SeptimusHeap
MOD
(Edited uphill both ways)
Apr 8th 2015 at 1:16:04 PM
•••
You can put this argument on the page, you know...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
GTOM
Since: Sep, 2014
thekeyofe
Since: Feb, 2012
Aug 23rd 2021 at 12:46:02 PM
•••
GTOM, is this about A12? That entry is extremely poorly written. I understand that English might not be your first language, but can you do your best to clean it up?
GentlemensDame883
Since: Jan, 2001
Jan 25th 2014 at 2:16:32 AM
•••
I'm cutting "Stability" because let's be honest, if the real-world navies didn't see any stability problems with their battleships and other capships, why should it suddenly be an issue INSPACE?
Hide / Show Replies
SeptimusHeap
MOD
(Edited uphill both ways)
Jan 25th 2014 at 4:59:59 AM
•••
Actually, navies can have stability problems with their ships; the Swedish Vasa sank in part because of a stability problem. Also, water does habe friction to slow down certain oscillations; space doesn't.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
LongLiveHumour
Since: Feb, 2010
I see not just planets, but all other types of celestials to be a good justification for fighters.
No cover, no hiding place, no horizont, entirely true in deep space, not if you want to capture something. If you want to capture an asteroid mine for example, mobile defender units can move behind the asteroid, or even hide in a shaft, missiles are a waste against them. Fighters can attack behind cover, and one dont have to bring the big ones close - the later sacrificies the advantage of superior laser range, and make the big ships also quite vulnerable.
Hide / Show Replies