Quoting Danny Morgan
As basically a Coalition member, my say in UNE group matters is little to none, however I can still give suggestions that people like John and Matt can approve or reject, so this is what I personally would change or make official in the UNE theme (if I had more of a say than I did):


Firstly, I think vehicles with treads should be limited only to demolition vehicles, heavily lift vehicles, and very heavy mobile artillery. I think battle tanks and other front-line combat vehicles should ditch the concept of treads, and even wheels entirely, in favor of turbine engine powered hover tanks. A key factor in modern combat is mobility, which doesn't seem to be a strong point for many, if not most Coalition ground-based vehicles. With the ability to hover, UNE hover tanks could cover vast terrain at high speed, and could maneuver in ways no grounded tank could. I think realistically this is what we can expect, after all we're talking over 250 years in the future. The power required for hover tanks will be perfectly available with the UNE's high-concentrate power cells.

I would be willing to build a UNE hover tank if my suggestion is approved / considered (oh, the blasphemy!). Remember that when I say hover tank, I don't mean powered by some obscure plasma engine, I'm talking realistic, propeller-based turbine fans. It MIGHT even begin to close the normally extremely wide gap between battle tanks and close-air-support... The design I had in mind would be complete with control fins and even canards.


There was already a long discussion where deep-space fighters were (I think) deemed useless, however orbital fighters are perfectly reasonable I think. Fighters with the ability to operate in space (probably low orbit for the most part) and highly effectively in atmospheric conditions should be the key ingredients of a UNE fighter, as well as the ability to switch between space and air as efficiently as poosible, methinks. See Moffatt's recent high atmospheric plane on his Flickr for an idea of what these fighters ideally should look like.


I'm not going to get too much into space for this thread (the main purpose was the bit about hover tanks) but there's one last thing I'd like to mention for consideration. I think that there should be a significant difference between UNE ships that mostly stay around star systems, defending against the Coalition, and those which are intended as assault vehicles. In short, I think UNE ships with defensive roles should look drastically different to those with attacking roles. My suggestion for defending ships, and probably the most common within the UNE, is pretty much doing what you're already doing, stuff along these lines: 
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/248442
-ish.
On the other hand, I think if anyone wanted to make an assault ship, designed for deep insertion into Coalition owned areas, and most likely laden with nuclear missiles or similar, and either run by a very small crew or completely unmanned, I think something like this would work:
http://ridiculousrandomhero.deviantart.com/art/ISV-Venture-Star-166797299
You may also want to read the words below the picture, it's quite interesting...

Well that was the end of my random outburst of science fiction, use this thread to discuss my proposed reforms, if you want.

Quoting Danny Morgan

http://ridiculousrandomhero.deviantart.com/art/ISV-Venture-Star-166797299

Quoting Matt the Backward One

Quoting Danny Morgan first one was nothing really what I had in mind,

Quoting Danny Morgan second link wouldn't load,

Quoting Danny Morgan third link cool but again nothing what I really described,

Quoting Danny Morgan forth most definitely not...

Quoting Danny Morgan If Moffatt (or you??) can approve it, I'll actually build what I had in mind for the UNE... But I don't want to build for the UNE if it'll just be ignored as a failed idea... Remember that I'm trying to make a hover tank that MAYBE can even fulfill the role of CAS.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Also; UNE, UNEA, UNEC, and Earth are all synonymous.
...but I prefer UNE. :D

Quoting Commodore Boris the active one What does UNEC stand for....
United Nations of Earth..... Coalition???

Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
What does UNEC stand for....
United Nations of Earth..... Coalition???

Quoting John Moffatt
I don't like the look of the third tank, but generally I apprI've accross the board. I've struggled and failed with the idea of a realistic combat spacecraft, but I'm probably gunna give it another shot. Pretty much my agenda is:
Take good pictures of plane
Build mech
Build hover tank
Build spacecraft

Also, I like the catamaran engine look of these that I built a while back. One of my favorite UNE builds.
http://mocpages.com/moc.php/127683

Quoting Danny Morgan
Coolios, thanks.

