Please link to the manticore. I do not recall the specifics.
I believe that the oracle has too many flaws to be viable as proposed.
Reusing the hull would be good if the hull were in any way suitable. The notable qualities of the hull are: cannot aim down, heavy armour, mobile turret, irregular shape, largely powered by upwards force, no down force(I think? The instability was a result of capsizing, due to having no means of righting itself, and it is still unstable...).
The Oracle needs to aim down, thus a relocation of the armament or redirection of the propulsion to point the armament down, which would seem to be a major refit and shift the balance of the craft.
Armour is a significant component of the hulls design, removing it is a significant redesign in itself. likely simple, but that reflects on how easy hulls are redesigned rather than how practical it is to reuse one.
The turret is inherently unstable and porous. Sealing it would be doable, but again, would be a reworking of the hull.
The irregular shape is primed for fast horizontal motion in a specific(forwards) direction. Oracle calls for a massive focus on vertical motion, and relatively free, but subtle, horizontal motion. This suggests that a radially symmetrical design would be preferable, or at least a design with a more well-defined centre-of-mass.
The lightning is pretty much constantly pushing itself directly up, which is a good thing.
The lightning cannot push itself down, which could be a problem if it wants to move up quickly and still be able to stop itself with any haste.
Crystals are, in all likelihood, our most familiar magic. Designing a new hull ought to be easy. The existing hulls are unsuitable for the task.
The carbon dioxide will kill you before the lack of oxygen will. Adding more oxygen doesn't change thing much.
Adding more gas into a sealed room will increase the pressure. At best the crew will need depressurisation treatment prior to opening the ship to atmosphere, either by opening the door or getting a hole in it. At worst they will steadily lose competence until death sets in.
We do not currently control the composition of the gasses that are produced. We have, to the best of my knowledge, never made any advancements at all in this aspect of the spell. This would be an added difficulty to the project.
Potentially, a system of venting atmosphere to the outside would work, but controlling that would require valves that I do not recall our possession of and the air would tend to mix unless the whole atmosphere is cycled, so it would most likely still result in a steady decline in air quality.
Perhaps we could summon some sort of super-air that automatically degrades from CO2 into O2 over time?
Space-based propulsion operates by ejecting mass at speed. Unless the propulsion system has lost the mass-generation quality of its predecessors, then it should do exactly that.
Even if the propulsion system doesn't eject mass, it doesn't seem to require air-intake. And so long as it doesn't pull air in then there should be no issue with its basic operation. A jet-engine with its intake plugged into an infinite air-supply and its exhaust hanging out into the vacuum would work in space.
The amount of propulsion provided in space would likely be greatly reduced to the lack of a resisting medium to push against. But the measure of the push is based upon the mass that is displaced. A small layer of atmosphere would not replace the absence of tonnes of air all around you. What is required is a much greater amount of power, a propulsion that does not push its surroundings at all, or a system that is almost entirely dependent upon mass-ejection.
We don't have sights on our guns. We are not going to get identifiable ground targets from space with our first lens array.
The enemy makes storms, constant storms. Optics from space will not be useful long-term for targeting them. It is possible that we would get one turn in which they just don't think of it.
We would need magical optics, such as the scopes I proposed that would constantly provide pleasant lighting conditions to the view through them. We could, if we possessed such magic, perhaps extend it into some sort of magic that could penetrate clouds, but mundane lenses, no matter how perfect, will not do that. Even polarised lenses wouldn't be enough and I cannot fathom how we would explain an understanding of polarised lenses.
A 20mm round, falling at terminal velocity, is dangerous to a person. It is not dangerous to a building. According to wikipaedia, the terminal velocity of a bullet at low altitude is about ninety metres per second. You typically want a bullet travelling at over five times that if you want it to kill someone. Over such a great distance (dozens of kilometres) it is likely that the bullet will lose all of its initial force through drag, but it would still be just a bullet fired from a gun. To do damage from dropping things, we would want at least ten kilograms, probably tonnes.
Note that this would be maintaining its position using direct thrust, instead of orbital velocities, so dropping things would not have the same force, though most of that force would be lost to drag anyway.
Ammunition resupply would require a great round-trip, and would detract from other supplies. This would result in a very small firing time compared to its deployment time.
Ammunition is heavy, and lifting it is difficult, especially if you are relying upon its weight to do damage.
We could likely overcome this by placing a summoning platform, or summon-trained wizard, on the craft, to spontaneously generate the mass while deployed. Crystals, due to their low density, would not be ideal, but they are likely much denser than humans, so it might be better than summoning a whale. Really, crystal isn't bad as ammunition if you are not comparing it to things that are actually decent, like lead. You would still want to summon something like a 5-metre calibre bullet, but if you could do that, then it might work out okay.
