Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

[Sweforce]

Speaking of old weapons. I noticed that Stillstorm have a dagger at her hip. Is this a rank thng to show who is command and used instead of a sword due to practicality or is it some kind of commodation worn as a badge of honor? It look aquard for WW2 era Japanese pilots to be equipped with swords, would be in the way in the cockpit so to replace them with daggers would have been a good option. My guess thou is that most left the swords at the base when actually flying but I am unsure.

Edit: grammar.

[dragoongfa]

My guess is that it is a personal memento (I doubt it) or some sort of a decoration for wartime services, something akin to a medal (most probable).

Which reminds me, do Loroi have Medals to honor their personnel or do they prefer something akin to it but different?

Warrior societies on Earth preferred to show various spoils from defeated enemies and Medals were only brought up with the advent of professional armies at the late Renaissance. Before that soldiers/warriors from advanced societies got other types of decorations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_a ... ecorations

[Siber]

I'm not sure where it's said if anywhere in the insider, but I recall Stillstorm's dagger being a symbol of station or rank.

[Arioch]

Officers of sufficient rank have a traditional right to wear some kind of sidearm (regardless of the current threat condition). Some subcultures traditionally wear a dagger instead of a pistol, as this show of wearing a weapon is largely ceremonial to begin with, and some individuals prefer not to wear any weapon at all. So it's an implicit rather than explicit symbol of rank. The dagger itself might have some personal meaning to Stillstorm, but it also might be purely decorative.

The Loroi have very few personal medals or decorations. Most citations go to the unit rather than the individual.

[Zakharra]

My spacecraft designs tend to have the forward section of a spacecraft be where the Flight Deck (but not neccesarily CIC or Aux Con) is, along with at least temporary life support systems (permenant ones being in the centre 'utility' section). The nose section can be jettisoned with most of the crew to abandon the rest of the spacecraft.

It's considered a surrender, at least of that section. The rest of the vessel can continue to fight under computer control, or self-destruct, or even warp away (this option might be taken if damage was such that a successful warp wasn't likely.) Having it fighter under computer control can give the enemy an excuse to destroy it guilt-free, while still keeping it out of enemy hands. The section is big enough to hold all the crew, has enough life support for all of them, and usually has no weapons larger than a point-defence laser. In effect, it is a life pod writ large.

The vessels carry no conventional life pods at all. Instead, they carry an excess of shuttles (they're more versatile. Shuttles aren't dead weight any time besides an emergency.) Shuttles broadcasting a help beacon are similarly considered to be non-combatants.


Basically, if the USS Enterprise D seperated its saucer, then the EAMS Aries or the ISHCAV Pankat would assume it had surrendered and go after its stardrive section instead.

I wouldn't consider that a surrender at all since one part of the ship is still fighting and the other part is trying to get away. If they surrendered, the ship would have to stop shooting, drop shields and stop trying to flee the attacking vessel. That is a surrender. What you are describing is a last ditch effort to get away while sacrificing a part of the ship. If the separated part keeps fleeing, it is still essentially a military target. Especially if it is from a military vessel.

[RedDwarfIV]

My spacecraft designs tend to have the forward section of a spacecraft be where the Flight Deck (but not neccesarily CIC or Aux Con) is, along with at least temporary life support systems (permenant ones being in the centre 'utility' section). The nose section can be jettisoned with most of the crew to abandon the rest of the spacecraft.

It's considered a surrender, at least of that section. The rest of the vessel can continue to fight under computer control, or self-destruct, or even warp away (this option might be taken if damage was such that a successful warp wasn't likely.) Having it fighter under computer control can give the enemy an excuse to destroy it guilt-free, while still keeping it out of enemy hands. The section is big enough to hold all the crew, has enough life support for all of them, and usually has no weapons larger than a point-defence laser. In effect, it is a life pod writ large.

The vessels carry no conventional life pods at all. Instead, they carry an excess of shuttles (they're more versatile. Shuttles aren't dead weight any time besides an emergency.) Shuttles broadcasting a help beacon are similarly considered to be non-combatants.