I'll try not to let you down...

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
I don't think having tanks fufill close air support is too realistic. That's what planes are for.
And also what technology should make the tanks hover? Maybe some sort of electromagnetic field like on modern day maglev trains? A turbine/fan would look cool but I doubt would be able to keep the tank in the air for long.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 Maybe some sort of electromagnetic field like on modern day maglev trains?

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 A turbine/fan would look cool but I doubt would be able to keep the tank in the air for long.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 what technology should make the tanks hover?

Quoting Danny Morgan Fans should work fine...

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Well, it you're thinking rotor type propulsion, then yes. I'm a little worried it would end up more like a helicopter with a barrel on the end rather then a tank.

With fans/rotors, air is pulled from directly above it to directly beneath it. You would have to try and keep the rotors off the ground and keep debre out of it. The debre is what worries me the most; one suic!dal Coalition soldier could throw themselves into one and ground he tank.

A VTOL engine, however, can pull air from; say, the front of the tank; and direct it down. I actually think this would be the safest route.

Quoting Areetsa C Keep in mind that [it] is going to have serious [issue] with wind and recoil. Energy weapons are pretty much the only way to go.

Quoting Areetsa C
Keep in mind that a hover tank of any type is going to have serious issues with wind and recoil. Energy weapons are pretty much the only way to go.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Hrm, what about rocket propelled projectiles? Instead of a single burst of energy, you have a gradual thrust. And GAUSS/coil-guns? I wouldn't think they would have a recoil, because they don't exactly have a 'boom.'

I think a rocket propelled object along with a coil to boot (almost literally) would do the same trick.

Quoting Danny Morgan But trust me, electro-magnetic powered guns most certainly DO go 'boom'...

Quoting Danny Morgan Have you seen the US Navy Rail Gun test?

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Hrm, what about rocket propelled projectiles? Instead of a single burst of energy, you have a gradual thrust. And GAUSS/coil-guns? I wouldn't think they would have a recoil, because they don't exactly have a 'boom.'

I think a rocket propelled object along with a coil to boot (almost literally) would do the same trick.

Quoting Areetsa C sounc.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Imagine the highest resolution you can think of; (*cough* iPad *cough, cough*) while also being touch screen. Now with whatever display technology we'll have in 2240-ish, we'll be able to bring clear, plastic mats that unroll! Think how COOL that would be!
/ignores sophisticated technology currently in hand.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Fix this; we must prevent Danny from seeing this or it will be the end of the English we speak today. Goog? Goog.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great Bro, we're in the 2200s, the 23rd century, not the 2300s/24th.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great Anyways, that is pretty cool. Fits the UNE vision of bright lights and shiny things perfectly.

Quoting Areetsa C Goog?

Quoting Matt the Backward One
You Coalition guys can keep your holograms; we've got place mats!

Quoting Matt the Backward One

You Coalition guys can keep your nano-bot infested cathedral-ships; we've got plastics that bleed!

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great Plastic is a poor substitute for metal.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
That, and you could use layers of metal, glass, and plastic; muh to the effect of having the benefits of all three. I would rather have a thick first layer of bleeding plastic to protect from the small stuff, (like floating particles and shards of crystals, allowing scratches to repair) thick layer of some metal alloy, (so slow down any hot obects) glass for its toughness, (metal is actually soft and malleable, glass is tough but shatters when under enough pressure.) and repeat.
Although, thin and consistent layers might do the trick, as well.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great

http://i.imgur.com/CQv0f.gif

Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
Where do you find these links????

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 With less mass the reaction due to Newton's 3rd is minimal.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Are you suggesting we OBEY the laws of physics?! Preposterous!
/speeds off in a flying DeLorean

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Although, if we can't use energy weapons, then the best option is a particle weapon. Those weapons can take a small amount of mass and do a lot of damage. With less mass the reaction due to Newton's 3rd is minimal.

