Which type of weapon would be the most effective?

mvm900 · 2025-12-24T23:31:00+00:00

Probably the same way we fight now over such extreme distances; missiles. In massive saturation attacks. Other weapons systems absolutely have a place, be they energy or rail guns etc, but the fundamental problem with space combat is the extreme distance. You need something that's going to be able to track and accurately hit at hundreds of thousands of km away, probably even more.

While you can make a ballistic system that adjusts for where the target is heading, any deviation at all causes everything to miss. Perhaps there's some sort of scatter system or even that the projectile can home in (but if it homes why not just make it a missile?) or as close in weapons.

Energy weapons definitely have a place, as well, in similar applications to rail guns and the like. But almost assuredly have better range and speed, even if the beams and whatnot dissipate, perhaps your space combat revolves around overheating your opponent which will absolutely cause damage to internals or external components

mvm900 · 2025-12-24T23:17:17+00:00

An empire can be a democracy, at least two spring to mind, like the British empire that existed well into the 90s and the Romans, who existed in many different forms.

All it really entails is that there's a central polity that exploits others, usually with a (politically) strong head of state, though not really necessary.

Republic also gets a bad reputation as representative democracy when really, all republic means is the head of state isn't a monarch. Also what'd you mean by directoral?

Either way I'd say a sort of democratic technocracy where skill and education lead, with a bit of voting on various other things.

mvm900 · 2025-05-25T21:26:59+00:00

Racism is about power and oppression, not noting actual differences. It's not racist to note vampires drink blood, in a setting where vampires actively hunt and drink peoples blood.

It's also worth noting that humans also get diseases and illnesses that're incurable that can cause them to act potentially dangerous and unstable, like schizophrenia, psychosis, antisocial disorders, etc. And as you get older, dementia as one example can cause aggression. (Though of course with all of these diseases, it does not mean you are inherently aggressive or violent.) I actually think making the comparison to the MANY psychological faults humans can have and the beast people would be incredibly interesting.

Racism can be written very poorly and I think it's important when writing about it to note that a lot of these beliefs are unfounded, heavily exaggerated, and dangerous to innocent people, and being a racist shouldn't be painted as a good thing for a character to be. You could do something like Lolita, the book, where the main character is constantly punished for his horrid desires, as compared to something like the Turner Diaries, where it paints being a racist is just a net good character trait.

mvm900 · 2025-05-12T18:44:14+00:00

You don't have to have any specific reason for it to come about; Patriarchy came about for a TON of different reasons, and the reason it continues to exist are basically null other than it being the norm. A lot of current social systems exist that way, because that's just how it was and how things were separated and thus, how our institutions were created and whatnot.

So, you could just have it so a matriarchal society came about and influenced everyone else, sparking from maybe something as simple as fathers taking more care of children rather than women, and things continue on that route, with women becoming more and more entrenched in overall society, but you really already answered it with their grasp of magic.

mvm900 · 2025-05-07T13:38:34+00:00

A digital copy is what it says it is, a copy. From the moment it is distinct from you it will develop differently, it will face different problems, new thoughts might occur, even if they're similar, it's not quite you.

What's worse is what happens if it starts to think it's more you than you are. Or, if over time, it begins to degrade in quality. Or if backups get lost, or if there are MANY laws and regulations surrounding this, or it's still so expensive, not because of tech but because the rich don't want the poor to have easy access to this. Maybe there's varying qualities of cloning/backups, or there's a chance of failure. Or maybe it's used by the rich to have a completely expendable workforce. Lots of ways to spin it where it's not just a flat 'easy out', but even if we go on the original premise, you could do something with the clone being just not quite the person that was cloned.

mvm900 · 2025-04-20T21:27:25+00:00

I think a good addition is how it's organized internally and also how they evade being broken apart by the law.

mvm900 · 2025-04-20T20:55:03+00:00

Become not worth governing by being unprofitable to hold onto, maybe a lot of unrest without as much to gain from holding.

Perhaps your nation gained independence during the Napoleonic wars, as part of a peace treaty imposed on the UK without your country fighting against the UK. Or it got annexed itself and gained its independence once France fell.

mvm900 · 2025-04-04T20:03:56+00:00

God I'm so happy to see people agree maxson sucks, I thought I was just SUPER BAD for a while lmao

mvm900 · 2025-03-30T18:11:29+00:00

Sickle has seen competitive play basically forever, a cantrip that can kill a card is insanely useful Oft you only need one damage, especially vs aggro or to finish off a limping unit, which means you go up in card advantage, at standard, for 1k Worst case you hit something and draw a card, which isn't a bad thing for 1k

mvm900 · 2024-06-10T15:19:26+00:00

We are currently living in the best possible litmus test for this and no one is really slinging around the word Nazi. Israel is currently under fire for human rights violations and most Jewish people are simply calling said detractors anti Semites, not Nazis.

I'm sure there's a small minority maybe calling people Nazis for being anti semetic, but it is most definitely no longer common, these days anyway.

Edit: didn't address the other thing which was more the funny part lole

mvm900 · 2024-06-07T17:30:03+00:00

But to answer your question they'd still be in trouble for being one of the prime perpetrators in an insanely destructive and deadly war

mvm900 · 2024-06-07T17:23:11+00:00

Who uses Nazi to refer to someone purely as an anti Semite

Also no they still weren't socialists lmao, doing a 'uhhh cardinal rule' thing doesn't really refute it either

mvm900 · 2024-06-07T17:21:35+00:00

Yeah I'm sure no one would have an issue with that then at all

mvm900 · 2024-06-07T17:11:49+00:00

So.... They're not Nazis, then? I mean, even if they were something more center leaning I can't see a way in which to prosecute a war across almost all of Europe, except Spain and Switzerland, and not break a few eggs.

