Setup questions

[H. S. Lahman]

And you need bigger guns to kill big game, didn't you? You need more damage.

 

Which is pretty much my point. My personal size, strength, and agility were completely irrelevant once I had technology on my side.

 

 

But you needed that technology. Now think about it what happens, when that big game had also a gun. Your ability to dodge his shots would not be irrelevant.

 

Dodging bullets?!? LOL

 

Once you both have <appropriate> weapons, then physical attributes are irrelevant and the only thing that counts is skill in using the weapons, which was my point.

 

Yeah right, an army of ants with pistols (THE SIZE ANTS CAN HOLD!) will kill you right off. LOL.

 

If you believe this, then you are right.

 

We already went through the size thing. It only applies when there are several orders of magnitude difference and even then the ants could drive an exoskeleton that was 40' tall with the right technology. But it doesn't matter because on the setup SN limits how much bigger or smaller you can be in increments around human standard.

[cestvel]

And you need bigger guns to kill big game, didn't you? You need more damage.

 

Which is pretty much my point. My personal size, strength, and agility were completely irrelevant once I had technology on my side.

 

 

But you needed that technology. Now think about it what happens, when that big game had also a gun. Your ability to dodge his shots would not be irrelevant.

 

Dodging bullets?!? LOL

 

Once you both have <appropriate> weapons, then physical attributes are irrelevant and the only thing that counts is skill in using the weapons, which was my point.

 

Yeah right, an army of ants with pistols (THE SIZE ANTS CAN HOLD!) will kill you right off. LOL.

 

If you believe this, then you are right.

 

We already went through the size thing. It only applies when there are several orders of magnitude difference and even then the ants could drive an exoskeleton that was 40' tall with the right technology. But it doesn't matter because on the setup SN limits how much bigger or smaller you can be in increments around human standard.

 

Yep, doubling and halfing, which would range from 1/8 human to 8 x human.

 

So you will need a tank to make a dent into a 8 times bigger human, but that one would sit in an 8 times bigger tank. Do you really think you would make a dent in that huge behemoth?

 

And all this derives from a DEF rating of a race. Your race is tougher, so on equal technology it will always be tougher to kill.

A race that can resist 20G opposed to 8G would fly aircraft with better maneuverability which makes them harder to kill, etc pp.

The pysical characteristics of a race translates to its weapon and armor design.

[H. S. Lahman]

Yep, doubling and halfing, which would range from 1/8 human to 8 x human.

 

So you will need a tank to make a dent into a 8 times bigger human, but that one would sit in an 8 times bigger tank. Do you really think you would make a dent in that huge behemoth?

 

You don't need a tank; just a good weapon. Elephants are more than 20X human size and all you need is a .50 Weatherby rifle. Tough on the shoulder but a lot tougher on the elephant. Similarly, an annoyed lioness is 3X bigger, faster, and a lot stronger than a human but all you need is a 12-guage. Surely by the time one is conquering star systems one will have smaller and much more powerful weapons than we have now, certainly enough to compensate for SN setup differences.

 

 

And all this derives from a DEF rating of a race. Your race is tougher, so on equal technology it will always be tougher to kill.

A race that can resist 20G opposed to 8G would fly aircraft with better maneuverability which makes them harder to kill, etc pp.

The pysical characteristics of a race translates to its weapon and armor design.

 

I can see this argument by implication. That is, a race w/ lots of combat advantages needs less technology to overcome deficiencies.

 

But I can't buy it completely. One reason is that it is very indirect, which is not a good idea in simulations. Another is that I don't see most of the SN lifeform differences being very relevant. That's because most of them are overcome by simply having better guns. Does it really matter whether the critter has massive claws when you blast him with your hand-held megajoule laser blaster? The others, like gravity resistence, would have very indirect influence and would be much more relevant to colonization. Thus maneuverable fighters still need researching. That is, the high-G guy might find it more natural to do so, but everyone is going to have to have competitive maneuverability and that is much more easily captured in mechanisms like tech levels than in lifeform characteristics. More important for good simulation, it is much more direct.

 

Thus any critter will be able to build an armored power suit big enough and bad enough to blow away the competition -- unless the competition has even better technology for building bigger and badder power suits. IOW, one has dueling power suit technology, not dueling lifeform characteristics. They will research those power suits around their own intrinsic capabilities, but they still need to research the basic suit capabilities like maneuverability and a high-G planet probably isn't going to reduce that research investment. So it still just doesn't make any sense to me to have the outcome of ground warfare depend on specific species charactistics at the level of galactic conquest rather than weaponry tech levels.