Quoting Areetsa C Ooh, yes, and they irradiate everything nearby. Sounds just the ticket!

Quoting Commodore Boris the active one Kevin, it says on your Page you're 13

Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
Kevin, why do you know so much about physics? It says on your Page your 13, and I'm 13, and have NO IDEA what the third law of ,..... Something is

Quoting Areetsa C
Ooh, yes, and they irradiate everything nearby. Sounds just the ticket!

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 Oh-So-Mighty Canon Masters ; D

Quoting Delta Kevin As far as I can see, particle & plasma weapons still seem like the best option.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Oh, wow; the last time I read the term "canon master," it applied exclusively to Awe. I guess a couple of us have ascended (or descended, depending on your opinion) to his level. Hrm.

Well, plasma weapons have been deemed experimental, due to their cost. Could you elaborate on these particle weapons?

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Newton's 3rd Law is very basic and easier to understand than it seems.

That's actually nothing. I swear when I was 11 I already knew pretty much the whole of Quantum Theory, General Relativity, other theoretical physics, and particle physics. I'm seriously not [cupcake]ing you here.

I'm the thorn in the side of the Oh-So-Mighty Canon Masters, driving them crazy whenever they decide on something, ranting on about how it defies some law of quantum physics or whatnot.
;D

And yeah, I last updated my homepage 2 years ago.

Quoting Commodore Boris the active one
That makes a little more sense, maybe I'm putting too much time into memorizing random gun stats

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Gun stats? Like in F/TPS games?...



Cause I'm a beast in BF3...

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Oh, wow; the last time I read the term "canon master," it applied exclusively to Awe. I guess a couple of us have ascended (or descended, depending on your opinion) to his level.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
I guess a couple of us have ascended (or descended, depending on your opinion)

Quoting Matt the Backward One
ascended (or descended

Quoting Matt the Backward One
descended

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great


http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/9e591c47-af4a-40ea-b1b9-3b8431303b0d.gif

Quoting Danny Morgan
There was already a long discussion where deep-space fighters were (I think) deemed useless, however orbital fighters are perfectly reasonable I think. Fighters with the ability to operate in space (probably low orbit for the most part) and highly effectively in atmospheric conditions should be the key ingredients of a UNE fighter, as well as the ability to switch between space and air as efficiently as poosible, methinks. See Moffatt's recent high atmospheric plane on his Flickr for an idea of what these fighters ideally should look like.


I'm not going to get too much into space for this thread (the main purpose was the bit about hover tanks) but there's one last thing I'd like to mention for consideration. I think that there should be a significant difference between UNE ships that mostly stay around star systems, defending against the Coalition, and those which are intended as assault vehicles. In short, I think UNE ships with defensive roles should look drastically different to those with attacking roles. My suggestion for defending ships, and probably the most common within the UNE, is pretty much doing what you're already doing, stuff along these lines: 
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/248442
-ish.
On the other hand, I think if anyone wanted to make an assault ship, designed for deep insertion into Coalition owned areas, and most likely laden with nuclear missiles or similar, and either run by a very small crew or completely unmanned, I think something like this would work:
http://ridiculousrandomhero.deviantart.com/art/ISV-Venture-Star-166797299
You may also want to read the words below the picture, it's quite interesting...

Well that was the end of my random outburst of science fiction, use this thread to discuss my proposed reforms, if you want.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
I don't think its plausible to be able to readily switch between atmospheric and space flight. The mechanics (physics) of the two enviorments and the requirments for the two types of fighters are so completely different. It just wouldn't be practical.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
I personally think that high orbit/space fighters are not useless, far from it. Trust me when I say getting rid of fighter aerospace craft would be a huge mistake for any navy.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Also, I don't think that a huge assault ship for attacks on Coalition outer sectors should be unmanned. 1 A.I/remote crew (crew still planetside/no crew at all) controlling a huge kilometer and-a-half long heavy battleship? That's an accident waiting to happen.

