Dark Matter may be a bit far fetched, especially for the primitive TEC. Besides, we don't know if Dark matter truly exists and in what shape or form (it may have no use as an energy source what so ever), then comes the small matter of harnessing the damn stuff, which, without negative energy, is very difficult.

As far as super advanced (yet none nuclear in the conventional sense) sci fi power sources go, antimatter (that is Deuterium and Antideuterium fusion) is a pretty safe (and rather cool) bet.

What I WOULD like to see in the game is a more natural progression of weapons in the TEC, moving at the very lowest level of technology from coil and railguns that fire projectiles (albeit at relativistic speeds) up to Particle Cannons (one of the only real life Directed Energy Weapons that bears any parallel to fiction).

Ah right, fair enough, and I don't think anybody can give a better explanation, I think "stuff" is how most mainstream scientists put it.



True but then coilguns and railguns are pretty advanced weapons, needing a great deal of energy (beyond any of today's portable means) as well as extremely durable alloys (also, well beyond our current technology) so they are not primitive, just more primitive than lasers and energy turrets.

[Moved to Off-Topic]

I would almost disagree with you, but chances are kosc will appear in this thread and then it WILL be offtopic

Now take a ship traveling from the moon (which is rather close) to orbit and another leaving orbit and intercepting. Small scale distance and speed.
Lets assume they can accelerate to 24,593 mph (slow Apollo flight speed) (a ~10 hour flight at max speed)
This means a 49,186 mph closing speed.
Now how would they engage? Assuming you could get on a exact reciprocal course (unlikely). they would be with in 1000miles of each other for only ~73secs . . Now this is going rather slow using 60’s tech.

If they both decelerate they could get into a combat envelope and fight it out (though at great cost of time and fuel) Also they Both would have to “plan” where to slow down . . this all but has to be in agreement since any minor course change would leave the ships far apart and would have to accel again toward each other. If say the “attacker” did not want to stop . . then the defender has allot of problems . . they have to get on the same vector as the attacker or have a pitifully small chance to get an opportunity to get close for any amount of time.

Here tech comes into play . . how fast is the acceleration? How long and how many times can you make massive vector changes? What is the range of your sensors, targeting sensors and weapons. What is t he needed reaction time (window) needed to engage and finish a combat?

Assuming sci-fi enhancements. . no fuel worries, and a easy 3g constant accel . . (think at 3g you could get to speed in 14 min)

this leaves weapons . . .

that would encourage everyone one to be sneaky

ok speed wise it seems that ships can only travel at a certain speed before either
1) they tear themselves apart or 2) they smash into something. one thing that doesn't seem realistic is travling in phase space you are supposedly exsisting outside the common laws of the universe because you are exsisting in a "phased space".

however i am still unclear as to while exsisting outside normal space 1)you can't travel as fast as you like 2)ships take their own tunnels but arrive at the same time at the same place 3) why another group of ships traveling at the same speed are not able to attack the other group because, both are exsisting outside normal rules.

True but then coilguns and railguns are pretty advanced weapons, needing a great deal of energy (beyond any of today's portable means) as well as extremely durable alloys (also, well beyond our current technology) so they are not primitive, just more primitive than lasers and energy turrets.

Not true, They r working on a rail-gun today, to replace tank cannons and ship cannons, and is supposed to have like a 300% increase in range from normal shells. also, they r using tungsten "arrows" instead of explosives, and when the arrow (called so because it is long and thin) impacts on a target at the velocities its traveling at, the destruction is massive compared to an explosion. So if we can build these things, then the TEC sure as hell can, with their space ships and stuff.

Note it is very important that if you call on sci-fi tech or "waving" of some physical laws to move a story line or highlight a concept, to just make some good fiction. Please state what you are changing in detail.
IE if you are changing physics in order for your concept of a fictional space battle should be like in your opinion, then that is fine as long as you list out what you are doing! What “universe” you are makeing! . . do not assume there is some over arching sci-fi way of thinking or “truth” that everyone knows. (A common mistake of true trekkers . . since all of sci-fi revolves in there eyes around that single Roddenberry’s construction - which it does not) . .
what you end up getting if you do not know what “universe” you are in is “fan boy” like arguments over if a battle star could blow up a star destroyer . . . . it is a totally invalid discussion because they exist in entirely different universes and at in no way compatible . . and thus useless to contemplate.

The acceleration required to reach that speed in a "short" amount of time could do so, the speed itself is perfectly safe. Well, assuming you avoid any micrometeorites anyway -- or macro-meteorites:D (The repeated impacts would damage the hull unless you have a way to protect it from the degradation)



There is nothing in space to make a shockwave of, really. Since space is 99.99999999% empty. There are, as mentioned above, micrometeorites, but I don't think that'd be enough to cause any real speed degradation except in the (very) long term sense.

Yes what Ron Lugge said
Movement in space is all about acceleration because of the effective practical lack of a top speed (light speed is a quite high and impractical cap). . You are constantly accelerating if using your engines and not reaching a top speed of the engines as do craft on the earth. For example you can accelerate at 1g for a year and get near the light speed cap and you could "coast" virtually forever at any speed in between with no thrust. . . This is quite different from anything we are used to. .
We are used to accelerating for very short times to a relatively low speeds, all the while fighting the environment to do so and straining to keep up the speed. In space (given unlimited power/fuel) you could accelerate "with out" resistance (again there is some but nothing like we are used to) until you almost reach light speed . . the range of relative speed of most people in there lifetime is a measly 0-100 mph and up to ~650 mph on a jet and acceleration is normally way under 1g.
In space because of the speed "cap" being so high 670,600,000mph and acceleration limited to what we can survive . . normal common sense and experience is TOTALY lacking and is one reason people have such a hard time understanding the real extreme numbers we are talking about.
(note I have possibly over simplified things to make them more understandable . .a big problem with science today . . the implication often invalidates the statement to some extend and this is why there are allot of “laymen” out there that “think” they understand. . but really only understand the watered down version. Also they often see that the watered down version has real problems and think scientists are wrong. When it is the simplification that is wrong . . This is maddening for people that have the education to really understand it and also sometimes get themselves named elitists because they get frustrated and give up trying to explain)

“Eventually, a student reasoned that the infinite improbability drive had to be a finite improbability to be a virtual impossibility. After working out exactly how improbable, he fed that value into the finite improbability generator, gave it a really hot cup of tea, and managed to generate the infinite improbability generator out of thin air.”
What a great spoof on sci-fi jargon and such . . Douglas Adams a great man!

" parallel dimensions " are still a theatrical science and thus could be entirely wrong . . also most dimensions that are theorized are not parallel per say but coexisting with in each other (read extremely “small” if that is the correct word for it)

yells at me