 

Turn it around. If humans advance enough to get seriously into space do you think some 2-ton arthropods with heavy exoskeleton, big claws, and a couple of tails with poisonous barbs on a high-G planet are going to keep us from taking over their planet? Or make us raise a sweat doing it? The only way they will prevent us is if they have at least compable weaponry to ours to go with their numbers, easier logistics, and defense infrastructure.

[hobknob]

One last attempt.

 

You still think you only need a better weapon. This thinking leaves out the fact that everybody has the same opportunity to research this "bigger weapon" so in reality you will never have a bigger weapon than your contemporaries. Since weapons are pretty much equalized by research the only real difference is your lifeform choices.

 

You have to understand that bigger, stronger, faster, tougher, more agile, smarter etc all result in better basic troops. These better basic troops can always be beat if you get better basic troops with better tech or greater numbers or even really lousy troops with massive numbers and really good tech. However, knowing the everybody can research the same techs you may never be able to get the tech advantage you need to make up for an amoeba in a bag lifeform.

 

The choice is yours, but there is a place for lifeform mods devoted toward ground combat. It the time comes that you need them you can't borrow them from an ally or trade for them.

 

Good Luck.

[D.I.E.]

Trying hard not turn this into another one of those "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" arguments.

 

So, here is what we firmly know:

1) In cases where biology remains constant, and technology varies, the greater tech has an extreme advantage. We know this through observation of the one technology using race we have actual records of. (Human). Even there, though, technology is not an absolute win. It is possible for numerically superior force to beat a smaller, tech superior force. In this case, tech acts as a force multiplier. It takes fewer tech-superior forces to match a larger tech-inferior opponent.

 

2) When tech is constant, but biology varies, better biology wins. Evidence here is sketchier, as the only point we can really prove it where tech = 0. Again, we are limited by the fact that we have access to only one tech using species. At the tech = 0 point, better biology also acts a force multiplier. (It would take a lot of unarmed humans to beet a single hungry tiger.)

 

3) When biology varies, and one side has superior tech, the better tech wins. Again the only data points we have are where one species has tech = 0, and the other has tech > 0. It takes fewer humans armed with pointy sticks to kill that tiger than it would unarmed humans. Fewer still with swords. A human with a machine gun could kill many tigers. Again, tech acts as a force multiplier.

 

Now, to SNROTE:

In the game system, tech acts as a force multiplier, just like reality.

In the game system, biology acts as a force multiplier, just like reality.

In the game system, numbers act as a force multiplier, just as they do (literally) in reality.

 

Any biological handicap can be overcome by a sufficient tech advantage. (As it can any numerical handicap.) But any race that has an inferior biological design will have to spend MORE tech research to overcome that before it can compete on a division to division basis.

 

A good player will to choose not to entirely ignore any potential force multiplier. 'nuf said.

 

Tony Ernest

[D.I.E.]

One doesn't shoot gophers with .50 Weatherbys.

 

True. Neither can an intelligent gopher reasonably wield a .50 Weatherby.

But you also make my point. It takes a far lower tech threshold to dispatch a gopher.

 

True. But whatever they come up will be able to carry whatever Big Honking Gun they need and will perform consistent with their perceived combat needs. Similarly, ....

 

My point was that real life design is a balancing of competing factors. Speed vs. armor in my example. But by adding a third factor, you reinforce my argument. One can always mount the best Big Honking Gun available, but only at the expense of speed, armor, or both. One can maximize speed, but only by sacrificing firepower or armor. Etc. My contention is that the specifications of the exact vehicle will depend on the psychology of the species, which is again influenced by biology. As I said a subtle point, and one easy to contest for lack of evidence. (Unless one counts sci-fi novels.)

 

 

 

A high tech species is also going research things like armor and probably entire cybernitc sheathings that would amplify all of its characteristics

 

Indeed. "Amplify" is the key word I would agree with here. Biology will only become irrelevant in cases where biology plays no part in the system. (Other than mayby hitting the "fire" button.) Automated missile, or robot tanks might be an example of that. And most of those only appear in SNROTE at the very high end of some tech trees. The high level cybernitic techs, or something very much like it, only exist at the extreme end of SNROTE ground techs. Don't forget that starting SNROTE ground combat techs are pre-WW I. Most of the game's ground tech tree is pre-2000 human tech. I agree that the system breaks down at very high tech levels... but that is only at the fringes of the game system.