I do agree with the idea that defense ships and assault ships shoudl be completely different from each other. Assault ships would be armed to the teeth with extremely high caliber mass drivers, particle weaponry, Alcodin gravity missiles, and thermonukes. Defense ships would be lighter armed, as they could have assistance from the PDR, ground to space weaponry, and numerous other defense satellites placed in high planetary orbit, as well as having strength in numbers.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great
For some reason it didn't quote the rest of your comment...

I would have thought it's the other way around. Ships with more armor and guns have more mass, but that wouldn't matter as they'd spend most of their time in a local area. Ships that need to travel would be lighter armed, faster and more maneuverable.

Quoting Jake Almondy
*Does not understand all this complicated stuff about physics.*

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electrodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Do you realize why there the space shuttle Columbia and countless others were destroyed? They're designed to change between atmosphere and vacuum once and ONLY once. That's why they're always at high risk of burning up on reentry, they have a lot of trouble on their reentering of the atmosphere. They aren't designed to readily switch between atmosphere and hard vacuum.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 Do you realize why there the space shuttle Columbia and countless others were destroyed? They're designed to change between atmosphere and vacuum once and ONLY once. That's why they're always at high risk of burning up on reentry, they have a lot of trouble on their reentering of the atmosphere.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 They aren't designed to readily switch between atmosphere and hard vacuum.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 And actually, yes what you said is true. Yet, the advantages of heavy weaponry outweigh the disadvantage of not being manuverable. These several million ton heavy battaleships aren't going to be looping, rolling, and flying around like they're in a WW1 dogfight anyway, they would be too heavy even without extra weaponry. Decreasing they're weight by only a few hundred thousand tons won't increase the manuverability by any significant amount.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-so-great As for your deep space fighter, how are you going to keep it fueled out there? A carrier? You're gonna need protection for that carrier, so bring along bigger ships.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-so-great All for supporting those little ones.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great


As for your deep space fighter, how are you going to keep it fueled out there? A carrier? You're gonna need protection for that carrier, so bring along bigger ships too. All for supporting those little ones.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great
I am, and forever will be, against the concept of deep space fighters. The distances to close to effective range are massive. Please note that the New Horizons probe will reach Pluto in 2015 or so, despite being launched many year prior. The only way to traverse space with speed is relativistic travel, meaning greater than 1% lightspeed. To reach that speed, you need a lot of fuel, more fuel than any one fighter can carry. The carrier solves that, but then the enemy just moves their ships farther back while blasting the carrier apart.

Fighters are much more effective where the enemy needs to come to you, such as a planet, space station, or moon.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22

I can't believe you just used New Horizons as an example. Remember what Matt said? It's 2240 dude.

Yeah...you act as if the carrier has no weaponry of its own, or is all alone against an entire fleet. A deep space carrier will obviously have a whole contigent of other ships supporting it, to defend it against that type of attack. Also, keep in mind that for ships to move back, that takes a huge amount of energy, while the carrier needs none simply to keep its present forward momentum. Look at my earlier comment about inertia.

Quoting Danny Morgan
the ship would probably be unmanned completely, and rely on a combination of delayed commands and artificial intelligence to complete it's task)

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great


The assault ships were created by Man.
They rebelled.
They evolved.
And they have a Plan.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 In space you're weightless, but you MASS the same amount. In space, inertia is the obstacle towards manuverability, as it causes objects to resist changes in their motion.

Quoting Delta Kevin The notion of UNE ships being manuverable as opposed to the Coalition's being well armed is irrelevant

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great [fighters, distance, and such.]

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 Remember what Matt said? It's 2240 dude.

Quoting Danny Morgan To me it is painfully obvious how useless deep-space "fighters" would be.

Quoting Danny Morgan [Defense/assault ship topic]

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-so-great Inertia works both ways. Once the enemy turns around and starts moving, they can keep on drifting that way as they shoot back.