Well, yes, "no-duh", but there are specifics. The enemy is producing significant bad weather. In good weather a word war two heavy bomber would have difficulty hitting its target from a much smaller distance. As you increase the distance, the targets re more difficult to see, the wind has more opportunity to influence the flight-path, the shooter has less opportunity to test the wind. Aiming would just generally be difficult.
We would not actually be able to attack the airships to any appreciable extent unless they were idling or could be tricked into positioning in a known trajectory. The circumference of the earth is much greater at the top of the atmosphere than at the bottom of it. To move relative to surface positions, one needs to move much farther. The airships will be moving faster than our own craft can, unless we experience a great increase in thrust that the enemy does not reciprocate.
Hopefully, if we just turn off the lights, or keep them to a sealed compartment, the craft will not be practically visible from the ground. So at least we are likely to be able to hit them if we do now exactly where they will be after the bullet travels far enough.
Cimpletely new hull.
Develop atmospheric maintenance separately before embarking on the final design.
Likewise for magical optics or non-optical targeting.
Also also summoned food. A universal generator would be nice but would take some doing. We really need to diversify our summons but that seems to be shot down constantly.
Also some way to expel or destroy mass without messing up your atmosphere;s pressure. At least if you are going to be spontaneously generating mass in a sealed environment.
Also also design a summoning platform for something MUCH heavier than crystal. If you are relying on gravity to do damage, then it is either this or summon something comically huge.
Make the propulsion more powerful. Again, it is already highly refined and can expect diminishing returns, so this is a big investment by itself. Either that or invest in absolute position adjustment.
Abandon the gun and rely upon summoning. We don't need a fancy "summon the bullet in the gun" system, just summon a ludicrously huge brick and let it fall.
It could be a good thing, but we are nowhere near ready, and its utility against their mobile forces is somewhat limited.
I do not rightly understand why setting off gunpowder next to an airship would fail to damage it, there ought to be relatively loose components and it has no heavy objects to brace itself against, and a volume of gunpowder sufficient to generate an explosion large enough to spread over a squad of one hundred men is not exactly healthy, even for materiel, but that should not be a problem. We have spent 4 actions on a sustained, directed explosion. We can probably adjust the spread so that it is somewhat similar to a shaped-charge. I would not expect full shaped-charge efficiency on the first attempt, but it should be possible to get something more effective against armour than what we currently have.
I also worry that it would be very difficult to get much range out of it. I proposed a few range-enhancing magics ages ago, but none made the cut... It might go beyond medium, but that, I expect would be it. So this would be a short-range option that would likely never replace long-range cannons. That said, It would likely be a wonderful technology for our aircraft. Especially if it could manage some sort of parallel-casting apparatus that could charge up for a few minutes and then unleash a few dozen in the span of a couple of seconds with zero recoil... We could probably do that with multiple parallel circuits or using the channelled fog/K.P.D.1 rapid-casting magic and a few dedicated batteries to hold the charge.
I support a principal of never referring to other players. So long as we don't say "this idea is wrong because someone is just making things up" or "this idea is wrong because someone is only opposing it because they have a personal problem with someone else" or "this idea is wrong because someone doesn't understand the subject" then it should negate direct personal issues, and such things really have no bearing upon whether or not an idea is sound. And it ought to be pretty easy to quote examples of repeating points if there is a circular argument. I feel repeat arguments are permissible if the topic repeats. If someone says "whales can fly" and someone replies "I am not familiar with any species of whales that can fly and thus do not believe that they exist", then it is fine to repeat yourself if there is a subsequent proposal that works due to "being just like real flying whales" because the new proposal has been unchallenged and people can't be expected to recall every argument for every proposal that has occurred. But repeated arguments against the same proposal should be fair game for condemnation.
I'm just sending this via PM to avoid polluting the thread.
Not that it would have worked, for reasons stated later, but it was completely impossible to have any form of discourse considering that.
User 'Chiefwaffles' has blocked your personal message.
It seems painfully obvious that this would either be completely meaningless as a one-sided conversation or get into the thread. Given that you actually sent it, I assume that you believed it to have meaning, and thus assume that you want it in the thread. But I am happy to admit that I could be wrong. If you wish to discuss the merits of saying things that you believe to be meaningless, or the meaningfulness of completely one-sided conversations, in public, so that everyone can know the circumstances, then that is fine by me.
So you said this in the thread -
I support a principal of never referring to other players. So long as we don't say "this idea is wrong because someone is just making things up" or "this idea is wrong because someone is only opposing it because they have a personal problem with someone else" or "this idea is wrong because someone doesn't understand the subject" then it should negate direct personal issues, and such things really have no bearing upon whether or not an idea is sound. And it ought to be pretty easy to quote examples of repeating points if there is a circular argument. I feel repeat arguments are permissible if the topic repeats. If someone says "whales can fly" and someone replies "I am not familiar with any species of whales that can fly and thus do not believe that they exist", then it is fine to repeat yourself if there is a subsequent proposal that works due to "being just like real flying whales" because the new proposal has been unchallenged and people can't be expected to recall every argument for every proposal that has occurred. But repeated arguments against the same proposal should be fair game for condemnation.