Basically, if the USS Enterprise D seperated its saucer, then the EAMS Aries or the ISHCAV Pankat would assume it had surrendered and go after its stardrive section instead.

I wouldn't consider that a surrender at all since one part of the ship is still fighting and the other part is trying to get away. If they surrendered, the ship would have to stop shooting, drop shields and stop trying to flee the attacking vessel. That is a surrender. What you are describing is a last ditch effort to get away while sacrificing a part of the ship. If the separated part keeps fleeing, it is still essentially a military target. Especially if it is from a military vessel.

So if a small lifeboat is jettisoned from a spacecraft while the spacecraft still fights, that lifeboat is a legitimate target? The nose section seperation is basically a lifeboat writ large, remember. Besides, it can't 'get away'. It can distance itself from the sections that may explode a la Bellarmine's engines, but it has no warp drive. Even if it did, it has no fusion ring reactor with which to power one. All of those things are in the Utility section.

It's the nose section that surrenders, not neccesarily the rest of the spacecraft. The purpose is to save the crew, because hardware can be easily replaced. Lives can't.

[dragoongfa]

The problem is that as a rule of thumb, if a battle is still going on no consideration is given to the well being of no combatants, especially if those no combatants are enemy personnel.

The above approach rellies solely on the enemy considering the crew as personnel that has 'surrendered'. Personally I would find it ridiculous to consider fully half of the ship was still a combatant while the other half had 'surrendered'.

Shoot them both to be on the safe side.

[RedDwarfIV]

The problem is that as a rule of thumb, if a battle is still going on no consideration is given to the well being of no combatants, especially if those no combatants are enemy personnel.

The above approach rellies solely on the enemy considering the crew as personnel that has 'surrendered'. Personally I would find it ridiculous to consider fully half of the ship was still a combatant while the other half had 'surrendered'.

Shoot them both to be on the safe side.

Actually, the nose section is a very small part of the vessel.

The grey cone at the front with the windows (they have shutters) is the nose section. Note how it makes up less than 20% of the spacecraft - and the Dauntless class mounts a Q-thruster, so it completely lacks the massive fusion fuel tanks most other spacecraft would carry.

An exception would be the Siberia/Canada class cruisers, whose nose sections are a very large part of the spacecraft, and hence do carry big weapons. On the other hand, those cruisers do carry outsized daughtercraft bays, as well as an entire wing of smallcraft, so it's not like it's lacking in ways to get its crew off.

[dragoongfa]

So Arioch...

What are the Trade words for 'Mist' and 'Long'?

[Arioch]

What are the Trade words for 'Mist' and 'Long'?

mires and sosa.

[Zakharra]

I wouldn't consider that a surrender at all since one part of the ship is still fighting and the other part is trying to get away. If they surrendered, the ship would have to stop shooting, drop shields and stop trying to flee the attacking vessel. That is a surrender. What you are describing is a last ditch effort to get away while sacrificing a part of the ship. If the separated part keeps fleeing, it is still essentially a military target. Especially if it is from a military vessel.

So if a small lifeboat is jettisoned from a spacecraft while the spacecraft still fights, that lifeboat is a legitimate target? The nose section seperation is basically a lifeboat writ large, remember. Besides, it can't 'get away'. It can distance itself from the sections that may explode a la Bellarmine's engines, but it has no warp drive. Even if it did, it has no fusion ring reactor with which to power one. All of those things are in the Utility section.

It's the nose section that surrenders, not neccesarily the rest of the spacecraft. The purpose is to save the crew, because hardware can be easily replaced. Lives can't.

If any part of the craft is still fighting, it hasn't surrendered. Therefore -all- of the lifeboats are potentially targets. Surrendering is one side -ceasing- to fight and running. If a part of the ship hasn't stopped shooting, it hasn't surrendered, so you cannot really call it that. If it is a large part of the ship, you can bet that both parts are still considered targets even if one isn't shooting. Surrender means no shooting or attempts to flee. What you have described isn't a surrender, but an attempt to break contact and flee.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Part of your ability to surrender is predicated on your opponent's ability to accept your surrender. If your opponent is still being attacked, they are not in a very good position to accept surrender. (In space, it is doubly difficult to surrender, because your opponent has no way of knowing whether your attempt to surrender isn't actually a ruse involving a nuclear warhead.)