Quoting John Moffatt I know physics >.>

Quoting Matt the Backward One

Quoting John Moffatt
I know physics >.>

Quoting Matt the Backward One

Speaking in hypothetical terms, though; if distance, speed, and fuel weren't an issue, deep-space fighters would be a real option in battle. Alas, though; it is an obstacle and therefore an issue.

That gets me thinking, though; aren't fighters significantly *lighter* than ships? Wouldn't that require less fuel for the same amount of momentum? And if they still can't move fast enough, then how can the ships?

Quoting Matt the Backward One
I mean, the Coalition has Warpships and ships so far advanced that they have the minds of Old Machines within them.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
/obvious
First you need to *actually turn it around.*

Quoting Matt the Backward One

•_•

I'm actually interested in what John and Ian have to say about our irreverent rantings.

Quoting Danny Morgan
Please, do not use the comparison of the Coalition technology to UNE tech when arguing why UNE should be able to match the Coalition in terms of technology.The single planet Earth has been in space for barely 300 years, using technology built from scratch. The Coalition has been in space since it's founding, some 39,000 years ago, using technology that may have existed as long 5,000,000 years ago, if not longer. Saying "well if the Coalition can use Warpspace, then the UNE should be able to have deep-space long-range ships that look like like a 20th century submarine with a rocket engine stuck on the back" is a VERY poor argument.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
On other news, I seriously investigated the idea of asking LEGO to make a theme for us, after our jokes about, just out of curiousity. I got a rather interesting answer. Here is what I got back:

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great

I think more profit would be had if we built an RPG for this universe, Mass Effect or KOTOR style. We're just gonna need a lot of moneys. I can barely fathom how awesome such a thing would be.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Still, why don't we check out this new site. We could get an official set for ourselves! I still say, even if its not an MMO RPG or what not, I like the idea of our own LEGO theme.

Quoting John Moffatt
Fighters - Honestly I'm not sure where I stand on these. I like the idea of the space battle with fighters weaving in and out of ships for cinematic effect but real life doesn't work that way. If someone can come up with a good design for a fighter that could plausibly work, I will give you a high five.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
We could get an official set for ourselves!

Quoting John Moffatt
I dig it, but we need to build a set that captures the essence of the 23rd Century conflict.

I really like the look of my old hover jet things, so maybe a set with one of those and a Cooalition light tank? Throw in a couple soldiers from both sides, add a bit of scenery?

Another idea is to have a Coalition dropship and a UNE rotorcraft, because that also represents us well.

Spacecraft would need some refining but there's ideas for land and air.

Quoting John Moffatt
I dig it, but we need to build a set that captures the essence of the 23rd Century conflict.

I really like the look of my old hover jet things, so maybe a set with one of those and a Cooalition light tank? Throw in a couple soldiers from both sides, add a bit of scenery?

Another idea is to have a Coalition dropship and a UNE rotorcraft, because that also represents us well.

Spacecraft would need some refining but there's ideas for land and air.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great

We should go with my suggestion. Low orbit fighters work, that's for sure. Deep space? Not so much. So if you're defending or attacking a planet directly, have all the fighters you want. If you're going after a Warpship that's been hiding 700 AU from your system's star and preying on incoming freighters, fighters won't be so useful.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Why not any high orbit fighters? A specialized interceptor would perform well in exopheric combat.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great

Sure, why not?

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Ivanos

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great

Jesu Christo, I don't understand why no one can keep the Emperor's name straight. I-A-N-O-S. Not Ionos, Not Ivanos, IANOS. Pronounced like Yan-os.

Quoting John Moffatt
Orbit troops would be cool.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great

Quoting Jake Almondy
I actually have a design for them sitting on my desk.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22 And maybe for the CUUSOO we could have one of our UNE hover tanks (if someone makes one by then)

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Can't I watch General Conference without getting a buzz in my pocket every thirty seconds from email alerts?

Quoting John Moffatt
Pics!