The problem with this is simple: This hasn't worked in the past. You've critiqued my designs numerous times without directly referring to me, but it still ends up with the same exact thing every time. You critique my design, I defend it by refuting your points, and it's just a whole cycle as we both get madder. It doesn't work.
It's better to just tread more lightly when it comes to responding to/reading each other's posts. Critiquing is fine of course since it'd be pretty stupid if we couldn't talk about each other's designs, but just... tread lightly. Try to be more concise. You state your point, I state mine, and that's it. We should both try to avoid having the last word.
So, as I was going to say in private.
If you want to discus policy then you will have to take it to the thread. It is not a private forum and thus it is not up to me or you to dictate policy.
Such a conversation would be, in my opinion, extremely rude to everyone else. I have rather a fondness for the truth, however, so setting up secret rules and not telling anyone looks like a problem to me, and thus I acknowledge that others who prefer a bit more tact might disagree. I cannot speak for them, however, so I can't appreciably take their perspective into consideration.
But seeing as it has become a public matter, I may as well cite what is wrong with the proposed alternative ruleset. When someone says "by making a boat shaped like a whale it can fly, because whales can fly" and this is cited as wrong because "whales have been extensively recorded and there is no reference to them flying. Sure, they can jump a bit, but definitely no extended unaided flight", and the response is "but whales are birds, and birds can fly" then one responds "whales are mammals, birds are birds, these are mutually exclusive categories, and even if they weren't, just because some birds can fly doesn't mean that all of them can. There are no records of whales flying, whales do not fly." then it is clear that the last response was necessary due to the inaccuracy of the penultimate. Now, obviously, if the penultimate statement was accurate, then the final statement will be incorrect, and that is a matter of what each person believes, but if the statement goes from "whales can fly" to "but whales really can fly" then one will be compelled to bolster their statement of "whales can't fly". And then someone posts proof that someone has genetically engineered something that qualifies as a whale and is capable of extended unaided flight and we are stuck with "huh? I guess they really can fly, but that still is not exactly relevant to a boat shaped like a hump-back suddenly being buoyant in sea-level air-pressure".
Now, obviously, if I am saying it, then I think that I am saying "whales can't fly". Nobody honestly believes that they are saying "the whale body-shape inherently conveys flight" unless they think that they can gain advantage by convincing others that it is true, or are trolling. But just "you can make and argument, then the original proposer can make a counter-argument and it arbitrarily ends with that." doesn't work because if an argument is free to go completely unchallenged then it is free to be as misleading as it likes.
Honestly, people should be grateful for criticism. If we could set aside the personal pride and just argue the statements in isolation then criticism is an opportunity to either refine a design and submit an improved version, or counter to criticism and defend your design from challenges that you otherwise would not have been aware of. I would love= well, I am not immune to pride, but I would appreciate it if my ideas were criticised with as much cohesion as I offer. That one instance of "just going to leave the pendulum rocket fallacy here" which, given context, and a complete lack of explanation, reeks of snide remark, was actually helpful. I had been humming-and-hawing over various solutions to the problem(And wasn't familiar with it as an official concept) but was distracted and forgot to resolve it, along with being generally tired of the proposal by then and rushing the end. So it was absolutely correct that the design I had submitted was flawed and so I fixed it. As it stands, the "Oracle" is, as far as I can tell, a very very very long way from working. I have made a significant effort to be constructive in my criticism of it. I honestly can't see how it is supposed to deal with CO2 poisoning and I cannot see how it keeps summoning new, permanent air, and never builds up the pressure to crush people. As far as I can tell it is adding to a sealed space and that means more pressure. It is adding oxygen to a closed system and that won't keep people breathing because a lack of oxygen won't be the first thing that would kill them. If I am wrong about this then you get to demonstrate as much so that the G.M. won't hit you with it later, if I think that you are wrong about why I am wrong then I get to say that because it is possible to be wrong in two different ways about the same thing and if that is the case then you are better off knowing so that you can do something about it. If I am correct then wouldn't you rather know about it so that you can submit something that actually works, rather than something that won't work if you realise something about it.
So I feel that, for the good of the integrity of our designs, people always be free to state if they see a problem in a design. And if they feel that their criticism is still relevant after a response to it, then they can cite why they feel that the response was insufficient. People should refrain from making interpersonal observations because personalities don't affect whether a design is good. "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day"... If you feel that you are under unusual amounts of scrutiny, then be thankful that it is coming from a player who you are free to disagree with instead of the G.M. who nerfed your design for something that you didn't see coming. People should avoid cluttering the thread. Repeating the same argument to the same argument is a definite problem, so no to that, even if it can sometimes be valid, but stifling constructive criticism is not a good thing.
Author
Topic: Wands Race - [Arstotzka] {COMPLETED} (Read 377052 times)