u/midnightbandit-

I think the combat meta would be more fun if spaceships acted more like real warships in the ocean.

Right now, every ship, tiny fighter or massive battleship, shares the same flat max speed. Bigger ships almost always win against smaller ships, so there's little reason to build a small one when you can build a large one.

Here's my idea: Top speed is proportional to a ship's thrust-to-weight ratio in a given direction. A higher thrust relative to your mass means a higher top speed in that direction, scaling from one hundred meters per second up to three hundred meters per second. On top of that, ship mass applies a debuff to the top speed, so very massive ships can't easily spam engines to max out the speed limit.

This does two things: it naturally rewards building smaller ships that have more specialised combat roles, and it makes shooting out someone's thrusters matter more in a fight. For example, if you were chasing an escaping ship, shooting out all its thrusters will stop it dead, which is what happens with real warships. It also incentivizes shipbuilders to place functional armour to protect their thrusters.

It also means fighters and bombers actually feel like fighters and bombers.

None of this is real physics, but neither is a flat universal speed limit, this is just a more fun, functional meta.

I anticipate this being a problem for large ships, weapon damage may have to be adjusted to favor armored ships.

When an alien civilization learns of the existence of another, they can be classified as malicious or good. Malicious civilisations will attack any civilization they find. Good ones will not unless they are threatened.

Let's say there are civilisations A and B

There is an infinite number of scenarios where A will attack

1. A is malicious so he attacks B

2. A is not malicious, but he doesn't know B isn't malicious, so A must attack B to protect himself

3. A is not malicious and knows that B is not malicious, but he does not know that B knows that A is not malicious So A knows B will attack A first to protect himself and so A must attack B to protect himself

4. A and B are both not malicious and both know each other is not malicious, but A does not know that B knows that A knows that B is not malicious. So A assumes that B will assume that A will attack B to protect himself, and that B will attack A to protect himself, so A has to attack B to protect _himself_

This chain of suspicion extends to infinity. It is not resolvable. Two perfectly rational actors in this game will come into direct conflict, they have no choice

Hi everyone, I'm now one year PQE and working in a solicitor's firm in clinical negligence. I have a good amount of personal injury experience as well.

I feel like I'm at a crossroads and I'm not sure where I should be specialising, if at all. Does anyone have any insight into those fields and specifically, which has the best career progression and renumeration down the line?

Many thanks

I was trying to buy RAM today on FB marketplace and I made an offer to a person. We negotiated and agreed on a price, and he gave me an address to go to. I asked whether I could see the RAM working and he replied that he felt offended but he would show me it working.

I had driven 60 miles to the address he gave, and I only found a nice old lady living alone, completely oblivious to what I was talking about. I texted the seller and he read my messages, and proceeded to delete the listing and his profile.

So I had nothing to do but to drive another 60 miles home. I did recall his name and I have now found him on linkedin.

What should I do to get back at him? Petrol's not cheap these days and half my day's been wasted.