[Soerenjev]

Have a look here:

 

race size on combat

[H. S. Lahman]

One last attempt.

 

You still think you only need a better weapon. This thinking leaves out the fact that everybody has the same opportunity to research this "bigger weapon" so in reality you will never have a bigger weapon than your contemporaries. Since weapons are pretty much equalized by research the only real difference is your lifeform choices.

 

I've been using 'weaponry' in the broad sense of whatever capabilities are desireable for an indiviudal engaged in ground combat; guns, armor, communications, mobility, or whatever.

 

You have to understand that bigger, stronger, faster, tougher, more agile, smarter etc all result in better basic troops. These better basic troops can always be beat if you get better basic troops with better tech or greater numbers or even really lousy troops with massive numbers and really good tech. However, knowing the everybody can research the same techs you may never be able to get the tech advantage you need to make up for an amoeba in a bag lifeform.

 

my last attempt as well...

 

In a high tech society warfare will be equally high tech. A species that can seriously undertake galactic warfare will have very good technology (i.e., a lot better than ours today). Support of individual soldiers will be highly advanced, essentially making them a well-armed, highly mobile, and heavily armored combat platform. For lack of a better term, let's call that platform a Power Suit.

 

To be competitive that Power Suit will have certain capabilities for weapons, mobility, power, agility, strength, armor, whatever. IOW, looking at it from the opponent's viewpoint that Power Suit will be as bad-ass as the owner's level of technology will allow it to be. So the Power Suit has essentially augmented whatever natural capabilities the critter had to the limits of the available technology-- so much so that the only way to measure combat effectiveness properly is by evaluating the technical capabilities of the Power Suit itself.

 

Now to build such a Power Suit the critter would have to research technologies that provide the desired capabilities. In so doing the critter may have to make adjustments given its own physical characteristics (e.g., the ability to withstand high-G acceration or compensate for small size). But all that means is that physical deficiencies will need more augmentation to get to the desired Power Suit capabilities. The capabilities of Power Suits will always get to the limits of the available technology, no matter how much augmentation is needed. Thus the power of a suit-mounted laser will be the same, the size of the suit will be the same, the armor will be the same, the communications will be the same, etc., etc. for a given technology level no matter what the critter inside looks like. The only differences between species will be the nature of the technical capabilities of the Power Suit itself (e.g., preference for laser over rail guns or nanotechnolgy over cybernetic).

 

Thus the technology to build the Power Suit capabilities is the only thing that matters. So inherent biology should have no effect whatesoever on the outcome of planetary conquest for any species capable of getting there.

 

Now one can argue that using racial characteristics is just a surrogate for researching Power Suits. That is, one is getting the research for free when one does the setup. That's plausible but it has two big problems in that it is essentially fixed for the entire game (i.e., inconsistent with the notion of researching technical warfare advances) and it precludes choosing other setup features that might be more useful (i.e., it encourages allocation precious setup points into features that are infrequently used). When research into such charateristics is possible it seems to be deliberately very expensive (i.e., it is discouraged) and only a few physical characteristics can be researched.

[cestvel]

Now one can argue that using racial characteristics is just a surrogate for researching Power Suits. That is, one is getting the research for free when one does the setup. That's plausible but it has two big problems in that it is essentially fixed for the entire game (i.e., inconsistent with the notion of researching technical warfare advances) and it precludes choosing other setup features that might be more useful (i.e., it encourages allocation precious setup points into features that are infrequently used). When research into such charateristics is possible it seems to be deliberately very expensive (i.e., it is discouraged) and only a few physical characteristics can be researched.

 

 

False,

 

you can research tech which gives you racial points to augment all your setup characteristics.

[H. S. Lahman]

One doesn't shoot gophers with .50 Weatherbys.

 

True. Neither can an intelligent gopher reasonably wield a .50 Weatherby.

But you also make my point. It takes a far lower tech threshold to dispatch a gopher.

 

Sure. But when that intelligent gopher gets into space he will have the technology to use a .50 Weatherby if he needs it because...

 

My point was that real life design is a balancing of competing factors. Speed vs. armor in my example. But by adding a third factor, you reinforce my argument. One can always mount the best Big Honking Gun available, but only at the expense of speed, armor, or both. One can maximize speed, but only by sacrificing firepower or armor. Etc. My contention is that the specifications of the exact vehicle will depend on the psychology of the species, which is again influenced by biology. As I said a subtle point, and one easy to contest for lack of evidence. (Unless one counts sci-fi novels.)

