[quote=@Darkmatter] I had basically expressed this entire sentiment to catchamber in the chat, but not raised it as an issue mostly due to me awaiting further development. Having GM'd quite a number of NRPs before, I can say creating these artificial rules only invites people to break them whether intentionally or not. Letting the shape of the setting develop more organically in the early stages is much more appealing. For example, if the players/GM felt I'd made a fleet to big, and asked me to address it, as a player I'd be more than happy to. Setting out harsh restrictions from the start just insinuates players are either ill-mannered or idiots and sets about a bad tone from the word go. Again this is just my opinion.[/quote] I don't mind certain limitations, actually. While space is huge and poor gasp on this is the major gripe in sci-fi NRPs, managing actual extensive galactic powers with millions or billion of star system would just prove Wilson's point. War becomes nearly meaningless because you can sacrifice thousands of planets and it doesn't bother you the slightest bit. People in general like if the battles at least have a meaning. So making player nations relatively small is understandable. My only problem is that Wilson misunderstands the scele even with these "small" empires. Even in other NRPs thousands or at times millions of soldiers fight. And these are from the same country or continent. In WW2 thousands of tanks fought and while replacing them impacted the nation heavily these numbers were eventually replenished. Space ships are the same. They are just weapons of war and something you must sacrifice to gain something. Wilson only needs to intervene when somebody tries to BS their way out of the consequences or ignore the tiny but still important factor of time. [quote]I also find the need to classify space vessels in strict naval terms rather contrary. It's a nice analogy to use so we all have a sense of a ships position in a fleet. But restricting them to specific roles assigned to naval vessels which operate essentially in a 2D plane vs the 3D plane of space warfare seems a bit silly. Tl;dr Have some faith in players apply, approach issues as they arise. [/quote]More interestingly aside from maybe the battleships, the role of ship classes changed a ton over the centuries. The distinction between these changes along with the advances in tech and military doctrines. Frigates were used to be scout ships and shooting at them was considered a violation in the rules of war (unless the frigate shot first). Nowadays our heaviest ships for combat are usually the frigates with battleships are pretty much being retired. Destroyers? They were torpedo ships and while retained some of this role they also double as anti-submarine vessels and the second largest practical type of warship in modern fleets. Motherships are also a good theoretical example. They launch aircraft so most of their surface are flight decks. But what if aircraft would barely require any space to land or take off? Then the only difference between motherships/carriers and the common warship that the former would spend more internal space to house aircraft. And what if aircraft can float at only minimal energy expense and follow the mothership? Then only the existence of larger maintenance/resupply facilities is the only difference between the mothership and any other warship. Because there isn't even a need to keep the aircraft within the ship. At this stage the mothership would be just a better armed mobile refuel station. Technology and the style of combat changes everything.