Quoting Danny Morgan

Quoting Matt the Backward One
while I do understand the realism behind your suggestion, I really don't see what the issue is with making them more submarine like. It's just a change in shape. I mean, you've got a boat with weapons on top and on bottom with an engine on the back if you go for the sub look; and you've got a cylinder with weapons mounted 360• around it with an engine on he back. Not exactly much of a difference.

Realistically, you would want your weapons to be able to move for aiming purposes. Another realistic idea is that if you can allow them to move 180• up and down and 360• side to side, you would be able to hit your target with multiple turrets at once. Come to think about it, if you're going to be hitting a target or targets within a small group, you would want to put extra armor on the part of the ship that's most exposed and put your rotating weapons on the top and bottom faces of the craft, while also flattening out the top and bottom to make them less of a target. So a Zipper-like space-boat of sorts WOULD be a realistic option.

And when I was using the Coalition for comparison; I was referring to it's realism, not its technological superiority. If the Coalition can have "unrealistic"-shaped ships for the sake of aesthetics, then I see no reason why the UNE can't, either.

Quoting Danny Morgan the UNE are relatively new in space compared to the Coalition, who use technology from as far back as the reign of the Old Machines.

Quoting Danny Morgan Why make Assault ships look different from defense ships that just chill around solar systems? Well why not, how about a bit of variety for a change?

Quoting Danny Morgan Also, not sure if you saw, but Moffatt already approved my suggestion. I'm not saying that to "rub it in" or anything, I'm just genuinely not sure if you saw his response, which would explain why you are still debating the matter with me and not Moffatt...

Quoting John Moffatt I really do like the look of the long and stringy realistic ships

Quoting John Moffatt Bipedal UNE mecha and pilot - no link because we have a whole ton of nice ones.

Quoting Matt the Backward One

Quoting Danny Morgan You seem a little... Agitated today.

Quoting Danny Morgan the idea of a realistic UNE Assault ship would be as an unmanned, quite possibly disposable "space-probe" vessel, that while still looking cool and being fun to build, the idea is that the UNE doesn't waste precious resources arming it to the teeth, and covering it in self-regenerating armor (and basically making it combat efficient in ship vs ship "duels"). The Assault ship should travel huge distances, deliver it's payload to a COP fleet, planet, or position of some kind, then die, or drift around in space.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
That's me and my lack of picture faces. :D
¢_ ¢ Oooh, now that makes more sense. I thought you were suggesting strictly planet-side ships that would be all heavy and defend all the time, while using only these for attacking.

Disposable probes that travel long distances to bomb things sounds like a much better idea to me. :D
/begins thinking about building one

Quoting Jake Almondy
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakeparkinson/sets/72157629354636034/

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
First pic just doesn't say "UNE!" to me. I like the third pic the best...

Quoting Spaztastic the Diabolical
Although we should make the CoP androids or something.

Quoting Awesome-o-saurus The Not-So-Great

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SX3JnUhTaE

Quoting Spaztastic the Diabolical
My lack of buddy icon makes me sad.

Quoting Spaztastic the Diabolical
My lack of buddy icon makes me sad.

Quoting Delta Kevin 22
Don't tell me you have a folder of youtube videos too...

Quoting John Moffatt Progress on my hover-thing was nonexistant tonight.

Quoting Danny Morgan
There was already a long discussion where deep-space fighters were (I think) deemed useless.

Quoting Ultramarine .

Quoting Ultramarine .
It's probably given that we have a semi-infinite amount of fuel on our ships,

Quoting John Moffatt C'mon you apes, you wanna live forever?

Quoting Matt the Backward One
No one lives forever.
At least, that's what my Viking pilots tell me. My Immortals say otherwise, though.

Quoting Nick Shelton All the starcraft references.

Quoting John Moffatt I'm listening.

Quoting Matt the Backward One
Zerg have almost none, and Terran have a bunch. Most for Terran aren't appropriate, though.
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_II_unit_quotations