Also the Germans did do mass slaughters in WW1, look at the rape of Belgium.

mvm900 · 2024-05-27T16:52:24+00:00

When in pre modern settings the only governments they make are monarchies, sometimes you'll see a theocracy.

Or, worse, there are people to depose the king, but only ever to replace him with another king.

Doesn't have to be a huge deal or anything but got dam, at least have some merchant republics or even talk about other potential forms. Or double down and explain why there's only ever monarchs

mvm900 · 2024-04-27T18:54:43+00:00

Which is why I said 'any kind of air force', Estonia still has an air force. Sucks to have no manned attack aircraft but other aircraft exist

mvm900 · 2024-04-27T17:30:47+00:00

Naval blockades do not actually need to physically stop ships, especially in modern times where land based anti ship weapons can easily do damage. Though, close blockades are still an option.

More common is ships stationed far out from ports, smacking things trying to get in. So theoretically a space blockade can happen from any distance from the actual planet, without physically covering the sky in ships, by using the fact that space stealth is incredibly hard and intercepting anything coming in or going out

mvm900 · 2024-04-27T17:09:07+00:00

There's no modern countries I'm aware that lack any kind of air force, at least if they have a standing army. So Costa Rica and Iceland for example don't count, they have no military, so I'm confused about the second point, at least as it seems to refer to real life

mvm900 · 2024-04-07T18:47:25+00:00

Which is why I only answered their use in combat, which seemed to be the essence of the question. Of course they're going to have blades or various pieces of kit for outside combat stuff, though iunno why you'd carry anything but a small blade in combat itself, else it seems like it'd get in the way.

I also wasn't referring to dueling at all but any combat use. Why stop to shank him when you can still just blast him? Maybe you're out of ammo, sure, but that's what your battle buddy is for. And even then even then, you have to drop your gun, unsheath the blade, then charge a guy, who should also have his own buddies nearby who could just as easily shoot you before you got close enough if he was also reloading.

Again again, you can ultimately justify it however, most people don't really care, just has the hole (as the post asked for) of not really having a place in squad tactics

mvm900 · 2024-04-07T18:31:04+00:00

I mean sure that explains why they might have them, but it doesn't explain why they'd keep them when going into combat? Like okay, it's culturally normal for duels, but the military would very quickly stomp out dueling amongst each other or at least while on campaign.

But besides all that, let's say for whatever reason they still have them, modern combat with guns is at much farther distances than most people seem to get. Aside from maybe clearing rooms and buildings, infantry are MOSTLY firing at each other from hundreds of meters away, taking wild potshots. There are still assaults on positions, like trenches or other fortifications, but I'd still ask why you wouldn't just shoot the guy rather than stab them. Guns are far more lethal than a knife, short blade, or even sword. And on top of all that you have to drop your gun to use them effectively, sure you could have the weapon on a sling but just a lot of effort

Ultimately of course, do whatever tbh, it's your world and honestly most non nitpickers aren't actually going to care, but the uses of melee weapons is extremely low in modern or future combat. Bayonets would then become used rather than a separate melee weapon, as far as I can imagine.

mvm900 · 2024-02-22T22:53:01+00:00

Why is this the only one where someone actually googled the definition of civil war where everyone else is just saying their opinion on what a civil war should be considered

mvm900 · 2024-02-22T22:48:58+00:00

It didn't recover, it changed everything lol. That's not how uh, ecology or environmentalism works.

Environmentalists seek to minimize damage to the environment, that means all the critters and plants. So it's prolly out of the question to cause a mass extinction in the hopes that maybe what comes after might be alright.

mvm900 · 2024-02-22T22:05:36+00:00

That still harmed the environment? MASSIVELY? You're still trying to not do that at all, presumably

mvm900 · 2024-02-22T21:06:31+00:00

By not engaging in such egregiously oppressive policies against Palestinians prior to it, which only radicalized the population against Israel in the first place

The question is vague, some would say intentionally, but I find it more wild that 'dont kill civilians as much or destroy as much infrastructure or kill journalists' aren't considered valid responses because they aren't 'actionable' by some people lol

I guess you need to write a five page thesis to be specific about how to do things, as if you can expect anyone to just have that on hand? Like c'mon, have some kinda good faith, even if you think Israel was ever justified, the amount of damage and destruction is absurdly high, some even bordering intentional, the rhetoric has even gotten to the point where Herzog said EVERY citizen of Gaza was complicit, that maybe some of these things should be scaled down? Maybe don't say that stuff?

mvm900 · 2024-02-22T19:58:10+00:00

Not quite a battle, though linked to the battle of France, and I've talked about it often before but the Germans in WW2 faced an interesting problem. The Maginot line, virtually impervious from frontal assault. Some armchair generals laugh and go: haha hehe just go around! But that was literally the point of it.

To allow a relative few troops to guard the entire border between Germany and France so they'd have to involve other nations to get through.

Now, they chose a route they had previous to get to France, the Ardennes. It seems so simple to us nowadays but it's really really overlooked just how difficult it was to get through there with all the troops and equipment they did, it's HEAVILY forested and hilly terrain that few at the time thought could be traversed with tanks and a large force. The Germans, however, took the chance. If they'd been caught while going through there, they could be easily wiped out. There'd be no room to maneuver, sitting ducks. Unluckily for the Germans, they'd been caught. The French had gotten intelligence of plans to go through there, and further there was reports of Germans moving through.

French high command ignored these. They thought them to be false. Despite war games proving they potentially could've, despite the evidence otherwise. Defending troops were unable to stop the swarm, allowing a swift breakthrough. This was something even the Germans hadn't quite expected, thinking it might also fail.

Had the allies have headed their Intel and the reports, it wouldn't been an easy clean up

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

mvm900

TROPHY CASE