 

If the other guy has armor -- natural or synthetic -- that requires a BHG to penettrate it, then you will need a BHG whether it affects speed and armor or not. My point, though, is that for a space faring race with high technology those trade-offs will be made at a much higher level of capabilties. A grunt in that army will have a gun much more powerful than any possible natural weapon, speed much greater than he could run himself, strength much greater than his natural strength, armor much better than his own, etc., etc.. Trade-offs may be made in those things within the platform design, but the capabilities of the platform itself will still be far greater than any of the lifeform characteristics. IOW, all the critter's lifeform capabilities will be augmented.

 

Sure the platform will be designed around the critter and some characteristics will be augmented more than others. But in the end the characteristics of the platform will always be at the limit of what the available technology can provide.

 

 

 

A high tech species is also going research things like armor and probably entire cybernitc sheathings that would amplify all of its characteristics

 

Indeed. "Amplify" is the key word I would agree with here. Biology will only become irrelevant in cases where biology plays no part in the system. (Other than mayby hitting the "fire" button.) Automated missile, or robot tanks might be an example of that. And most of those only appear in SNROTE at the very high end of some tech trees. The high level cybernitic techs, or something very much like it, only exist at the extreme end of SNROTE ground techs. Don't forget that starting SNROTE ground combat techs are pre-WW I. Most of the game's ground tech tree is pre-2000 human tech. I agree that the system breaks down at very high tech levels... but that is only at the fringes of the game system.

 

Seriously?!? If so, then physical characteristics would be important (though even WWI tech would exceed all but the most extreme ranges on the setup because it was already capable of mowing down any other critter on the planet no matter how big, fast, strong and how well equipped it was with fangs and claws). But that makes no sense for a space opera. At the level of WWI tech we didn't even have a clue how to get into space. Surely a species advanced enough for space conquest would have a whole lot more goodies than '00 tech.

[H. S. Lahman]

When research into such charateristics is possible it seems to be deliberately very expensive (i.e., it is discouraged) and only a few physical characteristics can be researched.

 

 

False,

 

you can research tech which gives you racial points to augment all your setup characteristics.

 

As I said, it seems (based on forum comments) to be highly discouraged.

 

Also, nobody said anything about researching just SPs to be allocated wherever you want. They talked about just a few individual characteristics (e.g., ECM) as research targets. Is that really possible?

[hobknob]

Like I said. It is a choice you get to make. The fact is that taking tech out of the equation it is lifeform choices that will carry the day.

 

It's up to you to make those choices. Good luck in your future endeavors against a lifeform that has taken the ground combats system a bit more seriously and are physically tougher than you are. You will need it.

 

Here is something else for you. If you are a blob in a sack you will need all the tech you can get to make up the differences you lifeform design has saddled you with. Then you will need even more tech to advance your tech beyond your more rational enemy.

 

However, most blob in a bag lifeforms try and avoid ground combat all together by having superior naval forces. This also requires all the research and tech you can get. So usually the weak pathetic lifeform just gives up on ground combat all together and works on being protected from bad guys by not losing the naval battle.

 

And that, pretty much kills your argument that an amoeba with a suitably large gun is better than spending points on a better lifeform.

 

Good day.

 

[D.I.E.]

One doesn't shoot gophers with .50 Weatherbys.

 

True. Neither can an intelligent gopher reasonably wield a .50 Weatherby.

But you also make my point. It takes a far lower tech threshold to dispatch a gopher.

 

Sure. But when that intelligent gopher gets into space he will have the technology to use a .50 Weatherby if he needs it because...

 

Interesting assumption. But humans had no such cybernetic tech when they became space faring. And SNROTE seems to function under the assumption that historical humanity would have a perfectly normal start-up position with its 2009 tech, (or maybe even 1970) if only we had found a warp point. Yet the cybernetic tech you assume is far off. (Right now, it is only conjectured to be possible.)

 

My point was that real life design is a balancing of competing factors. Speed vs. armor in my example. But by adding a third factor, you reinforce my argument. One can always mount the best Big Honking Gun available, but only at the expense of speed, armor, or both. One can maximize speed, but only by sacrificing firepower or armor. Etc. My contention is that the specifications of the exact vehicle will depend on the psychology of the species, which is again influenced by biology. As I said a subtle point, and one easy to contest for lack of evidence. (Unless one counts sci-fi novels.)