Also, if a warship can continue to fight without a crew, why is the crew there in the first place?

[RedDwarfIV]

Also, if a warship can continue to fight without a crew, why is the crew there in the first place?

Repairs, command, redundancy (local control) would be three things. A vessel with no crew would be reliant on repair drones, AIs and physical back-up systems to cover those three things. They usually carry a crew because they can be more effective, or at least compliment the built-in systems.

As for what you said, Zakharra, can a soldier not surrender if the army still fights? It should also be noted, the nose section cannot flee. It has no warp drive or main engines. Its ability to get away from an enemy consists of some Solid Rocket Boosters and RCS. These things are only meant to get it away from sections that might explode/the enemy's field of fire. It is physically incapable of escaping. You also seem to be contradicting yourself. Is surrender stopping fighting and running, or is it stopping fighting and not running?


Also, in real life, shooting a lifeboat is considered a warcrime. Same with my sci-fi 'verse. Two of the three superpowers have been at peace for a very long time - they've been able to hash out what they consider atrocities between each other in case they or any of their lesser allies or the superpowers themselves ever came to war.

Besides which, as I mentioned before, having the spacecraft continue fighting is one of several options (including having it FTL away or self-destruct.) If the crew is likely to be picked up by the enemy, then it is in their interests to destroy the vessel instead of having it fight. If they are likely to be picked up by friendlies, then they may as well have the vessel keep fighting on the off-chance that it wins and they can recover it, or to keep the enemy at bay long enough for friendlies to arrive. It's very situational.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Why would you bring repairs into a fight? Fighter jets don't bring repair capabilities into battle. It seems like it would reduce their fighting ability. If you want to have a command and repair craft nearby, that is cool, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to put people on a ship if it is capable of fighting autonomously. I mean, realistically, what are people actually going to repair without dedicated repair facilities anyways? If a reactor or a high powered laser gets hit by an anti-ship weapon, is that something that can actually be patched up by hand?

No one is going to take time to pick up lifeboats while they are under fire. What the rest of the army is doing in the whole theater is not relevant to the local consideration, if the rest of the army is not present at the battle. It seems like if you are going to continue to fight after surrendering, all you are really doing is decreasing the likelihood that you will be rescued.

[dragoongfa]

hi hi

Why would you bring repairs into a fight? Fighter jets don't bring repair capabilities into battle. It seems like it would reduce their fighting ability. If you want to have a command and repair craft nearby, that is cool, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to put people on a ship if it is capable of fighting autonomously. I mean, realistically, what are people actually going to repair without dedicated repair facilities anyways? If a reactor or a high powered laser gets hit by an anti-ship weapon, is that something that can actually be patched up by hand?

You are mistaking star ships with airplanes. Airplanes don't have repair capabilities on them because if they break down they go down without anyone having time to do anything.

Starships on the other hand are floating in space, if something breaks down those in it have all the time in the world to fix it, nothing will happen to the ship until it is fixed. Hell thinking about it naval ships have repair capabilities and those do go to the bottom of the ocean in case of a breach. Starships are in an even better position than naval ships in that regard. The question then becomes 'Why not bring repair capabilities on a starship?'

[RedDwarfIV]

It seems like if you are going to continue to fight after surrendering, all you are really doing is decreasing the likelihood that you will be rescued.

Ahem.

as I mentioned before, having the spacecraft continue fighting is one of several options (including having it FTL away or self-destruct.) If the crew is likely to be picked up by the enemy, then it is in their interests to destroy the vessel instead of having it fight. If they are likely to be picked up by friendlies, then they may as well have the vessel keep fighting on the off-chance that it wins and they can recover it, or to keep the enemy at bay long enough for friendlies to arrive. It's very situational.

