send it 1000000km at 20km/s stop and return.

GeoModder wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm

Chekist_Felix wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:10 pm

I understand lack of carriers but aren't station based fighters patrols will be much cheaper that corvette patrols?

I doubt a fighter has the endurance to patrol at days' end.

Sure, but that's for a straight-forward course and back. The whole reason a patrol is out is deterrence.
A drone needing to send and receive commands from light-minutes, if not hours, is a waste of resources.
And in Outsider we are talking about system-wide responsabilities.

dragoongfa wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:44 pm

And by that time the damn copyright for Mickey would finally be public domain. There is only so much Disney can pull off.

That's why they've changed tack to use trademark now. While copyright eventually expires and extending the terms requires intense worldwide lobbying*, trademark can potentially last forever, as long as you have aggressive lawyers that show enough activity to convince the courts that you're actively protecting it.

*Because what's the point in extending the terms in the US only if they expire in the rest of the world? Especially in the age of the Internet, someone could just stream your movies from a country where it is now public domain and there's nothing you could do about it from a copyright angle.

gaerzi wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:08 pm

dragoongfa wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:44 pm

And by that time the damn copyright for Mickey would finally be public domain. There is only so much Disney can pull off.

That's why they've changed tack to use trademark now. While copyright eventually expires and extending the terms requires intense worldwide lobbying*, trademark can potentially last forever, as long as you have aggressive lawyers that show enough activity to convince the courts that you're actively protecting it.

*Because what's the point in extending the terms in the US only if they expire in the rest of the world? Especially in the age of the Internet, someone could just stream your movies from a country where it is now public domain and there's nothing you could do about it from a copyright angle.

The laws about 'trademarks' aren't the same throughout the world and trademarks by default are not as enforceable as 'copyrights'. A trademark is the secured and distinct label of a 'company/product' which means that you can't use it as an identifier for a different 'company/product'. Furthermore it must be clear cut and not subject to misinterpretations.

The reason they try to go through the trademark route is because they believe that they can bury the competition in legal fees, the problem however is that in the end you cannot trademark widely used terms and cultural icons in most of the world and the courts will eventually rule against you. Only the US version of crony capitalism allows for the trademarking of widely used 'words' and 'items'; try to do the same in the E.U. for example and you will be laughed out of the room. In the end the gamble may pay off for a little while because a lot of Disney's properties have been milked to death; Mickey Mouse and co are simply not profitable enough to bother even if the legal battles weren't in the way.

Maybe a newcomer could make a decent enough attempt to make Mickey mainstream and thus profitable again but if someone is that capable then they would be better served to make their own IP rather than try and find life in worked to death properties. It's the same on all public domain properties at the moment, a lot may be considered 'classics' but they are not as eye catching as they once were; Jules Verne works spring to mind. Classical Literally monuments on their own right but not commercially viable anymore unless someone twists the formula just enough to make something spectacular out of them; in which case why not create a new IP and just 'pay respects' to the classical inspiration? You will get far more recognition and monetary rewards this way.