 

If the other guy has armor -- natural or synthetic -- that requires a BHG to penettrate it, then you will need a BHG whether it affects speed and armor or not. My point, though, is that for a space faring race with high technology those trade-offs will be made at a much higher level of capabilties. A grunt in that army will have a gun much more powerful than any possible natural weapon, speed much greater than he could run himself, strength much greater than his natural strength, armor much better than his own, etc., etc.. Trade-offs may be made in those things within the platform design, but the capabilities of the platform itself will still be far greater than any of the lifeform characteristics. IOW, all the critter's lifeform capabilities will be augmented.

 

Sure the platform will be designed around the critter and some characteristics will be augmented more than others. But in the end the characteristics of the platform will always be at the limit of what the available technology can provide.

 

Your psycology is showing. (No doubt influenced by your biology. ) You assume that the enemy will design his equipment for the strongest possible armor, and mount the biggest possible gun to beat it. (Your own choice shows that you do NOT assume that best possible armor is the only valid choice a designer could make.) Another race could as easily choose speed to reduce the chance of getting hit by your guns, and to let him manuever to your rear, where you had to sacrifice armor in order to save weight to mount your gun, allowing his lighter gun to kill. Just as one possible for instance.

 

A high tech species is also going research things like armor and probably entire cybernitc sheathings that would amplify all of its characteristics

 

Even here, biology remains the limiting factor. One key example is modern military aircraft. For decades now, the ability of fighter aircraft to maneuver has been far more limited by the pilot's ability to handle the stress of combat / G forces, etc., than by the structural limitations of the vehicle.

 

Indeed. "Amplify" is the key word I would agree with here. Biology will only become irrelevant in cases where biology plays no part in the system. (Other than mayby hitting the "fire" button.) Automated missile, or robot tanks might be an example of that. And most of those only appear in SNROTE at the very high end of some tech trees. The high level cybernitic techs, or something very much like it, only exist at the extreme end of SNROTE ground techs. Don't forget that starting SNROTE ground combat techs are pre-WW I. Most of the game's ground tech tree is pre-2000 human tech. I agree that the system breaks down at very high tech levels... but that is only at the fringes of the game system.

 

Seriously?!? If so, then physical characteristics would be important (though even WWI tech would exceed all but the most extreme ranges on the setup because it was already capable of mowing down any other critter on the planet no matter how big, fast, strong and how well equipped it was with fangs and claws). But that makes no sense for a space opera. At the level of WWI tech we didn't even have a clue how to get into space. Surely a species advanced enough for space conquest would have a whole lot more goodies than '00 tech.

 

Yes. Seriously. Like all other tech advancement, necessity is the mother of invention. No necessity... no little inventions running around to bite ankles. I always figured that all those other SNROTE races managed to unify their home worlds without the bloody history of mankind.

 

On the other hand, one could simulate a human setup in SNROTE by using the standard human biology (zero set-up points) and spending all the saved SRPs on researching ground combat techs. That would produce a situation very similar to early 21st century humanity.

 

 

Bottom line here... as I said in an earlier message... we have very few solid facts on how biology and tech would really interact in space faring situations with a wide variety of alien races. We only have one race's experience to draw upon. All else is conjecture. You have a very valid route of conjecture there. The SNROTE game designers have another. I am attracted to their's, first because it also seems valid, and second because it makes a far more interesting and varied game environment than yours would.

 

Tony

[cestvel]

Another race could as easily choose speed to reduce the chance of getting hit by your guns, and to let him manuever to your rear, where you had to sacrifice armor in order to save weight to mount your gun, allowing his lighter gun to kill. Just as one possible for instance.

 

 

Lol, you just described Sherman vs. Tiger I warfare in WWII

Three Shermans vs. 1 Tiger: One get shot off early on, second one might get killed as well (slow turning of the turret), but the third Sherman got through and killed the Tiger with a shot in the soft back armor. If not, he normally got no second chance

[Gary Carpenter]

set up leave yourself at least 1000 points of SRP for getting tech fast. you can go up to 4th level in tech with SRP points. So take some negative items like tiny.

 

Then start researching and when species engineering opens, research it up to 6th level. At this point you can use the SRP gotten from species engineering to remove all your racial negatives, that you took to get a fast start.

 

I think the total for all the species engineering is 1800 points, so as long as you do not take more than 1800 points in negatives you can get back to normal human stats or better.