They don't have to fight. It is one option out of several, which the commanding officer can choose from depending on the situation.

As for repairs, what if a fuel line or power cable is severed? You'd need to run a new power cable or fuel line, which may require going through damaged areas, which means moving stuff out of the way. What if a component reaches the end of its lifetime during action? What if a structural support fails and needs to be replaced or shored up? What if a computer network line is severed, putting a gun into local control (when central fire control is more effective?) The connection between a magazine and a launcher? A failed sensor? Damaged cooling systems? Damaged life support? There are lots of reasons to have repair crews.

Hell, Alex Jardin was on Damage Control duty when the Bellarmine went kablooey, so if this is an issue, why hasn't it been taken up with Arioch?

[icekatze]

hi hi

The Bellarmine isn't designed to fight autonomously.

1) If having a repair crew appreciably improves a ship's fighting capability, why remove the crew from the ship in the middle of a fight?
2) If a ship becomes so damaged that the crew can no longer safely stay aboard, how combat capable is it going to be, and did it really need those fuel lines, power cables, sensors, network lines and cooling systems to begin with?
3) An autonomous fighter doesn't need bulky life support weighing it down.

[discord]

starfleet quite often carry non starfleet dependants....'nuff said.

[RedDwarfIV]

hi hi

The Bellarmine isn't designed to fight autonomously.

1) If having a repair crew appreciably improves a ship's fighting capability, why remove the crew from the ship in the middle of a fight?
2) If a ship becomes so damaged that the crew can no longer safely stay aboard, how combat capable is it going to be, and did it really need those fuel lines, power cables, sensors, network lines and cooling systems to begin with?
3) An autonomous fighter doesn't need bulky life support weighing it down.

True, Alex is not the best example.

1) It's not the middle of a fight. It's the end of a fight, or at a point with a high likelyhood of fusion fuel explosion.
2) A spacecraft could be rendered incapable of fighting simply by taking out its power source. While many larger spacecraft carry two or more ring-reactors, taking even one out would drastically reduce the power it can commit to its weapons. If it has no ring-reactors left at all, then it's a sitting duck. Most likely at that point, the crew would move to the nose section, the section would be jettisoned, and the rest of the craft would self-destruct. This is only one possibility, and a likely one, for why this would be used. For a situation where it is combat capable, how about the loss of propulsion? The vessel can't escape. The human crew might try to stay with it for as long as possible, then leave it.

Hell, I don't really need to come up with elaborate reasons why such a spacecraft would use an entire section as a lifeboat. The real question should be why not? With the way my vessels are designed, having a detachable section (the sections are already designed to be built separately and interchangeably) for emergencies would be a sensible outgrowth of the idea that you should never take safety in space for granted. NASA and other space organisations put incredible effort into making sure their spacecraft are resilient, survivable and redundant. That could well apply to the future.
3) Also true, but an autonomous unit has to be trusted by those deploying it. The Lost Fleet is making an entire plot arc about rogue AI-commanded spacecraft that were made specifically because they seemed to be the perfect option. Now, my 'verse's factions do trust their AIs, so having human manned warcraft is at least partly just tradition. But given the size of the spacecraft we're talking about, the habitable areas and life support systems are a very small part of the overall mass. There's also the fact that acceleration is limited by the thrust available, not the amount of G-forces crews can take. If they wanted, both superpowers could genetically or nanotechnologically engineer crews capable of surviving that, but Inertial Confinement Fusion and ORION drives just aren't up to that high acceleration on objects that massive. Because of these things, they can put people on board, so they do.

[dragoongfa]

Quick question:

Is the Loroi longevity (400 year natural lifespan) a trait of all Soia-Lyron species/organisms or just something unique to the Loroi?

If it's unique (or even relatively unique) to the Loroi it would be one more tool for Loroi propaganda, being made to the image of the Soia's and all.

EDIT: It would also make sense if the Loroi were still at the 'prototype' stage of development when the Soian empire collapsed; since it's better to have long living test subjects for both the control group and for observation on a natural habitat.